DiscussMormonism.com

I can associate most of what Mr. Deity says with something that I heard or read about in the LDS Church, but I don't think I would identify almost any of it with core beliefs of the LDS Church. Maybe stuff like "Jesus visited America," but a lot of the other stuff is not all that important. And, I think it is particularly unfair to lump in odd material from a Smith sermon back in the day with core doctrines of the LDS Church in order to lampoon the religion.

Religions have odd teachings. Yeah, so?

It seems to me that what is of value in a belief system is not going to be learned from the statements of anti-faith from a former believer who gets yucks from making his old religion sound stupid.

Just because everything Kish says is not anti-Mormon doesn't mean he's not an anti-Mormon.

Seth:

I respect you, and I'm going to comment very briefly (it's late) but straightforwardly.

My problem with Kishkumen isn't his views on the Church. We disagree deeply on a number of important issues in that regard, but that's not the problem. You and I probably disagree on a very similar list of issues. In fact, like you, he's expressed considerable fondness for the Church on a number of occasions, both on his board and, privately, to me. I think, in fact, that he's attending church these days, and I'm happy about that, and wish the best for him.

The problem is the way he treats certain others, the way he personalizes his disagreements. And I'm not referring merely to the insulting, nasty, and unjust way that he treats me -- and treats me and treats me and treats me, in hundreds of posts annually, day in and day out, year after year -- but the vile and ferocious way he treats a number of other Latter-day Saints, some of whom actually post over at his board and some of whom have never appeared there at all. Taunting, mocking, insulting, maligning, sneering, defaming -- it's acutely painful to watch. Even when, sometimes, I think he actually has a point, the uncharitable, gleeful, seemingly sadistic reviling in which he indulges himself at the expense of his targeted victims makes me almost sick to my stomach. I expect such things from a number of those there; I think some of them may be seriously unhinged. But I'm disheartened to see such things coming from him.

Disagreement is one thing. Hateful nastiness is quite another.

I get it that he dislikes major aspects of my writing on Mormon subjects. Fine. We disagree. I think his criticisms are unfair. But he's become more and more vicious, it seems to me, as time has passed, and particularly so in recent weeks and months. I've compared it to the absorption of Weston by the Unman in C. S. Lewis's Perelandra, and also to the vanishing of Sméagol into Gollum. I was serious with those comparisons, and I regard Kishkumen's apparent evolution as deeply, deeply sad.

Finally, by the way, I've been struck by the fact that, as the passionately inflamed Kishkumen posts more and more, and ever more intemperately, on the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), the obsessive and coldly implacable Scratch, whose never-ending theme for seven years has been, precisely, the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), has all but vanished. Very strange.

Seth, Kish has a reasonable, intelligent and fair side. Unfortunately, his darker side is what we see when he's discussing Dr. Peterson.

A perfect example is what he posted to Liz over at MDB when she explained she would be distancing herself from their board, in part because of her friendship with Dan and the attacks she's had to endure because of it. None of the outlandish charges Kish has written regarding Dan are remotely true, but this is what he spoon feeds his readers over there. If we didn't know he was referring to Dan, we'd think this was some malignant disease sweeping the internet! And I'm afraid we've seen the fruits of this years long relentless campaign against Dan--of which Kish has now become a driving force.

Nothing I have ever said about anyone, anywhere, in any situation, comes within lightyears of the daily torrent of vituperation from Kish and his buddies. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Seth:

I know that Kishkumen and others dislike a substantial portion of what I and some of my associates have published.

I think their charges against us are grossly exaggerated when not altogether misconceived, and I'm willing to defend our approach.

But Kishkumen has long since gone far beyond discussing such differences, which could be done civilly even if the upshot were merely an agreement to disagree, and far past civility. He has become hateful -- and, I think demonstrably, far harsher and more personal and less charitable than my friends and I would ever think of being.

I'm serious, I'm not just striking a pose, when I say that I find it extraordinarily sad.

Daniel Peterson wrote:I think their charges against us are grossly exaggerated when not altogether misconceived, and I'm willing to defend our approach.

Daniel Peterson wrote:But Kishkumen has long since gone far beyond discussing such differences, which could be done civilly even if the upshot were merely an agreement to disagree, and far past civility. He has become hateful -- and, I think demonstrably, far harsher and more personal and less charitable than my friends and I would ever think of being.

Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm serious, I'm not just striking a pose, when I say that I find it extraordinarily sad.

beastie wrote:Do any of these criticisms of Kish actually cite posts that support their accusations?

Kishkumen wrote:

beastie wrote:Do any of these criticisms of Kish actually cite posts that support their accusations?

Yes, beastie, they do grab quotes out of context from things I have said. Sometimes I have said some harsh stuff about these guys. I once called Lou Midgley a "vicious codger," for example. I have certainly said similar things about Bill. Other times, however, Dan will take things I have said about their apologetics and, in his lovely way, treat them as though they were aimed at him as a person. So, for example, I might say that I find a certain argument "idiotic" and then Daniel will post something on MDDB about how I called him idiotic. I am not sure whether he is unable to distinguish between the two things or simply doesn't believe there is a distinction, but I find that kind of tactic slippery at best.

I would say that it is undoubtedly the case that I am impolite compared with Daniel. That said, I feel less bad about being rude than I should hope anyone would feel about having published Greg Smith's crap. So, there you have it.