Daniel Peterson wrote:[*quote="liz3564"]This is a well-coined phrase. I think it deserves some time as my new sig. Thanks, Dr. P!DCP wrote:I always get a kick out of amateur attempts to psychoanalyze strangers.
[*/quote]
De nada.
Kabbe.
Daniel Peterson wrote:[*quote="liz3564"]This is a well-coined phrase. I think it deserves some time as my new sig. Thanks, Dr. P!DCP wrote:I always get a kick out of amateur attempts to psychoanalyze strangers.
[*/quote]
De nada.
Daniel Peterson wrote:I always get a kick out of amateur attempts to psychoanalyze strangers.
I haven't read the thread yet. I'm assuming you are criticizing Wade England here? Is Wade back?Daniel Peterson wrote:I get a kick out of seeing it attempted.
Professional psychoanalysts have a poor enough track record based on hours of face-to-face interviews, and then self-appointed amateurs, having (maybe) read a pop-psych article or watched an episode of Oprah, presume to psychoanalyze complete strangers. . . . Priceless.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Gadianton wrote:Fine, but, would you agree then that anything involving Dr. Walter Martin's personal circumstances, specifically his manner of passing, was not the business of SHIELDS?
I wouldn't have written about this situation -- and, as a matter of fact, have not written about it -- but, if Martin's supporters were circulating a false faith-promoting story about the manner of his passing, I can see why some might have chosen otherwise.
If it had been Joseph Smith rather than Walter Martin, and if it had been the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spreading the (per hypothesis) false faith-promoting story about his passing, anybody revealing the far less edifying truth about the circumstances of his death would have been celebrated by many here and elsewhere as a cultural icon and a hero.
Would you abhor such "curiosity" as intensely if it exposed a prominent Mormon leader as much as you abhor it when it seems to expose a prominent evangelical anti-Mormon?
Stan Barker has his own life. If he maintains "creepy dossiers" in the Scratch style, I'm unaware of them.
Mister Scratch wrote:It may be that Barker has been specifically assigned by Top Dawg Mopologists to assemble "creepy dossiers" on Christian critics of the LDS Church.
Nope.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Chap wrote:Soldiers from civilized countries, whose job is to kill those countries' enemies, feel obliged to treat their dead bodies with respect and give them a decent burial. It appears however that the SHIELDS writer thought it a better policy to mock and spit on his adversary - at least in intention - even in the moment of his death.
Again, if I believed that Jesus would one day be my judge, I would hesitate to treat an enemy in a way that might remind that judge how he had been treated as he hung dying.
But this kind of thing is worse than irreligious - it is less than human.
It seems rather ridiculous to me to compare the SHIELDS article to mutilating or desecrating a corpse.
liz3564 wrote:Harmony brings up some valid points, Dan. My thoughts are this. Obviously, you find the article disrespectful, as we all do.
I know that Scratch started this thread in his typical "witch hunt against DCP" fashion, but let's move beyond this, for a moment.
1. It's obvious that this is an article that was written a long time ago, and was only recently brought to your attention.
2. You find the article to be in poor taste.
Since you are obviously respected among the SHIELDS and FARMS crowd, it might be nice for you to put out some type of statement saying that this older article that was recently brought to your attention is in poor taste, and you certainly hope that this type of writing is no longer happening.
I think that even if you made that type of statement informally on perhaps MAD, or here, it might be a nice gesture.
Mister Scratch wrote:I thought that it was rather stunning that DCP would insist that criticism akin to Lehi Cranston's was false, anti-Mormon, or whatever else.
Mister Scratch wrote:The best condemnation of this sickening Barker article that DCP is willing to offer up is, "I'm not enthused about it," or something along those lines.
Bottom line: I would be completely stunned if he were to actually condemn it with any kind of moral force. I think that the lukewarm dismissal is all we'll get.
Daniel Peterson wrote:In the meantime, I've got a plane to catch ... it being Mopologist One, a Gulfstream IV private jet equipped with platinum fixtures and provided to me by the SCMC.