DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:44 pm**

It has just been brought to my attention that a new addition was added to the "comments" section of the William Schryver dossier on my blog. The comment was written by one "Opie Rockwell," apparently an allusion to legendary Danite enforcer Orrin Porter Rockwell. Anyways, here is the (quite nasty but funny) remark:

Opie Rockwell wrote:Interesting blog Mr. Scratch. I'm not familiar with all of the targets of your derision, but I do happen to remember the discussion that Vogel and Schriver had about the footnote in Vogel's book. And you are not reporting the facts as they transpired. In fact, Schriver proved beyond doubt that Vogel's footnote was incorrect, and Vogel finally acknowledged it. I did a search in the FAIR (now MAAD) board archives and located the post where Vogel officially acknowledged the error. He wrote:

Quote:
Thanks for the research and corrections. Most of all, thanks for acknowledging that my mistake about the location of the document had a reasonable explanation. I don't know how the mistake about the identification happened. Hey, I make mistakes.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208045067

Somehow that inconvenient little fact didn't make it into your account of the Vogel/Schriver debate. What a surprise!

And your claim that Schriver asserted that Vogel had "made up" the document "out of whole cloth" has no basis in fact. There was never anything said about Vogel "making it up" only that the reference was in error - that the document in question was never found among the Joseph Smith Egyptian collection.

In fact, you seem to have quite a hard time recounting things as they actually transpired. You're a naughty little liar about a lot of things - not just about Schriver, but many other people whom you attempt to lampoon in your pithy little blog. You're nothing but a blatant propagandist playing to an extraordinarily receptive audience here. I'll bet you're just a modestly-endowed little man with no real friends except for your desktop, a DSL connection, and the handful of cyber-acquaintances who share your anger towards all things Mormon.

I actually feel quite sorry for you. What a pathetic tragedy your life has become!

Yeeouch! What a barb! And gee---I wonder who the author of this little rant could possibly be? Schryver himself (somewhat doubtful, since why would he misspell his own name)? Dadof7? Both of these guys have shown themselves to be very, very angry about the blog in the past.

Also, as to "Opie Rockwell's" claims about my Schryver/Vogel reportage: hey, I just call it as I see it. Yes, Vogel did acknowledge that the footnote was incorrect, but the tenor of Schryver's ridiculous "calling out" underwent a noticeable change. He started out by, essentially, accusing Vogel of outright lying, and then, via his usual apologetic sophistry, proceeded to backtrack, hem, and haw. So, I'm terribly sorry, "Opie," but I'm going to have to stand by my account.

Anyways, back to the "pathetic tragedy" that is my life! ; )

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:06 pm**

I'm not going to go back and re-read that whole thread again. I remember it as well as I need to. From what I recall of it, Vogel mentioned a document in a particular collection of papers in the church vaults, and it turns out that the document was actually with some different papers in the church vaults. A very minor correction, all things considered. And yet Will Shryver took this and ran with it far, far longer than it deserved. And yes, I recall from the tone and arguments of Schryver's posts that he was in fact accusing Vogel of making things up, or at the very least, that his credibility as a scholar was shot all to hell.

It was one of the most childish rants I've ever seen on that MAD board, and I don't think any TBM defender of the faith should be pointing out that thread to anyone, lest the whole TBM side of the argument look like a bunch of overzealous fools by association with this tool.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:09 pm**

Mister Scratch wrote:Anyways, back to the "pathetic tragedy" that is my life! ; )

Well...I, for one, am glad that you share part of your "pathetic, tragic life" with us!

;)

Of course, I'm probably considered just one of those "handful of cyber-acquaintances who share your anger towards all things Mormon."

LOL!

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:55 pm**

My dear brother Scratch… two errors in your post:

First, Mr. Rockwell was not part of the Danites.

Second, your life is not a “pathetic tragedy.” It’s more of a dismal calamity.

Luvs, Hugs, and VW Bugs,
Stu

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:06 pm**

I wouldn't worry about Opie's post. I think the main point he/she was making was about the footnote. The rest was just a catharsis for Opie's anger.

In fact, you seem to have quite a hard time recounting things as they actually transpired.

We all become forgetful, however I do not think this is a good point for orthodox Mormons to make, since the irony factor is so high as to create a dangerous vortex that could threaten the time-space continuum.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:39 pm**

Sethbag wrote:I'm not going to go back and re-read that whole thread again. I remember it as well as I need to. From what I recall of it, Vogel mentioned a document in a particular collection of papers in the church vaults, and it turns out that the document was actually with some different papers in the church vaults. A very minor correction, all things considered. And yet Will Shryver took this and ran with it far, far longer than it deserved. And yes, I recall from the tone and arguments of Schryver's posts that he was in fact accusing Vogel of making things up, or at the very least, that his credibility as a scholar was shot all to hell.

It was one of the most childish rants I've ever seen on that MAD board, and I don't think any TBM defender of the faith should be pointing out that thread to anyone, lest the whole TBM side of the argument look like a bunch of overzealous fools by association with this tool.

Wasn't it Beastie/Trixie that found an error in an apologist's footnote, and the rest of the apologists just blew it off?

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:16 pm**

I found two very serious errors in Sorenson's metallurgy footnotes. Not surprisingly, both of these footnotes were supposedly giving evidence of Mesoamerican metallurgy during the Book of Mormon time frame, which Mesoamerican scholars agree did not exist until about 900 AD. Neither reference said what Sorenson claimed they did. (if anyone's interested I'll repost the details). They were very serious errors, not this minor error that Dan made. They were serious errors in that there was NO support for Sorenson's claims in either footnote.

Yes, Sorenson blew it off, saying it was a "tempest in a teapot". Other apologists conceded it was an error. Many "blew it off" in claiming that all human beings make mistakes, big deal. They completely overlooked the significance of the errors. You can't just make stuff up, which is pretty much what Sorenson did.

Others have found other serious errors in Sorenson's sourcing. Deanne Matheny debunked his long list of citations that were supposedly pre 900 AD metallurgy, and Stan Larson exposed some of his horses references. All together, the picture is dismal for Sorenson as a reliable scholar.

For anyone interested, more details on all of the above can be found on my metallurgy essay:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... _Evidences

and my horse essay:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/index.php/Horses

In regards to the Schryver debacle, several believers tried to persuade Will to drop his triumphant tone and over emphasis of the import of this error, which was very minor. The document exists and says just what Vogel claimed it said - it was just stored in a different box than Vogel cited. I think that even believers recognized Schryver made a fool of himself on that thread.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:00 pm**

Mister Scratch wrote:Yeeouch! What a barb!

How do Mormons expect they'll be viewed, when they keep saying things like this? How can they hope to be considered Christian, when this is how so many of them behave?

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:40 pm**

Hey since we arn't considered Christian anyway. Why act the part?

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:03 am**

Doctor Steuss wrote:My dear brother Scratch… two errors in your post:

First, Mr. Rockwell was not part of the Danites.

Really? If not, well then, I thank you for enlightening me!

Second, your life is not a “pathetic tragedy.” It’s more of a dismal calamity.

Not very nice, Steuss! Not very nice at all!

Luvs, Hugs, and VW Bugs,
Stu

Right back atcha, big guy!

DiscussMormonism.com

A Danite Writes to Me, Insults My "Endowment"

A Danite Writes to Me, Insults My "Endowment"

Re: A Danite Writes to Me, Insults My "Endowment"