A Meltdown of Epic Proportions

[_Doctor Scratch]

Act 5: Inching Towards Outer Darkness

When we last left off in our story, Dr. Peterson was insisting (again) that he had no interest in discussing Harmony....

I don't know that you intended to derail a thread, Daniel. I do know that your post was the one that others piggybacked that served to derail the thread and if I am not mistaken (I could be) you continued on the same path.

Hankuna Matata.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

I simply observe that, overwhelmingly, it's people who have other issues with the Church (and, often, those who are altogether alienated from it) who tend to object most vociferously to the Church's closed books, whereas, again, overwhelmingly, those who are committed believers don't seem to object much, if at all.


Actually, I doubt there is much debate here about a fairly good portion of "committed believers" having any objection to it. The whole "mainstream Mormon" being the same thing as the "committed believers" (which we all know, neither label could be qualified, nor is very useful), was a huge side track.

What I have seen happen in this thread is a good description of the "why" Dan's statement is true for the ones with "issues with the Church". Not any real argument that the statement is wrong, but why it is right for the critics side of the equation.

Scottie has proposed the "why" for the committed believers:

Scottie wrote:
In the TBM mind, it goes something like this:
I believe that God WILL NOT allow the church to be led astray. Since the church cannot be led astray, prophets MUST be leading the church. Who better to entrust our finances to than prophets of God??? Why on Earth would I question what they do with our money?? I might as well be questioning God what he does with our money. What a ridiculous thing to say! I would never question God!


What I would like to know is if Dan believes Scottie's explanation of why committed believers have no objections is true.

If we were to start all over and agree that Dan's statement is true (which I actually do), and the critics side has been given as to their why this statement is true, it only leaves Dan to give his why it true … assuming that Scottie's given reason for his side is false.

So, Dan, why is it that it's true?

And with it being true, how does that make it right on the commited believers side of the fence?

For better or worse, DCP--who expressly state that he was "f***ing tired" of (among other things) discussing Harmony--never got around to addressing Timp's question. Instead, he waited to post this dig:

harmony wrote:
That would be Joseph, pontificating again. Like I'm going to believe him?

What a vicious person that Peterson idiot is, for daring to suggest that Harmony isn't a mainstream Mormon.

People in glass houses should not throw rocks.

spurven ten sing wrote:
People in glass houses should not throw rocks.

What glass house am I in? What rock did I throw?

beastie wrote:
in my opinion, the problem wasn't stating that Harmony isn't a mainstream Mormon. The problem was that, instead of discussing the actual topic of church finances, certain posters were trying to discuss Harmony.

Possibly. But, if so, I wasn't one of them.

beastie wrote:
The fact is that the point that the church ought to have transparent finances in a legitimate topic no matter who brings it up.

As, in fact, I've already said.

P: I think you understand just fine. You aren't exactly mainstream either. You are both members of a very fine club (of which I also claim membership).

spurven ten sing wrote:
You aren't exactly mainstream either.

Ridiculous and sophistical nonsense. I'm absolutely mainstream.

I accept and teach every doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I've served as a bishop, for nearly ten years I was on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for the Church, and etc.

Don't try to play silly games.

In response to Dr. Peterson's comment about being on the Gospel Doctrine committee, Timpanogos had this trenchant and blistering observation:

In the podcast you advocated the church providing better historically accurate information in its teaching materials.

Sounds like you have 10 years of being part of the problem.

One is limited in what one can do on that committee. I did what I could do.

I don't see it as being a huge problem, in any case. The Church's teaching materials are accurate.

spurven ten sing wrote:
Adam and Eve? The Noachian flood? tower of Babel? Do you, in fact, take no issue with the list Darth J presents here?:

I take issue with the notion that Darth J is the arbiter of what constitutes mainstream Mormonism and/or central Mormon beliefs.

I can guarantee you that I hold no beliefs that would trouble my bishop, my stake president, the Brethren, or anybody in the BYU administration.

I'm entirely mainstream, and this game of yours is ridiculous.

spurven ten sing wrote:
How old is the Earth, P?

I don't know who "P" is, and will let her answer for herself.

I sense, by the way, that this place is becoming Shades Board II.

["Church materials are accurate"? What a bummer it would be if someone were to really hold him to this assertion...]

Well, it wasn't Darth J who wrote those things as official church doctrine. In fact, I guess you were much closer to that process than he ever could be. I guess you reject them? It is wholly uncontroversial that mainstream members actually believe what the church has taught them. You reject it. Others do as well. These would not be mainstream.

So far, you have shown that you reject wide swathes of doctrine, and your leaders find nothing wrong with that. Good. This is precisely the same as Harmony. If you are mainstream, then so is she. If she isn't, then neither are you.

That's what I meant by glass houses and stones. Doesn't feel nice does it. I see you understood the point.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
.I sense, by the way, that this place is becoming Shades Board II.

No it isn't; not even close. But, there are some who need to conduct themselves a little more civilly from time to time. Hyperbole and rhetoric (from anyone), while entertaining debate tools, do little to foster understanding [/editorial]

timpanogos, I don't owe you anything, and have no interest in responding to your demands. This isn't an inquisition, and I'm not on trial, and it's none of your business, and you've burned your bridges with me in any case.

timpanogos wrote:
Yes, full circle, Chapel verses Internet Mormon

A bogus and tendentious dichotomy from its first trotting out.

It hasn't improved with age. It just stinks more obviously, and, at this point, has a long history of having been used the way it was always intended to be used, as a weapon with which critics seek to club believers.

timpanogos wrote:
What say ye Dan, Do you take the Bible literally? Does a main stream Mormon take the Bible literally? How about a committed believing Mormon?

Silly questions, of the "have you stopped beating your wife?" or "gotcha!" variety.

Nobody -- including Protestant fundamentalists -- takes every verse in the Bible literally. (Is pi actually 3.00? Does the earth really have four corners?) I take a very high view of its historicity, though.

There is, as I say, nothing that I believe that would concern any Church or University leader.

This is a transparently silly game and an utterly frivolous one, to suggest that there's no significant difference between me and Harmony, or between me and Sp-t-S, as regards our position relative to the Mormon mainstream.

No it isn't; not even close. But, there are some who need to conduct themselves a little more civilly from time to time. Hyperbole and rhetoric (from anyone), while entertaining debate tools, do little to foster understanding [/editorial]

I will take this advice and cool the jets, T. I trust you. BUT, P should not expect free reign to be unchallenged. He should not expect to appoint himself Harmony's judge without comment.

spurven ten sing wrote:
So far, you have shown that you reject wide swathes of doctrine, and your leaders find nothing wrong with that.

Where has this been "shown"?

Enough of the disingenuousness and pseudo-cleverness.

spurven ten sing wrote:
This is precisely the same as Harmony. If you are mainstream, then so is she. If she isn't, then neither are you.

What a ludicrous and intellectually dishonest statement.

spurven ten sing wrote:
That's what I meant by glass houses and stones. Doesn't feel nice does it. I see you understood the point.

It's a lie.

To Be Continued....

[_sock puppet]

I sense, by the way, that this place [thecafeteris] is becoming Shades Board II.

The horror.

[_Darth J]

Ray--

I have it on good authority that Joan of Arc was a space alien.

[_cafe crema]

Ray--

I have it on good authority that Joan of Arc was a space alien.

No, she was a time traveler from the future.

[_Rambo]

wow I kind of agree with Dan.

Harmony, I'm sorry but you are not like most the Mormons I know. I've read the stuff you have said about Joseph Smith and Boyd K Paker and most Mormons would not say that stuff. Even though I agree with you completely.

by the way I was wondering where some of these posters went and why they don't post here as often. It's too bad a lot of them don't join us as much anymore because I really did like reading there posts.

Sorry Liz, I'm not to happy about your board cause it took away a lot of good posters. I know some won't post here at all but some others do. If your board wasn't an option they would be forced to join us. Mahahaha

[_Nightlion]

Our dogma does not equal their dogma. Our dogma is not used to gain leverage over and subjugation of others.

What laughable hypocrisy this last statement is. Same world, same leverage, same subjugation. It is what man does.

True Reality is now a parlor game of GET A CLUE the winner is whomever disparages successfully those dignities of the greatest value. Draw a card and create a tabloid headline and byline to disparage the drawn dignity. A random judge must decide if your disparagement is WORTHY to win the point.

Possible dignities:
God........................................Point value 10
Jesus........................................................10
Holy Ghost...............................................10
Joseph Smith............................................07
Any successful person..............................02
Gandhi.....................................................06
Martin Luther King...................................06
Abraham Lincoln......................................05
George Washington..................................05
Thomas Jefferson.....................................05
A prophet.................................................07
A religion.................................................06
Any famous person..................................01
Pope.........................................................05
An Evangelical minister............................02
A Renaissance men..................................06
A philosopher..........................................03
An Author of note....................................03
A great musician.....................................09
A world changer.....................................07
A sports hero...........................................03
Your neighbor..........................................04
Your parents............................................04
Your friends.............................................04
Your dog..................................................10
Your cat...................................................10
Your son or daughter...............................10

Jude 1:4-16
4 For there are certain amen crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.

[_Drifting]

I think the most appropriate question to ask, with regards to the Neil. A Maxwell Institutes' Director of Outreach is wether this trouble follows him wherever he goes. Or is he in fact the source.

The simplest way to ascertain this is to view each of the threads within which he particpates and log which poster starts the hostility, aggression, personal attack, obfuscation, derailment etc. Guess what?

(You could also question how well/badly his posting style and content reflects on the organization(s) he represents).


Peterson comes across as a sad, tired, lonely man who craves attention even if it's only negative attention that he can get.

If he is fed up of (in his opinion) attracting negatives (mostly properly asked substantial questions from what I've seen) then he need not participate in online forums. It isn't a requirement of his membership in the Church, it isn't a requirement of his position in any of the pseudo-scholarly organizations etc. If he wants to preach the Gospel online he can do so through his column in Deserted News or through FAIR/FARMS or through Mormon Scholars (mostly living) Testify.


He is not required to be active in online forums.
But yet he still chooses to do so - bizarre, wierd.

Methink he doth protest too much.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray--

I have it on good authority that Joan of Arc was a space alien.

And I have it on good authority that she's in a class way above you. Mock on, Darth, and maybe you can summon some decency (for a change), for someone who is way above you head and shoulders, and actually stands for fairness. Really, you are such a pathetic creature, and there's no comparison between you and Joan. If there were more people like her, and less like you, in the world, my hopes would be revived. You're really such a, well, a destroyer of faith. That makes you happy? Fine, carry on, but one day you will be called to account, in ways that you presently cannot even conceive.

My Heroine.

But nevertheless, mock on...

I expect nothing less from this board.

[_Dr. Shades]

I sense, by the way, that this place is becoming Shades Board II.

I taught Liz well.

[_RayAgostini]

I taught Liz well.

And I think now that it is beyond dispute that this board has always had only one purpose in mind - to destroy Mormonism, and any vestiges of faith in Mormonism.

Do you deny that this was your purpose, from the beginning?