Doctor Scratch wrote:I've posted comments of his where he's said that NOM-types like Jason and Liz are a "danger" to the Church. Heck, he's said that if he had the power, he would take away Harmony's temple recommend.
Note that I did not mention Harmony. Also note what Jason Bourne has said in this thread. How is expressing the opinion that NOM-types are danger qualify as "ridiculing, embarrassing, punishing, and harming?" Let's not shift the goal-posts.
I would say that painting these types of people as a "danger" is a means of doing them "harm" insofar as it is marginalizing them, framing them as enemies, and so on. But this is kind of a side issue, isn't it? Or are you objecting mainly to the fact that I said "anyone" rather than "most people"?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:I would say that painting these types of people as a "danger" is a means of doing them "harm" insofar as it is marginalizing them, framing them as enemies, and so on. But this is kind of a side issue, isn't it? Or are you objecting mainly to the fact that I said "anyone" rather than "most people"?
I'm objecting to the strength of the initial statement as a whole, not one particular thing such as "anyone" vs "most people". I really don't see Daniel Peterson as having put much effort or time at all into marginalizing NOMs. For my part, I observe him criticizing NOM-style arguments and philosophy which I think is a wholly appropriate thing to do. I don't see him get personal about NOMs.
Harmony is the closest example I can think of where Daniel Peterson made it about an individual NOM, but even then I recall he was willing to set up an appointment between her and a general authority so she could discuss her concerns. While one read into that a malicious desire to out Harmony and excommunicate her, one could also read into that a genuine offering in good will so that Harmony could express concerns to someone who has some amount of authority and might be able to help make changes where appropriate. How you decide to read into that incident is up to the individual. I try not to read maliciousness into it, but I guess that's just me. I think Harmony is more than justified about being nervous to voice criticisms to church leaders. However, I don't think that means that Daniel Peterson's offer could not have been an act in good faith.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Doctor Scratch wrote:I would say that painting these types of people as a "danger" is a means of doing them "harm" insofar as it is marginalizing them, framing them as enemies, and so on. But this is kind of a side issue, isn't it? Or are you objecting mainly to the fact that I said "anyone" rather than "most people"?
I'm objecting to the strength of the initial statement as a whole, not one particular thing such as "anyone" vs "most people". I really don't see Daniel Peterson as having put much effort or time at all into marginalizing NOMs. For my part, I observe him criticizing NOM-style arguments and philosophy which I think is a wholly appropriate thing to do. I don't see him get personal about NOMs.
Well, ABman, my initial comment was made in response to the assertion that Dan is a 'faith builder,' and I noted at the outset that, from my, personal, subjective point of view, nothing could be farther from the truth. And sure: he probably hasn't put as much time in attacking NOMs per se as he has in hammering away at, say, a lot of the people in genuine pain at RfM, or the various targets in the FARMS Review. (The piece in the "Review" on Rodney Meldrum was quite nasty, for example.)
As I've been saying, I think that the new-order Mopologists like Bokovoy represent a truly genuine shot at "bridge-building" and faith building.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Liz and Harmony and Jason know very well, I think, that I'm not their enemy, don't consider them enemies, and bear them no ill will.
And David Bokovoy is a good friend. As I mentioned elsewhere, he and his wife hosted me and my wife and Dave Seely and Bill Hamblin and their wives for an excellent barbecue dinner at his house just last Friday night.
Scratch's attempt to divide us up and create "camps" and the like is just silly. Much like his creation of The Packer Faction and The Oaks Faction and similar nonsense.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Liz and Harmony and Jason know very well, I think, that I'm not their enemy, don't consider them enemies, and bear them no ill will.
And David Bokovoy is a good friend. As I mentioned elsewhere, he and his wife hosted me and my wife and Dave Seely and Bill Hamblin and their wives for an excellent barbecue dinner at his house just last Friday night.
Scratch's attempt to divide us up and create "camps" and the like is just silly. Much like his creation of The Packer Faction and The Oaks Faction and similar nonsense.
Its worse than just silly, Id say. its mean-spirited, and fabrication. Its absurd.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Quinn is not Ed Decker, so I doubt he ever claimed a Church hit squad was sent to kill him. Ed Decker has made this claim many times. I guess the Church has some pretty lousy assassins cuz Ed is 72 and still kicking.
Quinn is homosexual! That's a fact not just a rumor.