Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_charity]

Too many DCP related threads get interrupted by the mods, oftentimes closed down if they think Dan is losing a debate. In many ways it seems protecting Dan is like protecting the church.

You've distilled this to its essence here, Kevin. As odd as it might seen, DCP really is seen as synonymous with Defense of the Faith. He has his own orbit. People like Bill Hamblin are satellites.

Run of the mill LDS faithful need people like Daniel Peterson to exist. If he gets knocked out of orbit, it alters their whole sense of reality.

I'm surprised Daniel Peterson doesn't have his own website, his own blog, where he could put all this stuff and nonsense out without confrontation. But then I'm reminded, he needs sparring partners, which is why FAIR/MADB provides them occasionally for his amusement.

In truth, all of this is just a front for his real life, which eludes the most ardent of admirers.

This is the reason why we don't have smilies. This would call for a whole line of rolling on the floor laughing smilies. I don't know where you people live, but in the real world nobody depends on the apologists for their very staunch faith. I would say in my ward, in Oregon, that I am the only person who has heard of Daniel Peterson. But I can see why you want to set apologists up so you can take pot shots at them. It makes you feel better. Gives you a sense of hope that your lost faith can be sustained.

Actually, I think the reason you devote whole threads to apologists is that you are hoping after hope that you can knock one down. Isn't Kevin enough for you guys to massage your pride with?

[_Mister Scratch]

This is the reason why we don't have smilies. This would call for a whole line of rolling on the floor laughing smilies. I don't know where you people live, but in the real world nobody depends on the apologists for their very staunch faith. I would say in my ward, in Oregon, that I am the only person who has heard of Daniel Peterson. But I can see why you want to set apologists up so you can take pot shots at them. It makes you feel better. Gives you a sense of hope that your lost faith can be sustained.

Tell me, charity: What function to apologists serve? Why do they do what they do, and why are they "necessary"?

Actually, I think the reason you devote whole threads to apologists is that you are hoping after hope that you can knock one down. Isn't Kevin enough for you guys to massage your pride with?

If the faithful don't need apologists, then why should any of this matter?

[_Mike Reed]

Pahoran and other defenders often want to claim that LDS never attack anyone else's religion, and yet, here we have Apologist Numero Uno stating pretty plainly that anyone who "reject[s] Joseph Smith" is, in effect, "anti-Christ".

When did "Pahoran and other defenders... claim that LDS never attack anyone else's religion"?

[_Some Schmo]

Actually, I think the reason you devote whole threads to apologists is that you are hoping after hope that you can knock one down. Isn't Kevin enough for you guys to massage your pride with?

Well, speaking for myself, I couldn't give a single hoot about whether or not we convert, knock down, turn, embarrass, or whatever any apologist out there. The only reason I ever participate in threads like this is because it's fun and interesting to talk about people who are obviously wrong, yet are so self-assured they're right. It's like... a clinical study, of sorts.

That's how it is for me, anyway. It's just interesting, that's all. I suppose that comes with true confidence in what I believe. Convincing others is so beyond unnecessary, I rarely even think about it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Pahoran and other defenders often want to claim that LDS never attack anyone else's religion, and yet, here we have Apologist Numero Uno stating pretty plainly that anyone who "reject[s] Joseph Smith" is, in effect, "anti-Christ".

When did "Pahoran and other defenders... claim that LDS never attack anyone else's religion"?

It's a pretty old canard within LDS apologetic circles that LDS are somehow "better than" or "above" EV and other critics since (supposedly) LDS don't go out "campaigning" against other faiths. E.g., there is (as far as I know) no LDS equivalent of The Godmakers, although I guess some of BRM's remarks on Catholicism could count. This is arguable, of course, since one could pretty easily make the case that the Church's massive missionary effort is akin to a very subtle kind of "attack." And, when you factor in deeply held sentiments such as Prof. P.'s "all non-JS-believing Christians are 'anti-Christ,'" it begins to seem clear that the LDS Church does attack other faiths in some subtly pernicious ways.

Also, Pahoran used to have a quote in his sig line that said something like, "Never....attack another man's religion..." Quite ironic, if you ask me.

[_the road to hana]

Actually, I think the reason you devote whole threads to apologists is that you are hoping after hope that you can knock one down.

I'm not referring to rank and file members out in the field. I'm talking about people like you who spend far too many of their waking hours on MADB, and cite articles from FAIR and FARMS as if they actually have any credibility in the world.

Isn't Kevin enough for you guys to massage your pride with?

I hate to say it, Charity, but you really are a greenhorn. Kevin's been a well known defender of the faith for years, and locked horns with many a critic over the years before coming to the place he is now.

[_Mike Reed]

Pahoran and other defenders often want to claim that LDS never attack anyone else's religion, and yet, here we have Apologist Numero Uno stating pretty plainly that anyone who "reject[s] Joseph Smith" is, in effect, "anti-Christ".

When did "Pahoran and other defenders... claim that LDS never attack anyone else's religion"?

It's a pretty old canard within LDS apologetic circles that LDS are somehow "better than" or "above" EV and other critics since (supposedly) LDS don't go out "campaigning" against other faiths.

I am quite familiar with the apologetic circles. I was a member of FAIR for about 7 years, before I left the Church; and three years since, I still participate on apologetic message boards.

E.g., there is (as far as I know) no LDS equivalent of The Godmakers, although I guess some of BRM's remarks on Catholicism could count. This is arguable, of course, since one could pretty easily make the case that the Church's massive missionary effort is akin to a very subtle kind of "attack." And, when you factor in deeply held sentiments such as Prof. P.'s "all non-JS-believing Christians are 'anti-Christ,'" it begins to seem clear that the LDS Church does attack other faiths in some subtly pernicious ways.

Yes. But in ways that are somewhat different (qualitatively and quantitatively) from Evangelical polemics, correct?

Also, Pahoran used to have a quote in his sig line that said something like, "Never....attack another man's religion..." Quite ironic, if you ask me

Bummer.... I was hoping for a quote.

[_beastie]

A huge myth has just been exploded in this thread, and it has nothing to do with DCP.


"We anti-Mormons and critics are way too noble to engage in ad hominem attacks."

So where is this myth propagated? I'd like some links, please. :)

[_dartagnan]

I don't know where you people live, but in the real world nobody depends on the apologists for their very staunch faith.

This, coming from the world's record holder for posts on apologetic forums. I'm not kidding, you really do hold the world's record.

The guy who baptized me called me up a few years ago asking me all kinds of questions because he knew I was into apologetics. He had been presented some unsettling questions by his coworkers and he wanted to know how to deal with them. I got him hooked on FARMS, and he is still addicted. Now, after all these years, I feel like the bad drug dealer.

Every ward has someone they are supposed to go to for troubling questions and very rarely is it the Bishop. I was that go to guy for many years.

People in the Church need to know there are smart people in it. When I was on my mission I heard the legend of Hugh Nibley from numerous companions. Just the fact that he was as smart as he was, and a faithful member of the Church, seem to be evidence enough for them. The logic goes like this. Yes the gospel repesents numerous questions we don't understand yet, but if these intelligent people stay true to the faith, then maybe they found the answers, and someday I will too.

I would say in my ward, in Oregon, that I am the only person who has heard of Daniel Peterson. But I can see why you want to set apologists up so you can take pot shots at them. It makes you feel better. Gives you a sense of hope that your lost faith can be sustained.

Most people in wards don't know squat about critical issues either. I'm talking about people who are engaged in the controversies that cause people to struggle with the faith. These people are almost always presented materials that would make them familiar with people like DCP. Dan is very careful not to debate serious issues because he can't afford to lose a battle. He picks the battles he only knows he can win. We all know this is true.

Actually, I think the reason you devote whole threads to apologists is that you are hoping after hope that you can knock one down. Isn't Kevin enough for you guys to massage your pride with?

Actually my departure is a testament to the intolerance of you and your ilk. You're the reason for my departure, not the critics. I never started participating or affiliating with the critics on other forums until after I left FAIR. That is a documented fact.

[_charity]

Actually, I think the reason you devote whole threads to apologists is that you are hoping after hope that you can knock one down.

I'm not referring to rank and file members out in the field. I'm talking about people like you who spend far too many of their waking hours on MADB, and cite articles from FAIR and FARMS as if they actually have any credibility in the world.

You are right. I spend too many hours here. My other hours spent on apologetics with FAIR are a lot more useful.

But did you read my statement that I think the rank and file don't know Dr. Peterson, or even of him?

Isn't Kevin enough for you guys to massage your pride with?

I hate to say it, Charity, but you really are a greenhorn. Kevin's been a well known defender of the faith for years, and locked horns with many a critic over the years before coming to the place he is now.

Good grief, hana, the whole purpose of that statement was to acknowledge that Kevin WAS an apologist who turned to the dark side. I know Kevin's story very well.