DiscussMormonism.com

As if it weren't bad enough that Dr. Peterson contributed to the downfall of The Cafeteria, it seems that he's also been sowing discord among readers of the Deseret News:

Midvaliean wrote:"Defending the Faith" is a adversarial title. It makes the tone of this column one of animosity towards others who do not share Mr Peterson's beliefs.
I wish the DMN would stop this column, as it doesn't add to the civility of discourse in our state.

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comment ... eedom.html

Interesting. I'm sure that Dan has always seen this as 'bridge-building' effort on his part (or a means of trying to redeem all the negative, Mopologetic stuff he's done), but I've noticed--along with Midvaliean--that the columns have gotten more "adversarial" in nature. Of course, DCP has dismissed all of this in his usual fashion: even after all the tongue-lashings he got from posters on The Cafeteria, he's still insisting that these comments have nothing whatsoever to do with him:

DCP wrote:I got a chuckle out of the reader's suggestion that my column be dropped because it's full of "animosity" toward non-Mormons and lacks "civility."

Maybe I'm just too depraved to live, too corrupted by spite and hatred even to notice what a monster I've become, but I don't think that yesterday's column showed any animus or was uncivil at all, and I don't think, really, that any of my columns have borne those traits.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/526 ... e__st__180

Perhaps unwittingly, "Scottie Dog" Lloyd re-affirmed the fact that, yes, the article(s) can indeed be seen as being "adversarial":

S. Lloyd wrote:It's a constant, I know, but I'm nevertheless astounded by the hubris of those who seem to have convinced themselves that Mormons should roll over and play dead while others attack the church and faith they hold dear and that to respond is uncivil, unChristian, whatever. To hold such a view is rank hypocrisy.

From time to time, I've seen Daniel evoke a French saying that I think applies here, something to this effect: "This animal is extremely vicious; when attacked, it bites."

This sort of explanation is always offered up anytime someone suggests that the apologists are perhaps being a bit too aggressive.

I still don't see what "bridge building" efforts Dr. Peterson has done. He continues to sow dischord. Is this a Mormon trait? I would love to stand corrected, but I think Dr. Peterson hasn't really been engaged in peace making.

V/R
DR. C

Oh, another DCP thread. Which of you is unable to leave the other alone?

I suppose it is mildly interesting what a random reader said in the Deseret News comments. Why didn't you include any positive notes? For example, just a few posts below "Midvalien's" we find this:

Beowulf wrote:This is just amazing. Dan Peterson writes a remarkable, coherent piece (as always) on how the LDS faith would never ban other views of the world, even if it had the power to do so, and all the comments seem to be that the LDS church does exactly that (without any evidence, naturally).

Keep up the good fight, Dan.

There are a mix of both supportive and critical comments. Why slant it to the negative?

Midvaleian wrote:"Defending the Faith" is a adversarial title. ... it doesn't add to the civility of discourse in our state.

After reading what Midvaleian said about DCP, I thought it was kinda funny to read this:

Beowulft wrote:Keep up the good fight, Dan.

Anyone else see the humor in this?

Sethbag wrote:

Midvaleian wrote:"Defending the Faith" is a adversarial title. ... it doesn't add to the civility of discourse in our state.

After reading what Midvaleian said about DCP, I thought it was kinda funny to read this:

Beowulft wrote:Keep up the good fight, Dan.

Anyone else see the humor in this?

I've given up. I lost interest in any fight a long time ago. I'm content to roll over and play dead, even if that bothers Brother Lloyd.

Runtu wrote:I'm content to roll over and play dead, even if that bothers Brother Lloyd.

When you get older and your wife tells you to come to bed, this strategy might be inevitable.

Near the program's end, an audience member asked how things would change if Islam became the dominant American belief. My opponent replied that all false religions would be outlawed, leaving Islam as the only legal faith.

Asked to respond, I answered that I hardly knew what to say. His position seemed chilling and extreme to me, radically foreign to traditional Islam. The vast majority of American Muslims, I was (and remain) confident, would reject such coercion.

Angrily, he turned to me and snarled, as nearly as I can remember, "Don't lie! Don't pretend that, if you had the power, you wouldn't ban all non-Mormon religions!"

I am always amazed and stunned how DCP, despite all his ostensible learning and experience, could not know what the world-wide mainstream (and traditional) Islamic position is on this issue.

From time to time, I've seen Daniel evoke a French saying that I think applies here, something to this effect: "This animal is extremely vicious; when attacked, it bites."

I thought Jesus said something like, "turn the other cheek." Hmmm...

Oh wait, this applies to his followers, not animals.

;-)

~td~

...

Sethbag wrote:

Midvaleian wrote:"Defending the Faith" is a adversarial title. ... it doesn't add to the civility of discourse in our state.

After reading what Midvaleian said about DCP, I thought it was kinda funny to read this:

Beowulft wrote:Keep up the good fight, Dan.

Anyone else see the humor in this?

Good catch.

Funny thing is that this board was, when I logged in a few minutes ago, yet called Mormon Discussions. Dan published an article on Mormonism. Yet simon and stem think it is somehow unbecoming of Dr Scratch to start a thread here about, what, Mormonism on Mormon Discussions. Boys, I don't see your logic. Probably never will since long ago I had Odysseus gouge out my spiritual eye.