Kevin Graham's libel against Ritner?

[_marg]

I feel sorry for Professor Ritner, who obviously is a well respected objective scholar on Egyptology. He's had to waste time countering and dealing with the Mormon cult member fanatics such as DCP and John Gee, hell bent on promoting their fantasy faith beliefs. All that education and he's having to waste it on those wing nuts.

[_harmony]

Are you saying that because he has a bee in his bonnet about Daniel, he's a critic of the church?

Certainly not. However, Kevin’s attacks directed against Daniel Peterson, FARMS, the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, Mormon theology, Utah, etc. are surely a sign for where his allegiances currently lie.

EE, my allegiances lie with the church, yet I disagree with the apologists on several of those topics myself on a regular basis. Just because a member does not act as the apologist arm of the church thinks is correct doesn't mean the member is not in good standing. Don't get caught up in the hoopla and lose sight of that which is important.

And are you saying that comments made years ago, when he was much less informed and much more under Daniel's control, are valid, even though he has repudiated those comments and apologized for them?

What evidence do you have to suggest that Kevin truly apologized to Ritner for making derogatory comments regarding Ritner’s sexuality in the context of Ritner’s criticisms of the Book of Abraham?

I, for one, have serious doubts that Kevin apologized to Ritner for making these comments. If Ritner was upset enough to mention a lawsuit due to the fact that someone had allegedly attempted to belittle his observations pertaining to Gee and the Book of Abraham because Gee petitioned to have Ritner removed from his committee, how do you suppose Ritner would respond to someone who attempted to belittle Ritner over the charge that Ritner is a homosexual.

I don't have a dog in this fight, EE. Neither do you. We're both spectators. I tend to take people at face value, unless they've shown themselves as untrustworthy.

Is no one ever allowed to make a mistake or change their mind?

This is more than simply a one time mistake. This is an example of Kevin Graham’s propensity towards trying to publicly assassinate the reputation of others, whether Ritner or Peterson. It was wrong when he did it as an apologist and is wrong now that he’s a critic.

No one but Kevin is in a position to know if he has repented of his mistake.

And lastly, are you saying that Kevin is somehow responsible for Daniel's remarks, remarks which appear on the face of them at least to be giving out incorrect information?

I’m not convinced that Gee did not petition to have Ritner removed at the same time Ritner removed himself as chair. None of us knows the true history. Either way, as I’ve suggested, this history means little to me as a believer. The whole thing simply reflects poorly on Kevin Graham.

[/quote]

No, the whole thing reflects poorly on Gee. He alone is the one who have allowed misinformation to stand for years, since Ritner knew nothing of the rumors surrounding the incident. He alone bears the burden of needing to repent. Kevin's mistake was believing him; Daniel's mistake was believing him. Your mistake is continuing to absolve him from his mistake. My mistake is ... well, for once, I have no mistake on my plate.

[_harmony]

I feel sorry for Professor Ritner, who obviously is a well respected objective scholar on Egyptology. He's had to waste time countering and dealing with the Mormon cult member fanatics such as DCP and John Gee, hell bent on promoting their fantasy faith beliefs. All that education and he's having to waste it on those wing nuts.

I wonder how he ever agreed to be the chair of Gee's committee in the first place. Surely he knew of Gee's agenda at that point.

[Guest]

Your mistake is continuing to absolve him from his mistake.

David is just acting like most good dogs do, so I don't fault him too much. He reminds me of me six years ago. Dogs like these instinctly run to defend their masters. Peterson has already spoken of his and Hamblin's "investment" in David. David has obvious allegiance to them and Hauglid (remember how he freaked out when I criticized Hauglid?!) and any other BYU professor who can help push him along in his career.

Sorry David, but the gloves come off when you insinuate I am a liar, and you have done precisely that by expressing your doubt that I had truly repented of my part in the Ritner slander years ago. Those are your feelings, and these are mine. What's good for the goose and all that jazz.

[Guest]

"Enuma Elish"

This whole thing is simply one more example of Kevin’s attempt to sponsor superfluous turmoil. As evidenced by this thread alone, he did it as an apologist and has continued to employ the tactic as an anti-Mormon.

Thank goodness Kevin is no longer a brain-dead mopologist. I'm somewhat of a compulsiver lurker. Not quite an internet stalker, but I like to follow people and their ideas. Kevin used to be a bombastic mopologist who loved to get into fights with anti-Mormons. After getting spanked by Metcalfe he began (at first gradually, and then rapidly) playing for the opposing team. Now he is a godsend to many other internet anti-Mormons. He seems to be more at home with his new team and, possibly, better received. If I recall from the message board previously known as FAIR, he had some quarrells with some mopologists when he played on their team. Rarely does he get flak from his current teammates.

Politically he's in a pretty good position. He can attack those "idiot" mopologists for their stupid logic, and desperate attempts to save Mormonism, while at the same time he enjoys a bit of celibrity status on boards such as this because he is one of only a handful of real "thinking" Mormons. Despite the fact that nearly everything he writes reflects negatively on the LDS cult, LDS scholars, or LDS apologists, he is probably the only really objective board poster because he still is a Mormon. I think I understand why he continues to maintain his membership and his superior intellectual skills are here evident-- if he left the Church in which he no longer obviously believes (at least as evidenced by his nearly constant assualt on the stupid cult), he would lose some his objectivity as a rational (perhaps the only rataional) Mormon who isn't blindly following the Church and who isn't blindly (and stupidly!) falling for the idiotic arguments of those psuedoscholars from FARMS and the armchair apologists from FAIR.

So hip hip horray, for Kevin Graham (and all his many aliases-- which are necessary evils to outwit those brain-dead FAIR moderators). We known that you sometimes are forced to wear the believer's uniform, but we know that you really play for the much smarter contra-Mormon team. You da' man, you da' big dog, you sneaky little wolf in Graham's clothing. Gotta luv ya!

[_rcrocket]

I don't find very convincing somebody who uses the word "idiot" to denounce almost every poster with whom he disagrees, and does so anonymously. Why can't he use his real name when he calls me an idiot?

rcrocket

[_Enuma Elish]

Sorry David, but the gloves come off when you insinuate I am a liar, and you have done precisely that by expressing your doubt that I had truly repented of my part in the Ritner slander years ago. Those are your feelings, and these are mine. What's good for the goose and all that jazz.

No worries, Kevin. I accept that you sincerely wish that you could take back your character assault on Ritner now that you and he share a similar agenda. If that is what you view as "true repentance," well, so be it.

While I accept that you told Ritner that you had participated in the type of inconsequential criticism that you presented as stemming from Gee and Peterson, I do not believe that you told him that that in fact your vilification was of a much more calculated and devious sort; that as part of your smear campaign, you publicly stated that Ritner was a homosexual and therefore a Church critic.

But by all means, Kevin, produce the email where you told Ritner that you had gone on line and said publicly that he is a homosexual Church critic and prove me wrong.

It doesn’t matter which side your on, Kevin, this is the way you work under the juvenile excuse that the apologist/critic made me do it.

[Guest]

No worries, Kevin. I accept that you sincerely wish that you could take back your character assault on Ritner now that you and he share a similar agenda. If that is what you view as "true repentance," well, so be it.

Do you know what a character assault is? Suggesting the possibility that someone is gay is a character assault? Do you think homosexuals have low character? Shame on you.

I have done precisely what Dan claims he has done. He has passed on what he heard. Incidentally, Dan has been instrumental in making Quinn’s homosexuality well-known, so it is disingenuous for you guys to protect Dan in such a way by using this incident as some kind of “back at you.”

At the time I was applying the same logic you guys apply today. If one can demonstrate someone is anti-Mormon in any sense, well that is half the battle for a desperate apologist. You railed into Ritner recently in a long diatribe attacking him for being a biased anti-Mromon. Gee, that's really original. You guys do the same thing on a daily basis. I mean this is essentially what you did by focusing, not on Ritner’s arguments, but rather his alleged associations with Evangelical anti-Mormons, and of course, his “removal” from Gee’s advisory board. The Homosexual thing was raised for the same purpose, and brought it out of the e-list and onto the forum. Homosexuals do not like Mormons, generally speaking. I suppose that is why the rumor was first started, but to be sure, I did not start it.

People got a kick out of me back then because I would always take the dirt from FAIR and bring it out in the open. Nobody else wanted to do it, but I did. I wanted to see how it would be received by the critics. Most of the time they would shoot it down, thus demonstrating what kind of false rumor factory FAIR really was.

While I accept that you told Ritner that you had participated in the type of inconsequential criticism that you presented as stemming from Gee and Peterson,

No offense, but I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you accept it. I’m not here to make sure you think I’m a straight up guy. I know how you think of me. You have no choice really. You’re allegiances are clear, and I have been outcast. For you to try to give me the benefit of the doubt is unacceptable, and Peterson’s “investment” in you just might backfire.

I do not believe that you told him that that in fact your vilification was of a much more calculated and devious sort; that as part of your smear campaign, you publicly stated that Ritner was a homosexual and therefore a Church critic.

A campaign!

Calculated!

Devious!

A short note on a message forum five years ago with no follow up is for you, a “campaign”! Casually reiterating what I heard was "calculated"and involving possible homosexuality automatically makes it "devious"!

If there was a campaign, it certainly didn’t begin with me. It began in the cesspool that is FAIR. I regret my part in it, and whether you believe me or not, is really irrelevant to me. And the fact that you think homosexuality is a devious character flaw says more about you than it ever will me.

But by all means, Kevin, produce the email where you told Ritner that you had gone on line and said publicly that he is a homosexual Church critic and prove me wrong.

I never said he was a “homosexual critic,” so the post itself proves you wrong. This is why it is so frustrating talking to you guys. You don’t pay close attention to what has actually been said. Whereas Gee and Peterson state something as fact, I merely reiterated a rumor that he “might” have been homosexual. I never declared one way or another. There are no grounds for slander here anymore than it would be slander to say Oprah Winfrey “might” be a Lesbian.

Further, the email I initially sent him was around four years ago or maybe longer. I might be able to dig it up when I get back in town, but you should know he never responded to that email, and in fact, he never responded to any of my emails before this week. I suspect that this is because my first email to him was a type of inquisition on his affiliation with IRR. He probably wrote me off as some quack Mormon apologist and blocked me. I don’t know for sure. But I know I sent him an email about this. I didn’t mention the dissertation related rumor back them because I had not heard it at that time. Anyway, shortly after Nevo posted this reminder of what an idiot I used to be, I decide to write him and apologize again. That email I have on my laptop. This is what I sent him early this morning:

Professor Ritner,

After reviewing the archives of the forums I came across two instances where I had helped propagate this horrible rumor. At the time I was a die-hard apologist who drank the kool-aid Gee and Peterson were pushing and I was just passing along their "wisdom" without really being concerned about the veracity of it. I was also on the apologetic e-list at the time when a rumor was passed around that you might have been gay. I also beg your forgiveness for having any part in spreading that rumor.

A few years ago I emailed you and asked for your forgiveness but you never responded. I think that is because my first email to you (when I was an LDS apologist) was sort of an inquisition about your connection with IRR, and you probably decided to block me (and rightly so).

Sincerely,

Kevin

Of course, feel free to doubt that this email was ever sent, which is your prerogative.

It doesn’t matter which side your on, Kevin,

For you guys it most certainly does matter. How can you pretend it doesn’t? In LDS circles everyone is categorized according to allegiance. You’re either a conservative apologist, a liberal apologist, a critic or an anti-Mormon. This is why you always bring it up. This is why you and several others have been adamant in trying to get me to admit apostasy, declare my allegiances, etc.

this is the way you work under the juvenile excuse that the apologist/critic made me do it.

Made me do what exactly? You’re not paying attention. I never said anyone made me do it. I said I was a different person back then, as anyone who has kept up with me over the years can attest. I’m sorry if my most “disgusting” comments came when I was a die-hard Mormon apologist. I’m sure that doesn’t say much for that particular affiliation. But you don’t seem to allow for the fact that people change. I was a product of my environment back then. Do you deny it? It is funny how converts to Mormonism are given a free pass on all their sins prior to membership, yet the flip side isn’t permitted. Why? Because that possibility simply doesn’t register in the Mormon mind. Only converts to Mormonism are truly forgiven and only they can truly repent. It doesn’t matter what “disgusting” things they say as Mormons because, hey, at least they are Mormons right? You still haven’t come to grips with the fact that nobody on “our side” at the time expressed the slightest problem or regret with what I said. Only when they find me a turncoat, do they feel it is OK to dig up the past and pass judgment.

[_Enuma Elish]

Anyway, shortly after Nevo posted this reminder of what an idiot I used to be, I decide to write him and apologize again. That email I have on my laptop. This is what I sent him early this morning:

Good for you Kevin. I think an apology on your part was warranted.

[_harmony]

Anyway, shortly after Nevo posted this reminder of what an idiot I used to be, I decide to write him and apologize again. That email I have on my laptop. This is what I sent him early this morning:

Good for you Kevin. I think an apology on your part was warranted.

Do you feel an apology to Dr Ritner from Daniel and/or Gee is warranted?