DiscussMormonism.com

I wonder if Ritner has seen this thread yet?

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm47.showMessageRange?topicID=253.topic&start=126&stop=140

Here are some choice excerpts from our own Kevin Graham/dartagnan, posted on ZLMB in 2002:

I emailed Ritner yesterday and asked him how long he has been employed by IRR and when Luke Wilson tracked him down as a tool in his anti-Mormon polemics. He hasn't responded as of yet.

Well I just heard a rumor that he might be gay, and that he didn't appreciate the LDS stand on homosexuality. Not sure how accurate this is though, but it would prove interesting if true.

I didn't invent this rumor out of thin air. It is a well known fact that homosexual writers have a tendency to write against the LDS faith by any avenue possible. Actually, when I heard this rumor I was skeptical since I have seen Ritner referred to online with his wife Karen. But the rumor stated that he just recently "came out of the closet." This would explain why he "just now" decided to write anti-Mormon propaganda. That, along with his recent association with Luke Wilson and IRR.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

It is a well known fact that homosexual writers have a tendency to write against the LDS faith by any avenue possible.

Does this mean by his own logic that Kevin is in fact a homosexual?

Yep, those were the days when the rumors were let loose. I told him that I was just as guilty as the next person when it came to propagating rumors about him, but I was just showing my blind allegiance to those who created them. Those were my idiot years to be sure, and I have tried to repent of them; hence, my recent email to Ritner.

David chimes in: Does this mean by his own logic that Kevin is in fact a homosexual?

Can you possibly be this stupid?

Green leaves come from trees, therefore all trees have green leaves?

Apparently that is your logic but it certainly isn't mine.

What I find funny is how the LDS apologists have to dig up stuff I said five years ago... you know, that period of time when they would congratulate me for saying these things.

Anyone who has kept up with me over the past decade knows I am hardly the same dead-head TBM apologist I used to be. I took a complete U-Turn about four years ago.

by the way Nevo, this wouldn't count as libel. I reiterated what was being said on an LDS e-list and I didn't state it as fact; I stated it as rumor. By contrast, Gee and Peterson make their statements as though they are fact. They maintain that Ritner was "removed" from his position because of Gee's complaints. If this is not true, then it counts as libel. But the main difference is that I have repented and apologized, whereas Peterson and Gee have not.

I agree with Kevin that we are all guilty of writing things we later regret and should have the opportunity to forswear them. However, I don't think it's fair to characterize Nevo as an LDS apologist.

Oh, yeah I know Nevo isn't an apologist. I had others in mind who have recently dug up some old citations from ZLMB. Stuff that goes more along the lines of "How can you say you don't believe this when you said the opposite 5 years ago"?

dartagnan wrote:Yep, those were the days when the rumors were let loose. I told him that I was just as guilty as the
What I find funny is how the LDS apologists have to dig up stuff I said five years ago... you know, that period of time when they would congratulate me for saying these things.

Yeah, I don't know about overt congratulations. But, I'm sure there were silent "Atta boy"s.

CKS

Nevo,

You put the shoe on the other foot, sir, and I for one thank you for that. The propensity of some here for digging up old bones, presenting email content, moderators reading PM's on some boards and posters revealing private messages on the front page in order to stir up doubt in the minds of others is decidedly bad form. Who shall we doubt now?

Well done, Nevo, well done.

Jersey Girl

People are allowed to change their minds here. Lord knows I've changed over the years since I started posting on the boards.

Shoe on the other foot? Are you also this stupid Joseph Smith?

The difference should be obvious. Gee and Peterson have maintained an accusation against Ritner for more than five years. I believed the accusation when I first heard it. I was a brain-dead apologist who trusted Peterson with every ounce of my apologetic spirit. Gee I didn't know that well but Peterson, he was the font of truth for many apologists.

Comparing my agreement with them five years ago with their current views, is hardly putting the shoe on the other foot.

Talk about a well known cast of characters:

Juliann2

ZLMB Community Member
Posts: 98
(4/21/02 8:12 am)

Re: I emailed Ritner yesterday..
Kevin: ..and asked him how long he has been employed by IRR and when Luke Wilson tracked him down as a tool in his anti-Mormon polemics. He hasn't responded as of yet.

I can't wait to hear the ending to this soap opera....what in the world would possess someone of any standing to get involved with groups like that?

Kevin Graham

Non-registered Visitor
(4/21/02 8:55 am)

Hmmm
== I can't wait to hear the ending to this soap opera....what in the world would possess someone of any standing to get involved with groups like that?

Well I just heard a rumor that he might be gay, and that he didn't appreciate the LDS stand on homosexuality. Not sure how accurate this is though, but it would prove interesting if true.

Dr Shades

ZLMB Community Member
Posts: 424
(4/21/02 10:14 am)

Re: I emailed Ritner yesterday..
Kevin:

What makes you think that Dr. Ritner is employed by IRR?

exegete

CC Reconstructor
Posts: 586
(4/21/02 11:23 am)

How Utterly Pathetic, Kevin ...
You write:

[Kevin Graham:] Well I just heard a rumor that he might be gay, and that he didn't appreciate the LDS stand on homosexuality. Not sure how accurate this is though, but it would prove interesting if true.
It's no wonder that non-LDS scholars have little interest in addressing Mormon issues—if they dare speak ill of the founding prophet or his defenders, they are summarily scandalized with scurrilous accusations. Reality check, Kevin: scholars at times do find Joseph Smith's claims untenable simply because they cannot be supported, or are contradicted, by sound data—not in an effort to justify some perceived immoral lifestyle. Your time, and that of your apologetic rumormongers, would be better spent considering the weight of Robert Ritner's arguments.

Cheers,

bReNt