DiscussMormonism.com

Over on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board, yet another successful smearing of a decent-minded critic has taken place. One wonders if good ol' Scotty Dog will make a New Year's Resolution to quit engaging in this sort of thing. In any case, on the "Christopher Hitchens RIP" thread, our dear friend Sethbag made a rather earnest and heartfelt comment:

Sethbag wrote:by the way Dan, I've never called you a goon or anything like that. You'll recall I once went to a fireside you were giving just to meet you in person and share a book I really liked with you, and never let on to any of the TBMs in attendance that I am an apostate or anything, so as not to make a scene about it.

I haven't been up to Utah for several years, but the next time I go I'm still planning on calling you up and seeing if I can swing by or go have a taco salad at the cougareat or whatever. That is, if the apostatedar doesn't sound the alarm when I enter campus. ;-) If we do end up meeting, I'd like to bring some printouts of some FARMS material which I believe hastened my crossing the line from believer to skeptic, in case you're interested in some honest feedback from a real-life, non-hostile* person about how the FARMS stuff affected my attitude toward the church.

* I'm hostile toward the truth claims of the church, don't get me wrong here. :-) I'm just not hostile toward (at least most) of the people.

And DCP responded in kind, albeit with his typical brand of self-effacement:

DCP wrote:I recall your attendance at the fireside and appreciated the gift of the book. You were civil, polite, and pleasant; I'd be happy to have lunch with you. And, I confess, I would be interested to get your feedback about those FARMS materials. To be fully frank, I regularly encounter the claim that FARMS in general, or I in particular, caused or hastened somebody's loss of faith. I typically regard the claim with some suspicion, and especially so when the person making the claim purports to summarize my position, or the position of FARMS, and does so in an utterly unrecognizable way.

Go ahead, though, and call me a "goon," a "hack," insane, an egomaniac, a bigot, a slanderer, and a "buffoon," and dismiss my professional career as "pathetic." (I take those characterizations from a "discussion" currently going on about me elsewhere.) Then, if I object, announce that I'm a "drama queen" with a persecution complex. That, i think, is the way the game is supposed to be played.

Quite nice, no? With this exchange, the stage was potentially set for a pleasant bridge-building experience. But Scott Lloyd was carefully watching the thread, and an entire week after the above comments were written, Lloyd pulled this tidbit out of his "file":

Scott Lloyd wrote:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I recall your attendance at the fireside and appreciated the gift of the book. You were civil, polite, and pleasant; I'd be happy to have lunch with you.

Sethbag perhaps was less guarded in this comment from a November 2007 post on the MD board:

I'd like to thank the Mighty Scholars at FARMS for helping push me over to the Dark Side by their innane, overtly partisan, and ultimately unconvincing reviews and apologetic tripe. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it was the FARMS and Hugh Nibley response to so many of the historical problems, as much as the problems themselves, which ultimately made clear to me the fact that the LDS church was on the losing side of these arguments. Nothing says desperate, last-ditch, hold onto the faithful at all costs, intellectually dishonest mental gymnastics defense of the indefensible like a good FARMS review or apologetic article. This realization actually helped tip me over the threshold from being on the side where I could continue finding ways of defending against the bad history, to the side where I gave up such defense, and the opposing view began to take hold.

Now, what do you think the response was to this action? Do you think that Dan Peterson would brush it aside, in favor of the more recent, nicer things Sethbag said? If so, you'd be wrong:

DCP wrote:Ah. Sigh. Well, maybe it would be a waste of time to discuss this topic with him. His viewpoint seems less interesting to me than I would have expected.

Thus, Scott Lloyd shows us how it's done with this successful smear of Sethbag. You have to wonder: what does he get out of doing this? Does Scott enjoy attempting to drive people apart this way? And why is Dan Peterson buying into this sort of thing?

In any case, it seems that the Old Guard of Mopologists is all set to launch the new year in stereotypical fashion.

For those interested, the comments can be read in-context here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/565 ... ge__st__60

That's how it works. It doesn't matter what you say are do, as long as they can dredge up something you said in the past in a moment of weakness. Then they can say that the negative quote represents your true self, whereas anything kind, reasonable, or decent you say is an act.

Seth is one of the good guys.

Why is it seemingly okay for Ms Jack to post up controversial things Will Schyver said in the past, but not okay for Scott Lloyd to do something similar with Seth?

Manfred wrote:Why is it seemingly okay for Ms Jack to post up controversial things Will Schyver said in the past, but not okay for Scott Lloyd to do something similar with Seth?

Here's the difference: Schryver's behavior has been consistent and is well known. To my view, Lloyd cherry-picked one statement of Seth's from 4 years ago as representative. MsJack did not do that.

I think, Manfred, that you have to consider what the two were trying to accomplish. In MsJack's case, she stated very clearly that she was concerned for the reputation of Mormon Studies, and worried that an embrasure of Schryver would result in women feeling uncomfortable about participating or speaking up--something that already poses something of a problem in any LDS context.

Here, though--what was Scott's goal? What was accomplished? As far as I can see, all Scott did was interfere in what was otherwise an affable and friendly exchange--and it worked, since Dan Peterson went on to dismiss Sethbag as yet another "anti-Mormon" who isn't worth the time of day. So, did Scott merely not want these two to get along? It's just difficult to see any positives in what Brother Lloyd did. It seems that he set out to stir up contention, and that he got his wish.

Runtu wrote:

Manfred wrote:Why is it seemingly okay for Ms Jack to post up controversial things Will Schyver said in the past, but not okay for Scott Lloyd to do something similar with Seth?

Here's the difference: Schryver's behavior has been consistent and is well known. To my view, Lloyd cherry-picked one statement of Seth's from 4 years ago as representative. MsJack did not do that.

I hesitate to say this since I am unwilling to go through old posts to see if memory serves, but I would be very surprised if that statement from Seth is not representative of his views of apologetics/FARMS etc. I like Seth. I agree with you that he is one of the good ones. But when I read the post Scott dug up, I was not at all taken aback to learn Seth had said it. To me, it sounded quite Seth-like.

Scott was certainly being less than charitable in bringing up Seth's post when and where he did, but if we can rally around the principle that "whatever one posts, one must own" in the case of MsJack/Schryver, then I don't see how one can be consistent in objecting to Scott's actions w/r/t Seth. Geese and ganders and so forth.

Did Scott make it clear that the quote from Seth was four years ago? Did anyone point out to Dan that this was, indeed, a 2007 quote?

It seems odd to me that Dan would not recognize the differences in attitude and give Seth the benefit of the doubt.

Doctor Scratch wrote:I think, Manfred, that you have to consider what the two were trying to accomplish. In MsJack's case, she stated very clearly that she was concerned for the reputation of Mormon Studies, and worried that an embrasure of Schryver would result in women feeling uncomfortable about participating or speaking up--something that already poses something of a problem in any LDS context.

Here, though--what was Scott's goal? What was accomplished? As far as I can see, all Scott did was interfere in what was otherwise an affable and friendly exchange--and it worked, since Dan Peterson went on to dismiss Sethbag as yet another "anti-Mormon" who isn't worth the time of day. So, did Scott merely not want these two to get along? It's just difficult to see any positives in what Brother Lloyd did. It seems that he set out to stir up contention, and that he got his wish.

I should have read this before posting to Runtu. I think you make some fair points.

Embarrassing to have to aboutface so suddenly, but I don't know that I disagree with you here.

Manfred wrote:Scott was certainly being less than charitable in bringing up Seth's post when and where he did, but if we can rally around the principle that "whatever one posts, one must own" in the case of MsJack/Schryver, then I don't see how one can be consistent in objecting to Scott's actions w/r/t Seth. Geese and ganders and so forth.

But everyone's attitudes can mellow. I don't really think it is fair for Scott to mine a quote from Seth that is 4 years old, and disingenuously act like it is recent. It seems particularly spiteful to do so when Seth is genuinely being nice and trying to bridge a gap.

What could Scott possibly see wrong with that? And furthermore, what business is it of his to interfere with an in real life lunch of Dan's in the first place?

liz3564 wrote:I don't really think it is fair for Scott to mine a quote from Seth that is 4 years old, and disingenuously act like it is recent.

Scott made clear it was from 2007.

"Sethbag perhaps was less guarded in this comment from a November 2007 post on the MD board..."