Daniel Peterson Insults and Attacks Dr. Scratch and DrW

[_Bazooka]

Yoda, it would be helpful to know how this thread is being relayed to DCP, or wether he is reading it verbatim for himself.
As his MDB press release officer, perhaps you could clear this up for us?

[_Yoda]

Yoda, it would be helpful to know how this thread is being relayed to DCP, or wether he is reading it verbatim for himself.
As his MDB press release officer, perhaps you could clear this up for us?

Dan is not blocked from reading threads here. He is reading MDB on his own.

[_Bazooka]

Yoda, it would be helpful to know how this thread is being relayed to DCP, or wether he is reading it verbatim for himself.
As his MDB press release officer, perhaps you could clear this up for us?

Dan is not blocked from reading threads here. He is reading MDB on his own.

I get that, I just find it irritating that he uses you to post on his behalf. He needs to man up if he wants to contribute his side of the story.

[Guest]

I am reminded of the immortal words of counsel for the US Army in the Army-McCarthy hearings, Joseph N. Welch:

Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

If I were to put words of reply in the mouth of the awful marvel that is the Internet Retribution Flash Mob, I would have to say, "no."

In China, there is an online phenomenon called Flesh Search. One of the scariest damn things I have ever heard of. So-called "evil doers" are found and harassed until they have lost their jobs, families, etc. The tool that makes this possible is the online forum, one not too different from this forum. Whether the targets deserved to pay a penalty is one question, whether an anonymous mob of online vigilantes is a desirable tool for seeking justice is quite another.

Personally, I don't want an anonymous mob of online vigilantes storming through people's lives like the Night Hunt, leaving disaster in their wake.

Why? We see through a glass darkly, as Paul wisely commented. Unfortunately, we see even more inaccurately through stray documents well over a decade after the fact. Yet as online ghosts with pseudonyms we indulge our lust for righteous retribution freely.

It is a hobby. It is a pastime. One may get tired of it for a while and then return with a renewed appetite to see that perceived wrongs are answered with some form of punishment.

I can understand Tom's critiques of Interpreter articles, wherein he points out small errors, etc. I can understand a continuing discussion of how the defense of Mormonism is conducted by the various people who engage in it now, as they are engaging in it now. And it is not like I don't understand the value of history in providing context for understanding the present.

But, at the same time, what we have seen here is a different thing. Let's just drop it, eh?

This business of using old tax documents to prove someone else a liar as some kind of hobby of public shaming is beneath most everyone here. We are better than that, or, at the very least, I should hope that individually we should desire to be better than that. The jury of human peers needs to be balanced by the hospital of human mercy. Neither group may be infallible, but unless both are in action, the world will be a very ugly place.

Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

[Guest]

Kish, I think the issue is that DCP et al invest a great deal of time in character assassination as a means of apologetically defending the Church.
They should expect to be held to the same level of behaviour scrutiny as they impose on others.

In other words, what is different to Scratch's pursuit of these tax documents and DCP's pursuit of Everybody Wang Chung's Church record? Well, apart from the tax records being in the public domain and the private church records being...well...private?

Someone that vocally claims to have used creepy and secretive illicit means to check into the personal background of others cannot claim 'foul' when someone does it (minus the use of private and persona records) to them. If DCP doesn't want his personal behaviour to be scrutinised, perhaps he and his coven should allow others the same latitude.

[_Runtu]

Against my own good judgment, I'm weighing in again.

From what I gather, the MI covered part of Dan's salary for the work he did in apologetics, which is fair, since his department at BYU can hardly be expected to pick up the tab for work he wasn't doing for the department.

Dan's claim, as far as I can see, is that he doesn't do apologetics to make money and that his work for MI didn't result in his making more money. That seems to be correct.

The way I see it is that it's analogous to how I do my job. I normally work on engineering projects, so my time is billed to engineering teams, who then bill our customers (in this case, a government agency) for that work. Right now, I'm working on improving corporate communications standards and processes (they are a mess, and it's extremely tedious), and my time is recorded with an internal "charge code" that is not billed to our customers but is a simple expense to the company. So, the company would prefer me to work on "billable" projects, rather than this one, but either way, my salary doesn't change, and I can honestly say I'm not doing these corporate projects to make more money.

I just don't see what the big deal is here.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish, I think the issue is that DCP et al invest a great deal of time in character assassination as a means of apologetically defending the Church.

They should expect to be held to the same level of behaviour scrutiny as they impose on others.

Someone that vocally claims to have used creepy and secretive illicit means to check into the personal background of others cannot claim 'foul' when someone does it (minus the use of private and persona records) to them. If DCP doesn't want his personal behaviour to be scrutinised, perhaps he and his coven should allow others the same latitude.

We will be judged by others for what we have done, not for what Daniel Peterson has done. Hounding another person for years on end is not something I want to be known for. At this point, I see no justification for ghoulishly continuing to harass this group of LDS apologists. This is not humane behavior. I wish people would stop and reflect on the recklessness of continuing down such a course.

At some point, one needs to move on.

[_Bazooka]

Against my own good judgment, I'm weighing in again.

From what I gather, the MI covered part of Dan's salary for the work he did in apologetics, which is fair, since his department at BYU can hardly be expected to pick up the tab for work he wasn't doing for the department.

Dan's claim, as far as I can see, is that he doesn't do apologetics to make money and that his work for MI didn't result in his making more money. That seems to be correct.

The way I see it is that it's analogous to how I do my job. I normally work on engineering projects, so my time is billed to engineering teams, who then bill our customers (in this case, a government agency) for that work. Right now, I'm working on improving corporate communications standards and processes (they are a mess, and it's extremely tedious), and my time is recorded with an internal "charge code" that is not billed to our customers but is a simple expense to the company. So, the company would prefer me to work on "billable" projects, rather than this one, but either way, my salary doesn't change, and I can honestly say I'm not doing these corporate projects to make more money.

I just don't see what the big deal is here.

Let me summarise:

DCP "I don't get paid for apologetics"
DCP conducts his apologetics (or used to) through FARMS.
FARMS pays DCP money in return for work he did for them. (It's irrelevant wether or not this was on top of or instead of his standard remuneration. FARMS paid him)

So, the only thing outstanding, for those interested, is to establish what work it was that DCP did for FARMS that was worth $20,000 (a significant portion of his annual remuneration and so it must have been a significant portion of his time that he spent doing it). Any guesses?

In terms of the implications of DCP getting paid by FARMS for apologetics (aside from the personal dishonesty implication), I'm going to defer that to Dr Scratch if he is willing to enlighten us...

[Guest]

Kish, I think the issue is that DCP et al invest a great deal of time in character assassination as a means of apologetically defending the Church.

They should expect to be held to the same level of behaviour scrutiny as they impose on others.

Someone that vocally claims to have used creepy and secretive illicit means to check into the personal background of others cannot claim 'foul' when someone does it (minus the use of private and persona records) to them. If DCP doesn't want his personal behaviour to be scrutinised, perhaps he and his coven should allow others the same latitude.

We will be judged by others for what we have done, not for what Daniel Peterson has done. Hounding another person for years on end is not something I want to be known for. At this point, I see no justification for ghoulishly continuing to harass this group of LDS apologists. This is not humane behavior. I wish people would stop and reflect on the recklessness of continuing down such a course.

At some point, one needs to move on.

You are, of course, morally correct.
So, I defer to your greater humanity and I will now stop contributing to this thread.

[_Kishkumen]

I for one, hope that this so-called enlightening will stop. This is absurd in the extreme. It is wrong.

Just stop.