Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??

[_mikwut]

I don't know Dan personally. As someone who reads and enjoys his posts the self-serving and oleaginous remarks that Mister Scratch constantly posts cannot but be seen as fast and loose crooked and knavishly untrustworthy. Any reasonable person who read this thread would agree with Jason that harmony was unfortunately taking what Dan said out of context and that as habit required the miscreant and polluted remarks that always are so obviously tainted by Mr. Scratch jump onto the scene and screen, such as "won't" turned into "will" filling post after post.

I sincerely enjoy dialogue and discussion with those I disagree with, I enjoy and have befriended many non-believers and ex-mormons from message boards. Those that know me know I rarely become upset or engage in overly disagreeable discussions, I try to find common ground and discuss positives. I have sincerely questioned my approach I have taken on the Spalding thread (not my position mind you) because dialogue is so important. Disagreement might never be bridged with such delicate issues as what religion brings to the table - but our humanity with one another is all we have left when some us genuinely believe in deity and some us genuinely doubt.

I knew Gadianton years ago as one who would give the benefit of the doubt. He would employ a healthy disdain for Pseudo- skepticism of likes ministered by Mister Scratch just like a disdain for overly zealous and unhealthy religious perceptions and distortions. Real dialogue is what he would have exercised instead the pseudo-profundity he now so common engages in. His admiration for the tactics and plastic comments defy real dialogue that was possible and his sense of humor that was uplifting. I found him to be a genuine questioner and sincere freethinking unbeliever as opposed to an egotistical misanthrope like Mr. Scratch. Mr. Scratch's kind of distorting of what anyone believes and posts is distasteful and should be discouraged by any believer and non believer alike. It is the worst kind of debate, it debases those that engage in it. Even when the topic is benign and not so serious it reduces interesting and healthy disagreeable banter and laughter into mere cackling and sneering.

Coming from the side that supposedly disparages "faithful history" because of the possibility of distorting "truth" that is the one common ground the sides should share, Mr. Scratch attempts to turn every one of Mr. Peterson's posts into "faithful history" of his own fantasy land of pseudo-skepticism. It is ugly and even I cannot help but to be offended by that kind of unmitigated cartoonish nonsense.

Dr. Peterson has every right to defend himself against that ridiculous pageantry. And all of the good nonbelievers and genuine thinkers on their doubts and faith should be ashamed that they (if they) have not expressed that free and obvious opinion many times. I hope Mr. Scratch continues his slap-jack nonsense because opinions that I express here are surely more than singular and his free-expression should continue without suppression - but not without opinion otherwise.

It is just a shame the real dialogue with Mr. Peterson's time is avoided with such utter babble.

My sincere regards,

mikwut

[_Jersey Girl]

knew Gadianton years ago as one who would give the benefit of the doubt. He would employ a healthy disdain for Pseudo- skepticism of likes ministered by Mister Scratch just like a disdain for overly zealous and unhealthy religious perceptions and distortions. Real dialogue is what he would have exercised instead the pseudo-profundity he now so common engages in. His admiration for the tactics and plastic comments defy real dialogue that was possible and his sense of humor that was uplifting. I found him to be a genuine questioner and sincere freethinking unbeliever as opposed to an egotistical misanthrope like Mr. Scratch. Mr. Scratch's kind of distorting of what anyone believes and posts is distasteful and should be discouraged by any believer and non believer alike. It is the worst kind of debate, it debases those that engage in it. Even when the topic is benign and not so serious it reduces interesting and healthy disagreeable banter and laughter into mere cackling and sneering.

I confirm all that you've written above, mikwut, regarding "years ago".

[_cacheman]

Mikwut,

Great post. These things have been needed to be said for a while. I was actually surprised when I realized that Gadianton was the same poster as Gadianton from ZLMB. It's interesting how things change.

cacheman

[_harmony]

While I don't agree with Scratch 98% of the time, and I think he/she draws really stupid conclusions most of the time... stretching an argument 'way beyond it's carrying capacity... occasionally Scratch raises questions that deserve an answer (not on this thread, and not in recent memory, but a few times... yes). I wish he/she would expand her target to include other LDS apologists' arguments besides just Daniel's. Surely there are more arguments than his that deserve the kind of scrutiny Scratch enjoys applying. Daniel doesn't control the others, so why not take on a few of the others' more out-there arguments and take Daniel off the eternal slide under the highest powered microscope? Unless Scratch takes on others, his/her arguments are sounding more and more like a personal vendetta and less and less like a search for truth, more and more like a supermarket tabloid and less and less like CNN.

As for Gad... I don't know what's going on with him. He used to think up the greatest arguments, and he certainly wasn't a follower of anyone.

[_Jason Bourne]

I agree with you (more or less), Jason, but that's not what Dr. Peterson said that he was doing. Instead, he said that he'd "encountered a couple of instances" where he "suspected" that people were evading or equivocating. Both of these words imply a deliberate attempt to deceive. You know?

Usually, at least in my experience, the suspicion comes from something the person says in the interview.


Bishop: Do you obey the law of chastity?

Member: Well I think so.

Bishop: Hmmm.....do you have reason to think you may not be obeying the law of chastity?

Member: Well I think I might have made a mistake

Bishop: Can you let me know what happened and why you think this so perhaps I can better understand whether this is a problem or not.

Member: well it went like this.........

That is how I understood Dan's initial comment. I did not interpret it to mean that he was probing based on some rumor he had heard.

Well, I think we both know that there are two kinds of bishops: those you keep their noses out of the members' private sexual affairs, and those who are "suspicious" that the members are "equivocating" and/or "evading."

Actually most bishops fall in between those two extremes and sometimes may lean more toward one or the other depending on what circumstances require. And sometimes they make mistakes.

And come on, Jason. We have seen DCP go into this investigative "attack dog" mode far too many times. In essence, that is what he did to GoodK.

While I did not approve of the Goodk incident I did not see it near a egregious as you make it sound.

And I never see Dan probing or investigating. You on the other hand are frequently pushing him to cough up lots of information that is really no business of yours at all. The main attack dog I see here Scratch, and please this is not personal, it is just how I see your style, but it is you.

And the pages of FARMS Review are littered with little tidbits of gossipy "dirt" about the authors on the chopping block.

I have read numerous reviews from FARMS and do not see little gossipy tid bits of dirt though I have thought at times that some reviews focus too much on the author of the book reviewed rather than the substance of what they write. But the focus on the person was not malicious gossip but rather on qualifications or credentials.

I think you'll have to concede that this is just a part of his personality. I characterized it earlier as "Gestapo," and maybe that is a bit extreme, but in all seriousness, I think you'll have to concede that he does seem to engage in prying, and in fooling around in people's private affairs.

No I am sorry I cannot concede this. And as noted above, I know enough about Dan Peterson personally that I can say this is nothing like the person I know. In fact I have found him to be a genuinely caring person. How I know this I choose not to disclose here.

I didn't read it that way at all. Rather, it seems to me that he "slipped up" and admitted that he pressures his parishioners into "confessing", and then, when I pointed it out to him, he began backpedaling furiously.

I did. And I did not see back peddling but clarification.

Honestly, Jason: when you read his original remark, did it not strike you that he was engaging in this sort of "Gestapo" pressuring? If not, then maybe you can tell me how and why "coitus interruptus" would ever come up during a bishop's interview?

To continue my example above:

Member: Well you know we sort of started fooling around and fondling each other and so on but you know...well we did not go all the way really.

Bishop: Do you meant that you did not have sexual intercourse.

Member: Well yea sort of.

Bishop: Sort of? Well I really need some help here. I am trying to be sensitive and I do not want any more detail than necessary. But it is hard for a person to sort of sort of not have sexual intercourse.

Member: Well yes we did sort of, I mean, well bishop, this is hard to talk about, I am so very upset about this all and what we did, but well....I did penetrate her but before I climaxed I pulled it out so that really does not count as intercourse does it?

Keep in mind that this is a student ward Dan supervises. There can be lots of misunderstanding and sometimes not a little equivocation.

I don't think it's all that "innocent" at all, Jason.

I know you don't. Or you choose not to.

I think you're naïve to assume that DCP is just this nice, friendly, jovial individual who treats everyone fairly.

I am sure there are times he does not treat everyone fairly. He is after human. But in general I am almost positive that he tries to be decent and is a decent human being.

Try leveling a very fair-minded criticism against FARMS and see how long you remain on his "Friends List." I think that Harmony is far closer to the mark in terms of the type of person he is. Just my .02.

We will probably continue to disagree. I do not see FARMS as a monolithic smear machine. I do see some things I am not overly fond of. Their publications cover a large range of items and range from great to poor in some cases. I used to be a FARMS member. I am not anymore but that is more due to lack of interest in reading such materials though occasionally I do pull a paper off their web page. I have on by Matt Roper right now that I need to read on the Spalding theory and will do so as soon as I finish the Criddle essay. I should have finished both but have been distracted by two book got at Christmas-the John Adams Bio by David McCullough and Ehrdman's Misquoting Jesus.

Nor do I see Dan anywhere near what you portray him as and I have no question my personal experience with him is beyond yours.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Mikwut,

It's been a long time. Nice to hear from you again. As always, I am open to criticism.

I knew Gadianton years ago as one who would give the benefit of the doubt. He would employ a healthy disdain for Pseudo- skepticism of likes ministered by Mister Scratch

I'm a little confused by these remarks, which demonstrate to me an ignorance of Scratch's writing. I've never known Scratch to be a "pseudo-skeptic" or even a "skeptic" at all. To my knowledge, he is a TBM. I could be wrong and I don't pretend to speak for Scratch here, I'm just giving my observation. I've never seen him make arguments against God or religion. I have in fact seen him refuse to agree with skeptics who have tried to press him into a position of declaring the church to be false. I still do have a disdain for bad skepticism.

Real dialogue is what he would have exercised instead the pseudo-profundity he now so common engages in.

What pseudo-profundity are you talking about? I'm willing to consider my personal short-comings, but I need you to at least supply and example of where I've gone wrong. Do you disagree with my comment about the evasive use of the word "ant-Mormon" that apologists promote, that we all know really means much more to them?

Dr. Peterson has every right to defend himself against that ridiculous pageantry. And all of the good nonbelievers and genuine thinkers

I would think he has every right to "defend himself" against anything he wants to, free speech and all. He's going to love your defense of him, by the way, he really eats up the defences. However, if at some point, an apologist goes too far with you, berates you, distortes you, or is otherwise unfair with you, don't expect a two-way street. At that point, expect that he isn't responsible for anything on the apologist side of the fence but his own very words.

and his free-expression should continue without suppression - but not without opinion otherwise.

I agree with on both counts.

It is just a shame the real dialogue with Mr. Peterson's time is avoided with such utter babble.

What "real dialogue" do you imagine happening? Professor Peterson, for as long as I've seen him post, has been clear that scholarly conversations happen in academic journals and not message boards, which he regards -- as I recall him stating -- as mostly beneath him and just for fun and personal amusement, his chance to laugh it up over the low intelligence of critics. Do you think if Scratch disappeared that professor Peterson would post 5,000 posts on all the "meaty" topics? Did he do that at Z or anywhere else he's posted?

You ought to hear how Scratch raves about Richard Bushman. While I see a future Bushman era as the most advanced, most dangerous iteration of the Mormon apologetic yet, Scratch has no problem with it at all, from what I see. If he were just a skeptical thug like myself, he'd have more to say on the matter, for sure.

I will also point out that Scratch -- and myself for that matter -- are not the first to see a real problem with the tactics of SHIELDS, the Review (in many instances), Skinny-L, FAIR, etc..

If you have specific examples of things I've done wrong here, please, reference them.

[_mikwut]

Hi Gad,

It's been a long time. Nice to hear from you again. As always, I am open to criticism.

As am I.

I'm a little confused by these remarks, which demonstrate to me an ignorance of Scratch's writing. I've never known Scratch to be a "pseudo-skeptic" or even a "skeptic" at all. To my knowledge, he is a TBM. I could be wrong and I don't pretend to speak for Scratch here, I'm just giving my observation. I've never seen him make arguments against God or religion. I have in fact seen him refuse to agree with skeptics who have tried to press him into a position of declaring the church to be false. I still do have a disdain for bad skepticism.

I certainly admit to no expertise in all of Scratch's writings. I try to follow the more deptful and erudite posters and agree or disagree Mr. Peterson is one of them, and that means you have to run into silliness from Scratch. On this particular thread I have a very good friend that served in Japan the same time as shades and was interested in the reunion, and even there Scratch shows up to smear the man. The underlining current that Mr. Peterson is dishonest is what is most disturbing to me. He usually is the one that should be credited with being most detailed and contextual in everything he says.

What pseudo-profundity are you talking about? I'm willing to consider my personal short-comings, but I need you to at least supply and example of where I've gone wrong. Do you disagree with my comment about the evasive use of the word "ant-Mormon" that apologists promote, that we all know really means much more to them?

It would depend, sometimes in the particular I would, other times in the general I wouldn't. It is in that regard that I have seen some of your thinking move, from a more particularized and thoughtful criticism to a broader "monolithic" type thinking. "Apologists" all follow a textbook.

What "real dialogue" do you imagine happening? Professor Peterson, for as long as I've seen him post, has been clear that scholarly conversations happen in academic journals and not message boards, which he regards -- as I recall him stating -- as mostly beneath him and just for fun and personal amusement, his chance to laugh it up over the low intelligence of critics. Do you think if Scratch disappeared that professor Peterson would post 5,000 posts on all the "meaty" topics? Did he do that at Z or anywhere else he's posted?

I disagree. I have seen many posts spanning long periods of substance. And my thought is if he didn't have to constantly concern himself with nonsense maybe he would be more inclined, pearls before swine and that sort of thing. I like substance and depth.

However, if at some point, an apologist goes too far with you, berates you, distortes you, or is otherwise unfair with you, don't expect a two-way street. At that point, expect that he isn't responsible for anything on the apologist side of the fence but his own very words.

I am not sure I am totaling following. I would expect that I could have a rather civil and challenging dialogue with Dr. Peterson on a topic we disagreed with. I only expect anyone to be responsible for their own very words.

If you have specific examples of things I've done wrong here, please, reference them.

Just a general attitudinal shift and move from what I considered the more thoughtful to the more general and generic - not so wrong/right as taste I guess. Beggars can't be choosers though.

All in all Gad, its more of a plea for seriousness. I take the God, Christ, the Church and the skeptical responses quite seriously - if I am wrong I want to know that and I want to trust that my interlocuters are serious as well. That's all.

regards, mikwut

[_Gadianton]

and even there Scratch shows up to smear the man.

Mikwut, I have to disagree. Mister Scratch, with the form of a perfect gentleman, showed up to welcome Wayneman to the board. That's all. It was many posts later by my count -- and many posts after Wayneman had apparently jumped ship -- that Mister Scratch took issue with Dr. Peterson. But where did the derailing occur?

Harmony's mention that she had a temple recommend while possibly not relevant to anything Wayneman had said, certainly wasn't cruel or an attack anyone. And here it goes,

My TR is as good as yours, and that causes some folks who frequent this place a considerable amount of angst...

It causes me no angst, but, were I your bishop, I probably wouldn't have given you one.

Now you tell me Mikwut, were those words from Dr. Peterson the words of a "Freddy Friendly" or a "Billy Big"? Did what Harmony say really merit Dr. Peterson jumping in with this personal attack? According to you, DCP is only interested in scholarly conversations but has no time, since he's always in a struggle to defend himself. Was this a defense?

Certainly, he then went to great lengths to "contextualize" his attack on Harmony, and in the throes of those great lengths after already having made the thread personal, Scratch jumps in with his thoughts. Well, if it's OK to get a discussion going on why a person who is a member in good standing according to her bishop shouldn't be considered in good standing, in this case DCP appealing to his own authority and experience as a Bishop -- since we're already in the mire now -- is it then so wrong to question the practices of the Bishop who is now publically interviewing Harmony and finding her unworthy of a temple recommend? And that's what Scratch did, whether he's right or wrong in his assessments, I don't believe he "jumped in" to a welcome-to-the-board thread where everyone including the Bishop is playing nicey nice and "smear" the Bishop.

[_antishock8]

Meanwhile, how many times has a Bishop closed the door and "grilled" a young woman, in detail, about any "missteps" she might have had. You know... Gotta get those details...

Could you image sending your daughter off to a closed-door confessional with that Reverentially Rotund Rector eyeballing her as she was "grilled" for details about her sex?

Jesus.

Christ.

[_Pokatator]

I am not sure you can grasp her standpoint.

If I've got something wrong, I'm sure you can explain it.

Go ahead and try. It'll be your first substantive post, at least in my experience with you.

Everything I see from you is a personal insult directed at me, as in your post just above. I don't believe that I've ever seen you engage an actual issue.

Can you, incidentally, not see the difference between amateur long distance pop psychology, and the discussion of historical and doctrinal matters? Perhaps you can't. Your track record seems to indicate that it eludes you.

Oh Dear Doctor

You have certainly have me pegged and put me into my place with your superior intellect and wordsmithing. I do sit at my computer, corrected, by you the wise, all-knowing and second anointed one. It is true I am a lurker and a reader, I do not make lengthy posts and I have good reason for it. I am unable to most of the time or at least not in a timely manner. I have health issues that cause cramping and charliehorses in all my muscles and my fingers, wrists, and forearms are the first muscles to become susceptible to this condition. But please don’t use this as an excuse to hold back on your criticism of me, I don’t want to be left out.

So it is true I am not a lengthy and substantive poster like you. I also haven’t posted over 200 posts of “substance” on the MMM book thread like you did. Substance like, “I am waiting.”, “51 pages and waiting”, “51.1 pages", “51.4 pages ?” and so on for a question of yours “Who has read the book?” that had nothing to do with the OP. 200+ posts, Is it your view that volume equals substance...?

I have also not participated in deceptive tactics of avoiding answering questions for hundreds of posts about Quinn or a slew of other questions. I haven’t found it fun to team up with another internet bully, the likes of Big Up and Down, and play little boy games of playground showmanship at the expense of Harmony. Or have I ever outed someone from any internet board to their mommies and daddies. I haven’t made threats of violence like you and Nehor even if they are veiled as jokes or humor.

I haven’t wrote any parodies or poetry. I haven’t bragged and boasted about my degrees, positions, awards and worth to mankind. I am pathetically unpublished everywhere except in the “Letters to the Editor” section in my local newspaper and especially unpublished in apologetic mutual admiration societies that are of no worldly importance or substance. I am just plain unsophisticated and unconnected compared to you.

I haven’t chose to master the games “38 Ways To Win An Argument by Arthur Schopenhauer” which you can quote in German but play ignorant of not knowing anything about. It is referenced in a recent thread or you can do a Google. To quote you, “Why should I have to do the research for you on something that you can easily do for yourself?” Yes, you have these techniques mastered especially the art of exaggeration, Rule #1. You exaggerate your opponents views to draw emphasis to your view and try make the view of you opponent seem unreasonable.

This is one of the big differences that I see between you and Scratch. Scratch is direct and to the point with his comments and questions. You are the opposite. You exaggerate, pontificate, and avoid real answers continually. It is true that I don’t agree with Scratch on all issues and some I think are silly at best but his inquiries are honest but you lump everyone with your labels and names about Scratch. Your answers to him are usually nothing but a game you play. You are his monkey on a chain and for someone supposedly as intelligent as you are you can’t see it. You are the master of condescension and that somehow feeds you and Scratch. But then again you choose the subjects you want to respond to, don’t you. You don’t want to respond to anything substantive like MMM, Adam/God and so on. You seek out the non-substantive posts and play your intellectual games. Your l-Skinny jokes and subtle insults and innuendos. Yes, I have insulted you before and will again, I am sure, but my insults are not veiled in fancy words and phrases so I can maintain a look of superiority and a cloak of goodness so I can stroke my ego and maintain a good standing with my church callings. I am sure you think that, if I cloak and veil an insult, a lie, a breach of confidence, a smear of someone’s reputation I can still be an upstanding apologist, a pillar of the community, and a Bishop. You are no different than a politician. Now, in case you don’t know, that was an unveiled insult.

This is the criticism that is common in the church, being goody two-shoed in church and among the brethren and the sisterern and totally different to the rest of the world. I haven’t seen the need to question someone else’s worthiness to be in the church or in the temple and especially based on something posted on an internet message board. I haven’t insulted and questioned someone’s Bishop or SP on issues of worthiness. But Dr. you have no problem with that. You insult someone’s worthiness and at the same time insult a fellow Bishop/SP but you don’t see it that way. Maybe your Second Anointing and vast standing in the church gives you that special discernment over posters here and even over their Bishops.

I know that you have fans and lap dogs here and over at the MAD septic tank but absolutely no one thinks more of your intellect, humor, worthiness and superiority than you do. Yep all your posts are “discussions of historical and doctrinal matters”.

Yes sirree, we are different and I am so thankful for that.