DiscussMormonism.com

Seth Payne has a blog where he writes on various topics. Lately he has been opining on the controversy over the unpublished Greg Smith hit piece on John Dehlin and the ensuing war of words. In the second, which I find much more interesting, personally, he shares this wishlist:

Seth Payne wrote:Anyway, I don’t want to ramble on too long so in summary, I’m going to provide wish list of sorts:

1. Critics need to lay off of Dan personally. Just as they expect Dan to engage specific arguments, they too should engage arguments only. Personal attacks may be entertaining but they can be hurtful. Stop digging into his family and his personal life. I mean, someone took the time to check out what books one of Dan’s sons had in his Amazon wishlist. Really?? Such behavior is pure nonsense.
2. The MI should take a hard look at the tone of it’s book reviews. They can be quite nasty and this nastiness adds nothing to the conversation. Besides, being nasty is antithetical to the teachings of the LDS Church.
3. Dan needs to be more explicit if he is engaging in “good natured humor” because when you have to explain the joke, the joke wasn’t funny. By NOT being absolutely clear in this regard, Dan “feeds the trolls”, as it were.

Before this latest blow up between critics and LDS polemicists, I was inclined to be much more sympathetic to such a list. But the more I think about it, the more I have to say that the LDS polemicists have cultivated the very personal criticism they have received by making their attacks on critics, liberals, and others intensely personal.

As Seth points out, one can go back to Nibley's review of Brodie, one of my least favorite of his many writings, to see the blueprint for quibbling and slamming that carries through to the hit pieces of Greg Smith. Of course, the Polemicist Club responds to any complaints about these things by stroking their chins and patting each other on the back in approbation for the "incisive, rational, and highly persuasive" piece, just as they have recently defended the vicious slam of Laura Compton, part of which I critiqued here, and Kevin Graham cross-posted over at The Madhouse.

Here is my wishlist for these polemicists, which is unapologetically one-sided. I just don't give a crap about the appearance of "fairness" when the thing I am critiquing is an obvious evil:

1. The Maxwell Institute needs to stop publishing so-called "reviews" that defame members of the LDS Church in good standing.

There it is. My wishlist.

Seth Payne wrote:I mean, someone took the time to check out what books one of Dan’s sons had in his Amazon wishlist. Really?? Such behavior is pure nonsense.

Who did this? Does Seth know?

Look, I'll just repost this, and I will repost it every time Dan Peterson tries to peddle this malicious bit of spin. He's been saying for a while now that someone went peering into his son's Amazon account, but that's a complete falsehood. DCP has been corrected on this repeatedly, so I wonder why he keeps carrying on about it, unless it's just to try and score a point:

Doctor Scratch wrote:The account is *not* Dan's son's. It is Daniel C. Peterson's account. It is the exact same Daniel C. Peterson who used to post here, and who works for BYU, and who writes articles for FARMS. This is the account:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2 ... _cr_dp_pdp

I could understand why you might find it "creepy" if I'd just been snooping around and had come across this Amazon account. But the reason I and others knew about it was twofold:

1) Dan announced its existence in an old FAIRboard thread when he tried to rally people to go and post positive reviews for the Book of Mormon.

2) He invited us to hunt it down in this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=254283#p254283

Daniel Peterson wrote:How hopelessly pretentious, mindlessly hostile, and spectacularly ignorant you are, Scratch, to presume to know what I read and what I listen to.

Here's a clue: Look for my name as a reviewer on Amazon.com.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9886&hilit=taxes&start=63

Dan later said that his son had been using his (i.e., Dan's) account to put together a "wish list" containing things like Grand Theft Auto 3. But there is no way that any of us could have known that.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Look, I'll just repost this, and I will repost it every time Dan Peterson tries to peddle this malicious bit of spin. He's been saying for a while now that someone went peering into his son's Amazon account, but that's a complete falsehood. DCP has been corrected on this repeatedly, so I wonder why he keeps carrying on about it, unless it's just to try and score a point:

It is essentially the same garbage Yahoo Bot engages in when he falsely accuses people on this board of saying something deeply offensive about him or one of his family members. Every time it comes up, it requires someone to stop and refute it for the umpteenth time. It is a wonderful example of how to get people to believe in a pure falsehood. Just keep repeating it as though it were in fact the truth.

Seth Payne bought Daniel Peterson's whopper. He is obviously much more talented at this than Bot.

Kishkumen wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:Look, I'll just repost this, and I will repost it every time Dan Peterson tries to peddle this malicious bit of spin. He's been saying for a while now that someone went peering into his son's Amazon account, but that's a complete falsehood. DCP has been corrected on this repeatedly, so I wonder why he keeps carrying on about it, unless it's just to try and score a point:

It is essentially the same garbage Yahoo Bot engages in when he falsely accuses people on this board of saying something deeply offensive about him or one of his family members. Every time it comes up, it requires someone to stop and refute it for the umpteenth time. It is a wonderful example of how to get people to believe in a pure falsehood. Just keep repeating it as though it were in fact the truth.

Seth Payne bought Daniel Peterson's whopper. He is obviously much more talented at this than Bot.

The irony here is that DCP actually *has* messed with people's families, as in what happened with Eric.

I have to say that the LDS polemicists have cultivated the very personal criticism they have received by making their attacks on critics, liberals, and others intensely personal.

When there is an attack on a belief, no matter how subtle or couched in friendly (condescending) words, it is a personal attack on the one who carries that belief. So in this context, it is impossible for an attack not to be personal.

1. The Maxwell Institute needs to stop publishing so-called "reviews" that defame members of the LDS Church in good standing.

Good standing with the Church is not an indication of standing with God or a sign of belief. The requirements for that are too broad.

Seth Payne has a blog where he writes on various topics. Lately he has been opining on the controversy over the unpublished Greg Smith hit piece on John Dehlin and the ensuing war of words.

Seth makes a common anti Mormon mistake. Regarding his Holland quote, Holland clearly understands less than stellar testimonies as points upon which one can move forward to a more robust belief in the Church. Holland is not condoning a weak testimony or the morphing of doctrinal understanding into something the Church is not. In other words, Holland is not his hero but a straw man or selectively quoted Holland is.

I will also argue that the modern Mormon dogmas used to justify this political and moral opposition may in fact, represent a significant departure from the original teachings of Joseph Smith.

This from Seth's blog brands Seth as an anti Mormon. The Lord's opposition to homosexuality is evident even in ancient scripture. Joseph Smith never contradicted it and current LDS doctrine actually tempers it in that we do not blame a man for being tempted.

bcspace wrote:This from Seth's blog brands Seth as an anti Mormon.

Seth is an "anti-Mormon"?

Which planet do you live on?

Scratch, thank you for the correction. I will update my post.

Seth

ETA: My feelings about digging into Dan's personal life, including reading habits, still stand. I mean, I know he is somewhat of a "public person" but I think things can be taken too far.

bcspace wrote:

Seth Payne has a blog where he writes on various topics. Lately he has been opining on the controversy over the unpublished Greg Smith hit piece on John Dehlin and the ensuing war of words.

Seth makes a common anti Mormon mistake. Regarding his Holland quote, Holland clearly understands less than stellar testimonies as points upon which one can move forward to a more robust belief in the Church. Holland is not condoning a weak testimony or the morphing of doctrinal understanding into something the Church is not. In other words, Holland is not his hero but a straw man or selectively quoted Holland is.

I will also argue that the modern Mormon dogmas used to justify this political and moral opposition may in fact, represent a significant departure from the original teachings of Joseph Smith.

This from Seth's blog brands Seth as an anti Mormon. The Lord's opposition to homosexuality is evident even in ancient scripture. Joseph Smith never contradicted it and current LDS doctrine actually tempers it in that we do not blame a man for being tempted.

BC,

You are being silly. Did you read the paper? Do you know what ideas I present? Did I argue that Joseph Smith endorsed homosexuality? In the quote above what teachings, specifically, am I referring to?

Read the whole paper (a version of which will appear in print later this year) and then if you still have concerns about me as an anti-Mormon I would be happy to provide you with my Bishop's contact information via PM.

Also, I am puzzled by your reading of Elder Holland. He is saying that people who doubt the Book of Mormon's historicity are still welcome in the Church. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, if you would like to report my doubts about Book of Mormon historicity to my Bishop so he can bar me from attending Church and engaging in other ward activities, I'd be happy to oblige.

You seem to be a good guy, BC. I have to admit I'm surprised by your response.

Seth

Kishkumen wrote:Seth Payne has a blog where he writes on various topics. Lately he has been opining on the controversy over the unpublished Greg Smith hit piece on John Dehlin and the ensuing war of words. In the second, which I find much more interesting, personally, he shares this wishlist:

Seth Payne wrote:Anyway, I don’t want to ramble on too long so in summary, I’m going to provide wish list of sorts:

1. Critics need to lay off of Dan personally. Just as they expect Dan to engage specific arguments, they too should engage arguments only. Personal attacks may be entertaining but they can be hurtful. Stop digging into his family and his personal life. I mean, someone took the time to check out what books one of Dan’s sons had in his Amazon wishlist. Really?? Such behavior is pure nonsense.
2. The MI should take a hard look at the tone of it’s book reviews. They can be quite nasty and this nastiness adds nothing to the conversation. Besides, being nasty is antithetical to the teachings of the LDS Church.
3. Dan needs to be more explicit if he is engaging in “good natured humor” because when you have to explain the joke, the joke wasn’t funny. By NOT being absolutely clear in this regard, Dan “feeds the trolls”, as it were.

Before this latest blow up between critics and LDS polemicists, I was inclined to be much more sympathetic to such a list. But the more I think about it, the more I have to say that the LDS polemicists have cultivated the very personal criticism they have received by making their attacks on critics, liberals, and others intensely personal.

As Seth points out, one can go back to Nibley's review of Brodie, one of my least favorite of his many writings, to see the blueprint for quibbling and slamming that carries through to the hit pieces of Greg Smith. Of course, the Polemicist Club responds to any complaints about these things by stroking their chins and patting each other on the back in approbation for the "incisive, rational, and highly persuasive" piece, just as they have recently defended the vicious slam of Laura Compton, part of which I critiqued here, and Kevin Graham cross-posted over at The Madhouse.

Here is my wishlist for these polemicists, which is unapologetically one-sided. I just don't give a crap about the appearance of "fairness" when the thing I am critiquing is an obvious evil:

1. The Maxwell Institute needs to stop publishing so-called "reviews" that defame members of the LDS Church in good standing.

There it is. My wishlist.

Kishkumen,

I like your list very much. Thank you for posting this.

Seth