DiscussMormonism.com

"Emeritus" status certainly has its perks. It affords one the opportunity for deep reflection, and it opens up new avenues for reflection. Perhaps most importantly, it frees up a great deal of time whereby one can pursue more in-depth projects.

As many here are aware, our beloved fellow-poster and moderator Liz embarked on a fresh, new project of her own this past summer as she launched a "new and improved" messageboard called "The Cafeteria." This board, according to its founder and Head Administrator, was meant to be a place where "NOMs" could discuss Mormon-related issues without the "free-wheeling" atmosphere that often defines MDB, and without the stultifying and draconian moderating that characterizes the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board. Though there was some controversy surrounding the launch of the site, and there were questions about its ostensible purpose, the board appeared to be well on its way to firmly establishing itself in the online Mormon landscape. Of course, this board was and is "by invitation only," and after its existence was made known here on MDB, Liz swiftly yanked it away from public view.

In spite of these controversies, the participants--which included people like Beastie, Scottie, Ttribe, Harmony, The Nehor, and Dr. Peterson--praised the board, and continued to hold high hopes for its success. Certainly, Liz launched it with the optimism of a wide-eyed school girl.

The trouble is that wide-eyed school girls can also be naïve, and the naïvété in this case seems to have been Liz's assumption that Daniel Peterson would refrain from turning the board into an echo chamber for his own relentless, unflagging and freakish obsessions. Indeed, dear readers: you have been missing what can only be described as a meltdown of titanic scale. Dan Peterson has blown his top in a way that could only have happened within the confines of the faux privacy proffered by The Cafeteria. So on that note, Liz: we salute you.

Now on to the nitty gritty. Readers here are surely well aware of the fact that Will Schryver and DCP were utterly incensed over the signature line that I only recently deleted. It was this, apparently, that provided a critical spark in Dan's descent into self-centered lunacy, and the resultant backlash from The Cafeteria community. So on we go with the drama:

[Note: due to the lengthiness of the threads in question, I'm not going to bother delineating each and every quote. I think it should be clear who is saying what on the basis of the dialogue tags and the context.]

Act 1: The Turn of the Schryver

DCP wrote:I hadn't known that "sock puppet" was "Nimrod" until just now. (I don't care much, either, truth be told.)

What a weird place that is.

It features at least three current threads devoted to Will Schryver, too. He hasn't posted there for many months, yet the obsession plainly continues.

Bizarre.

Ray A wrote:Ahem. I was actually the one who "outed" Nimrod some time ago. He at first denied it, but eventually took it like a good sport. Nothing surreptitious there on my part. There was "guessing thread" about who SP is, and after long checks of the archives I noticed distinctive similarities between SP's posts and Nimrod's posts.

Now if I could only find out who Scratch is. Wink

MsJack wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:
It features at least three current threads devoted to Will Schryver, too. He hasn't posted there for many months, yet the obsession plainly continues.

I'm not denying that William gets threads at MDB dedicated to him that hardly need to exist, but in this case, he posted at MDB (via Droopy) one week ago:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20665&p=509164#p509164

Beastie wrote:Given that Will (bizarrely) accused posters at MD of engaging in a conspiracy against him, I think the posters at MD have every right to discuss Will.

DCP wrote:I'm a libertarian.

I've never suggested that they don't have a right to "discuss" Will.

They also have the right to discuss Paris Hilton, toothpaste preferences in Borneo, and Lady Gaga.

Beastie wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:
.

I'm a libertarian.

I've never suggested that they don't have a right to "discuss" Will.

They also have the right to discuss Paris Hilton, toothpaste preferences in Borneo, and Lady Gaga.


I'm sorry I gave you the opportunity to parse my words. I should know by now how carefully I have to phrase things.

Yes, you never stated that they didn't have the "right" to discuss Will. But you said it was "weird" given he hadn't posted there in so long.

It's not weird. Will continues to postulate (strange) ideas about what happened to him on MD. MD posters will inevitably respond and have increased interest in him. There's nothing weird about what's currently going on in regards to the Will threads.

MsJack wrote:It's also not weird that MDB posters would take an interest in his (alleged) upcoming publications given that he was beating the drum about them and how great they were going to be over on MDB for years.

But there have been plenty of times when I have clicked on MDB, rolled my eyes and thought to myself, "Not another William Schryver thread . . . "

DCP wrote:beastie wrote:
There's nothing weird about what's currently going on in regards to the Will threads.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I find the fixation on Will Schryver there quite weird.

And it's not as if, otherwise, that board is a place of chastity, civility, restraint, and charity.

What did my mention of Will here have to do with the opening post? It's simple, and I'll outline my fascinatiing chain of associations for you:

The opening post called attention to the on-going hostile obsession among some there with certain people who no longer post there. Ttribe, in particular. I followed his link, verified the on-going hostile obsession with him, recalled the analogous on-going hostile obsession of some there with me, and then, while there, noticed evidence of a similar on-going hostile obsession with Will Schryver.

The common element is on-going hostile obsession with certain individuals who no longer post there. (In case that wasn't obvious.)

[Note: TTribe was claiming rather aggressively that Sock Puppet "hates" him and views him as little more than a "cockroach" due to some mix-up involving a U2 concert. As to why Elder Tribe would be complaining about this on a private board---who knows?]

[Note 2: It should be obvious that Dr. Peterson's comments about "on-going hostile obsession" are both remarkable and hypocritical, given, well, his own comments.]

Beastie wrote:So it's not weird that Will posts about some MD "conspiracy", and links to MD (If I recall correctly, on a different thread, I'm too tired to check). But it's weird that MD posters respond back.

Ok.

DCP wrote:beastie wrote:
So it's not weird that Will posts about some MD "conspiracy",

Not particularly.

beastie wrote:
But it's weird that MD posters respond back.

You think that's what they're doing? And have been doing for months and months?

I find it perfectly bizarre.

He seems to be one of the biggest stories any of them have ever encountered. Worth endless rehashing and retelling.

http://www.online-literature.com/coleridge/646/

MsJack wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:
beastie wrote:
So it's not weird that Will posts about some MD "conspiracy",

Not particularly.

Damn straight, beastie. There's absolutely nothing weird about eccentric charges of conspiracy against members of message boards you haven't participated on for months based on no evidence whatever.

Speaking of which, it seems I've been effectively banned from the ironically-named "Mormon Dialogue & Discussion" forum. When I try to post there now, I get a message that says, "This post must be approved by a moderator before this post will appear." Last week I attempted to post there and my post has yet to appear.

I have not posted on MDDB since June, and I never received notice of disciplinary action of any kind, so I'm left to conclude that my banning was the result of an elaborate conspiracy against me during my hiatus from the board.

DCP wrote:Ms. Jack wrote:
Damn straight, beastie. There's absolutely nothing weird about eccentric charges of conspiracy against members of message boards you haven't participated on for months based on no evidence whatever.

I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying, to some extent.

But it's not important.

And I don't agree with him on the matter anyway, so I feel no need to defend him on it, and no strong need to talk about it much.

I certainly don't want to spend a lot of time going back and forth on l'affaire Schryver. It didn't interest me then, and it doesn't interest me now.

[Note: And yet, as was pointed out, it was Dan who brought up Schryver in the first place. This strange flip-flopping--i.e., this raising of issues and subjects only to turn around and declare that he's "bored" with what he himself started--will figure prominently in this "Meltdown."]

Act 2: "Stabbed in the Back"

At one point, to the bafflement of The Cafeteria community, Ray A made a very strange announcement (I'm guessing it was the result of a private communication of some kind):

Ray A wrote:Well, I think it's good night from DCP. I sincerely hope I'm 100% wrong, but I doubt it. Scottie claimed that he (DCP) was "among friends", but once again, he got stabbed in the back for expressing his honest opinions. I'm only too familiar with this sort of treatment on some Mormon boards, and it was the last thing I expected here.

And, it's good night from me...

Beastie wrote:Hunh? Did I miss something? Where did he get stabbed in the back here?

Harmony wrote:I think Ray is projecting.

Beastie wrote:I don't know if Ray is projecting, but I honestly don't understand where DCP was stabbed in the back. He expressed his honest opinion and others honestly disagreed with that opinion. If that feels like being stabbed in the back to DCP or Ray, that seems an extreme reaction.

MsJack wrote:Seriously, wut?

Ray A wrote:Ask Liz to publicly comment on the the PM's I sent her.

[SNIP!]

Ask Liz for the full story, which I explained to her by PM. He was basically censured for expressing his honest opinion of harmony.

[Note: At this point, we finally get clarification from the Poster-Moderator known as "Chickdeario"]:

chickdeario wrote:If you are referring to the financial thread, he wasn't censured. He was asked to stay on topic.

Further, he was invited by harmony herself to begin a new thread with her and his opinion of her as the topic.

Ray A wrote:Chickdeario wrote:

If you are referring to the financial thread, he wasn't censured. He was asked to stay on topic....

No one was censured and I dislike the misrepresentation of what took place.


Tell me where you disagree with anything I sent in this PM to Liz:

Quote:
Perhaps the better word would be “censure”: “an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members.”

To my knowledge, this is the first time, at least the first time I’ve seen her ask a poster to stay on topic. Granted, I don’t read every thread, and maybe I missed former “requests”. The most obvious factor here is a conflict of interest. Her first “joke” was a flippant remark about banning DCP. That was half-serious, but it’s also a realistic indication about how she feels about Dan. I’m quite sure the feeling is mutual between them. Dan does not like her online persona at all, and has said he’d rather not interact with her. You should be able to see this very clearly, Liz. Just in case you missed it, here is my post about what happened to me on MADB with LoaP/Hermes:

http://www.phpbbplanet.com/faithfulnomc ... omcom#2577

I’m not suggesting that Jersey Girl went that far, obviously not, but Dan may possibly have seen this as an indication of things to come, the beginning of further “requests”, which is a form of moderator control of the discussion. In view of Dan’s and harmony’s nine year “love fest”, that was unnecessary. I’m quite sure harmony can look after herself without “moderator help”. By the way... [If Asty,] or you, had made the call on Dan, I would not have had a problem.


And here was Liz's thread comment:

Quote:
However, I would like to ask Dan this question:

You say that Harmony's point is not worth pursuing because she is an "unconventional" or "non-mainstream" Mormon.

Why is that the case? Would Harmony's point be any more valid if it was brought up, by say, Nehor, or one of your colleagues who you find to be more "conventional"?

I think that her topic is still worth discussion.

You say, Dan, that the Church does not need to be transparent to its members in its financial dealings because it is unimportant to God. Is there a scriptural reference you are referring to which can back this assertion?

And, what principle do you think inspired these other Christian churches to publicly reveal their financial holdings as a standard practice?
(Emphasis added).

But you killed it, stone dead.

So Liz wanted the discussion to continue, including the questioning of harmony's motives questioned by DCP. She wanted to explore this reasoning more (to try to understand it). And that's what message boards are about, Jersey Girl. Not moderators stepping in and saying "stay on topic". Dan had very valid questions about harmony's allegiance to Mormonism, and thus her interpretations of Mormonism. That's not "allowed"? Harmony then made the classic comparison that what ever "sock puppet" said about Mormonism, is as valid as what anyone else, including defenders, said about Mormonism. Really? LOL. Is an apostate of any hue going to give an objective report about Mormonism? Harm seems to think so.

chickdeario wrote:I sent a direct request to Liz to take me off mod status. I'm not willing to spend time on things like this.

I'll do no further moderating (not that there is much to moderate on this board) until she removes the mod keys.

Feel free to derail any threads y'all like in favor of personal attack until this place resembles MDB.

That's why I made the request, Ray, it had not a thing to do with DCP personally. Nor did the same request I made to As. It had to do with preserving the integrity of Liz's goals for this board.

I've never made a mod call on this board or MDB that was motivated by personal bias and I won't spend more time defending myself against it.


Given the fact that I made the same request to As and that you've totally ignored it in favor of taking exception to the request to DCP, you've now succeeded in reinforcing the claims of others that DCP requires special protection.

Enjoy.

Ray A wrote:Chickdeario wrote:
.... visions for the board.

Which is why my request to him ended with "Geez...

I'm not playing this game with you, Ray, and I don't appreciate the swipes at my integrity.

Goodnight or whatever.


What "visions". To take generous swipes at DCP's personal integrity, motivations, and accusing him of not understanding working class people? Of being a "high brow" academic "out of touch with reality", and insulting, defaming, condemning, and lambasting the Church he loves and belongs to, and has given his whole life to?

You need some "priority reorganisation", Jersey Girl. it's okay to give harmony a free pass to say whatever she wants about the things DCP holds sacred, but when DCP returns the personal questions, it's "stay on topic!", and "on topic" is harmony's incessant criticism and degradation of the Church she claims "allegiance" to.

My, what a "game".

Beastie wrote:I have very little interest in the church's finances, so hadn't even read the thread. Unless there is some other thread in discussion here, I concur with chick and harmony. Dan's comments were clearly a diversionary tactic. If that is all that happened to make him want to say "good night" to this board, then his skin is just too thin for internet boards. Period.

Of course, if something terrible occurred on some other thread, I will amend my opinion.

Dan is in a position of influence and power in real life. That tends to lead to one living in a protective bubble, surrounded by yes people. I don't know if that's the case with Dan in real life, but if it is, it could explain why he, at times, just doesn't appear to be equipped to deal with the rough and tumble of internet board discussion. [...] I'm just talking about this example, and, If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. I think knowing that Dan has the tendency to take quick offense and threaten to leave is why the MAD mods developed the tendency to tiptoe around him.

I don't have any vested interest in Dan staying or leaving this board. But I won't tiptoe around a poster, either. He was off topic. He was diverting the thread in a way that seemed quite deliberate. He wanted to turn the thread into a referendum on Harmony rather than discuss the topic. If I were a mod, I would have cautioned him as well.

Instances like this is exactly why I would never be a mod on a board ever again. Never.

chickdeario wrote:I don't play games, Ray. I have no reason to play them on these boards. I despise board politics and largely stay out of the feuds. Contrary to what you seem to believe, Daniel Peterson isn't central to my experience on this or any other board.

A simple request to stay on topic is just that.

If a moderator cannot request that Daniel Peterson stay on topic when his remarks served as catalyst for a shift from topic to poster, without this becoming some sort of high level controversy, then the problem is not with the moderator.

What your statements here serve to do is to reinforce that assumption that Daniel Peterson requires special handling on the boards and in essence, you do him no favors when you raise the flag of controversy over a simple request to stay on topic.

timanogos wrote:Great, more sycophant activity, one of these days our worlds are all going to end, when the great and mighty one moves on.

At last, Liz surfaces to try and smooth out this matter:

liz wrote:OK, people..

I finally caught up on all of the threads in question.

First of all, THANK YOU, Asty and Chick, for all of your hard work. It has been a crazy week and a half for me, and I haven't been on the boards that much.

As I stated in my response on the other thread, and also in more detail with Ray in PM, I did not find anything wrong with Chick's call. Dan DID veer off topic. There was no censure...no posts removed...nothing even split. Just a polite reminder to stay on topic...period.

Chick actually differred to me as to whether or not anything should be split. I chose not to do it because I didn't want to ruin thread continuity. Also, Harmony, the thread starter, indicated that she was fine with the thread remaining intact, since she understands how much of a pain it is to split threads. Wink

As I explained to Ray, I like Dan very much. But then again, I like EVERYONE here! This board is kind of a "dream team" of posters, as far as I'm concerned. You wouldn't have been invited to post here if you weren't my friend to begin with.

Based on the fact that we don't have the calibre of negativity that exists on other boards due to the "invitation only" atmosphere, Dan's celebrity isn't as much of an issue, and I think that, overall, he feels much freer in being able to post here. Along with that freedom also comes respect. I am not going to treat Dan any differently than I would treat any of my other friends on this board.

I think it is a disservice to him to tiptoe around him. I have a lot of respect for Dan, and for his knowledge of the gospel. I think that there is a lot we can learn from him.

But I also acknowledge the "love/hate" relationship that he and Harmony have had since Z. I really try and keep a "hands off" approach to their conversations unless it just escalates to the extreme.

I appreciate Ray's concern about the future of the board, and I do hope that Dan continues to participate here. However, if a gentle reminder to remain on topic is going to be enough to set him off, then, as Chick indicated earlier, I think he may need to rethink participating on ANY forum. I wouldn't take offense if someone politely asked me to stay on topic on their forum, and, I honestly don't think that Dan is enough of a primma donna to be offended either.

Dan has sent me no private correspondence, or given any type of indication to me that he had plans to leave the board due to Chick's comment. I think that Dan's only reason for waning participation here would be due to time constraints.

So, Chick...I hope that you will consider remaining a Mod here. If you choose to step down, I will accommodate you, but I really do appreciate your help, and I hope that you will stay.

Ray, I do consider you an online friend, and I hope that everyone can get past this iincident. I appreciate your concern for the board, and enjoy your participation here as well.

Act 3: The Meltdown Begins

With this series of incidents in place, it was clearly only a matter of time before His Highness began to erupt in earnest. Naturally, it was a comment from Beastie that set him down this dark path:

DCP wrote:beastie wrote:
Dan is in a position of influence and power in real life. That tends to lead to one living in a protective bubble, surrounded by yes people. I don't know if that's the case with Dan in real life, but if it is, it could explain why he, at times, just doesn't appear to be equipped to deal with the rough and tumble of internet board discussion.

LOL.

Read through the reader comments on any randomly chosen week of my Deseret News column. Look me up on Infymus's Website. Do a search for my name on the so-called Recovery board. Look in on the Shades/Scratch board, three months or so after I've stopped participating on it. Etc., etc., etc.

Yup. I'm just unaccustomed to being criticized on line. This was a first for me.

beastie wrote:
I think knowing that Dan has the tendency to take quick offense

ROTFL.

If that were even close to true, I would have been dead years ago.

beastie wrote:
He was diverting the thread in a way that seemed quite deliberate.

No, he was not.

beastie wrote:
He wanted to turn the thread into a referendum on Harmony rather than discuss the topic.

Flatly false.

Zzzzzzzzzz. I'm so unbelievably, inexpressibly, unutterably tired of being the topic.

timpanogos wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:
No, as a matter of fact I didn't.

What is amazing is that even when you are caught in the act ... you will continue to deny it until the cows come home.

that is what gets Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

DCP wrote:Just go back to sleep, then.

Ignore my posts, and I'll ignore yours.

I expect we'll both be happier.

I'm sorry that you can't understand or follow my point.

I wish I could help you.

But I'm much less sympathetic to your fantastic notion that your inability to grasp it somehow puts you in a position of moral superiority.

timpanogos wrote:Somehow I don't think I'm alone in this fantastic notion/observation that Dan can just never be wrong.

I have no need to ignore your posting, feel free to ignore mine if you must.

...And so the stage is set. This individual--the valiant Timpanogos--will play an increasingly important role in this Greek Tragedy of a meltdown...

Stay tuned!

To Be Continued....

Scratch wasn’t invited, and that’s very probably the main reason for this thread. I’m sure most here will blindly accept Scratch’s “take” on all of this, but nevertheless….

Incidentally, Doctor, when you quote someone in a sig.line, you have a duty of disclosure with, at least, ellipses…

For example:

Doctor Scratch wrote:"A loaded pistol is very dangerous when it's aimed at your head."-Daniel C. Peterson, MDB, 4/13/09

The full context of this quote:

Daniel Peterson wrote:As of this afternoon, GoodK has declared his intention to sue me, with the express (and expressed) goal of financially destroying me, my wife, and my family.

This came as quite a surprise to me, frankly, but, in light of his threat, it seems inadvisable to participate here on MDB any more. I don't take the prospect of losing my house and my life savings lightly, even if it's somewhat remote. A loaded pistol is very dangerous when it's aimed at your head, whether the person holding it is an experienced gunman or a six-year-old child.

So this time it's absolutely for real, because essentially coerced.

I know that even the most baseless and frivolous lawsuits sometimes succeed, and I understand from personal experience that even a malicious lawsuit that will ultimately be tossed out by the judge "with prejudice" can consume many hours and even days, and a great many lawyers' fees, over the course of two or more years. I don't think it wise to provide GoodK and a perhaps very aggressive attorney with anything at all that might be used as a weapon against me and my family.

I wish all here the best, including -- very sincerely -- my several vocal detractors. Despite our obvious deep disagreements, I've found Dr. Shades to be fair and reasonable, and there are several others here whom I genuinely appreciate. I can always be reached at daniel_peterson@BYU.edu.

viewtopic.php?p=233390#p233390

So, who here believes that Scratch was fair in the way he used this DCP quote?

RayAgostini wrote:Scratch wasn’t invited, and that’s very probably the main reason for this thread. I’m sure most here will blindly accept Scratch’s “take” on all of this, but nevertheless….

Incidentally, Doctor, when you quote someone in a sig.line, you have a duty of disclosure with, at least, ellipses…

For example:

Doctor Scratch wrote:"A loaded pistol is very dangerous when it's aimed at your head."-Daniel C. Peterson, MDB, 4/13/09

The full context of this quote:

Daniel Peterson wrote:As of this afternoon, GoodK has declared his intention to sue me, with the express (and expressed) goal of financially destroying me, my wife, and my family.

This came as quite a surprise to me, frankly, but, in light of his threat, it seems inadvisable to participate here on MDB any more. I don't take the prospect of losing my house and my life savings lightly, even if it's somewhat remote. A loaded pistol is very dangerous when it's aimed at your head, whether the person holding it is an experienced gunman or a six-year-old child.

So this time it's absolutely for real, because essentially coerced.

I know that even the most baseless and frivolous lawsuits sometimes succeed, and I understand from personal experience that even a malicious lawsuit that will ultimately be tossed out by the judge "with prejudice" can consume many hours and even days, and a great many lawyers' fees, over the course of two or more years. I don't think it wise to provide GoodK and a perhaps very aggressive attorney with anything at all that might be used as a weapon against me and my family.

I wish all here the best, including -- very sincerely -- my several vocal detractors. Despite our obvious deep disagreements, I've found Dr. Shades to be fair and reasonable, and there are several others here whom I genuinely appreciate. I can always be reached at daniel_peterson@BYU.edu.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 90#p233390

So, who here believes that Scratch was fair in the way he used this DCP quote?

Ray, what point do you think Dr Scratch made with his use of the quote that is contrary to what you think its context provides?

sock puppet wrote:Ray, what point do you think Dr Scratch made with his use of the quote that is contrary to what you think its context provides?

It provides a false impression, deliberately so to portray DCP as a "violent man", and possibly "sociopathic". These are the sort of slogans that were used in Nazi Germany to, "win the masses".

Our Story Continues...

Act 4: A Good Scottie is Hard to Find

Not surprisingly, our dear friend and moderator Scottie interjected into the conversation, in this case siding with Dr. Peterson:

Scottie wrote:I read that thread and from what I can gather, Dan did not flat out attack Harmony on her faith. Threads have a life of their own. They rarely stay on topic. This one veered into discussion of whether Harmony would be considered mainstream Mormon or not. It was very much a 2 way conversation. It went something like this (to paraphrase)...

DCP: "Only critics seem to have a problem with church finances" <- COMPLETELY on topic
Harmony: "Well, I'm a mainstream Mormon and I have a problem!"
DCP: "You aren't mainstream..."
Harmony: "Yes I am!"
...

So, I don't see where DCP attacked Harmony's faith as much as he defended his point.

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:Think of it like this.

harmony: I have a problem with church finances.
DCP: Only jackasses seem to have a problem with church finances.
harmony: HEY!

You see what happened there? P affixed a pejorative to the idea (being faithless or unbelieving is an insult to those who are faithful and believing). It was both an attack an a diversion. Just replace one insult with another. P was right to be corrected. Harmony is a card carrying, believing, committed, and faithful longtime member. That she doesn't measure up to P's hypocritical "faith bar" is off topic.

Scottie wrote:I don't see it like that. I don't believe DCP was using critic as a perjorative in this case. It was an observation. An observation that I happen to agree with.

It seems that VERY few believing members have any problem what-so-ever with how the brethren spend the money, and whether or not there is any transparancy. For the most part, Harmony excluded, critics ARE the ones that are asking for the books to be opened.

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!

That isn't to say critics (Harmony excluded) are wrong for asking for financial transparancy. It seems shady to keep the books closed. If I were a legislator, I would make it law that non-profit organizations should be 100% accountable for their finances.

This next post represents what may very well be the first definitive indicator of Dan's internal emotional state. Notice his use of profanity:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:Thank you, Scottie. You get it.

I might quibble with this or that, but you've got it essentially right.

I'm really, really sorry that the Peterson-is-evil meme seems to have lodged itself here on this board now, too, and that my alleged psychological defects, character flaws, and dysfunctional personality -- e.g., my arrogance, my maliciousness, my cruelty -- are apparently going to be recurrent themes for one or two posters.

I'm not threatening anything nor making any vows, but I'm so @#$%*@# sick of having to deal with such nonsense that, well, it does tend to kill my interest in posting on this board. Freedom from that was this place's principal attraction to me.

The cost-benefit ratio is looking worse and worse.

(emphasis added)

So, with whom does the responsibility lie, one wonders? This "nonsense" seems to follow him wherever he goes. Why might that be? Could this possibly get any worse, or will someone at last step forward with some common sense?

Scottie wrote:The flip side of this coin is that you did seem to go a bit overboard on trying to make the point that since Harmony's views don't toe the party line, she shouldn't be counted as a traditional Mormon, and therefore shouldn't have a voice in such things.

I think this is where the alleged perception of attacking Harmony came into play. You weren't content to let Harmony be counted among "typical Mormons"... whatever that means... because, from what I read, she dares to disagree with the brethren.

If I have misrepresented what you intended, please feel free to correct me, but this is the way it came across to me in that thread.

DCP wrote:I absolutely never said that she shouldn't have a voice.

I didn't imply that, and I don't think it.

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:

DCP wrote:I'm not threatening anything nor making any vows, but I'm so @#$%*@# sick of having to deal with such nonsense that, well, it does tend to kill my interest in posting on this board. Freedom from that was this place's principal attraction to me.

The cost-benefit ratio is looking worse and worse.

I did not at any time call or imply you were evil.
I did not at any time call or imply you had psychological defects.
I did not at any time call or imply you had character flaws.
I did not at any time call or imply you had a dysfunctional personality.
I did not at any time call or imply you were arrogant.
I did not at any time call or imply you were malicious.
I did not at any time call or imply you were cruel.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was pointing out how I felt you were personally attacking harmony in a derail. I also felt your judgment of her was hypocritical. Try responding to what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote.

You call folks out on their BS and we like you for that. Allow others the same honor.

I swear I will do my absolute best to not insult anyone personally, and if anyone points out where I mess up, I will immediately apologize.

DCP wrote:Hypocrisy is evil, and a character flaw.

Irrelevant personal attacks are evil, and reflect a flawed character.

There was no need, on my part, to put words in your mouth.

Moreover, not everything is about you.

Timpanogos, who has spent a considerable portion of his time on this message board complaining about me, says that I refuse to admit mistakes, that I claim always to be right. (Most here, I guess, devote the majority of their posts to announcing that they're wrong?)

That would appear to me to be a character flaw, if true, and perhaps reflective of a psychological defect or a dysfunctional personality. Certainly it would be arrogant.

Timpanogos has also written about my uncaring personality and my elitism because I didn't respond to him on his schedule, etc.

This is wearisome stuff, and I don't need it. I've been putting up with it for years -- always on line, virtually always from critics, never in real life, never from people who actually know me -- and I've had just about enough of it. I'm losing what little taste I have left for message boards.

On another thread -- one on which I've accepted the invitation to stay away -- timpanogos, who very much likes to post about me, has taunted me for vowing to leave because I'm afraid of "disagreement."

I'm not, actually, threatening to leave, though I may simply stop coming from sheer weariness and lack of interest.

And no, disagreement is not the problem. (Perhaps he hasn't noticed, but "disagreement" is my element. He's not even a blip on my radar as far as "disagreement" goes.)

I'll say it again. Perhaps if he reads it enough times, he'll get the point: I'm tired of being the topic, myself. I'm tired of the personal criticisms from people who don't know me at all.

I wouldn't put up with such drivel in real life. I can't think of any real reason to keep coming back to a message board where it's a significant feature.

Spurven wrote:Your claim was hypocritical, I didn't claim you are, as a person, hypocritical. Period.

Irrelevant personal attacks aren't evil things, they are logical fallacies, but even if they were, I did not claim that you were evil.

You misread me. Perhaps you have also misread Timp?

DCP wrote:Right.

But, of course, I never made an irrelevant personal attack in the first place.

Speaking of misreading.

What a pathetic waste of time. Yet again.

Scottie wrote:Maybe you don't think you personally attacked Harmony, but you sure tried hard to defend the point that she is not a typical Mormon.

She seemed to take offense to that and provided examples that show her as a member in good standing, yet you STILL persisted that she was not a typical Mormon.

I believe that this is something akin to calling someone fat. It may very well be a fact, but still, if you call someone fat and they tell you that they are just big boned, do you continue to harp on them that they are, indeed, fat?

If someone says they are a member in good standing and you say, "Sure you are. And I'm a leprechaun", you really think this isn't attacking??

DCP wrote:Scottie wrote:
Maybe you don't think you personally attacked Harmony, but you sure tried hard to defend the point that she is not a typical Mormon.

Perhaps three brief replies.

The current idiocy has gone on far longer.

And she's simply NOT "a typical Mormon." That's beyond reasonable dispute, and neither an insult nor an attack.

harmony wrote:Perhaps it would be helpful to figure out what a "typical Mormon" is.

Some possible factors:

1. pays tithing and other donations
2. holds and performs all duties associated with callings
3. holds a temple recommend
4. attends church
5. sustains leaders

What else?

timpanogos wrote:I remember how gung ho - iron rod my old world view was. If you were not super orthodox and a staunch republican you were not a "mainstream Mormon" and had no chance of Exaltation in the Celestial kingdom. You might make the Celestial, but there was something basically wrong with you.

Well, you know all the old high priests jokes about them sleeping through church. It wasn't until a few years back, upon being exposed to conversations with the likes of self labeled; cafeteria, cultural, nom, etc. Mormon's, that I wondered about several I know.

I believe more members than we may know have been silent - non-mainstream (in Dan's view) Mormons for many years. Remaining silent for the age old reasons of, family work/community/fear etc.

I assume Dan's definition of "main stream" must include an unquestioning believing in the truth claims of the church. It would be fascinating to know that actual percentage of members of a Heber ward (many generations, same family names, traditionally uber orthodox) that still have no questions about the absolute truth claims of the church.

Might well be much lower than I ever realized.

harmony wrote:Judging by the evidence, answering and passing the TRI questions and holding a temple recommend aren't enough to be "mainstream"? That a temple recommend isn't a good indicator of Mormonness?

If an "unquestioning" belief in the truth claims of the church is required, then such Saints as Sunstone magazine subscriber Uncle Jim are not "mainstream", even though he is a veil worker. And his Relief Society president wife, Ann, who doesn't like the temple at all, isn't mainstream either. Or Bishop and High Councilman Grandpa, who voted Democrat in every election until the day he died, wasn't mainstream either. Or Bishop Uncle Dave, who was known to swear from the pulpit during times of political pressure from Salt Lake City, wasn't mainstream either.

These people thought for themselves. They trusted their personal inspiration. Thinking people don't do "unquestioning" well. If the church wants only drones and sheep, then no... I am not mainstream. If all those people mentioned above, who I have known and loved for over 40 years, who are or were stalwart members of their wards and stakes, who are generations deep in the church, aren't good enough to be "mainstream", then I'm in good company.

DCP wrote:Scottie wrote:
All this BS about critics not having a right to ask for financial transparancy of the church is ridiculous.

Just out of mild and rapidly fading curiosity: Is this sentence supposed to be a response to my position?

Scottie wrote:Not necessarily. I've only heard you say that critics are the ones that always bring it up. I've not seen you say that we are wrong for bringing it up. At least not directly.

But, I guess I'll flat out ask you. Do you believe that we are wrong for bringing it up? Should I have a right to request that I know where my $150/month is going?

DCP wrote:"Not necessarily"?

As in never. And as in not at all. Not even close.

I'm a libertarian. Of course you have that right.

And I have no difficulty whatever in understanding the objection or concern.

But I also think that the Church has the right to keep its books secret, and I think I can guess some of its reasons for doing so.

And people have the right to draw whatever conclusions they wish from the Church's policy, and to react to it anyway they wish.

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. You and your wife are, in that sense, perfect illustrations of my point.

Scottie wrote:I agree with you, and I think my previous logic as to why members don't question holds true. There is far, far, FAR too much emphasis placed on the infallibility of the present leaders. Sure, apologists do great lip service to how imperfect past leaders have been. But questioning a present leader is discouraged in the church. Hence Harmony being labeled as non-traditional for daring to question the leaders. It doesn't make critics look bad for questioning. It makes believers look bad for NOT questioning.

You seem to allude that it is a virtue that believing members don't question what is done with the money. Most people see that as a vice. That the unquestioning trust and loyalty to the leaders of the church is a bad thing. That perhaps the membership SHOULD be questioning more than they do.

DCP wrote:If lamenting and attacking my three brief posts on Harmony as non-mainstream LDS is going to be a continuing theme on this board, as appears to be the case, I would hope that somebody might make a token effort toward representing them accurately. Still, the straw man is an ancient and venerable fallacy, and it's probably going to remain in fashion.

Scottie wrote:Out of that whole post, THIS is what you choose to comment on???

DCP wrote:Yup.

Is there a requirement, somewhere in the board rules, that obliges me to comment on a specific percentage of a post or on a list of topics decided by others here?

If so, I apologize.

I thought I'd made it clear that I've been over this matter of Church finances with Harmony and others many times before, that I see no point in doing it yet again, that I believe the two opposing opinions stem from fundamentally irreconcilable larger views, and that I have no intention of discussing the topic another pointless time.

If that wasn't clear, permit me to say that I've been over this matter of Church finances with Harmony and others many times before, that I see no point in doing it yet again, that I believe the two opposing opinions stem from fundamentally irreconcilable larger views, and that I have no intention of discussing the topic another pointless time.

At this point, chickdeario resurfaces:

chickdeario wrote:Just for the record, I don't care if you post about harmony as a non-mainstream LDS on this board, like forever. You could create a new topic thread for just that purpose, do it repeatedly and I still wouldn't care.

Apparently, there are many types of LDS including NOM's which is the focal point of this board. I would love to see a thread that discusses the general characteristics of NOM's and even an interview with specific posters who you believe fit that description to see what they believe makes them NOM's.

And the fascinating reply:

Dr. Peterson wrote:But, you see, I have no real interest in further discussing the matter.

Never did. Still don't.

I simply stated an obvious and incontrovertible fact -- which was then denied by certain folks here and depicted, entirely falsely and unjustly, as a personal attack and an attempt to derail the thread.

More To Come....

Hi, Ray. If you want, I can replace it with that Schryver/Wheat quote. Would you like that? Or maybe I could revert back to the one about the assault rifle, and its "glowing" barrel?

ETA: your line of questions is really quite off-topic, no? Perhaps it would be better if this was moved into a different thread?

Doctor Scratch wrote:Hi, Ray. If you want, I can replace it with that Schryver/Wheat quote. Would you like that? Or maybe I could revert back to the one about the assault rifle, and its "glowing" barrel?

Whichever quotes you use, the only thing we can be sure of is that it will be devoid of real context, and a proper examination.

Perhaps you also don't realise, Doctor, that you've actually insulted all of the posters on the Cafeteria, which is a private board. You know, people like to keep their fierce disagreements between themselves (which is why it was private). So, you weren't invited, then how did you gain access to all of this? And why do you feel an "obligation" (?) to make all of this public?

RayAgostini wrote: And why do you feel an "obligation" (?) to make all of this public?

Let me hazard a guess ... because it is mildly amusing?

RayAgostini wrote:
Whichever quotes you use, the only thing we can be sure of is that it will be devoid of real context, and a proper examination.

What, you mean like Dan's use of that Camus quote?