Were DCP and other BYU Apologists Ordered to "Tone it Down"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Such hyperbole! How is you answering a simple question going to "defame" you? It's not. You're just being a baby.

LOL. Obviously, my answering a simple question won't defame me. (That's why I'm happy to answer this question for any non-Scratch who contacts me at daniel_peterson@BYU.edu.)

It's the way you'll spin any answer I give you that will defame me.

How is that even possible? Was the quip about you? Your paranoia isn't exactly charming, Prof. P., and I daresay that your weird fear over all of this does more to "defame" you than anything I might say about the quip.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your paranoia isn't exactly charming, Prof. P., and I daresay that your weird fear over all of this does more to "defame" you than anything I might say about the quip.

That's an example of the kind of spin I have in mind.

Everybody here has seen it, for quite some time. Most, I think, know pretty much what to make of it, though you do appear to have a small handful of supporters (some of whom probably aren't even your sock puppets).

[_why me]

Quote:
Last week I was counseling a friend who had left the LDS church. As he recounted to me his story, it was interesting to note that apologetics (FAIR and FARMS in particular) were a precursor to his leaving the church–and a strong source for his abiding anger/resentment, and resistance to returning.

I probably get at least 2-3 emails a week from folks who have left the church–and I’m surprised at how many of these people not only delved into apologetics before they left–but also look back upon their experience w/ apologetics in almost disgust. Is it possible that the general approach/effect of arch-apologists like Dan Peterson and Louis Midgley–is actually NEGATIVE with respect to helping people retain their faith in the LDS Church? I am sure that they get short-term emails expressing gratitude for what they’ve done–so I’m speaking more in the medium-long term.

Recent postings by Lou Midgley and Dan Peterson in the bloggernacle are benign examples of what I mean. If you want the full banana….check out the FAIR Message Boards. Blech. Yuck. I almost feel dirty linking to that post.

It is difficult to say just what apologists do for members who are comtemplating leaving the LDS church. How can apologists help to get people to reconsider their leaving the LDS church? Apologists can only help the member regain their faith after doubt has set in. But the ultimate proof that the LDS church is true will not happen. One cannot prove the LDS church true. To be it true, would prove the existence of god and that will not happen.

Thus, such members who go to apologetics to ease doubt through surefire evidence that the church is true will be disappointed. What they can find from apologetic sites are answers to their questions or a different take on a historical fact that critics bring up.

And I do believe that the LDS church appreciates what the apologists are doing. I would assume that no one would interfere and order a tone down. It seems rather bizarre to assume so.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Quote:
Last week I was counseling a friend who had left the LDS church. As he recounted to me his story, it was interesting to note that apologetics (FAIR and FARMS in particular) were a precursor to his leaving the church–and a strong source for his abiding anger/resentment, and resistance to returning.

I probably get at least 2-3 emails a week from folks who have left the church–and I’m surprised at how many of these people not only delved into apologetics before they left–but also look back upon their experience w/ apologetics in almost disgust. Is it possible that the general approach/effect of arch-apologists like Dan Peterson and Louis Midgley–is actually NEGATIVE with respect to helping people retain their faith in the LDS Church? I am sure that they get short-term emails expressing gratitude for what they’ve done–so I’m speaking more in the medium-long term.

Recent postings by Lou Midgley and Dan Peterson in the bloggernacle are benign examples of what I mean. If you want the full banana….check out the FAIR Message Boards. Blech. Yuck. I almost feel dirty linking to that post.

It is difficult to say just what apologists do for members who are comtemplating leaving the LDS church. How can apologists help to get people to reconsider their leaving the LDS church?

Well, why me, in some cases the apologists are "tapped" by the Strengthening Church Members Committee. The apologists meet with these struggling members, sometimes for hours, attempting to "fix" things.

And I do believe that the LDS church appreciates what the apologists are doing. I would assume that no one would interfere and order a tone down. It seems rather bizarre to assume so.

Well, why me, we know that some of the Brethren have not looked upon Mopologetics with an approving eye. We also know that some of the Mopologists have been responsible for causing apostasy. Further, we know that a derogatory "quip" was made about the FARMS Review and that, shortly after that, many of the major apologists ended their relationship with SHIELDS.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No derogatory quip was made.

Scratch has invented that. He invents most of his material.

That's what Gadianton is spoofing with his fictional presentation in Claremont.

Scratch invents things that never happened. So does his supposed disciple, Gadianton.

[_Doctor Scratch]

If there was no quip then that means you told a bald-faced lie on this forum.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Lesson one of Scratchism 101, "Scratchist Methodology":


1. I say that a quip was made.

2. On that basis, Scratch fantasizes that a derogatory quip was made.

3. I reply that no derogatory quip was made,.

4. In Scratchworld, if it serves the tactical goals of the Crusade, quip = derogatory quip.

5. Thus, on the basis of (4), (1) and (3) are contradictory.

6. Ergo, Scratch calls me a liar.


In its own bizarre way, this sort of reasoning is a thing of beauty.

[_Trevor]

Although I agree that Scratch has a clear tendency to read the worst into things, in partial defense of his interpretation of the word quip:

quip
  /kwɪp/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwip] Show IPA noun, verb, quipped, quip⋅ping.
–noun
1. a clever or witty remark or comment.
2. a sharp, sarcastic remark; a cutting jest.
3. a quibble.
4. an odd or fantastic action or thing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Then, for poor Scratch's sake, let me announce here and now that the quip in question was a quip according to the first definition.

You give him more credit than he deserves, though. This quip on which Scratch is currently fixated has grown and morphed into something quite unrecognizable over the weeks that this latest assault has been gestating in his dark, obsessive, malevolent mind. It's not the dictionary's fault.

[_Trevor]

You give him more credit than he deserves, though. This quip on which Scratch is currently fixated has grown and morphed into something quite unrecognizable over the weeks that this latest assault has been gestating in his dark, obsessive, malevolent mind. It's not the dictionary's fault.

He's no Tacitus, but I will say that the many hours I have spent with Tacitus have probably warped my mind. Talk about paranoid and dark!