Yahoo Bot wrote:I certainly have concerns about a member of the bar saying rather cruel and false things about Dr. Peterson as you did in your post with the mockery hit piece proposed. And anonymously so. And, calculated to injure him in his profession. Tsk tsk; all rather harsh things.
Thanks again for fixing your sig line.
Yahoo,
The great thing about the hit piece is that instead of me condemning Dr. Peterson, we get to see what he actually said and make our own judgement.
I agree with you that many of the things that have come out of DCP could be objectively considered "harsh". That's certainly unfortunate.
I do disagree that my hit piece is "calculated to injure him in his profession." The hit piece is calculated to point out the obvious (to everyone but DCP and apparently you) hypocrisy of attacking and judging someone. You know, sort of like seeing the speck in your brother's eye but failing to notice the beam in your own eye.
DCP has done a great disservice and much harm to the Church. It's time to at least try to put a stop to any further damage. It's what the Savior expects.
Toodles homeboy
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Yahoo Bot wrote:I certainly have concerns about a member of the bar saying rather cruel and false things about Dr. Peterson as you did in your post with the mockery hit piece proposed. And anonymously so. And, calculated to injure him in his profession. Tsk tsk; all rather harsh things.
I would be concerned about a certified physician saying rather cruel and false things about John Dehlin.
Indeed, I would be concerned about Mormons saying cruel and false things about other Mormons.
Kish,
Great comments. This is what I don't understand about Mopologists and why the Daniel C. Peterson hit piece must go forward.
Mopologists can't, or refuse to see the hypocrisy when it comes to them pointing out perceived flaws in others.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:The great thing about the hit piece is that instead of me condemning Dr. Peterson, we get to see what he actually said and make our own judgement. [sic]
I'm just concerned about your assault upon his character and how they might hurt his standing at BYU or in his tour guide business. It is one thing to make fun of what he posts publicly, on the one hand, and then claim to have inside knowledge of some mockery of another faith he made privately in Israel, on the other hand. One is likely to be fair comment, the other not. He's not here to defend himself against an expert lawyer trying to hurt him, so I might as well do it.
Yahoo Bot wrote:I'm just concerned about your assault upon his character and how they might hurt his standing at BYU or in his tour guide business. It is one thing to make fun of what he posts publicly, on the one hand, and then claim to have inside knowledge of some mockery of another faith he made privately in Israel, on the other hand. One is likely to be fair comment, the other not.
I agree with the public verse private issue. If anything Dan has said/done publically that could threaten his job, oh well, he should have known better. Digging into his personal issues should be off limits for abuse here.
Yahoo Bot wrote:I'm just concerned about your assault upon his character and how they might hurt his standing at BYU or in his tour guide business. It is one thing to make fun of what he posts publicly, on the one hand, and then claim to have inside knowledge of some mockery of another faith he made privately in Israel, on the other hand. One is likely to be fair comment, the other not.
I agree with the public verse private issue. If anything Dan has said/done publically that could threaten his job, oh well, he should have known better. Digging into his personal issues should be off limits for abuse here.
I should also say that I don't like it when pieces in FARMS in the past went into personal lives, which was the case for Grant Palmer and Nibley's daughter. To me, the four-corners rule applies. The published material is fair game within its four corners, but the fact that Elton John is gay should having nothing to do with his song-writing.
Yahoo Bot wrote:He's not here to defend himself against an expert lawyer trying to hurt him, so I might as well do it.
Dan is certainly free to come here and defend himself, but he alone chooses not to.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Droopy wrote:The podcasts are primarily for a post-literate, primarily visual, shorter attention span audience, no? Or is this going too far?
I think that making up words ("post-literate") is going a little too far.
Who's making up words?
What the...?
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
One aspect of podcasts over the written word, especially for video podcasts is that it is close to personal one on one correspondence with the interviewee. Body language, voice tone etc. allow the attitude and feelings of the person to come through in a much greater way than say "reading between the lines" of the written word.
Marshall McLuhan was already using the term back in 1962. It would go far afield of the thread to elucidate the idea, including as I understand it, here.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.