For Plutarch: Apologists and Hypocrisy

[_Yoda]

Being a girl, you don't have an understanding of testosterone. Vegas and Porter are perfectly capable of being members of that mob, just ask them.

OK...I'm a 43 year old Mom, and a college instructor...so it's been a long time since I've been called a "girl". LOL Thanks! ;)

I've been married for over 20 years. I think I have a decent understanding of testosterone.
;)

[_rcrocket]

My original post said: "As Joseph Smith was killed by an anonymous mob with soot-disguised faces, so the Twelve endures the taunts and insults of anonymous posters who often, on the one hand, claim to be faithful members of the Church but, on the other hand, take pot shots with fake names." I don't think Putrid Porter and VegasBlight fit into that particular definition, and I think that if you examine my posts I have little to no dialogue with them. Indeed, I wear their insults like a badge of honor.

Do you feel good about your anonymity?

P

[_Yoda]

Do you feel good about your anonymity?

Actually, Plutarch, I do. I think you will find that the majority of women who post in Internet forums are anonymous for safety reasons. I've stated that before.

But it's a pretty giant leap to go from posting anonymously to being in the same like as the mob who killed Joseph Smith.

[_Mister Scratch]

My original post said: "As Joseph Smith was killed by an anonymous mob with soot-disguised faces, so the Twelve endures the taunts and insults of anonymous posters who often, on the one hand, claim to be faithful members of the Church but, on the other hand, take pot shots with fake names." I don't think Putrid Porter and VegasBlight fit into that particular definition, and I think that if you examine my posts I have little to no dialogue with them. Indeed, I wear their insults like a badge of honor.

Do you feel good about your anonymity?

P

I think it's worth pointing out that the folks at the SCMC---and whatever arms of the Church are engaged in espionage tactics---who are likely monitoring our posts as we write them, are anonymous too. Should we feel good about fully supporting a Church that has an anonymous "committee" like this?

[_rcrocket]

My original post said: "As Joseph Smith was killed by an anonymous mob with soot-disguised faces, so the Twelve endures the taunts and insults of anonymous posters who often, on the one hand, claim to be faithful members of the Church but, on the other hand, take pot shots with fake names." I don't think Putrid Porter and VegasBlight fit into that particular definition, and I think that if you examine my posts I have little to no dialogue with them. Indeed, I wear their insults like a badge of honor.

Do you feel good about your anonymity?

P

I think it's worth pointing out that the folks at the SCMC---and whatever arms of the Church are engaged in espionage tactics---who are likely monitoring our posts as we write them, are anonymous too. Should we feel good about fully supporting a Church that has an anonymous "committee" like this?

And, again I ask you, what evidence have you that there is an "arm of the Church" engaged in "espionage tactics" much less the SCMC [whatever the hell that acronym stands for] which care about this board?

Cowardly anonymity does not apply to "readers." I am not a cowardly anonymite [catamite? hmm] when I read my law books or cases on line. I would be a cowardly anonymite if I wrote anonymous hit pieces against living persons -- which you do.

P

[_Mister Scratch]

My original post said: "As Joseph Smith was killed by an anonymous mob with soot-disguised faces, so the Twelve endures the taunts and insults of anonymous posters who often, on the one hand, claim to be faithful members of the Church but, on the other hand, take pot shots with fake names." I don't think Putrid Porter and VegasBlight fit into that particular definition, and I think that if you examine my posts I have little to no dialogue with them. Indeed, I wear their insults like a badge of honor.

Do you feel good about your anonymity?

P

I think it's worth pointing out that the folks at the SCMC---and whatever arms of the Church are engaged in espionage tactics---who are likely monitoring our posts as we write them, are anonymous too. Should we feel good about fully supporting a Church that has an anonymous "committee" like this?

And, again I ask you, what evidence have you that there is an "arm of the Church" engaged in "espionage tactics" much less the SCMC [whatever the hell that acronym stands for] which care about this board?

Do a google search. Or read the chapter in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power that deals with "Shadow Government." Or track down the thread that claims that "The Church Monitors Over 1,500 Websites."

Cowardly anonymity does not apply to "readers." I am not a cowardly anonymite [catamite? hmm] when I read my law books or cases on line. I would be a cowardly anonymite if I wrote anonymous hit pieces against living persons -- which you do.

P

I'm not talking about "readers." I'm talking about people assembling dossiers in order to inflict harm on them. Moreover, I do not write "hit pieces."

[_Coggins7]

Do a google search. Or read the chapter in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power that deals with "Shadow Government." Or track down the thread that claims that "The Church Monitors Over 1,500 Websites."

Keep in mind Plutarch that, all at events, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power is the only book Scratch has read in his entire adult lifetime, and he show no indication that he has any familiarity with the competant LDS scholarship that has been done for at least the last 30 years. Quinn's book seems to have become a kind of poor man;s Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion for the liberal exmormon intellectual movement

The very idea that the church would have any concern for what is said here, or in any other forum on the web reletive to criticism of the church is, of course, preposterous on its face. That church leaders educate themselves on the main currents of anti-Mormon thought I have no doubt. That they monitor Mormondiscussion.com (for what purpose?) sounds like the paranoid fantasies of a demagogue who really has no intellectually sustainable arguments to make on any substantive issue.

The church, of course, has no "shadow government"; its entire power over its members is to dissasociate itself from them for gross moral lapses or open public hostility. While this board is public, it is hardly open in the sense that the vast majority of the world's population has no idea, and never will have, of its existence.

The counter cult anti-Mormon literary movement has been alive and kicking for over half a century now, and it moved into the Internet with a vengence in the 90s. The churh's shadow government has done a very, very poor job it seems, of nipping this stuff in the bud or preventing its growth and spread.

For scratch's information, church leaders could, for the most part, care less about what people like him say, for the very simple reason that the church's growth has been little affected in the past by the breast beating and grandstanding of people like him, and is unlikely to be in the future. They have no power to stop him, and his power to convince others in severely limited by both the style and substance of his claims.

In other words, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


Loran

[_Gazelam]

I am in no way a fan of scratch (in general) but I will defend his point in that I have heard the church talk about monitoring all publications for comments regarding the church. The Church works hard to maintain its image and does keep an eye out for things like this. If memory serves, it was Holland that I heard talking about this at a zone conference while I was on my mission in Scotland.

[_Coggins7]

Absolutely Gaz. The church keeps abreast of main currents of thought in the anti-Mormon world, and they buy counter-cult and secular liberal anti-church material. But this is for reference. They should, indeed, apprise themselves of what's being said and taught so that they may better, when necessary, rebut, refute, and take principled issue with such claims.

What I'm getting from Scratch is that there is a kind of LDS Gestapo that monitors websites and makes a list of whose been naughty and nice and then draws up excommunication lists.

I also believe that the Bavarian Illuminati control the world's financial systems.

[_Mister Scratch]

Do a google search. Or read the chapter in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power that deals with "Shadow Government." Or track down the thread that claims that "The Church Monitors Over 1,500 Websites."

Keep in mind Plutarch that, all at events, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power is the only book Scratch has read in his entire adult lifetime, and he show no indication that he has any familiarity with the competant LDS scholarship that has been done for at least the last 30 years. Quinn's book seems to have become a kind of poor man;s Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion for the liberal exmormon intellectual movement

Why do you see Plutarch as an ally, Loran? Don't you know that he believes women should hold the priesthood?

The very idea that the church would have any concern for what is said here, or in any other forum on the web reletive to criticism of the church is, of course, preposterous on its face. That church leaders educate themselves on the main currents of anti-Mormon thought I have no doubt. That they monitor Mormondiscussion.com (for what purpose?) sounds like the paranoid fantasies of a demagogue who really has no intellectually sustainable arguments to make on any substantive issue.

Nevertheless, I have actual evidence. You---yet again---have nothing except your usual tactic: to label your opponent a "demagogue" and a "paranoid." Well done, Loran. You lose again.

The church, of course, has no "shadow government"; its entire power over its members is to dissasociate itself from them for gross moral lapses or open public hostility. While this board is public, it is hardly open in the sense that the vast majority of the world's population has no idea, and never will have, of its existence.

The counter cult anti-Mormon literary movement has been alive and kicking for over half a century now, and it moved into the Internet with a vengence in the 90s. The churh's shadow government has done a very, very poor job it seems, of nipping this stuff in the bud or preventing its growth and spread.

Actually, the statistics do seem to indicate the the Church's growth rate has been slowing. Certainly it has not maintained the sort of pace that Stark predicted.

For scratch's information, church leaders could, for the most part, care less about what people like him say, for the very simple reason that the church's growth has been little affected in the past by the breast beating and grandstanding of people like him, and is unlikely to be in the future. They have no power to stop him, and his power to convince others in severely limited by both the style and substance of his claims.

In other words, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Loran

In other words, you have no real counterargument.