DiscussMormonism.com

When making comments online about Donald Trump, I have often been accused of having “TDS,” meaning “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Are they accusing me of letting hatred cloud my arguments? Dan Peterson often refers to this board as the Peterson Obsession Board. He is trying to discredit the content and people who inhabit here. I don't know if he has ever appeared here and responded to any critiques of Mormon scriptures or history. There seems to be especially an obsession about the comments made by a participant Scratch who seem to have an acrimonious history. Perhaps also Shulem.

This board has provided for me much great information on issues like DNA, archaeology, and Book of Abraham issues. It has even had some believers venture here to debate like McGuire. I’d like to ask anyone here to give me a list of some of the most compelling debates that have occurred here.

Yes. You're right, that the TDS and POB tactics are similar attempts to re-frame the criticism of the person rather than engage with it.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 12, 2024 7:07 pm

Yes. You're right, that the TDS and POB tactics are similar attempts to re-frame the criticism of the person rather than engage with it.

I think there is some truth to this.

On the other hand, I think the criticism of DCP here goes way overboard and is something like an obsession. I avoid it as much as possible because I do believe that DCP is not infrequently unfairly vilified. Is he not flawed and therefore due some criticism? Sure. But what I see here gets way too personal and ventures beyond fair criticism into demonization. It is the part of this board that gives me real pause.

On TDS, the only Trump Derangement Syndrome I have seen is the derangement of Trump and those who follow him. That DCP does not support Trump is much to his credit.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 12, 2024 7:27 pm

drumdude wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 12, 2024 7:07 pm

Yes. You're right, that the TDS and POB tactics are similar attempts to re-frame the criticism of the person rather than engage with it.

I think there is some truth to this.

On the other hand, I think the criticism of DCP here goes way overboard and is something like an obsession. I avoid it as much as possible because I do believe that DCP is not infrequently unfairly vilified. Is he not flawed and therefore due some criticism? Sure. But what I see here gets way too personal and ventures beyond fair criticism into demonization. It is the part of this board that gives me real pause.

On TDS, the only Trump Derangement Syndrome I have seen is the derangement of Trump and those who follow him. That DCP does not support Trump is much to his credit.

I see it as a direct consequence of DCP putting himself forward as the face of Mormon apologetics. You can't put on the uniform and then complain when you are asked to defend the church. Well you can, but it seems a bit silly. He claims we're all here scrutinizing his vacation and what he's eating, and I don't see any of that.

I have cringed sometimes when Shulem, while a great commentator on things Book of Abraham, does go overboard. Loading unflattering photos of him does not help and probably reinforces his views about the board. We need to keep debate serious. Kish, both Dan and Louis Midgley are the most vindictive in debates, with mocking a favorite technique, putting one’s name in bold and when mentioning Wesley P. Walters add his masters degree implying the guy does not have a Ph.D. like us and so does not deserve our attention. If Fawn Brodie had not written a biography of Thomas Jefferson, would Midgley perhaps have accepted the fact, which now Joseph Ellis accepts, that Jefferson fathered several children with Sally?

https://www.academia.edu/1840684/Recons ... card=title

DCP can leave this board, but he can never leave it alone.

Hauslern, I view DCP as a bully on the playground. Very few people have ever stood up to Midgley, Kiwi, DCP and their dishonest and unethical bullying. I admit I find much joy in dishing it out to DCP.

This board is a much needed light that serves to shine and expose the Mopologists bad, unethical (and even illegal at times) behavior.

hauslern wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:29 pm

I don't know if [Dr Peterson]has ever appeared here and responded to any critiques of Mormon scriptures or history.

I don't think that anyone has answered your implied question, Noel, but Prof. P. used to participate here - or, at least, on the predecessor of this board, Mormon Discussions.

Depending on whose narrative you accept, he

• withdrew due to a combination of personal attacks and unserious arguments, or
• was driven from the field by his inability to counter the criticisms laid out here, or
• other causes I can't think of right now.

Many folks here appear to have an axe to grind with Dr. P., and in my opinion some treat him very disrespectfully. (I have to confess, to my shame, that I have piled on on occasion.)

If you would like to avoid a long search through the history of the board(s), I would suggest that the good Rev. Kish is as evenhanded a commenter on which of the two options is closer to the "truth", or perhaps what the balance is between them.

malkie wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 12, 2024 8:21 pm

I would suggest that the good Rev Kish is as evenhanded a commentor on which of the two options is closer to the "truth", or perhaps what the balance is between them.

Agreed, although I will note that even DCP thinks Kish is a rabid member of the POB.

malkie wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 12, 2024 8:21 pm

hauslern wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:29 pm

I don't know if [Dr Peterson]has ever appeared here and responded to any critiques of Mormon scriptures or history.

I don't think that anyone has answered your implied question, Noel, but Prof. P. used to participate here - or, at least, on the predecessor of this board, Mormon Discussions.

Depending on whose narrative you accept, he

• withdrew due to a combination of personal attacks and unserious arguments, or
• was driven from the field by his inability to counter the criticisms laid out here, or
• other causes I can't think of right now.

Many folks here appear to have an axe to grind with Dr P, and in my opinion some treat him very disrespectfully. (I have to confess, to my shame, that I have piled on on occasion.)

If you would like to avoid a long search through the history of the board(s), I would suggest that the good Rev Kish is as evenhanded a commentor on which of the two options is closer to the "truth", or perhaps what the balance is between them.

Peterson participated a great deal on the predecessor board ZLMB and on the board that preceded that, the Utah Lighthouse (the Tanner board). He stated it was something of a personal struggle to stop. His stopping is ok by me; I would rather hear more from Dan McClellan and a few others.