Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:32 am
My vote for big "inclusivity" points:
Not at all. I'm not actually very interested in you.
Big time. You can pretty much guarantee that tonight is one of those "I need to step away from the computer right now..." types of moments for him. But then the "dig" will eat at hm and eat at him--keeping him up at night, and he's already a night owl. He'll have to act, though. So: banning? Censorship? "Eject" button?
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Physics Guy »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous.
I’m confused about why we are somehow holding this sane and humane sentiment against Peterson.

The only inconsistency I can maybe see is that perhaps Peterson doesn’t recognize that there are elements in Mormonism—Joseph Smith’s sexual predation, and the continuing enthusiasm for patriarchy—that strike other people as undebatably wrong in the same way that Calvinist predestination to eternal torment strikes Peterson as undebatably wrong. Just as he finds it impossible to respect some Calvinist doctrines, others find it impossible to respect some features of Mormonism.

Peterson’s not going to shrug and accept predestined damnation as a respectable alternative religious belief—and I can only applaud. His problem is not that he won’t respect Calvinism. It’s that he insists that everyone respect Mormonism.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Physics Guy wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:40 am


Peterson’s not going to shrug and accept predestined damnation as a respectable alternative religious belief—and I can only applaud. His problem is not that he won’t respect Calvinism. It’s that he insists that everyone respect Mormonism.
Well said, Physics Guy, though I think it goes beyond mere "insistence." If anyone dares to make an equivalent criticism of Mormonism--even if that criticism is far more tactful and mild by comparison (as was the case with the Calvinism example--DCP made that remark in response to Celestial Kingdom Salmon, who was a very even-keeled an decent-minded poster, as I think most people who knew him would attest)--Peterson and his friends will go on the attack. It's not just that the critic is "wrong"; they are "anti-Mormon," and they deserve to be proven wrong, humiliated, and to have their lives turned upside down. (A key case in point was John Tvetdnes attempting to interfere with Thomas Murphy's bid for tenure.) They will even go after fellow Mormons, as the case with the Heartlanders clearly shows.

I don't think anyone would begrudge DCP for criticizing Calvinism if it weren't for the fact that: (a) his and his colleagues' response to criticism of Mormonism has been so completely vicious and out of proportion to said criticism; and (b) his assertions that he's actually "inclusive" and very tolerant of other ways of thinking. It just isn't true.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3843
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Gadianton »

Yup. And specifically on the matter of the predestined eternal torture of all non-Calvinists.
This is actually false. There is no guarantee in Calvinism that self-identified Calvinists are among the elect. And there is no guarantee that the elect see their way to Calvinism, or exemplify any given beliefs or traits.

And Peterson should really think about what his issue is here. Isn't the real problem the extreme options of heaven and hell, and not necessarily "predistination"? I mean, even with Peterson's romantic view of personal agency and freedom -- the freedom to be an agent in a market economy, a sacred blessing that promotes 'price gouging' for instance -- why would anyone ever chose hell? Nobody would, unless there was some kind of false advertising or some other kind of gross inefficiency.

It would be better to just own the whole thing, and admit that all of Christianity is in league with the devil, just as Joseph Smith said it was -- the whole thing is an abomination. So what if that would make him bigoted, if God hath decreed it in the scriptures? Why does he care what the fallen think of him?
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:40 am
It would be better to just own the whole thing, and admit that all of Christianity is in league with the devil, just as Joseph Smith said it was -- the whole thing is an abomination. So what if that would make him bigoted, if God hath decreed it in the scriptures? Why does he care what the fallen think of him?
A good and pertinent question, Dr. Robbers. Despite the recent spate of "holier than thou" posts at "SeN," I think you're right that the Proprietor doesn't care if, at the end of the day, he's "bigoted." Just look at this exchange:
Daniel Peterson wrote:CK4L: "I've been more than discouraged watching the infighting between supporters of the Heartlander/Meso-America issue and many other issues.

"I’ve been saddened by the personal attacks from LDS scholars on various people and organizations."


I'm feeling generous today, CK4L, so I'm going to give you an A for effort.

In the future, though, you might want to try to hide the obvious straining. Try to make it look more natural.
Of course, CK4L's comment is referring to Rodney Meldrum, Jonathan Neville, and the Heartlanders. I'm curious why Dr. Peterson refers to this as "straining." I guess his position is that since Greg Smith, Midgley, and "Peter Pan" are doing the direct smearing, that he himself isn't culpable? Well, last I checked, he's the one who continuously is giving air time to "Neville-Neville Land." He's the one who, as Editor in Chief of the old FARMS Review and current President of the Mormon Interpreter Foundation, oversaw the Dehlin "hit piece," the Greg Smith-authored Meldrum "hit piece," and many other articles (including recent ones by Gee) that could also be characterized as "hit pieces." I mean, Midgley is really digging in his heels over this:
Midgley wrote:I know Rodney Meldrum. He once phoned me just a few minutes after 9:00PM to inform me that he could not accept my invitation to have me pay for a nice lunch for him. He had two reason: (1) he did not trust me, and (2) he was far to busy to have a "free" lunch with me. Nine and a half hours latter, after he had frequently accused me of being an atheist, our phone conversation ended. My wife listened on her phone for three hours, and was delighted that I never once raised my voice and only sometimes asked Rodner a question that stumped him. Rodney seems to me to be a mercenary trying and perhaps even succeeding in making a living selling mock wisdom for real money.

In addition, Meldrum insists that the Book of Mormon took place only within the current boundaries of the USA. He thinks those Latter-day Saint scholars, and those who like me, tend to agree with those scholars are atheists. I don't think Dan has ever once said a single thing about the geographical location of the Book of Mormon, except those instances where he has pointed out on sic et non that Volcano Seismologists have held that Mesoamerica as having a reasonably good fit for what is described in the Book of Mormon.
The story is absurd. 9 hours? Plus he had his wife listening in for three hours? Don't these people have better things to do with their lives? Regardless, this is the sort of thing that Midgley is openly posting on "SeN" in the midst of the Editor's attempts to portray himself as this "Lamb of Christ" who carefully tiptoes around others' feelings, and who never has an unkind word for anyone.

This line is an absolute classic:
Daniel Peterson wrote:My views on tribalism and nastiness and lack of charity are quite clear, CK4L, and have been consistent over decades.

Please stop trying to score embarrassingly obvious points.
Sure: of course. They *have* been "consistent over decades," as evident in the pages of the old FARMS Review and on SHIELDS (which Cobra Kai quoted), clear on through his posting on ZLMB, the FAIR board, MAD, MD&D, Interpreter, and now "SeN." Picking fights, taking digs at the Maxwell Institute and at Gerald Bradford and Loyd Ericson and Blair Hodges, and now Jonathan Neville. It's not as if this sort of thing has subsided over the years. But he's so delusional--so caught up in this fantasy about being "saintly"--that now he's slamming the Interpreter donors that got chased off by his politics:
SeN wrote:Yes. My public lack of enthusiasm for a certain political figure cost the interpreter Foundation the support of two (probably relatively modest) potential donors, led to one extended-family member breaking off his/her relationship with me, and has (I suspect) caused two or three friendships to cool. None of this happened at my initiative, and I'm saddened and dismayed by it.
"probably relatively modest"? In other words: "They can go screw themselves!" Seriously: why the need for the petty cheap-shot here?

But the public piety has now been going on for, what, a week? The latest tidbit involves dismay over people who are glad that Rush Limbaugh died:
DCP wrote:I simply cannot understand rejoicing at the death of anybody.

There’ve been a few occasions when I’ve grimly said to myself that, well, a death was justified. Or that it would end a problem. Or that it served justice. But I’ve never been delighted.
Midgley has said that the apologists were basically waiting around for Elder Mark E. Petersen to die so that they could advance the LGT. Sure: that's not quite "delight." Maybe Dr. Peterson feels that "justice" was "served," then? Or that Elder Petersen's "death was justified," since the LGT is the only way to maintain faith?

In any case, this passage is telling:
But I almost always agreed with Rush Limbaugh, and I thought him extremely entertaining and often very, very funny. He was, I thought, a genuinely happy warrior.
Which explains why DCP liked him: a "warrior." Always about the fight, eh? And right on cue, the Editor wraps up the entry thusly:
Yesterday, I posted the following little note in a blog entry:
“Finally, I’m happy to report that I’ve accepted an invitation to write a column (bi-weekly or, anyway, as bi-weekly as I choose to make it) for Meridian Magazine. It will start when I start it.”
I’m being attacked for it, at the usual place. Quelle surprise!

It was, apparently, an arrogant, bizarre, and childish outburst.

Here’s what happened: The editors at Meridian asked me to write a regular column for them. I agreed to do so. And I asked when they wanted me to start. (I’m going through an uuusually busy two weeks just now.). Whenever you’re ready, they responded, asking me simply to tell them when I intended to begin, so that they could adjust their internal scheduling accordingly. Hence my comment that “It will start when I start it.”

This is a minor and trivial example of precisely the continual and seemingly reflexive demonizing of The Enemy that I so lament in today’s discourse.
Does he really "lament" this? If so, then he can prove it: no more links to "Neville-Neville Land" for the rest of 2021. No more attacks on the JSPP in "Interpreter."

Once upon a time (it seems that people have already forgotten), Dr. Moore offered the apologists $10,000 if they could knock off this behavior for a mere matter of months. We all remember how that went. The show must go on, I guess.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Moksha »

Dr. Peterson wrote: My public lack of enthusiasm for a certain political figure cost the Interpreter Foundation the support of two (probably relatively modest) potential donors, led to one extended-family member breaking off his/her relationship with me, and has (I suspect) caused two or three friendships to cool. None of this happened at my initiative, and I'm saddened and dismayed by it.
Many problems can be traced back to the evil that emanates from Donald Trump and affects Dr. Peterson and billions of others.

Speaking of Limbaugh, imagine giving a Presidential Medal of Freedom to some media hate-monger who a few months later turned around and argued for the dissolution of American democracy and the enthronement of a despot. Even now, that so-called "demented despot" has ensnared the minds of millions of Latter-day Saints and he is not letting go. If only Dr. Peterson were not shacked by the lure of money to the Interpreter, then he could speak up to free the Saints.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Dr Exiled »

I have enemies, real or created, therefore I am. It's so obvious Dr. P. Without enemies, where would you be? You are the personification of 2 Nephi 2. The devil, knowing that God would have a hard time if he, the devil, refused to play along. So, the devil refused to play along. God was then rendered powerless for a season. Then God, like Dr. P today, decided to create devils everywhere and thereafter shined like the craziest diamond around, or so his self-styled narrative says.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:44 am
I have enemies, real or created, therefore I am. It's so obvious Dr. P. Without enemies, where would you be?
Spewing platitudes that he doesn't believe, I reckon? Check out the latest:
SeN wrote:I have nothing personal against Mr. Jonathan Neville. Nothing at all. I think that I may have met him once, but I only vaguely remember it and I couldn’t pick him out of a crowd. But Mr. Neville evidently has something against me and some of my friends and colleagues. And, unfortunately, I think that the kinds of critiques that are offered on the Neville-Neville Land blog are necessary in combatting potentially schismatic false teaching. So here are a few more links:
"potentially schismatic false teaching"? Good grief--the guy only objects to the location of the events in the Book of Mormon: a topic that DCP himself has said is basically "irrelevant." As long as he's attending sacrament meeting, paying tithing, reading his scriptures, and going to the temple, then who cares? If Rodney Meldrum is earning some money from his lectures, how is that any different from accepting free travel and cruises in exchange for Church-related activities (such as bearing of testimonies in Israel)? Well, hey: the "inclusiveness" facade held up for, what, a few days at least?

Well, I suppose it's best to just quote from Dr. Peterson himself:
But I want to offer yet another example of toxic political discourse, hoping, frankly, that some Latter-day Saints will see and recognize that certain of those whom they think to be their friends and political allies are really not their friends at all.
It would be remarkably honest if the "example" being referred to here was DCP and the Mopologists.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Moksha »

Moksha wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:35 am
Many problems can be traced back to the evil that emanates from Donald Trump and affects Dr. Peterson and millions of others.
Yes, even after Trump tried to ruin American democracy, it is sad that Dr. Peterson is constrained in talking about this event and the pathological liar who tried to make himself emperor (especially when the oath of vengeance against America is long gone from the Temple ceremony).

That leaves many Latter-day Saints laboring under Trump's big lie while their most proficient apologist remains muzzled lest gullible Trump donors withdraw their Interpreter support before he can cleanse their minds. Freeing the slaves set brother against brother, yet even slavery did not have such a strong sway with the Saints as Trump.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Lem »

It is getting pretty offensive that Peterson continues to allow Midgley's increasingly insulting and obviously fabricated statements about gemli's roman catholic background to stand, given his supposed policy on inclusiveness:
Midgley wrote:
...and hence childish enthrallment with what some Nuns taught him about the Roman Catholic faith, which he shed as easily as he had adopted it, as he moved on.

gemli has explained that his parents were merely nominal Roman Catholics. So his only brush with Catholic faith was merely frail and fleeting.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 5372474904
It's worth noting that on the rare occasions someone objects to Midgley's rudeness, he defines comments like the above as 'just playful teasing.'

Midgley's that bully who 'playfully' breaks his friend's arms and gives them black eyes and concussions, then when caught plaintively asks "what'd I do? What'd I DO?????"
Post Reply