Mopologetics and the Sending of Emails

[_beastie]

Not only is your irony chip long since inoperative, but apparently your sarcasm chip is on the fritz as well.

You talk a lot about irony and sarcasm, and yet you seem totally incapable of recognizing when you're being toyed with.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Asb,

I wonder if you and I are really in disagreement here. Let me communicate my position a little more clearly.

Are you telling me that you were a passionate believer in violence back when you believed in LDS claims? Come on.

Well, I was certainly more open to the idea. But this is a tough question to answer because I was also younger and somewhat on the angry side. At any rate, my statement was, "The apologists by and large believe passionately in violence." Now, I personally don't consider you an apologist. I think I've said before that I even predicted you have only a few years left as an active LDS. And I know for sure I wasn't an apologist when I was a believer. I became very close, believe me, but never fell.

This is a very important point. Does the average Chapel Mormon think about violence with the same sort of regularity as the apologist? No; I don't think so. Violence in Mormonism is largely on the outskirts. It is embedded into the texture of LDS history and folklore. Thus, in the background of narratives about Carthage, Haun's Mill, and so on, you can always detect an undercurrent of revenge---i.e., part of the reason these stories still get retold is to stabilize the communal notion that vengeance will be visited upon the enemies of the Church. Furthermore, as Beastie has pointed out, actual violence to Church "enemies" has been preached by the leaders.

Now, all of this winds up being just background noise for most Latter-day Saints. But, you have to remember that apologists have a lot more interaction with critics, and thus the normally latent desire for revenge is more likely to bubble up to the surface in apologists. Obviously, as Harmony has pointed out, it doesn't seem to affect *all* apologists. Many of the younger ones---like David Bokovoy---are nice people, though Dave has sometimes shown that, if pushed too hard, he might one day devolve into a violence-thirsty apologist like Midgley or Hamblin. Ben McGuire was another person mentioned by Harmony, and I believe that he's relatively young, too (at least that's my impression; I could be wrong). A counter example is LifeOnaPlate. While he condemned waterboarding as torture, it's clear that he really hates critics with a white-hot passion. He is sneaky and devious like DCP in that he tries to pry for information and "lunches" so that he can use this as ammunition in his malevolent crusade to blacken and destroy critics' characters.

[_beastie]

This is a very important point. Does the average Chapel Mormon think about violence with the same sort of regularity as the apologist? No; I don't think so. Violence in Mormonism is largely on the outskirts. It is embedded into the texture of LDS history and folklore. Thus, in the background of narratives about Carthage, Haun's Mill, and so on, you can always detect an undercurrent of revenge---i.e., part of the reason these stories still get retold is to stabilize the communal notion that vengeance will be visited upon the enemies of the Church. Furthermore, as Beastie has pointed out, actual violence to Church "enemies" has been preached by the leaders.

Now, all of this winds up being just background noise for most Latter-day Saints. But, you have to remember that apologists have a lot more interaction with critics, and thus the normally latent desire for revenge is more likely to bubble up to the surface in apologists. Obviously, as Harmony has pointed out, it doesn't seem to affect *all* apologists. Many of the younger ones---like David Bokovoy---are nice people, though Dave has sometimes shown that, if pushed too hard, he might one day devolve into a violence-thirsty apologist like Midgley or Hamblin. Ben McGuire was another person mentioned by Harmony, and I believe that he's relatively young, too (at least that's my impression; I could be wrong). A counter example is LifeOnaPlate. While he condemned waterboarding as torture, it's clear that he really hates critics with a white-hot passion. He is sneaky and devious like DCP in that he tries to pry for information and "lunches" so that he can use this as ammunition in his malevolent crusade to blacken and destroy critics' characters.

I doubt that apologists would actually act on violent impulses. But I do think that apologists engage in rationalization of past church violence (either actual or rhetorical), and that rationalization ends up sounding a bit like condoning violence.

Non-apologists aren't thinking about past LDS violence, so don't engage in rationalizations for it.

I do think some apologists feel justified in engaging in extreme verbal aggression towards critics. I think they imagine themselves as valiant warriors on the Lord's side, battling the minion's of Satan. Kind of a Saturday's Warrior redux.

[_Doctor Scratch]

This is a very important point. Does the average Chapel Mormon think about violence with the same sort of regularity as the apologist? No; I don't think so. Violence in Mormonism is largely on the outskirts. It is embedded into the texture of LDS history and folklore. Thus, in the background of narratives about Carthage, Haun's Mill, and so on, you can always detect an undercurrent of revenge---i.e., part of the reason these stories still get retold is to stabilize the communal notion that vengeance will be visited upon the enemies of the Church. Furthermore, as Beastie has pointed out, actual violence to Church "enemies" has been preached by the leaders.

Now, all of this winds up being just background noise for most Latter-day Saints. But, you have to remember that apologists have a lot more interaction with critics, and thus the normally latent desire for revenge is more likely to bubble up to the surface in apologists. Obviously, as Harmony has pointed out, it doesn't seem to affect *all* apologists. Many of the younger ones---like David Bokovoy---are nice people, though Dave has sometimes shown that, if pushed too hard, he might one day devolve into a violence-thirsty apologist like Midgley or Hamblin. Ben McGuire was another person mentioned by Harmony, and I believe that he's relatively young, too (at least that's my impression; I could be wrong). A counter example is LifeOnaPlate. While he condemned waterboarding as torture, it's clear that he really hates critics with a white-hot passion. He is sneaky and devious like DCP in that he tries to pry for information and "lunches" so that he can use this as ammunition in his malevolent crusade to blacken and destroy critics' characters.

I doubt that apologists would actually act on violent impulses. But I do think that apologists engage in rationalization of past church violence (either actual or rhetorical), and that rationalization ends up sounding a bit like condoning violence.

Non-apologists aren't thinking about past LDS violence, so don't engage in rationalizations for it.

I do think some apologists feel justified in engaging in extreme verbal aggression towards critics. I think they imagine themselves as valiant warriors on the Lord's side, battling the minion's of Satan. Kind of a Saturday's Warrior redux.

Oh, yes, absolutely---and thank you for that clarification, Beastie. I don't mean to say that the apologists are seriously entertaining the notion of doing something physically violent, or that they plan on breaking the law, or anything like that. I do think they are hellbent on revenge, though. I think that they would relish the opportunity to ruin a critic's reputation, or to prevent him or her from advancing professionally, or to ruin the person's family relationships---nothing technically illegal, mind you, but actions which would nonetheless inflict varying amounts of pain on the critic. Again: I have never, ever seen an apologist contradict what I'm saying here. If anything, I've only seen them say things like, "Well, the so-and-so deserved it," or, "So-and-so did this to me first."

[_Daniel Peterson]

the apologists . . . are hellbent on revenge, though. I think that they would relish the opportunity to ruin a critic's reputation, or to prevent him or her from advancing professionally, or to ruin the person's family relationships---nothing technically illegal, mind you, but actions which would nonetheless inflict varying amounts of pain on the critic. Again: I have never, ever seen an apologist contradict what I'm saying here.

Oh come on, Scratch.

I've denied that sort of slanderous nonsense every time you've advanced it.

I flatly deny it now, too.

For the hundredth time.

I contradict it.

Clear enough?

[_Doctor Scratch]

the apologists . . . are hellbent on revenge, though. I think that they would relish the opportunity to ruin a critic's reputation, or to prevent him or her from advancing professionally, or to ruin the person's family relationships---nothing technically illegal, mind you, but actions which would nonetheless inflict varying amounts of pain on the critic. Again: I have never, ever seen an apologist contradict what I'm saying here.

Oh come on, Scratch.

I've denied that sort of slanderous nonsense every time you've advanced it.

I flatly deny it now, too.

For the hundredth time.

I contradict it.

Clear enough?

No. You have never apologized for interfering with Eric's family. You have never publicly denounced John Tvedtnes's email to Murphy's tenure approval people. You have never denounced the efforts to run Signature Books out of business. You have never denounced Pahoran's various malevolent crusades. You have never denounced Stan Barker's viciousness. You have never apologized for the smear campaigned waged in the pages of FARMS Review. You have never denounced the gossipmongering about Mike Quinn.

On the other hand, I have seen you cough up a whole lot of rationalizations, excuses, equivocations, and sketchy denials. Further, you are but one apologist. Even if you were to sharply contradict the sort of thing that's been sketched out in this thread, you hardly speak for every last apologist. You guys don't constitute a "hive mind," remember?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You said that you've never seen an apologist contradict your claim.

I just contradicted it. And not for the first time.

QED.

Have a nice holiday.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You said that you've never seen an apologist contradict your claim.

I just contradicted it. And not for the first time.

There is a very clear difference between saying that you "contradict it" vs. actually doing so. This would be the same as me saying, "I've never seen al Qaeda publicly denounce violence," only to have Osama turn up on al Jazeera saying, "I contradict what you've said." Sure: he pays lip service here, but is this a legitimate contradiction? Methinks not. And, I know what you're thinking: you're going to try and say that I'm shifting the goal posts, but, since I have been describing and attitude and an underlying philosophy, I think you're going to have to do a bit more (in light of all the evidence against you guys) then simply saying, "I contradict you!"

I'll just point out that, having been given the chance to openly say that you don't wish any ill whatsoever on critics---and I include in this that they are embarrassed, or wounded emotionally, or insulted, or anything like that---you totally passed.

Why not admit the truth, Dan: you relish it when critics are embarrassed, or when their character is shown to be deficient, or when their credibility is undermined. You guys live for that stuff. Go ahead and contradict that: go ahead an tell all of us that you don't like it and feel badly when you deliberately try to make a critic look stupid. Go ahead and tell us that you now feel bad about telling a bald-faced lie about Eric's "drug problem" (or whatever it was you said).

The fact of the matter is that you and most other apologists *do* very much embrace an philosophy of violence and revenge.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'll just point out that, having been given the chance to openly say that you don't wish any ill whatsoever on critics---and I include in this that they are embarrassed, or wounded emotionally, or insulted, or anything like that---you totally passed.

I don't wish any ill whatsoever on critics.

I don't wish to see them wounded emotionally.

I don't wish to see them insulted.

I don't even wish them to be embarrassed, although it's probably unavoidable that they'll be embarrassed -- as in this exchange with you -- when they say something false or stupid and, no matter how gently, its falsehood or stupidity is pointed out. That's just human nature. "Man is the only animal that blushes," remarked Mark Twain. "Or needs to."

[_harmony]

This whole discussion ignores the Atonement. There is no way for Will or anyone else to know what relationship a given individual has with God, the condition of the individual's heart, the mercy shown by a loving God... so there is no way that Will or anyone else can righteously condemn anyone. Will and those elusive anyone else oversteps into unrighteous dominion every time he and they make comments about the eternal salvation, or temporal life, of anyone. And we know what happens to the priesthood of any man who exercises unrighteous dominion. Will is the one who risks his eternal salvation... every time he condemns someone else.

A friend of mine divorced her high councilman husband, and her stake president took her temple recommend away, based on lies and gossip. Fast forward 2 years... she has her temple recommend again and a new stake president. During those 2 years, her relationship with God remained the same. Confusing the Church (as a free standing entity) with God (as God Almighty) is not only foolish... it's downright stupid. Men like Will don't know much of anything, although they sure would like to. Wise men leave each individual the space to work out their salvation with God. Will doesn't strike me as very wise.