The Peterson/Schryver Inquisition

[_RayAgostini]

A member in good standing is a person who has not been disciplined by the LDS Church, in other words, not disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

Let's take one point at a time. So, a member who is inactive, who breaks the word of wisdom, who doesn't pay tithing, and who never attends church, but who has never been disciplined - is a "member in good standing"?

A bit of a stretch, maybe, to argue your "point" more effectively?

[_Tobin]

Ray, you are giving NAMIRS a lot more credit than it deserves. I don't think many in the general membership of the Church pay that much attention to NAMIRS material.

I've already said my piece on that. It was very important to me in the early '90s, but I was under no illusion that it was important to most members, and that's why I've argued that "leave-taking" is largely not based on "intellectual reasons". But thanks for supporting my point. You might need to whisper a word in "save the Church from NAMIRS" Kiskumen's ear. Ark Steadier, modern secular Moses rescuing Mormons from Dan Peterson.

Yeah, I don't get it. More general members are exposed to anti-Mormon literature than NAMIRS I suspect. If that is the issue, then someone might as well be screaming about anti-Mormon literature and the damage it causes.

[Guest]

So, I guess, Ray, that you're conceding that you were totally wrong? Here I was, all expectant that you were going to produce a quote where I (or anyone else) called DCP an "anti-semite," and insteand you produce a quote where Kishkumen is calling E. Michael Jones an "anti-semite"? (And do you really want to argue whether or not the label is appropriate in this case?)

I think that Dan himself acknowledges that Jones is an "anti-semite," and his (i.e., DCP's) excuse for citing Jones's grossly homophobic book in his FARMS editorial, "Text and Context," is that he (DCP) "didn't know at the time." Well, why not issue a correction in the next FARMS editorial?

But apart from that, you've pretty much ignored everything I said about context. And you've failed to back up your two accusations re: supposed "defamation."

The real tragedy, in my view, is that here is Ray, claiming that he is deeply concerned about all of my alleged unfair attacks against Daniel Peterson, but he is so careless in his accusations against me that he raises an incident in which I edited my posts in response to Daniel Peterson's communication to me explaining the situation. And it is not as though I called Daniel an anti-Semite in the first instance. I questioned the wisdom of quoting an anti-Semite approvingly. When I found out what the actual timeline was, I changed my view and admitted it openly.

Here is the unreasoning blind hatred of Kishkumen at work, or, as is rather the case, the flailing and sloppy accusations of Ray on an irrational rampage against Kishkumen.

[_RayAgostini]

And my answer is, who cares?

I guess someone has to prove that the problem is big enough in order for it to be a bad thing.

I know when I was a kid, parents generally only punished their children for stealing if the problem was big enough. If the value of the stolen item was, say, under 5 bucks, they would just shrug it off and wait for the heist to reach a level worth worrying about.

You never had anything of important sentimental value, worth "under five bucks", stolen? A flower, picked from a field, given by your first love, worth "under five bucks", is "nothing to worry about"?

You have strange values.

[_Kishkumen]

Let's take one point at a time. So, a member who is inactive, who breaks the word of wisdom, who doesn't pay tithing, and who never attends church, but who has never been disciplined - is a "member in good standing"?

A bit of a stretch, maybe, to argue your "point" more effectively?

The point, Ray, is not to substitute a yellow-journalistic lynching for the Church's own revealed procedures for repentance and policies regarding Church discipline. This is the reason I define it the way I do. If the point of the Church is to bring people unto Christ, that is more effectively done by following the revelations and policies of the Church as published in the scriptures and the leadership handbooks, I would wager, not smearing people in an allegedly academic journal.

Do you find my reasoning on that unsound? Are you saying that a good old smear in the Review is better than the scriptures and leadership manuals for bringing people unto Christ?

[_Kishkumen]

You never had anything of important sentimental value, worth "under five bucks", stolen? A flower, picked from a field, given by your first love, worth "under five bucks", is "nothing to worry about"?

You have strange values.

I was being facetious, Ray. Obviously when I was a kid parents were most certainly concerned about the principle, not just the monetary value, as a full and fair quote of my post shows.

[_RayAgostini]

The point, Ray, is not to substitute a yellow-journalistic lynching for the Church's own revealed procedures for repentance and policies regarding Church discipline. This is the reason I define it the way I do. If the point of the Church is to bring people unto Christ, that is more effectively done by following the revelations and policies of the Church as published in the scriptures and the leadership handbooks, I would wager, not smearing people in an allegedly academic journal.

Do you find my reasoning on that unsound? Are you saying that a good old smear in the Review is better than the scriptures and leadership manuals for bringing people unto Christ?

They're still associated with BYU and the Church. Do you think if the Brethren felt anything was amiss, that the GAs would have dissociated themselves from NAMIRS by now?

Oh, I see, this is what you and Scratch want to bring to their attention - on Mormon Discussions.

Have you written to ANY GAs about your deep concerns? Or do you just like a Zoromite podium to lecture from?

[_RayAgostini]

The point, Ray, is not to substitute a yellow-journalistic lynching for the Church's own revealed procedures for repentance and policies regarding Church discipline. This is the reason I define it the way I do. If the point of the Church is to bring people unto Christ, that is more effectively done by following the revelations and policies of the Church as published in the scriptures and the leadership handbooks,

Which you do? Or is it a case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

Do you find my reasoning on that unsound? Are you saying that a good old smear in the Review is better than the scriptures and leadership manuals for bringing people unto Christ?

I wouldn't suggest that. But if you and Scratch co-authored a book on Mormonism, or Mormon apologetics, I'd have my latest copy of the FRB right next to it. Just to compare notes.

[_RayAgostini]

...my alleged unfair attacks against Daniel Peterson...

Not "alleged". Proven.

[Guest]

They're still associated with BYU and the Church. Do you think if the Brethren felt anything was amiss, that the GAs would have dissociated themselves from NAMIRS by now?

So, you concede that my definition of "member in good standing" is reasonable, and that my reasons for defining it as I do are fine, but now you want me to speculate as to why NAMIRS is still associated with BYU and the Church.

That makes close to no sense whatsoever. My guess is that since NAMIRS does a number of things that are unrelated to smearing people like Laura Compton and John Dehlin, it is not clear that they are an unmitigated evil that needs to be rooted out. Certainly I don't believe it is an unmitigated evil that needs to be rooted out. I simply believe that they need to stop publishing attacks on members in good standing in their FARMS Review journal.

You are a funny guy, Ray. In making this argument you seem to be saying that you are the kind of person who would walk through a factory, see a pipe leaking dangerous chemicals and say, "well, if there were a problem here, the CEO of the corporation would have done something about it," and then move on, taking no action of your own to fix the problem.

I think it is pretty clear that not everyone at BYU or in the LDS Church leadership precisely agrees about the value of all of NAMIRS' various activities. I have picked out one that I find it very difficult to justify, and focused on that specific thing. If others were to take notice and say, "hey, you know, that guy is right," and then the editor were told to knock off that specific activity, the sun would still shine the next day, the journal would still be published, people would still read it and benefit thereby, and it is highly likely that everyone, including the Church, would be the better for the change.

I am having a real problem seeing a downside to my humble and practical suggestion. Yet you are here having a complete meltdown over it. Why? I can't even begin to imagine.