Her Amun's Kevin Graham Thread

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't know how I managed to overlook this, but it seems that over the weekend the poster named Her Amun began a thread inquiring into the postings of our own beloved Kevin Graham:

o in my Book of Abraham threads alot of people bring up Kevin Graham.

Anti's say "Kevin doesn't eblieve in the Book of Abraham. Why can't you be that way?"

Apologists say "Kevins a shmoe."

Who is this guy and why is he controversial?

Pretty unbelievable that Her Amun---who has been a FAIR/MAD stalwart for quite some time---does not know who KG is. Anyhoo, as expected, the thread was quickly polarized, with KG's defenders pointing out his strong points, and others turning the thread into a smear-fest. Here, for example, is CaliforniaKid, with a positive posting:

Graham said recently on his board that he no longer stands by the Mormonism 201 paper and he has asked FAIR to pull it but they've refused. He is LDS, yes, but he doesn't believe in the Book of Abraham. I feel he is a very intelligent fellow who has a lot of good stuff to say, but unfortunately he's also got a short fuse. And he and Juliann have some history. He is banned from this forum, though he and his detractors disagree about why that happened.

Kevin Graham isn't his real name. He's a professor of something-or-other at a prestigious Brazilian university.

Here is "Tanyan's" comeback:

Humm, When I used to call him he always answered to Kevin Graham, and was working at a Pizza establishment when he was in the U.S. May be things have changed.

Next, dig this ridiculous onslaught from Obiwan, one of the many resident TBM boneheads on MAD:

For years I had much respect for Kevin, but sadly, having today read many of his words at his forum, I have to say that he has clearly apostatized, or at the very least is very close, because he is starting to sound like the common anti. I don\\\'t know if it\\\'s because of his liberal leanings or what, but what I just read is not indicative of the quality, character, and logic of the best and brightest of the Saints of the Lord. Too much hate and bearing false witness, which is indicative of liberalism and anti-mormonism.

It\\\'s a bad sign when many a anti become some of your best supporters. Unfortunately, that\\\'s some of what I saw at that forum of his. Also as an aside, I\\\'ve never seen DCP make one poor argument. Does he do a lot of sarcasm, yes, but that\\\'s his charm, and it\\\'s enjoyable, yet still always factual with more reasoned logic. But I would agree with one thing of Kevin\\\'s most recent obsessive comments. I too felt that DCP\\\'s recent emphasis of RFM posts where not at all indicative of his quality contribution to apologetics and scholarship. It seemed like some kind of yucky personal thing, rather than solid scholarly analysis. I\\\'m all for being critical of critics and anti\\\'s, but DCP\\\'s recent stuff related to that left me scratching my head.

By the way, his Mormonism 201 article is still linked at his website to the version at FAIR.

The Flintstonian quality of the writing notwithstanding, I *do* have to hand it to Obiwan for stickin' it to DCP. A "yucky personal thing" indeed! ; )

A bit later, we finally get a post from KG's all-time worst nemesis, juliann:

Leave me out of this. I have never figured out why he has settled on me as the punching bag for his woes other than it makes a good story. Nobody that was there takes it seriously so take it over to his stomping grounds, listen and enjoy but don't drag me into his world.

At least she is willing to admit how badly she got her butt kicked. Shortly after this, the thread was closed by Chaos/Dan_G:

He and his cheerleaders are welcome to conjure up as many theories as they please. Kevin Graham is not a public figure, which makes this a personal thread. Thread Closed.

Chaos

As we all know, only Prof. Peterson is allowed to open and maintain personal threads, so this closing makes perfect sense.

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Mister Scratch.

I think that thread, from what you quoted, is indicative of a syndrome far, far deeper than initially meets the eye. To whit:

For years I had much respect for Kevin, but sadly, having today read many of his words at his forum, I have to say that he has clearly apostatized, or at the very least is very close, because he is starting to sound like the common anti. I don't know if it's because of his liberal leanings or what, but what I just read is not indicative of the quality, character, and logic of the best and brightest of the Saints of the Lord. Too much hate and bearing false witness, which is indicative of liberalism and anti-mormonism.

Do you see what I see? Kevin merely disagrees with a certain brand of apologetics, NOT the LDS church's truth claims as a whole, yet judging by that thread, the believers on MA&D automatically--and subconsciously--equate LDS apologetics with the LDS church.

Now, Juliann was the one who began chest-thumping about a supposed "wide umbrella of belief" allowable within the LDS community. You know, the old mantra that the LDS church is supposedly a "liberal" church? Her crew of harpies picked up on it soon afterward (just like clockwork). Although many outside observers have noticed it already (perhaps Kevin himself, if I'm not mistaken?), that thread provides real-world confirmation of the fact that MA&D considers rejection of the latest apologetic du jour to be rejection of Mormonism itself.

So much for Juliann's much-hyped "wide umbrella of belief." Hype, indeed.

If I may be more blunt, does that thread prove that, in the eyes of the MA&Dites, FAIR/FARMS = Mormonism?

[_Ray A]

Do you see what I see? Kevin merely disagrees with a certain brand of apologetics, NOT the LDS church's truth claims as a whole, yet judging by that thread, the believers on MA&D automatically--and subconsciously--equate LDS apologetics with the LDS church.

I think you're being very naïve here, Shades. I would like Kevin to state whether he still does believe in the Church's truth claims as a whole. This can easily be cleared up by Kevin stating clearly and precisely what he believes.

Over to you, Kevin.

[_Mister Scratch]

Do you see what I see? Kevin merely disagrees with a certain brand of apologetics, NOT the LDS church's truth claims as a whole, yet judging by that thread, the believers on MA&D automatically--and subconsciously--equate LDS apologetics with the LDS church.

Now, Juliann was the one who began chest-thumping about a supposed "wide umbrella of belief" allowable within the LDS community. You know, the old mantra that the LDS church is supposedly a "liberal" church? Her crew of harpies picked up on it soon afterward (just like clockwork). Although many outside observers have noticed it already (perhaps Kevin himself, if I'm not mistaken?), that thread provides real-world confirmation of the fact that MA&D considers rejection of the latest apologetic du jour to be rejection of Mormonism itself.

So much for Juliann's much-hyped "wide umbrella of belief." Hype, indeed.

If I may be more blunt, does that thread prove that, in the eyes of the MA&Dites, FAIR/FARMS = Mormonism?

I think you are quite right, Shades. Furthermore, many TBM MADites seem to associate particular apologists---such as DCP and Bill Hamblin---with Mormonism. And, of course, juliann's "wide umbrella of belief" is utter nonsense, especially when it comes to some of her pet subjects, such as blacks in the Church, or apostates, or women in the Church.... Etc., etc. There has always been this knee-jerk sensitivity to claims that MAD/FAIR/FARMS are "affiliated" with the Church, and yet the TBMs on those sites tend to operate in a kind of behavioral bloc.

[_Dr. Shades]

I try to avoid bringing this subject up, since it tends to make a lot of people mad, but this time I just can't help it: If rejection of apologetics = rejection of Mormonism, then perhaps it follows that apologetics = Mormonism.

Can there be any better evidence that there is a growing rift between Internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism, precisely as I predicted some years ago? Especially when one factors in the latest phenomenon that Chapel Mormons--or those who post Chapel Mormon beliefs--are viewed as outright trolls by the MA&Dites?

[_Mister Scratch]

I try to avoid bringing this subject up, since it tends to make a lot of people mad, but this time I just can't help it: If rejection of apologetics = rejection of Mormonism, then perhaps it follows that apologetics = Mormonism.

Can there be any better evidence that there is a growing rift between Internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism, precisely as I predicted some years ago? Especially when one factors in the latest phenomenon that Chapel Mormons--or those who post Chapel Mormon beliefs--are viewed as outright trolls by the MA&Dites?

I think you're right. The "rift," so to speak, points to one of the basic conundrums of LDS apologetics, which is the question of how to deal with the fact that so many TBMs/Chapel Mormons have been "left in the dark" on certain hot-potato topics, such as Joseph Smith's polyandry, to name one example. Accepting the fact that so many of these folks don't know anything about some of this embarrassing history and doctrine, and further, accepting that many of them are hurt/dismayed/disquieted when they find out, is something that current Mopologetics seems determined to combat. This new push by Dan_G and others at the fittingly named MADboard is symptomatic of this as well, I think.

[_Dr. Shades]

Accepting the fact that so many of these folks don't know anything about some of this embarrassing history and doctrine, and further, accepting that many of them are hurt/dismayed/disquieted when they find out, is something that current Mopologetics seems determined to combat.

Forgive me, but I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Do you mean that they're trying to "combat" the hurt/dismayed/disquieted feelings that such newly-enlightened TBMs have? Or, on the other hand, do you mean that they're trying to combat the scenario of TBMs taking so long to hear about such things?

If the former, then I'm afraid I just don't see it, since the MA&Dites typically berate the newly-enlightened for having not done their homework beforehand. If the latter, then I still don't see it, since I don't see or hear about too many "evangelical" outreaches by MA&Dites to uninitiated TBMs to educate them on these matters.

Ah well, perhaps I'm just slow on the uptake (wouldn't be the first time)!

[_Runtu]

I get a kick out of Her Amun's posts. It's kind of amusing to see him post these nebulous "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" connections and pronounce them amazing "bullseyes." And then he predictably "bumps" the thread a few times and then laments the sad fact that no one is interested in the bullseyes.

At least going after someone personally in a new thread is different. And sometimes different is good.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I get a kick out of Her Amun's posts. It's kind of amusing to see him post these nebulous "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" connections and pronounce them amazing "bullseyes." And then he predictably "bumps" the thread a few times and then laments the sad fact that no one is interested in the bullseyes.

I was hoping someone would ask "how many darts are sticking in the wall for every dart that hits the board?" during him and the bullseye threads.

[_Runtu]

I get a kick out of Her Amun's posts. It's kind of amusing to see him post these nebulous "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" connections and pronounce them amazing "bullseyes." And then he predictably "bumps" the thread a few times and then laments the sad fact that no one is interested in the bullseyes.

I was hoping someone would ask "how many darts are sticking in the wall for every dart that hits the board?" during him and consiglieri's bullseye threads.

Oh, yeah. I forgot about consiglieri. Same MO, only rarely as well thought out as Her Amun's (did I just imply that Her Amun's posts are well thought-out? sorry).