DCP as symbol/placeholder

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, Tarski. I think your opening post is right on target.

[_Trevor]

I don't think that Dr. Peterson should police his own unless critics are willing to police their own, and they're not. I find a man on this website to be one of the rankest, nastiest human beings I've ever come across on the net and here no one bats an eye at his antics -- yet, they complain about nasty apologists.

I have done more than bat my eye on several occasions, and it was to no avail whatsoever.

[_Nightingale]

Yes, a lightning rod. The embodiment of all that you stated.

Too, part of it I think is that DCP is seen to defend that which many exmos dislike, including that which many find indefensible.

It is difficult to be rational and objective about things we feel passionate about. Thus, if someone truly despises Joseph Smith, say, for beliefs and behaviour they find unsavoury, and DCP, or anybody, says something positive about him that doesn't sit well with the other person who seems to see it as a defence of the particular behaviour they despise. After that, there is nothing DCP et al can do or say to redeem themselves in that person's eyes. It's kind of black and white like that.

Another example is Dan Vogel's "pious fraud" theory. Whenever I've seen him discussing it on another exmo board he gets chewed up and spit out. To a casual observer it is a strange spectacle. He is exmo. He is critical of Joseph Smith. BUT, to the exmos who dislike his theory, it seems they see it as some sort of defence of Joseph Smith. That's the only way I can read the reaction - that Dan is saying it's a fraud but it's pious so that's OK - except that isn't what he's saying but many can't seem to get past the word "pious" - or something - I don't quite understand it. And because they don't like his take on that, they don't like him, and impute all kinds of other beliefs and motives to him, incorrectly.

I see that happening with DCP too. The lightning rod phenomenon.

That is not to say, though, that one side is always wrong and one is always right. It's just when people are off the wall about it, it detracts from their argument. However, debates about religion aren't always known for their high degree of rational thinking and respectful interactions. That still surprises me. I wouldn't think it would take an appeal from the FP to try and get LDS debaters to be civil. According to TBM posts I've read, Christian debaters (EV esp?) are apparently appallingly impolite. I have not seen that myself (I don't read all the boards). I don't know what it would take to get them to change. They don't have an FP. :)

[_Moniker]

I don't think that Dr. Peterson should police his own unless critics are willing to police their own, and they're not. I find a man on this website to be one of the rankest, nastiest human beings I've ever come across on the net and here no one bats an eye at his antics -- yet, they complain about nasty apologists.

I have done more than bat my eye on several occasions, and it was to no avail whatsoever.

We're probably not talking about the same poster. Regardless, you do usually pipe up and apparently have standards that don't rely on your team's position.

I'd wager we lose posters on this board because of the constant DCP threads and I have received PMs from posters that are critics telling me precisely why they were leaving the board and it was because of the antics of critics on this board.

You have to put it into perspective here. The vast majority of posters on this board are critics. If critics are leaving it's not in every case because of the behavior of apologists.

[_EAllusion]

OK, I can see that. But even there, maybe confirmation bias is acting. Is he really always like that or even mostly? If it were true would it be deserving of the derision he gets. It's not like he is a Coggins/Droopy type character or something LOL.

I think there is at least a partial truth in what I said.

Droopy is out of his gourd.

I agree with you that DCP is a lightning rod in large part because of his symbolic stature.

However,

There are plenty of apologists - like Kevin Christenson or Ben McGuire - that aren't like this. I don't think you see the same charges being made of them, so it's not as simple as "team" bias. Heck, even Bill Hamblin, which is as close to a DCP poster as there is, doesn't quite fit that bill. I just think that's part of why people really want to nail him to the wall more than they do some of the other LDS apologists. Personally, I know of numerous batty apologetics DCP favors that he could be taken to task over, but he ends up being pretty slippery about getting caught seriously defending them in conversation unless he's dealing with a poster I'd describe as not that bright or informed. Instead, he relies on techniques like I mentioned above. I know Addictio is pretty explicit about thinking DCP is just protecting the capital his reputation has by doing this. I don't know, but it is pretty obvious he does it. At least Bill Hamblin will hang himself if you provide the rope.

(For my money, this is my fav Bill Hamblin moment. I still chuckle over it: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... c=12015&hl

You can make fun of that.)

[_Tarski]

At least Bill Hamblin will hang himself if you provide the rope.

and then swinging there at the end of the rope still declares victory.

[_EAllusion]

Of course he displays a double standard. Yet, so what? The people here do the same thing for their team. Why expect him to live up to some standard that the posters here don't live up to?

I know some people here display the same double standard in reverse. I know of at least one person who does it intentionally. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

Ideally, that double standard wouldn't exist. I'm not sure if you agree or not, but assuming you do, that's my reply to "So what?"

[_beastie]

Yes, this board does have behavior that could easily drive away critics as well as believers. There have been times in the past I considered abandoning it, myself.

But that is the cost of having a loosely moderated board. There really is no ideal solution, or, sometimes, even a good solution to this dilemma. As NG pointed out, religious debates tend to bring out the worst in people, anyway - there's a reason it's not considered a "polite" topic in real life.

I think that posters do try, at times, to "police" the behavior of others on this board. But it's usually to no avail, and you get to the point where ignoring the bad behavior seems preferable because then the bad behavior doesn't get rewarded with a lot of attention.

I don't know the answer. I do think Tarski's OP has a great deal of truth in it, and I also think some of DCP's behavior encourages this phenomenon.

This board is what it is - an alternative to the tightly and openly biased moderation of MAD, which is the atmosphere most believers prefer. So we have what we have - a board dominated by critics, and some defenders of the faith who are really so ridiculous I doubt most believers would take them seriously, some wavering believers who often defend portions of the faith, and DCP who prefers to deal with the "evil incarnate" type of threads instead of serious criticisms of LDS truth claims. His attention to the "evil incarnate" is at least part of the reason they're so popular. I'm not saying he shouldn't defend himself, I'm just saying no one should be surprised that those threads are popular when they're the threads DCP prefers, himself.

[_Moniker]

I know some people here display the same double standard in reverse. I know of at least one person who does it intentionally. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

Ideally, that double standard wouldn't exist. I'm not sure if you agree or not, but assuming you do, that's my reply to "So what?"

I wish the double standard didn't exist, either. Yet, I understand why it occurs.

[_The Nehor]

some defenders of the faith who are really so ridiculous I doubt most believers would take them seriously, some wavering believers who often defend portions of the faith, and DCP who prefers to deal with the "evil incarnate" type of threads instead of serious criticisms of LDS truth claims.

Which one am I?