Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

[_antishock8]

When has DCP ever apologized for anything---even if only to be on the safe side? Never, as far as I know. I'm kind of curious as to why this is.

You know what, Mr. Scratch? I believe Mr. Peterson believes he's never wrong when engaging in apologetics. That's how people like him work. His ego is so out of what that it will do whatever it can to protect itself. And people with a messed up ego can do these mental gymnastics to convince themselves they're awesome, when in reality they're just douchebags. He really believes he has to never concede wrongess. Know matter what people tell him, because of his pride and ego, he can't acknowledge error when engaging in apologia.

[_Mister Scratch]

When has DCP ever apologized for anything---even if only to be on the safe side? Never, as far as I know. I'm kind of curious as to why this is.

You know what, Mr. Scratch? I believe Mr. Peterson believes he's never wrong when engaging in apologetics. That's how people like him work. His ego is so out of what that it will do whatever it can to protect itself. And people with a messed up ego can do these mental gymnastics to convince themselves they're awesome, when in reality they're just douchebags. He really believes he has to never concede wrongess. Know matter what people tell him, because of his pride and ego, he can't acknowledge error when engaging in apologia.

That could very well be. I'm also fond of contemplating the possibility that he was given the 2nd Anointing, and thus he doesn't ever have to apologize for anything, since his calling and election has been made sure.

[_The Nehor]

It does bring up a question about what the US would look like, if Joseph had won his presidential bid.

If his legislation ideas had gone through (difficult I admit) and he won the election:

1. End of slavery without impoverishing slaveholders.
2. Smaller Congress with lower pay.
3. Prison Reform aimed at reformation instead of punishment.
4. Expanded Federal Powers, might have averted some of the State's Rights issues of Civil War.

No problem with that here.

[Analytics]

When has DCP ever apologized for anything---even if only to be on the safe side?

Is apologizing for a mistake you didn't make (but others wrongly attribute to you) acting on the "safe side"? I'm not convinced. Over-apologizing cheapens real apologies.

Never, as far as I know. I'm kind of curious as to why this is.

I'm sure you are. It must be for some deeply disturbing, nefarious reason that you haven't seen Daniel Peterson apologize to be on the "safe side".

[_The Nehor]

Looking into Martha Hughes Cannon, briefly I learned she certainly was not the average woman, nor the typical female raised in a polygamous family. One reason is she didn't come from a polygamous family. So she was educated and not indoctrinated to be subservient to men and a baby maker.


After she became a doctor she married the superintendant of the hospital, she was 27 at the time, and I believe he had about 5 other wives. She didn't quit working, She was completely independent continued on with her career, even went to Europe for a couple of years to live with her one child at the time. I don't know if she ever lived with him and his wives.

Sure I can see this woman marrying a polygamous man, and in such a relationship she could be independent even more so even than in a monogamous relationship. She certainly was not the average women.

For DCP to bring her up as an example of women in polygamy is despicable.

NEWSFLASH!!!!

Woman living happy and fulfilling life in polygamy shows that polygamy is evil. FILM AT 11!!!!

I find your characterization of my Utah ancestors in polygamy despicable. You are demeaning the women, my great-great grandmothers and making them out to be weak-willed women trained to be baby-makers. Doesn't come through in their journals or any of the accounts of their life. If you were to give this pious garbage sympathy act to them in person only their kindness would keep them from clocking you and denouncing everything you say.

[_Mister Scratch]

When has DCP ever apologized for anything---even if only to be on the safe side?

Is apologizing for a mistake you didn't make (but others wrongly attribute to you) acting on the "safe side"? I'm not convinced. Over-apologizing cheapens real apologies.

You yourself observed that DCP was harsh. And come on now: he has screwed up so many separate times that it is pretty hard for any reasonable person (except The Good Professor himself, of course) to deny that there have been moments when he should have apologized. And yet, to my knowledge, he never has. In fact, he's never even admitted to the possibility that he may have been in the wrong!

Never, as far as I know. I'm kind of curious as to why this is.

I'm sure you are. It must be for some deeply disturbing, nefarious reason.

Lol. No, no. In all honesty, my sense is that it is purely a matter of pride and hubris. But, that's just my .02. What is your take on it, ABman?

[_asbestosman]

You yourself observed that DCP was harsh.

Irrelevant, especially if it's not wrong to be harsh at times.

And come on now: he has screwed up so many separate times that it is pretty hard for any reasonable person (except The Good Professor himself, of course) to deny that there have been moments when he should have apologized.

This is tangential to the question about whether he should apologize here. I certainly hope this tangent isn't an attempt to shift the goalposts. Then again, the goal remains the same (show that Daniel Peterson is a scoundrel), but the strategy seems to have evolved somewhat in this thread. Whatever.

And yet, to my knowledge, he never has. In fact, he's never even admitted to the possibility that he may have been in the wrong!

I'm not saying Daniel Peterson hasn't ever done anything that he should apologize for. I'm not even saying he hasn't ever done anything online he should apologize for online. However, since I can't think of any concrete examples (Quinn doesn't count for me), I'm having a hard time convincing myself that Daniel Peterson is a self-absorbed egomaniac who never apologizes.

In all honesty, my sense is that it is purely a matter of pride and hubris. But, that's just my .02. What is your take on it, ABman?

I don't have a take on it. I don't recall any apologies from Gadianton, but I don't think that means he's all pride and hubris. I don't recall any apologies from several different people even though I'm sure many of them (not necessarily all of them) have made online apologies. I don't keep track and am not interested in investigating it either way.

[_The Nehor]

I don't have a take on it. I don't recall any apologies from Gadianton, but I don't think that means he's all pride and hubris. I don't recall any apologies from several different people even though I'm sure many of them (not necessarily all of them) have made online apologies. I don't keep track and am not interested in investigating it either way.

This brings up an interesting point. I don't recall Scratch ever apologizing. Does this indicate pride and hubris?

[_Mister Scratch]

You yourself observed that DCP was harsh.

Irrelevant, especially if it's not wrong to be harsh at times.

Irrelevant to what? Whether or not he should apologize, as Harmony did?

And come on now: he has screwed up so many separate times that it is pretty hard for any reasonable person (except The Good Professor himself, of course) to deny that there have been moments when he should have apologized.

This is tangential to the question about whether he should apologize here. I certainly hope this tangent isn't an attempt to shift the goalposts. Then again, the goal remains the same (show that Daniel Peterson is a scoundrel),

No, the goal is to get him to accept some accountability for his actions.

And yet, to my knowledge, he never has. In fact, he's never even admitted to the possibility that he may have been in the wrong!

I'm not saying Daniel Peterson hasn't ever done anything that he should apologize for. I'm not even saying he hasn't ever done anything online he should apologize for online. However, since I can't think of any concrete examples (Quinn doesn't count for me),

How about the "harshness" you observed in this thread?

I'm having a hard time convincing myself that Daniel Peterson is a self-absorbed egomaniac who never apologizes.

Yes; you're right. Perhaps he does apologize. I've just never seen him do it in any Mopologetics-related situation.

In all honesty, my sense is that it is purely a matter of pride and hubris. But, that's just my .02. What is your take on it, ABman?

I don't have a take on it. I don't recall any apologies from Gadianton, but I don't think that means he's all pride and hubris.

When have you ever seen Gadianton engage in the sort of "harshness" one can observe here? When has Dr. Robbers ever engaged in a Quinn- or Ritner-esque smear campaign?

I don't recall any apologies from several different people even though I'm sure many of them (not necessarily all of them) have made online apologies. I don't keep track and am not interested in investigating it either way.

Okay.

[_asbestosman]

Irrelevant to what? Whether or not he should apologize, as Harmony did?

Precisely. If harshness is not wrong per-se, then there's nothing to apologize for.

No, the goal is to get him to accept some accountability for his actions.

But if the harshness is irrelavent to an apology, there's nothing Old Testament account for here.

How about the "harshness" you observed in this thread?

See above.

Yes; you're right. Perhaps he does apologize. I've just never seen him do it in any Mopologetics-related situation.

I've never seen Gadianton apologize in any mopologetics-related situation either. Irrelevant.

When have you ever seen Gadianton engage in the sort of "harshness" one can observe here?

I don't know and I don't care. It's irrelevant.

When has Dr. Robbers ever engaged in a Quinn- or Ritner-esque smear campaign?

I don't share your view of these events. I don't even think Daniel Peterson has engaged in the sort of mythical campaign you've twisted those events into. I would submit, however, that you engage in preciesly that sort of a smear campaign against Daniel Peterson.

But then, he deserves it. Or something.