Could this happen? Airing of grievances & simple apologies?

[_Dr Moore]

Doctor Scratch,

Your first quote reminds me of a question that crosses my mind almost every day, and has done so since 2014.

Is it possible for a person to honestly and sincerely study the church — the gospel, scriptures, history, teachings and doctrine — and arrive at a confirmatory, peaceful conclusion that the foundational claims of Mormonism are mostly false and/or man made?

I think some well meaning individuals, in their zeal (including myself as a young missionary), opt for the black and white answer to this question: of course not! If they’re exMo, it is because they excel at getting things wrong. They simply didn’t look honestly enough. They weren’t sincerely studying. The Lord WILL and DOES confirm to the heart of any and every sincere truth seeker that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the gospel is restored in the church today, and etc etc.

But unfortunately it is becoming increasingly clear that sincere and honest people do leave the church for very good, honest and valid reasons: they sought the truth and found it lacking. It isn’t because they got it wrong. It is precisely because, in their heart, mind and soul they got it all right. And that should be all right with us! We should celebrate people who are brave enough to change when their lived truth leads them to change.

It is unfair and extraordinarily harmful for members of the church to claim that those who leave are somehow duplicitous or false. That simply isn’t true. It’s wrong.

[_fetchface]

I've only had one prayer answered in the way that the LDS church teaches that it should be. I prayed to ask about Joseph's practice of polygamy and I experienced a strong feeling of peace and certainty that what Joseph did was wrong and that I should not follow the LDS church. Now, I think that was generated by my own brain, but what does it say that this is the only answer to a prayer that I have ever received, having spent my entire life in the church?

[_Lemmie]

DCP > Dr Moore, a day ago,

Dr Moore: "Shall we agree that the $10k is in your hands to distribute to worthy causes on fulfillment of the following terms?
1. No derogatory mention of Dr. Shades board, or its members, through end of Feb. 2020. By yourself, and as host of this site, by your good faith effort to moderate such comments by others here.
2. Nothing in the deal limits your range to express conviction on and debate issues of interest."

That's certainly acceptable to me. I will continue to feel free to respond to issues, but I will not mention the Shades board nor anybody on it, not even by means of a nickname for a pseudonym, until at least 1 March 2020.

(Of course, if somebody who posts there says or does something ELSEWHERE that merits comment, that will be a different matter....

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 4601356652

Of course DCP adds an extra condition. Gad warned about exactly that, If I recall correctly.

Dr Moore:

Yes, the challenge does require no negative personal remarks about the MD board or its members.

Peterson has now added the condition that if he reads something somewhere else written by someone he assumes is from MD, he will be commenting. Is that condition what you were expecting, Dr Moore?

For example, DCP regularly assumes the hate mail he receives comes from a member of this board, and he has said hateful things about this board, in the context of that assumption. He will continue to do so, under his extra “condition,” right, Dr Moore?

[_Dr Moore]

We shall see Lemmie. At the end of the day, spirit and letter factor into the outcome!

[_Lemmie]

We shall see Lemmie. At the end of the day, spirit and letter factor into the outcome!

But of course! Idealism is a lovely sentiment, and certainly worthy of effort.

Gadianton:

And so if you go through with this, I would strongly suggest that you hold him to "good faith" moderation of his blog,and have a keen sense IF he tries to beat the system by having the war continued by other means or other parties.

I was wondering, are you planning to donate the money now, or at the end of the 6 months, upon completion of the conditions? Not that it’s any of my business of course, so feel free to ignore or answer that question as you prefer.

[_Gadianton]

We shall see Lemmie. At the end of the day, spirit and letter factor into the outcome!

I agree, and I think it's very likely that you will once again be proven generous, erring on the side of charity towards your fellow man.

But there is an objective element to your wager that I find fascinating: How does policy shape behavior? I think you clearly believe that policy can shape behavior towards good. I'm skeptical. I've been taught that rational agents exploit these arrangements. Example: Steve Levitt in his Freakonomics work explained he'd give a candy to his 3-year-old daughter to use the restroom. The outcome was that his daughter would go a little, get a candy, go a little more, and eventually clean house on candies (and he was an econ Phd at the time). A policy might fail to achieve its aim even though participants act in good faith. For instance, government stimulus spending might happen on the up-and-up but fail to result in economic recovery.

You alone are qualified to determine whether or not the participants meet your terms. However, as a betting man myself, I would like to enter into a gentleman's wager with you: I have 10$ that says Sic et Non as a whole will not appreciably lower its volume of invective towards this board.

Determining whether policy is effective is its own puzzle, and will be a subjective call. I have a plan for making the decision about as fair as it's going to get: For one, it won't depend on your opinion or mine. If you are interested in exploring this wager, I shall write up preliminary terms and conditions for it.

thank you for your consideration. Don't think that 10$ is "nothing" -- I think you can get at least two of those freezy drinks you like from Taco Bell, right? And it would cover a 22 oz. Arrogant Bastard IPA from Stone Brewery for me, with money left over for a gourmet can of chili of my choice.

[_Dr Moore]

Dean Robbers,

I love a good wager. You’re on. How will we measure success or failure?

Really though, I also wonder if the experiment will do anything to raise the personal attack bar.

Not just from there to here, but from here to there too.

It’s amazing to me the level of insight you all produce. There are some wicked smart people here!!

But then this incisive intellect is often wrapped in this or that version of “DCP is a liar” or “DCP is an idiot”. Even if a person is actually both of those things, how is calling them names helpful?

Maybe it’s hopeless because at the end of the day, Mormonism forces everyone to straddle a sword - be on the right side and be truthful or the wrong side and a liar.

[_Gadianton]

Dean Robbers,

I love a good wager. You’re on. How will we measure success or failure?

Really though, I also wonder if the experiment will do anything to raise the personal attack bar.

Not just from there to here, but from here to there too.

It’s amazing to me the level of insight you all produce. There are some wicked smart people here!!

But then this incisive intellect is often wrapped in this or that version of “DCP is a liar” or “DCP is an idiot”. Even if a person is actually both of those things, how is calling them names helpful?

Maybe it’s hopeless because at the end of the day, Mormonism forces everyone to straddle a sword - be on the right side and be truthful or the wrong side and a liar.

Fantastic! I can taste victory already. But the terms must be agreed upon: I shall begin a thread with my proposed terms. You will not be able to immediately accept them as the wager will be contingent on a couple of others volunteering their services; I can't expect the names I initially submit will want to be involved just because I request it, and then you must also agree, but we do have six months; and so plenty of time.

I'm also against name-calling, Dr. Moore. I hope you have not seen these things from me personally, if so, feel free to PM me examples so that I might begin the repentance process.

As far as succeeding at raising the personal attack bar, Dr. Moore, it's for others to make their decisions about how they handle themselves, and good as your intentions might be, you can't just expect such things to happen just because you want them to. Beyond being a voice for what you think is right and finding some level of acceptance for those who aren't going to play ball; not sure what there is to do.

[_Lemmie]

As far as succeeding at raising the personal attack bar, Dr. Moore, it's for others to make their decisions about how they handle themselves, and good as your intentions might be, you can't just expect such things to happen just because you want them to....

Good points, Gadianton. As an example, if DCP continues to plagiarize, I will continue to call him a plagiarizer, for reasons I laid out long, long ago in the long-running plagiarism thread. All I can say here is that when I call him a plagiarizer, it is always based on thorough and irrefutable documentation; hopefully this "name-calling" won't muddy the waters for your analysis.

Mormonism forces everyone to straddle a sword - be on the right side and be truthful or the wrong side and a liar.

Not everything comes down to this. I call Peterson a plagiarizer because he is a plagiarizer. It is dishonest. As a Professor myself, i find it an inexcusable affront to my profession. It has nothing to do with Mormonism.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

But then this incisive intellect is often wrapped in this or that version of “DCP is a liar” or “DCP is an idiot”. Even if a person is actually both of those things, how is calling them names helpful?

Maybe it’s hopeless because at the end of the day, Mormonism forces everyone to straddle a sword - be on the right side and be truthful or the wrong side and a liar.

I would like to echo Professor Lemmie's sentiments, Dr. Moore. I'm not sure how long you've been paying attention to mopologists, mopologia, and the counter-mopologetics movement, but this is an ongoing discussion spanning literal decades. So, a lot of simplistic behavior actually has its roots, deep roots, in this historical exchange. Think of it this way. Someone may look at this:



and come away thinking to themselves, "This is just simple modern art crap. Whatever happened to real art, real talent, real inspiration."

And for someone who may not have a thorough background and history in the visual arts it's understandable. And telling them that the piece above is actually a fundamentally impactful, based-in-a-series-of-art-movements statement about this or that, and is in fact the 11th generation result of and is a distant commentary on this old predecessor piece:



... will most likely be lost on them. So, a lot of simple statements like, "Mr. Peterson is a liar." have decades of documentation of him lying over and over and over again and again. In fact, the statement itself, "Mr. Peterson is a liar." has historical context and has a sort of running understanding on the board.

At the end of the day, your intentions are laudable and I know I personally admire the ethos from which it springs. What you're asking Mr. Peterson to do is so fundamentally impossible, so fundamentally against not only his character, but against decades of ingrained habitual addictive behavior you might might as well expect The Midge to start using proper grammar.

It ain't gonna happen.

- Doc