Could this happen? Airing of grievances & simple apologies?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It seems to me Dr. Moore is in a bit of a pickle. The mopologists didn't meet the criteria of the agreement, however he has succeeded in facilitating a sort of grudging reduction in rhetoric aimed at this board and, apparently, some of the regulars on SeN. The Midge, instead of just being genial, has decided to ignore Gemli and has asked others to do the same. This could be taken as progress, and I hope Gemli's insights are now free from being sidetracked with constant personal attacks.

Hope that's worth $10,000!

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

It seems to me Dr. Moore is in a bit of a pickle. The mopologists didn't meet the criteria of the agreement, however he has succeeded in facilitating a sort of grudging reduction in rhetoric aimed at this board and, apparently, some of the regulars on SeN. The Midge, instead of just being genial, has decided to ignore Gemli and has asked others to do the same. This could be taken as progress, and I hope Gemli's insights are now free from being sidetracked with constant personal attacks.

Hope that's worth $10,000!

- Doc

I feel for gemli. He has asked a number of times, obviously in bewilderment, why midgley takes the approach he does. It’s a painful introduction to mopologetics.

[_Gadianton]

While it could be considered progress, clearly he is looking to shun Gemli, in order to encourage him to leave. Well yes, he wants his boss to get the 5k for Interpreter, and so the closest thing he can think of to continue his war without violating the rule is to get everyone to shun Gemli -- shunning is a tried-and-true fundamentalist tactic. Of course, what he's probably not self-aware enough to understand, is that if Gemli and other leave, then so will he. But that's besides the point, which is that there is a difference between not responding to Gemli and recommending the same to others who can't keep their cool, and recommending everyone to shun him so that he feels unwelcome and leaves.

[_Dr Moore]

The $10,000 deal, as formulated with Dr. Peterson, is canceled.

As the only judge, I accept partial credit for the failure. Poor experimental construction. Too subjective were the criteria to allow for integrity to the letter while at the same time encouraging a smooth transition from from a boiling ocean to glassy pond.

Does one violation break the "best faith moderation" covenant? Two? Three? By whom? How often? Must every offending comment be deleted? What words specifically constitute an offence? How to judge implied vs explicit derogatory references? In what time frame must moderation action be taken? The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Clearly enough violations trickled through that I can not with integrity say that the letter of the arrangement has been met. The deal must be voided.

And yet, Dr. Peterson and several of his compatriots have made an impressive effort. Progress has been made. It is healthy progress. I am encouraged by what could happen with continued emphasis to wrap content in civility.

As a fellow MormonDiscussions colleague wrote a few days ago:

We should always think of how we might do better by our opponents than they do by us. We may be wrong in imagining we have succeeded, but we will all be better off for trying

Therefore, while the current experiment has ended, I wish to make a parting gesture to invest in the future of civility on both sides of these heated conversations.

1) I will make a lesser donation to Interpreter Foundation, as a token of my good faith in Dr. Peterson, and admiration for his sincere effort in this exercise. Thank you, Dr. Peterson, for the past month and thank you in advance for future efforts.

2) I will also be making a donation to Radio Free Mormon, as a counterbalancing show of appreciation for the cost of continued research and articulated expression about challenging topics of interest to all of us.

Lastly, a word of appreciation to many who assisted with this experiment, and whose patience I have likely tried to the breaking point. Please PM me if anything I've done here offended you.

[_Lemmie]

The agreement is voided, so I guess it’s no surprise that after midgley attacks, maligns and speculates on jcwo’s failings- or should I say, imaginary failings that midgley has outlined, after attempting to gather in real life information on him, that Peterson comes to Midgley’s defense:

jcwo Louis Midgley
5 hours ago edited

Louis, you are a shameful individual. My family, friends, ex bishop, ex stake president all know exactly what my opinions are. I've detailed them on a number of occasions. And guess what, they didn't point me to anything that you had published as I'm sure they're aware of the effect that you're apologetic writings might have on people who have lost faith with legitimate and sincere doubts. For you to call me a coward only shows your utter lack of awareness of not only the world around you, but your own cowardice. Just because you can't comprehend the need and usefulness for internet anonymity, is no excuse to attack those that do. Is this the way you practice apologetics? When you can't challenge their ideas and criticisms, attack their character? There are a number of times that you've asked me to leave. If Dan concurs, I have no problem with that. You should, however, take note of how it reflects on you.


−
Avatar
DanielPeterson jcwo
2 hours ago

jcwo: "Louis, you are a shameful individual."

He isn't, actually. You don't know him.

Watch it.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... iotic.html

“Watch it”?

Here’s what Midgley said, that jcwo is responding to (same link):

Louis Midgley jcwo
21 hours ago

I have now spent 45 minutes reviewing jcwo's postings on sic et non. These are minutes I could have used in more productive ways. Five years ago jcwo had a burst of comments. I cannot tell if they were on Dan's blog. The reason is that I did not recognize any of the names of those to whom he was opining.

With a lapse of several years, jcwo was back posting on Dan's blog. He was clearly venting his hostility to what has to be his former faith.

Now he has explained that he did this to avoid "real world repercussions." This seems to be his way of wanting not to have his clients, employer, Bishop or Stake President, or husband or wife, or family members know his real opinions, since doing so would change things. To do this is clearly to lack both courage and probity, especially given that he blasts away at his former faith under a false name. It seems obvious that one who comes to no longer have faith in God, and who is paid with tithing funds ought to immediately resign and find different employment. Or they simply lack even a semblance of courage and probity.

Finally, I have yet to see any evidence that jcwo has come up with that there are the faults that he attributes--John Dehlin style, yet--to the faith of Latter-day Saints.

I am now adding jcwo to my list of those to whom I do not intend to respond again. And I urge others to do exactly the same thing. And I strongly urge jcwo to take his game somewhere else. That would be the honest thing to do, would it not?

So Dan’s response, to one who objects to this in real life digging for details and subsequent attack, based on the worst that midgley can imagine, is for that person to “watch it.”

Patheos has terms oof service, and Peterson is allowing them to be trampled on, with enthusiasm, by Midgley.

Not that Peterson cares, but yes, Dan, Midgley is “a shameful individual.” He illustrates it daily, with posts Peterson allows, in violation of his own agreement with Patheos.com.

[_Dr. Shades]

The $10,000 deal, as formulated with Dr. Peterson, is canceled.

Will you please post a link to the, uh, post that broke the camel's back? Or copy-and-paste it here?

[_Dr Moore]

Hi Dr. Shades,

No specific back breaking post, rather a boiling frog dilemma. The evidence is well documented in this thread.

Cheers,
M

[_Doctor Scratch]

Your graciousness has been duly noted, Dr. Moore. This is one of *the* most important, significant, and devastating moments in the history of Mopologetics. It may be that this is even more important than the 2012 incident where the Mopologists were kicked out of the Maxwell Institute. What your experiment proves beyond any reasonable doubt is that the Mopologists care more about getting to use insulting language than they do about $10,000. This is revelatory. Recall that DCP has said many, many, many, many times that "nothing" he does in the Mopologetic realm is for "money." Well, if the goal is just to sling around vicious and abusive language, then who cares about money? But then you get to actually thinking about that question--and whether Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson "care about money"--and you begin to understand the fundamental problems at the source of Mopologetics. Someone summon the Cruise Lady!

[_Lemmie]

Your graciousness has been duly noted, Dr. Moore. This is one of *the* most important, significant, and devastating moments in the history of Mopologetics. It may be that this is even more important than the 2012 incident where the Mopologists were kicked out of the Maxwell Institute. What your experiment proves beyond any reasonable doubt is that the Mopologists care more about getting to use insulting language than they do about $10,000. This is revelatory. Recall that DCP has said many, many, many, many times that "nothing" he does in the Mopologetic realm is for "money." Well, if the goal is just to sling around vicious and abusive language, then who cares about money? But then you get to actually thinking about that question--and whether Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson "care about money"--and you begin to understand the fundamental problems at the source of Mopologetics. Someone summon the Cruise Lady!

Speaking of the Cruise Lady...

midgley:

...I must urge all those interested in touring Israel to join a Cruise Lady tour with the Peterson's to, if possible, both Israel and Jordan. There is also another competing LDS oriented tour company that promises "fun" but delivers a lot of rubbish along the way.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4656010864

Of course the other “LDS” tour is rubbish. Of course, Lou.

Not that midgley’s posting was ever really under control during the experiment, but he is back to shitposting:

midgley:

...There are a few others who may post because they desire attention, or they see Dan's blog as an opportunity to attack the Church of Jesus Christ. I have no intention of scratching someone's malevolent itch. And I have exactly no intention of responding to Dr. Scratch, who should be tending the virtual prison camp he owns and more or less supervises.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4662877573

As is Peterson.

DanielPeterson Mod Dr. Shades • 15 hours ago

LOL. Shades, you have ready access to a rich sample of haters.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... eauty.html

But it is Shades who, in the end, sums up Midgley’s approach exactly:

Dr. Shades DanielPeterson • 4 hours ago

Let's not turn this around on me. I'm merely commenting on the fact that Dr. Midgley appears to falsely equate disagreement with Latter-day Saint claims, however slight, as "hatred."

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4662858534

Midgley’s certainty that disagreement must mean hatred is a concept that continues to tear apart families. It is incongruous that seeking for “eternal families” in the afterlife should do such damage to actual families in the here and now, and yet, that is what is preached repeatedly by LDS leaders. It is shameful.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow, Dr. Peterson is insinuating that there was more to this than meets the eye:

First, Exiled takes Midgley and DCP to task for Midgley's really quite appalling gossiping about John Dehlin:

Dr. Peterson:

This type of gossipy rancor is why you lost out on Dr. Moore's challenge. I guess if it doesn't bother you, then let it be.

You don't actually know what happened between me and "Dr. Moore," Exiled.

So it would be prudent, in that light, to refrain from commenting or drawing conclusions.

Huh. So what is it that we don't know? My impression was that the whole thing was handled transparently: Dr. Moore made his offer; the Mopologists didn't hold up their end of the bargain; Dr. Moore canceled the deal and the apologists lost their shot at the $10,000, but Dr. Moore very generously offered to make a smaller donation nonetheless. What about that is inaccurate? What additional details are there that would merit his statement above?