Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_harmony]

Of course you don't. Good grief, Daniel, could you be any more predictable?

You'd prefer me to be wildly inconsistent?

I could say I'd prefer you covered with chocolate syrup and whipped cream (and the occasional maraschino cherry), but I doubt anyone would believe me.

A little bend of your neck does not make you inconsistent. If you consistently sought suggestions on how to improve FROB, you would shake off any allegations of predictability, but you consistently refuse to acknowledge that the publication could improve. And that is unfortunate. Because everything can be improved.

Seth makes an applicable astute point about your publication and you immediately disagree. DUH!! You make no allowances for any viewpoint but your own, you consistently react on the defensive, and you have yet to acknowledge the legitimacy of any criticism of the publication, no matter how accurate. Quite frankly, the whole thing makes you look very pedestrian, ordinary even.

You think I ought simply to concede every criticism, or to concede some respectable percentage of criticisms, in order to demonstrate that I'm open-minded?

No, not every. But one? One relatively harmless suggestion? Just one? Just one, so when the next critic says you're a predictable, unteachable, arrogant ass, we can say: "No, he isn't! He took Seth's advice once! He's teachable! He's not the arrogant ass you think him!"

percentage would you suggest?

*sigh*

Golly. In disputes, Peterson has a position, and, when inclined, expresses it or even (shudder!) defends it! What a predictable cad! (Unlike everybody else here on the Mormon Unanimity Board, who immediately agrees with every criticism and abhors disagreement.)

Don't even go there, Daniel. Your exaggerations have a tendency to obscure legitimate criticism (as you well know), but there's no hiding from this one. You've become a caricature of LDS apologists and it's embarrassing.

And it's sad, because it keeps the publication from becoming what you so obviously wish it already was: respected by the nonLDS world.

You're wrong. I just want it to be good. Whether it's "respected by the nonLDS world" is beyond my control.

Then take Seth's suggestion and improve your publication.

He's not attacking you or FROB. He's offering a valid opinion that might help you in your task as editor. If you aren't able to internalize his constructive criticism, and make applicable improvements, he can't be faulted for what is lacking in your publication.

Why do I have to agree to criticisms even when I don't think they're on target? What kind of obligation is that? Do you do it? Can you point me to some examples of disputes where you've silenty surrendered and agreed with a position you don't actually agree with in order to demonstrate your largeness of soul?

I lead a team of fundraisers, Daniel. We raise millions every year (I'm very good at community mobilization). For the good of the team and in good faith, I agree with criticisms I may not fully support in order to get the job done. If my team can't criticize me and they see I won't listen when they offer suggestions for my own events, then they won't listen when I criticize them. They won't listen and learn from me unless I model that I will listen and learn from them. Even the most inexperienced has comments that can help me improve, if I will hear what she says.

The same applies to you and the church's critics. You could bend that stiff neck of yours without losing ground on a lot of things. Seth's suggestion is not at all connected with any heavy duty criticism of your publication, but it's valid nonetheless, and if you weren't so stiff-necked and stubborn, you'd recognize that while you may not agree with Seth on many things and you won't give ground on anything doctrinal, he may... just may... have a valid suggestion that you could use to improve your publication.

Good grief yourself, harmony. Your complaint makes no sense.

Then read it again. Try to get past the source of the suggestion (Seth, a critic) to the suggestion itself. Quit getting hung up on the messenger and deal with the message: readers sometimes think you use [sic] as a weapon, as a snide sly put down. That can't be a good thing for your publication. So... bend your neck and acknowledge that Seth might have a valid suggestion, thank him for his suggestion and his interest, and fix it.

Good grief!

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dan,

"Sticks and stones..." don't capture my attention much, but I ask—for the umpteenth time—that you at least correct two errors in your telling of the acrostic "joke":

• "[T]hat [it was] a private and essentially invisible joke, never published"—You're mistaken. The acrostic was in fact published, attested to by photos (in my possession) of the unaltered pages taken from the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon received via snail-mail by a FARMS subscriber in California.
  
  
• "[A] joke that so mortified Brent Metcalfe that he went to the news media to tell them about it as soon as he heard about it"—Again, you're mistaken. I told friends, friends told the media, and then the media contacted me.

I trust that I'm not asking too much.

Best regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_Sethbag]

I have to admit I'm impressed that DCP reads, or at least has read some of, Maddox's stuff. I'm actually kind of surprised by that. Maddox has some funny stuff in there, though a little goes a long way I find.

[_Daniel Peterson]

First of all, harmony, I agree with everything you've said, and accept it all.

Second, Brent, I suppose it depends on what you mean by published. A small handful of copies containing the acrostic -- literally five or six or so -- were printed and bound. They were not distributed.

But I agree with you, of course.

And I especially agree, enthusiastically, with your second point.

Thank you for your contribution. I've learned much from it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have to admit I'm impressed that DCP reads, or at least has read some of, Maddox's stuff. I'm actually kind of surprised by that. Maddox has some funny stuff in there, though a little goes a long way I find.

An excellent remark. Thank you. I agree with it entirely.

Normally, I limit my reading to Gerald Lund, my listening to Janice Kapp Perry, and my viewing to the works of Arnold Friberg. Or something like that. (I'm trying to remember what the esteemed Master Scartch has revealed to the world about my taste in literature, music, and art. He's right, of course.) I don't quite know what happened in this instance. Perhaps I haven't been spending enough time studying The New Era.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi Dan,

"Sticks and stones..." don't capture my attention much, but I ask—for the umpteenth time—that you at least correct two errors in your telling of the acrostic "joke":

• "[T]hat [it was] a private and essentially invisible joke, never published"—You're mistaken. The acrostic was in fact published, attested to by photos (in my possession) of the unaltered pages taken from the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon received via snail-mail by a FARMS subscriber in California.
  
  
• "[A] joke that so mortified Brent Metcalfe that he went to the news media to tell them about it as soon as he heard about it"—Again, you're mistaken. I told friends, friends told the media, and then the media contacted me.

I trust that I'm not asking too much.

Best regards,

</brent>

Well, well. This is quite interesting. Could it be that Dr. Peterson was misrepresenting what actually happened? In any case, I see that it is quite clear that he cannot be fully trusted to offer truthful accounts of past Mopologetic happenings.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, well. This is quite interesting.

Yes, it is. Isn't it?

An excellent observation.

Could it be that Dr. Peterson was misrepresenting what actually happened?

It's a virtual certainty.

Thank you for the stimulating question!

In any case, I see that it is quite clear that he cannot be fully trusted to offer truthful accounts of past Mopologetic happenings.

That seems utterly beyond dispute now.

I agree with everything that you've said, and, for the sake of harmony, look eagerly forward to future insights and contributions from your fertile mind.

[_Some Schmo]

LOL

Man, this thread really makes me admire Mormons. The ones here are just so grown up and mature. How could I not admire the example they set for the rest of the world...? (<-insert massive doses of sarcasm, in case there was any doubt)

Too funny.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your reply.

You wrote:

Second, Brent, I suppose it depends on what you mean by published. A small handful of copies containing the acrostic -- literally five or six or so -- were printed and bound. They were not distributed.

To reiterate, you're mistaken. I'm aware of several FARMS associates who received their copies (Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Scott Faulring, Brent Hall, you[?], among others). What I am referring to is a run-of-the-mill FARMS subscriber.

But you again misrepresent the facts. "[F]I've or six or so... were printed and bound"?! I know from multiple sources that many were printed and bound. Are you seriously disputing this?

Once more...

"Sticks and stones..." don't capture my attention much, but I ask—for the umpteenth time—that you at least correct two errors in your telling of the acrostic "joke":

• "[T]hat [it was] a private and essentially invisible joke, never published"—You're mistaken. The acrostic was in fact published, attested to by photos (in my possession) of the unaltered pages taken from the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon received via snail-mail by a FARMS subscriber in California.
  
  
• "[A] joke that so mortified Brent Metcalfe that he went to the news media to tell them about it as soon as he heard about it"—Again, you're mistaken. I told friends, friends told the media, and then the media contacted me.

I trust that I'm not asking too much.

My best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_beastie]

Well, I suppose Brent can take comfort in the fact that he was only called a butthead, and not a whore, like Martha Brotherton. Of course, if Brent were Brenda, perhaps the acrostic would have spelled out "SLUT", or, more likely "B*TCH".

by the way, Brent, is this the first time you've corrected DCP's rendition of this event? Just curious.