DiscussMormonism.com

I was prompted by Beastie's link to the old ZLMB posts to do a bit of digging. Well, actually, I was just sort of nosing around when I stumbled across one of the many luminescent gems in this heap of critic/TBM interaction. This brilliant piece of work is located in the "Roundtable Archives I," in a thread entitled, "Spirits that don't confess Joseph Smith are of the Antichrist." The thread began with a topical (and interesting) inquiry into an old doctrinal chestnut: i.e., what do we do with controversial material which was, ostensibly, delivered while, say, BY was "speaking as a prophet"? In this case, the material cited was this:

Driveby Poster wrote:Here is an example from JOD 8 (dated September 9, 1860) (some or many here may agree that this is doctrinal):

"For unbelievers we will quote from the Scriptures -- 'Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.' Again -- 'Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.' I will now give my scripture -- 'Whosoever confesseth that Joseph Smith was sent of God to reveal the holy Gospel to the children of men, and lay the foundation for gathering Israel, and building up the kingdom of God on the earth, that spirit is of God; and every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist, no matter whether it is found in a pulpit or on a throne, nor how much divinity it may profess, nor what it professes with regard to revealed religion and the account that is given of the Saviour and his Father in the Bible.

(emphasis added)

Perhaps due to the fact that this conversation was taking place clear back in 2002, DCP seems not to have known the proper Mopologetic spin to put on such a dangerous, potentially explosive statement. Dig his reply:

DCP wrote:(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.

Wow! Now, isn't this quite interesting (and timely) given what LDS apologists are saying in the wake of Romney's withdrawal? Pahoran and other defenders often want to claim that LDS never attack anyone else's religion, and yet, here we have Apologist Numero Uno stating pretty plainly that anyone who "reject[s] Joseph Smith" is, in effect, "anti-Christ". Yeeouch! What a controversial thing to say! (Hint: this would make a priceless signature line for somebody.)

A bit later, the indomitable jskains swoops in to acknowledge the truthfulness (or "truthiness"?) or BY's proclamation:

jskains wrote:True, but we don't go around sticking that in people's faces.

JMS

In otherwords, Yes, TBMs believe that anyone who does not accept Joseph Smith is "anti-Christ." Does this sound like a very charitable, Christian stance to you? Read on:

1 | Open wrote:In the real scheme of things, how much better is the arrogant snob who keeps his sense of superiority to himself than the arrogant snob who shares it with the world? Aren't they both arrogant snobs?

DCP wrote:I don't see any arrogant snobbery here.

But I do, yes, think that an arrogant snob who doesn't express her arrogant snobbery by insulting and demeaning those around her is definitely to be preferred to one who gives free rein to unpleasantness.

Um, okay. I guess this means that he's the "better" kind of "arrogant snob," since he doesn't constantly go around accusing non-JS-supporting Christians of being "anti-Christ"? And yet, deep down, he secretly believes that other Christian sects are, indeed, "anti-Christ"? How very troubling....

Here, sr1030 weighs in:

in my opinion, saying someone is "anti-Christ" is a more severe attack than those Evangelicals picketing LDS functions.

DCP continues digging himself deeper with these disparaging remarks:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

sr1030 wrote: How can any intelligent person consider saying someone is "anti-Christ", think that this is any less offensive than saying someone is not a Christian? I can't imagine someone saying that one who is "anti-Christ" is, or could be, considered a "Christian". What definition do you use for "Christian"? I thought I remembered you saying that they were a "follower of Christ".

That's what I said. And I regard Catholics and Protestants and the Orthodox as followers of Christ, though they reject what Christ has had to say since 1820. So they could do much better.

Later, a poster offers up a peculiar insight:

1 | Open wrote:Sorry that I was not quicker to respond, but unlike DCP, I don't get paid to spend time on this board.

As a matter of first impressions, as I am new to the board and have not previously had the DCP experience (including during my time at BYU), I can only conclude that if the tone of DCP on this thread is representative of the tone of his apologetics, I'll go without.

DCP, you seem to really enjoy that chip on your shoulder, whatever it is. Are your outrageous comments simply a means of feeding that chip?

And the response:

Daniel Peterson wrote:Don't I wish.

The venerable mercenary-hack accusation, yet again!

At this point, the thread became a referendum on DCP's posting behavior. Here, again, is 1 | Open:

Just because I find DCP's posts to be objectionable, and have little interest in further dialogue with His Majesty (if he can address me as "Mr. Chips" then I can certainly address him as His Majesty) that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be interested in participating on the board.

Cal: As for personal attacks, point taken. And, to the extent that you object to this post, my further posts will not contain personal attacks.

And Driveby Poster:

Driveby Poster wrote:Gee, I can't remember a single thread on which both Daniel and I have posted where he hasn't managed to come up with some clever nickname for me (i.e., Glib DP, Mistaken DP, or the sarcastic Noble DP). I guess those don't qualify as attacks, huh Cal? Is it a prerequisite to participation on this board that Daniel be deemed to always be a model of genteel behavior?

For the record, though, I am not interested in being without Daniel's apologetics.

Well said. But how do you think the Good Professor took all this?

Daniel Peterson wrote:Gosh golly gee, folks.

"Mistaken DP" and, when that was objected to, "Noble DP" were never intended to be "personal attacks." Sheesh. If I wanted to do personal attacks, which I don't, I would do a heck of a lot better than that sort of thing. They were jokes, for heaven's sake, playing on the fact that both "Driveby Poster" and "Daniel Peterson" have the same initials. Good grief. It was just a way of distinguishing the two when I both quoted Driveby Poster -- whose name I shall always and unfailingly, henceforth, write out in full -- and responded myself.

And the "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" was a reference -- good humored, I thought (but then, I'm manifestly depraved) -- to a film of which I'm particularly fond, as well as not to Open but to . . . myself! Open had just accused me of having a "chip" on my shoulder, etc., etc., and had effectively bid me adieu by saying that s/he could do without my allegedly vicious and obnoxious style. Hence, "Goodbye, Mr. Chips." Again, sheesh!

In the future, I shall endeavor to treat both Driveby Poster and Open with reverence and explicit respect, always acknowledging my unworthiness and the incorrectness of every position I hold, and I shall be extraordinarily solemn. I've always been fond of the advice given by Senator Thomas Corwin to his colleague, the future president William McKinley: "If you would be great, you must be solemn, solemn as an ass. All monuments are built over solemn asses." I shall keep this advice solidly in mind, because I want to be loved.

I'm sure he feels exactly the same way about the various "jokes" made at his expense over on RfM.

Dig this:

Driveby Poster wrote:What a tremendous exercise in satirical irony! Hope you didn't wear your brain out! And by the way, "Arrogant DP" isn't intended as an insult, it's just a humorous way to distinguish the two of us (having the same initials and all).

Boy, I sure found that "humorous"! LOL!

Finally, after this brief, back-and-forth exchange of barbs, ZLMB moderator Cal (a.k.a. "rchivist", a.k.a. "Calmoriah") steps in to perform her duty:

calrobinson wrote:First off, DBP - I am not omnipresent, either in mind or body. Usually something unusual needs to trigger my brain. That this was a first post (name I didn't recognize) and completely devoted to a personal attack was unusual enough to bring me up from the depths. If this was an first post attack on an nonLDS, I would hope I'd respond the same.

Second, there was some lengthy discussion about altering users' names. Some saw them as significant attacks, some didn't. The 'final' conclusion of the moderators was that it was too difficult to create a specific rule that would cover all the conditions and therefore we left it in the hands of the posters to self police.

If this is something that you view as a personal attack, I suggest (with a great deal of emphasis as moderator) that DCP refrain from using it as I do not think it would then fulfill his intended purpose of making a point (whether well done or not depends on one's personal viewpoint on user name alteration) rather than making an attack. Edit: DCP has already agreed to refrain from altering DBP's name in the future so this comment is now out of date

Third, I fully confess that there is undoubtedly some, perhaps even a lot, bias in my reading, if only in how much attention I pay to certain posters and how much I neglect others. And I am undoubtedly sensitive about attacks on certain posters (though DCP isn't one of them) and attacks by certain posters. One of reasons that we have multiple moderators, both LDS and non, is to cover all the bases. However, since I tend to be the most active (by a long shot), my POV is undoubtedly the dominant one. The options are for me either to go spend more time on the beach with the rest of the moderators or for us to find a less lethargic nonLDS moderator who not only wants to post a lot, but isn't particularly controversial (In other words, bland like me.)

As far as DCP being the model of genteel behaviour for the board.....

(emphasis added)

Apparently, this scolding from a moderator was too much for The Good Professor to handle:

DCP wrote:

calrobinson wrote: If this is something that you view as a personal attack, I suggest (with a great deal of emphasis as moderator) that DCP refrain from using it as I do not think it would then fulfill his intended purpose of making a point (whether well done or not depends on one's personal viewpoint on user name alteration) rather than making an attack.

Don't worry. With this, I quit ZLMB. It takes more of my time than it should, and, frankly, I've grown rather tired of the sort of nonsense that's just occurred here.

I wish everybody well.

Well, there you have it. Getting scolded was enough to send DCP packing. Of course, he later re-surfaces using the sockpuppets "LogicChopper" and "FreeThinker," but he did, apparently, flee the scene for a time. If this is not a clear piece of evidence demonstrating DCP's need for biased moderation and heiney-smooching, I don't know what is. (It also shows that he thinks other Christians are "anti-Christ," but, hey, what're you gonna do?) In any case, I just found this to be yet another very interesting piece in the Mopologetic historical puzzle.

Doesn't it bother you to know that DCP spends a lot less time thinking about you, than you do about him?

charity wrote:Doesn't it bother you to know that DCP spends a lot less time thinking about you, than you do about him?

No, not really. After all, I'm not the one with a proven need for biased moderation. Moreover, I am not the one citing *him* in my signature line.

And how would you even know that charity? Your stupid, snobbish comments aren't doing you or the Church any favors.

Does DCP require special treatment?

No, of course not. But he gets it anyway. That's just the nature of Mormon moderated forums. Its hard to fault him for what other moderators do on their own.

The sad thing is they go overboard every time anyone challenges him. Too many DCP related threads get interrupted by the mods, oftentimes closed down if they think Dan is losing a debate. In many ways it seems protecting Dan is like protecting the church. If their most prized intellectual can be proven wrong about some things, then maybe the Church can be wrong too. That's a connection they want to avoid at all costs, so Dan has to appear to be the winner in every discussion. MADB is not about creating an environment conducive to open discussion, so much as it is interested in winning souls and retaining struggling members. It tries to do this by creating the illusion that "anti-Mormon" arguments have no merit. When you run a forum like that, this is an easy task since you can pretty much operate in God-mode and do and edit whatever you want.

dartagnan wrote:And how would you even know that charity? Your stupid, snobbish comments aren't doing you or the Church any favors.

Does DCP require special treatment?

No, of course not. But he gets it anyway. That's just the nature of Mormon moderated forums. Its hard to fault him for what other moderators do on their own.

On the other hand, Kevin, would you say that, on the basis of this Z thread, that it's pretty clear that DCP was sending out the message to mods such as Cal that he expects to be given preferential treatment? I did not include the posts following his "farewell," but many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it were, voiced their disappointment at The Good Professor's decision to flee.

Also, on a sidenote: I notice there is a very distinct testiness concerning the thought that apologists might receive payment for their work. I have to wonder: Why? Why should it be such a bad thing that LDS apologists are paid to defend the Church? Does it really seem much better that they have "free reign" and behave in the fashion they do on the various messageboards? I almost think it would be better, from a PR perspective, if the Mopologists did receive remuneration.

That would require an official acknowledgment that an apologetic effort exists. It would require official endorsement, which would make the Church accountable for its apologetic products.

The Church hates accountability.

It thrives off of its ability to avoid being stuck into a corner and defend a particular position. There is a reason why defining LDS doctrine is like nailing jello to a wall. It was designed for this kind of backpeddling. What is true today, might no longer be true tomorrow. Adam-God, blacks and the priesthood, temple ***** *******, etc. That's what "continuous revelation" is all about. It is a tool to bail the church out when its teachings are proven to be false or no longer acceptable to the general public.

charity wrote:Doesn't it bother you to know that DCP spends a lot less time thinking about you, than you do about him?

It shouldn't bother Him (Scratch) at all, in fact he is sort of a Hero here. How else would we be informed about the most popular Weasels as DCP?
That man and his likes should be exposed every chance anybody gets.
DCP is a coward and runs like one when the heat gets intense in the kitchen.
Wait, that is not worst thing; DCP will not tolerate free speech (for long), that is why he feels so safe in MADD boards because he knows he can count on his
minions and gorditos to silence any freethinking person.
Way to go Scratch, nice research I might add.

A huge myth has just been exploded in this thread, and it has nothing to do with DCP.


"We anti-Mormons and critics are way too noble to engage in ad hominem attacks."

No, of course not! DCP doesn't need biased moderation! Are you crazy?

He only needs it to make it look like he wins debates, or to have the final word. (Oh... that's what you meant, huh?) That's why he lasted no more than a few weeks here.

And it suddenly occurs to me that charity, of all people, is a bigger person than DCP, if only because she has the stones to hang out with us heathens. Way to go, charity! I may disagree with most of what you say and your style of argument, but I honestly do respect your tenacity.

dartagnan wrote: Too many DCP related threads get interrupted by the mods, oftentimes closed down if they think Dan is losing a debate. In many ways it seems protecting Dan is like protecting the church.

You've distilled this to its essence here, Kevin. As odd as it might seen, DCP really is seen as synonymous with Defense of the Faith. He has his own orbit. People like Bill Hamblin are satellites.

Run of the mill LDS faithful need people like Daniel Peterson to exist. If he gets knocked out of orbit, it alters their whole sense of reality.

I'm surprised Daniel Peterson doesn't have his own website, his own blog, where he could put all this stuff and nonsense out without confrontation. But then I'm reminded, he needs sparring partners, which is why FAIR/MADB provides them occasionally for his amusement.

In truth, all of this is just a front for his real life, which eludes the most ardent of admirers.