Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_Mister Scratch]

But this doesn't make any sense, charity. What, at heart, is the difference between "trying to save faltering members' testimonies" and being "there for the person to reach out on his/her own initiative"? *Is* there any real difference? And, if so, what is it?

There isn't a difference. If you assume "trying to save" is different from "being there" is different. It isn't.

Ah, okay. So part of the purpose of Mopologetics is to save faltering testimonies. Thanks.

How successful would you say the tactics of, say, DCP, Pahoran, and juliann are at doing this?

I'm not sure I follow you. Wouldn't "blocking" consist of merely "turning the other cheek," as Christ advised?

If the blows were aimed at the apologists personally. Then turning the other cheek is fine. But it is the Church that is being attacked, its leaders, doctrines. That deserves defending.

Why can't the Church itself "Turn the other cheek"? Doesn't this suggest that the Church is weak or defenseless? I mean, we ARE supposed to believe that this is the God's Honest Supreme truth, right? So, if anything, the Church is the last thing you'd think would need defending. Right? Why would the supreme truth in the universe need defending?

I don't see apologetics as trying to destroy or injure anyone or anything. The whole strategy is protection.

"Protection" of what? Fragile testimonies?

Protection of truth, of the reality of God, of the divinity the Savior, and of the institution of the Lord's Church, His doctrines.

Again, why do such powerful concepts need to be defended? Isn't this sort of like saying, "Well, there's tons of gold in Fort Knox! Yeah, yeah, we know how well-fortified it is, but, by golly, it's VALUABLE! We better get out there and defend it!" See what I mean?

This is getting way too technical. If someone tells a lie about you, you should tell the truth and set the record straight. You don't just stand there and let them spew their lies and don't do anything about it.

Okay?

Don't you think that Mopologetics goes quite a ways beyond "set[ing] the record straight"? FAIR, FARMS, FROB, SHIELDS, MAD.... This seems a bit of an over-the-top reaction for a mere "setting the record straight," don't you think? Also, if this is really just such a simply matter of "setting the record straight," why can't the Church's PR department handle it? Why should the supreme truth in the universe need all these many organizations to defend it? It just doesn't make very much sense, does it, charity?

[_skippy the dead]

I don't think he "requires" biased moderation, but it's obvious mods are always quick to intervene in his behalf. This is part of their way of "protecting high profile" posters. I do think DCP encourages that by constantly reminding everyone of how persecuted he is. Really, he brings it up with almost every post. Despite his protests otherwise, I suspect he's fairly thin-skinned.

Would you say there is strong evidence that he implicitly demands biased moderation? I.e., via his little temper tantrums and such? (Or, as you put it, his reminders of persecution?)

Well, considering that he threatens to abandon any board on which he is insulted or even bested, I suppose that the MAD mods do tend to ensure that he doesn't throw a similar fit and run away from their board. Otherwise they lose one of their prized representatives.

[_the road to hana]

I don't think he "requires" biased moderation, but it's obvious mods are always quick to intervene in his behalf. This is part of their way of "protecting high profile" posters. I do think DCP encourages that by constantly reminding everyone of how persecuted he is. Really, he brings it up with almost every post. Despite his protests otherwise, I suspect he's fairly thin-skinned.

Would you say there is strong evidence that he implicitly demands biased moderation? I.e., via his little temper tantrums and such? (Or, as you put it, his reminders of persecution?)

Well, considering that he threatens to abandon any board on which he is insulted or even bested, I suppose that the MAD mods do tend to ensure that he doesn't throw a similar fit and run away from their board. Otherwise they lose one of their prized representatives.

He's come and gone from there over the years, too, but is unlikely to ever leave for very long. The rooster always returns to the hen house.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't think he "requires" biased moderation, but it's obvious mods are always quick to intervene in his behalf. This is part of their way of "protecting high profile" posters. I do think DCP encourages that by constantly reminding everyone of how persecuted he is. Really, he brings it up with almost every post. Despite his protests otherwise, I suspect he's fairly thin-skinned.

Would you say there is strong evidence that he implicitly demands biased moderation? I.e., via his little temper tantrums and such? (Or, as you put it, his reminders of persecution?)

Well, considering that he threatens to abandon any board on which he is insulted or even bested, I suppose that the MAD mods do tend to ensure that he doesn't throw a similar fit and run away from their board. Otherwise they lose one of their prized representatives.

He's come and gone from there over the years, too, but is unlikely to ever leave for very long. The rooster always returns to the hen house.

When was DCP ever chased off of MAD/FAIR? I've *never* heard of such a thing. FAIR/MAD was created precisely to prevent such a thing from happening!

[_Gadianton]

The answer is yes, he does. The Z mods had such a tough time, they wanted to give him liberties, but they realized he provoked conflicts as much as anyone so they felt they had to say something to him once in a while. In fact, Pac even emailed him a couple of times to plead with him as a friend to tone it down and set an example. He never got responses. As you can see, he frequently posted complaints in "outer darkness" and expected action to be taken against others, but could never see how he was ever a part of the problem. The mods even created "Controvers-E" partially for the sake of allowing you know who to have a place where a higher level of discussion was to take place and avoid the petty conflicts. Browse that forum and count the number of posts from him there. He loved the mud pit like everyone else and having plenty of room to lay on the sarcasm and insults. You have to admit, he's a very good writer, he's quick, and he's torn many an opponent down to nothing. And as long as he felt he was winning, that was great. Otherwise, the mods were expected to punish them. So in the end, if things didn't go his way, just like Eric Cartman says, "Screw you guys, I'm going home!"

FAIR was a good move. As Dunamis admitted on more than one occasion, critics were welcome there for them to have fun with, provoke, insult, and then when the apologists got bored, to kick off the forum. Dunamis honestly expressed this very sentiment more than once. I'd get this vision that they considered themselves somewhat like bored children pulling the legs off grasshoppers. It's one way I think of dealing with a force that they can't control. Pretend they don't take it seriously, that it's a joke, amusing to them, and there for their own personal entertainment.

by the way, don't take this as meaning I don't like DCP, he's one of my favorite posters! And part of the reason why is because all the personal sensitivity over the boards just proves he's a real person like everyone else and wants acceptance, respect, and friends no matter how hard he tries to downplay the cyber world.

[_charity]

Ah, okay. So part of the purpose of Mopologetics is to save faltering testimonies. Thanks.

How successful would you say the tactics of, say, DCP, Pahoran, and juliann are at doing this?

I think, like I said, for the confrontational sliding down the hill to apostacy member, probably not at all successful. Not just DCP or those others you name. None of us. Because I think that group is pretty much goners. Since most people don't leave the Church because of historical issues, then probably in terms of numbers, not a big group, is being helped. But I think the existence of an apologist group, and with some being fairly prominent, is a good thing in terms of there being the perception of two teams on the field.

I'm not sure I follow you. Wouldn't "blocking" consist of merely "turning the other cheek," as Christ advised?

If the blows were aimed at the apologists personally. Then turning the other cheek is fine. But it is the Church that is being attacked, its leaders, doctrines. That deserves defending.

Why can't the Church itself "Turn the other cheek"? Doesn't this suggest that the Church is weak or defenseless? I mean, we ARE supposed to believe that this is the God's Honest Supreme truth, right? So, if anything, the Church is the last thing you'd think would need defending. Right? Why would the supreme truth in the universe need defending?

The Church doesn't even take notice of the garden variety attackers. The Church just goes along taking care of business. But apologists take on the chore of facing the rabid dogs. And the reason why you deal with rabid dogs is because they bite and spread rabies.

Again, why do such powerful concepts need to be defended? Isn't this sort of like saying, "Well, there's tons of gold in Fort Knox! Yeah, yeah, we know how well-fortified it is, but, by golly, it's VALUABLE! We better get out there and defend it!" See what I mean?

I see what you mean. How about this? There are saboteurs out there who are saying, "Fort Knox isn't really that well-fortified. You could go in and steal all that gold if you want to." And there are some who would be taken in by that. So there are defenders who set them straight by showing them how thick the walls are and how well guarded the treasure it. That way, these poor misguided ones won't get themselves killed storming the fort.

Goofy analgoy. But it is late.

Don't you think that Mopologetics goes quite a ways beyond "set[ing] the record straight"? FAIR, FARMS, FROB, SHIELDS, MAD.... This seems a bit of an over-the-top reaction for a mere "setting the record straight," don't you think? Also, if this is really just such a simply matter of "setting the record straight," why can't the Church's PR department handle it? Why should the supreme truth in the universe need all these many organizations to defend it? It just doesn't make very much sense, does it, charity?

FARMS exists for the purpose of scholarly research, not apologetics, as much as critics would like to say that isn't true. The others added all together probably don't have a small fraction of the budget of the big anti-Mormon mnistries out there. So I don't think it is at all over the top. FAIR doesn't pay their apologists, and even asks the apologists to pay, unlike the anti-Mormon ministries which get revenues for their anti-Mormon presentations, and how much money they drum up from the peopel they can dupe into donating.

It makes a lot of sense. People serving their Church without hope of pay.

[_beastie]

I think, like I said, for the confrontational sliding down the hill to apostacy member, probably not at all successful.

In other words, apologia works on people who may just be a bit nervous about something they recently learned, but they are eager and happy to be reassured that all is well in zion. "Confrontational" means that someone is more interested in delving into the meat of the matter, including scrutinizing and analyzing the proffered apologetics, versus just wanting to be reassured. And yes, apologetics doesn't work well with that group.

Example:
Issue: lack of evidence of metallurgy in the Book of Mormon time period
Proffered apologetics: Mesoamerican linguistic evidence for "metal" and Sorenson's references

Nonconfrontational response: Hey, thanks! I knew you all had it figured out! Those critics are obviously uninformed and unqualified!!

Confrontational response: Ok, now I'm going to delve into those claims and see how valid they are. Whoops! The "linguistic evidence" doesn't refer to metallurgy, but rather simple metal, which no one questions existed. And whoops!! Sorenson distorted his sources in his references. The problem hasn't been resolved at all!! This was not quality evidence!!!

[_charity]

I think, like I said, for the confrontational sliding down the hill to apostacy member, probably not at all successful.

In other words, apologia works on people who may just be a bit nervous about something they recently learned, but they are eager and happy to be reassured that all is well in zion. "Confrontational" means that someone is more interested in delving into the meat of the matter, including scrutinizing and analyzing the proffered apologetics, versus just wanting to be reassured. And yes, apologetics doesn't work well with that group.

Example:
Issue: lack of evidence of metallurgy in the Book of Mormon time period
Proffered apologetics: Mesoamerican linguistic evidence for "metal" and Sorenson's references

Nonconfrontational response: Hey, thanks! I knew you all had it figured out! Those critics are obviously uninformed and unqualified!!

Confrontational response: Ok, now I'm going to delve into those claims and see how valid they are. Whoops! The "linguistic evidence" doesn't refer to metallurgy, but rather simple metal, which no one questions existed. And whoops!! Sorenson distorted his sources in his references. The problem hasn't been resolved at all!! This was not quality evidence!!!

I guess you don't really understand the meaning of the word "confrontational."

Nonconfrontational response: Hey, thanks. I knew there was an answer. Those critics obviously didn't give me all the pertinent information.

Confrontational response: You idiot! You just want me to stay in the Church so I can pay tithing to the "corportation." You'll say anything, lie, decieve, distort. I know all about you blind, brainwashed morbots!

[_harmony]

Since most people don't leave the Church because of historical issues, then probably in terms of numbers, not a big group, is being helped.

And you know this how? The church doesn't publish this information, so I'm interested in knowing your source, especially if it's more than gossip.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think, like I said, for the confrontational sliding down the hill to apostacy member, probably not at all successful. Not just DCP or those others you name. None of us. Because I think that group is pretty much goners. Since most people don't leave the Church because of historical issues, then probably in terms of numbers, not a big group, is being helped. But I think the existence of an apologist group, and with some being fairly prominent, is a good thing in terms of there being the perception of two teams on the field.

So it's all just a ruse. Okay.

Don't you think that Mopologetics goes quite a ways beyond "set[ing] the record straight"? FAIR, FARMS, FROB, SHIELDS, MAD.... This seems a bit of an over-the-top reaction for a mere "setting the record straight," don't you think? Also, if this is really just such a simply matter of "setting the record straight," why can't the Church's PR department handle it? Why should the supreme truth in the universe need all these many organizations to defend it? It just doesn't make very much sense, does it, charity?

FARMS exists for the purpose of scholarly research, not apologetics, as much as critics would like to say that isn't true. The others added all together probably don't have a small fraction of the budget of the big anti-Mormon mnistries out there.

Do you have any evidence for this? Have you seen balance sheets for FARMS?

So I don't think it is at all over the top. FAIR doesn't pay their apologists, and even asks the apologists to pay,

Huh? What does this mean?

unlike the anti-Mormon ministries which get revenues for their anti-Mormon presentations, and how much money they drum up from the peopel they can dupe into donating.

It makes a lot of sense. People serving their Church without hope of pay.

It just seems like such a silly, Sisyphean effort, though. You yourself state that only a tiny fraction of struggling members are helped. So, what's the point? Argument just for the sake of argument? Elsewhere, you state that Church critics are like "rabid" dogs, thus suggesting that it is fairly easy to "lure" people away from the Church.... Do you think that's the case?