A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

[_Doctor Scratch]

I would like to see this proof as well. This hardly sounds like the kind of language DCP would use. And I happen to know that DCP considers Ron Priddis a friend, so this type of allegation is very disturbing.

Read DCP's "Text and Context" and then tell me what he's trying to say about Priddis, gays, gays who have left the church, everyone who has left the church and any one who writes anything less than a supper "rah rah" piece about the church.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=147

FYI, Liz is never going to read that, Lulu. She doesn't care. The advantages she gains by being on friendly terms with him is more important to her than whatever objections we raise. That same exact link has been presented to her at least a half-dozen different times--she just doesn't care.

[_Yoda]

FYI, Liz is never going to read that, Lulu. She doesn't care. The advantages she gains by being on friendly terms with him is more important to her than whatever objections we raise. That same exact link has been presented to her at least a half-dozen different times--she just doesn't care.

You know, Scratch, you really are a jerk. How the hell do you know what I care about and don't care about? You throw a statement out there like you did, and you damned well better be able to back it. I actually did read the article, and I can understand what you meant by your claim, although he never used the exact phrasing that you claim was used.

[_Kishkumen]

I actually did read the article, and I can understand what you meant by your claim, although he never used the exact phrasing that you claim was used.

So, what do you think, liz?

Why is there this pattern of snuggling up to subjects like these?

To spook people who are afraid of the big bad gay?

To work on their prejudices in order to warn them off of reading the "wrong" material?

Personally, I think the implications of these moves are pretty clear, and I think the impact that they have is damaging.

I don't think they ought to be excused simply because the author dances around the issue.

[_RayAgostini]

I'm still waiting, Ray.

Waiting for what? You haven't shown where DCP called Ron Priddis a "sodomite". It's no where in sight.

In any case, my board play time is up for this week. Work is a necessary curse.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

You know, Scratch, you really are a jerk. How the hell do you know what I care about and don't care about? You throw a statement out there like you did, and you damned well better be able to back it. I actually did read the article, and I can understand what you meant by your claim, although he never used the exact phrasing that you claim was used.

Liz,

I certainly know that Dr. Scratch is quite capable of defending himself, but I have to tell you that he is no jerk. He is one of the most cordial, pleasant, entertaining and kind person that you could meet.

Dr. Scratch just happens to be very passionate about exposing the unchristlike behavior of Mopologetics. I for one, applaud his efforts and feel that he is making a huge, positive change.

I am certain that if he offended you, it certainly wasn't intentional and just a misunderstanding.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thanks, Everybody Wang Chung. Let's just say that there are much worse things that one could be other than a "jerk." Being friends with a homophobic bigot, for example, seems like a worse thing to be, in my opinion.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm still waiting, Ray.

Waiting for what? You haven't shown where DCP called Ron Priddis a "sodomite". It's no where in sight.

In any case, my board play time is up for this week. Work is a necessary curse.

Adios, Ray. I enjoyed kicking your butt.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Thanks, Everybody Wang Chung. Let's just say that there are much worse things that one could be other than a "jerk." Being friends with a homophobic bigot, for example, seems like a worse thing to be, in my opinion.

Dr. Scratch,

I am probably one of the few people who hadn't read Daniel Peterson's "Text and Context" until today: http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=147

I am flabbergasted. I don't see how anybody could read "Text and Context" and not come to the conclusion that Daniel Peterson is extremely homophobic. There is absolutely no place for this in the Church.

It's troublesome, to say the least. Liz? Ray? Schryver? Pahoran? Could someone please, for the love of God, explain to me how this is acceptable?

[_Kishkumen]

I am flabbergasted. I don't see how anybody could read "Text and Context" and not come to the conclusion that Daniel Peterson is extremely homophobic. There is absolutely no place for this in the Church.

It's troublesome, to say the least. Liz? Ray? Schryver? Pahoran? Could someone please, for the love of God, explain to me how this is acceptable?

Oh, come now. You understand that the very reason this kind of material is quoted in seemingly utter coincidence is so that the author need never take responsibility for the message he wants certain readers to get.

[_Pahoran]

Guys, I think it is fairly clear that this is the subtext

Translation: "Subtext" = "He doesn't say what we want him to say, so we'll have to read it in there somehow."

of Peterson's dreadful excretion entitled, "Text and Context," wherein he approvingly cites the anti-Semite crackpot

Smearing by association. Note, please, that this thread started out with the worthless Scratch calling an Interpreter review a "smear piece." This claim was, of course, an outright lie, but that didn't stop Scratch's equally worthless acolytes -- including Kish -- from endorsing and/or defending it. (Indeed, it probably gave them an incentive to do so.) But now we see who is really smearing whom.

E. Michael Jones' theory that disbelieving is a function of one's choice to live a an immoral lifestyle. It is a theory that is so thoroughly risible and disgusting that Peterson's on-the-record approbation for it does him no credit whatsoever.

And yet it is consistent with revealed truth:

Doctrine and Covenants 42:23
23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

Doctrine and Covenants 63:16
16 And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.

Of course I don't doubt that you reject that revealed principle; it has, after all, been a very long time since you resembled a believing Latter-day Saint, although I realise you still find it rhetorically useful to call yourself a Mormon at times.

But not only is it a revealed principle, it is also frequently observed. I remember when a certain poster was an enthusiastic (if somewhat clumsy) defender of the faith; he was particularly fond of the Book of Abraham facsimiles. Then, suddenly, he lost his faith -- it was a completely intellectual apostasy, entirely caused by something he had "found out" about Facsimile 3 of the Book of Abraham. Which seemed odd, because that had been his particular hobby all along. Not long after that, it turned out that he was as camp as a row of tents.

No surprises there; and nothing to explain away, either.

He applies this fig leaf to cover his shame:

He has no "shame" to cover, but your deliberate attempt to poison the well requires that approach.

It must be clearly understood that I am not charging any particular individual, at Signature or anywhere else, with sexual immorality. I have used rather dramatic examples in order to make the case that writers are reflected in what they write.

You can take him at his word, or you can choose not to.

That's right; it's a choice. You can make the decent choice, which is the one preferred by those who wish to engage him on a basis of good faith, or you can choose to make him the target of a smear campaign.

Like all the most spiteful anti-Mormons do.

Given a number of incidents over the years, I think it is more likely than not that some of Peterson's views and conclusions about certain writers are influenced by a prejudice against homosexuals, which he narrowly avoids explicit expressions of.

Do you really "think" that?

Or do you merely find it a convenient pretext for your smears?

Regards,
Pahoran