Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_dartagnan]

I know Kevin's story very well.

Obviously you don't.

All you know is what's being fed to you by the talking heads at FAIR.

The same idiots who get caught snooping in PMs and then deny doing it.

The same idiots who invented no less than three different reasons why I was banned.

Of course, the LDS paradigm doesn't allow for anyone to legitimately leave the Church on strictly intellectual grounds. That in itself is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. For you, the reason anyone leaves has to do with some kind of sin that goes unrepented.

[_Mister Scratch]

E.g., there is (as far as I know) no LDS equivalent of The Godmakers, although I guess some of BRM's remarks on Catholicism could count. This is arguable, of course, since one could pretty easily make the case that the Church's massive missionary effort is akin to a very subtle kind of "attack." And, when you factor in deeply held sentiments such as Prof. P.'s "all non-JS-believing Christians are 'anti-Christ,'" it begins to seem clear that the LDS Church does attack other faiths in some subtly pernicious ways.

Yes. But in ways that are somewhat different (qualitatively and quantitatively) from Evangelical polemics, correct?

Qualitatively? Yes, I think I'd agree with that. As I've noted, I believe that the LDS Church's means of "attacking" other faiths are more subtle, less obvious, etc. (Though also, in my opinion, more pernicious, as the "subtlely" or "covering up," carries with it the stink of dishonesty, or lies by omission.) Quantitatively, though? Eh, I'm less certain of that. Are any of the EV efforts anywhere near as huge as the LDS missionary program? Since Professor P. makes pretty clear that any non-JS-affirming religion is, in essence, "anti-Christ," I think we have to assume that any effort aimed at getting folks to move away from their belief system and into the LDS Church is a very subtle form of "attack." Therefore, virtually any kind of pro-LDS materials, including TV spots and other forms of propaganda, have to be counted among the forms of "attack." A way of translating all of this might be: "Join us, or else you're anti-Christ." This, as DCP suggested in that Z thread, is what all TBMs believe (or ought to believe). And, if that's not an "attack," I'm not sure what is. At the very least, it is inflammatory rhetoric.

Also, Pahoran used to have a quote in his sig line that said something like, "Never....attack another man's religion..." Quite ironic, if you ask me

Bummer.... I was hoping for a quote.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm sure if you dig around a bit, you'll find something. The fact is that Mopologist often insist that what they do "isn't the same" as what EVs & et. al. do, but I have to ask: Is what the Mopologist do really much better? Is it really any less nasty? (DCP's appallingly bigoted comments about Calvinism come to mind...)

[_the road to hana]

I know Kevin's story very well.

Only anecdotally. I know for a fact you're a fairly recent arrival, by most standards, on the FAIR/MADB scene, and that there are plenty here who've known and posted alongside Kevin for years, going back to when he was a defender of things Mormon.

You don't know him, or his story, except what others have told you.

You're really a relative novice in these parts. Yet you act like you've been holding court for decades.

[_charity]

For your shotgun post, I will respond in blue.

I don't know where you people live, but in the real world nobody depends on the apologists for their very staunch faith.

This, coming from the world's record holder for posts on apologetic forums. I'm not kidding, you really do hold the world's record.

You are not correct. My total posts here and at MA&D are considerably below many others. I never posted on RfM or CARMS or any of those other boards, unlike many here.

I would say in my ward, in Oregon, that I am the only person who has heard of Daniel Peterson. But I can see why you want to set apologists up so you can take pot shots at them. It makes you feel better. Gives you a sense of hope that your lost faith can be sustained.

Most people in wards don't know squat about critical issues either. I'm talking about people who are engaged in the controversies that cause people to struggle with the faith. These people are almost always presented materials that would make them familiar with people like DCP. Dan is very careful not to debate serious issues because he can't afford to lose a battle. He picks the battles he only knows he can win. We all know this is true.

And how stupid would it be to go into a fight knowing you would lose. Get real. There are some questions which cannot be answered with a full and correct answer considering out current state of knowledge. The smart person leaves those alone. The real tragedy is that there are people like you who will give those questioning the incomplete and wrong answer and assure them you are right. If they believe you and their faith is destroyed, the sin is on your head, and there will come a day when you will have to be held accountable for the damage your ignorance has caused.

Actually, I think the reason you devote whole threads to apologists is that you are hoping after hope that you can knock one down. Isn't Kevin enough for you guys to massage your pride with?

Actually my departure is a testament to the intolerance of you and your ilk. You're the reason for my departure, not the critics. I never started participating or affiliating with the critics on other forums until after I left FAIR. That is a documented fact.

Hooey. First of all, you have said on this board that you haven't left the Church. You are still a "cultural" Mormon. Is this an announcement?

We are each responsible for our own behavior, and cannot point a finger and say, "It is all your fault."

[_the road to hana]

Actually, I think the reason you devote whole threads to apologists is that you are hoping after hope that you can knock one down.

I'm not referring to rank and file members out in the field. I'm talking about people like you who spend far too many of their waking hours on MADB, and cite articles from FAIR and FARMS as if they actually have any credibility in the world.

You are right. I spend too many hours here. My other hours spent on apologetics with FAIR are a lot more useful.

But did you read my statement that I think the rank and file don't know Dr. Peterson, or even of him?

That was entirely the point I was addressing when I said, "I'm not referring to rank and file members out in the field." Maybe that wasn't clear enough for you.

[_Mister Scratch]

You are right. I spend too many hours here. My other hours spent on apologetics with FAIR are a lot more useful.

Again, why, charity? You said above that the "the faithful" don't need apologetics... Are you reneging? What, in your view, is the purpose of LDS apologetics? I'm really curious about your answer here.

[_moksha]

(1) Christ called Joseph Smith.

(2) Those who reject Joseph Smith reject Christ's calling of Joseph Smith.

(3) Therefore, they oppose Christ.

(4) Accordingly, they are anti-Christ.

It's simple, really. And, if you believe (1), it follows quite naturally.

Can't stuff like this be more than potentially dicey when Dr. Peterson meets with ambassadors of various countries during his world travels? By revealing this stuff are you putting him in harms way if some of these people took umbrage to being labeled as the anti-Christ?

[_charity]

You are right. I spend too many hours here. My other hours spent on apologetics with FAIR are a lot more useful.

Again, why, charity? You said above that the "the faithful" don't need apologetics... Are you reneging? What, in your view, is the purpose of LDS apologetics? I'm really curious about your answer here.

My theory is that once a person "falls off the edge" and starts asking questions in the adversarial manner, they are probably not going to stay in the Church. They have gotten to the point that they want to leave, and want support for leaving. Then apologetics does no good. They fight their way out of the Church.

But there is value in providing for the doubting member the knowledge that the answer is there, whether they want to engage the issue or not. And yes, knowing that someone who is far more intelligent than they are, as a DCP, or David, or any one of a number of individuals I could name, knows the issues and is still a believing member is all they need.

If I can help the doubting member, then I am happy to.

But probably for me, the most important thing I get out of the fray is that I don't leave a falsehood standing unopposed. It irks me that someone can smugly think that he has takena potshot at the Church and no one shot back. Just the same way I can become livid if someone cuts me off on the freeway. It isn't the fact that I will arrive at my destination 1.5 seconds later. It is that that person thought he had more right to that space than I did and arrogantly assumed that he was more deserving. Not on my watch.

[_Mister Scratch]

You are right. I spend too many hours here. My other hours spent on apologetics with FAIR are a lot more useful.

Again, why, charity? You said above that the "the faithful" don't need apologetics... Are you reneging? What, in your view, is the purpose of LDS apologetics? I'm really curious about your answer here.

But there is value in providing for the doubting member the knowledge that the answer is there, whether they want to engage the issue or not. And yes, knowing that someone who is far more intelligent than they are, as a DCP, or David, or any one of a number of individuals I could name, knows the issues and is still a believing member is all they need.

So, are you therefore admitting that LDS apologetics' purpose is to save faltering members' testimonies? Y/N?

If I can help the doubting member, then I am happy to.

Fair enough. I'm not really interested in why you engage in Mopologetics; rather, I am interested in knowing what you think Mopologetics isfor.

But probably for me, the most important thing I get out of the fray is that I don't leave a falsehood standing unopposed. It irks me that someone can smugly think that he has takena potshot at the Church and no one shot back. Just the same way I can become livid if someone cuts me off on the freeway. It isn't the fact that I will arrive at my destination 1.5 seconds later. It is that that person thought he had more right to that space than I did and arrogantly assumed that he was more deserving. Not on my watch.

Interesting. So, would it be fair to say, then, that the most important purpose of Mopologetics is simply to throw counterpunches? Y/N?

[_dartagnan]

You are not correct. My total posts here and at MA&D are considerably below many others.

I am correct. You were light years ahead of everyone at FAIR except for the number two poster, bcspace. But I think Zakuska has taken over as all time leader there, but then, he was there a year longer than you and you outnumber his posts on this forum. As it is, at MADB he averaged 320 posts per month whereas you take the lead with an average of 371 per month. That's more than 12 posts per day for almost a three year span. That's insane. And you have been averaging 500 per month just on this forum alone!!

I remember when you first started posting, it got so bad the mods at FAIR had to put a cap of ten posts per person because of the way you were pumping out dozens of posts per day, totally wasting their bandwidth with meaningless drivel. They felt bad singling you out so they capped everyone.

So you are proof positive that members need apologetics. Nobody is as addicted as you are.

And how stupid would it be to go into a fight knowing you would lose.

That's my point. Dan isn't stupid because he avoids these kinds of battles like the plague. He knows the pressure that is on him to appear to be the super apologist, never losing a battle.

There are some questions which cannot be answered with a full and correct answer considering out current state of knowledge. The smart person leaves those alone.

There are plenty of questions with reasonable answers, but if those answers don't compliment one's faith, a person is likely to reject those answers - no matter how stupid or smart he or she might be. That is why so much in Mormonism is anti-intellectual. It has people like Bokovoy teaching the membership to change one's paradigm whenever the evidence contradicts their presuppositions.

Mormonism gradually becomes a group of people who cannot be reasoned with. And this comes as no surprise since the "reasoning of men" is overwhelmingly understood in negative terms in Mormon canon, theology, doctrine and thought.

The real tragedy is that there are people like you who will give those questioning the incomplete and wrong answer and assure them you are right.

I never argue a position when I don't have my ducks in a row. The reason people like Dan won't debate us on untenable positions like the Book of Abraham, is because he knows it is a lost cause. All you can do is ultimately tell the struggling member to change his paradigm and trust the spirit. Facts don't matter. Feelings matter. The placebo effect is relied upon once more to reinforce one's delusions with good feelings. Facts, not feelings, can be manipulated by Satan, so goes the logic, therefore feelings are more trustworthy than facts. This is why the Mormon apologetic is becoming increasingly irrational and anti-intellectual. In the end, this is really all you're left with.

If they believe you and their faith is destroyed, the sin is on your head, and there will come a day when you will have to be held accountable for the damage your ignorance has caused.

But the ignorance is not on my part. You have yet to demonstrate any ignorance on my part, and I never expect or ask ANYONE to believe ME. I expect people to use their own brains, even if the Church doesn't.

We are each responsible for our own behavior, and cannot point a finger and say, "It is all your fault."

I am not talking about my behavior. My behavior is the same as it has always been. I am talking about my choice to leave apologetics. That was 90% the fault of FAIR. And I am glad they did it, because if they were not so intolerant and rooted in nepotism, I would probably be trapped in that world of apologetics, trying to constantly fabricate excuses based on any sense of "plausibility" for the myriad of controversial issues in Church history.

The only thing that has changed is that I realized through reasoning, deducing and inducing the facts as I researched them, all that I had been defending was a lost cause. Joseph Smith is a proven fraud. He could not translate ancient documents, he stole men's wives, he lied about his polgamy, etc. These are indisputable facts. Now apologists are admitting he couldn't translate to begin with, that it was OK for him to lie to his people about polygamy, and that the concept of spiritual wifery was too complex for us to understand, therefore we can't judge his reasons for taking women who already had husbands. Its really an insult to the masses and I can't be a part of it anymore.

I simply couldn't follow the typical apologetic line that excused all of these grievous sins. You'll always come up with some excuse because you've been conditioned too long to accept the possibility that Joseph Smith wasn't what he claimed. The mere thought cannot even be conceptualized in your tiny brains. When you cannot accept the possibility that what you "know" is wrong, you cannot be reasoned with. You're a lost cause, intellectually speaking.