The DCP 'Outreach' Thread

[_Some Schmo]

I am not interested in the intimate details of Dr. Peterson's life, but I will operate under the assumption that his wife loves him.

I suppose it's possible. People have all kinds of weird fetishes.

[_Simon Belmont]

Nothing left to say, so now you have to whine about not posting links. Really, Simon?

No, Eric. I was and am seriously confused as to why you refuse to post the links. If I had such "smoking gun" evidence, I would post it in a heartbeat. Instead, it seems you keep the issue going by not posting the evidence you claim to have.

Do you doubt that Bro. Peterson was himself promoting the two Deseret News articles on the Internet and identifying his son as the author?

I doubt that he promoted the two DN articles on MDB or MD&D. He may have on Facebook, but he admitted that.

[_Eric]

No, Eric. I was and am seriously confused as to why you refuse to post the links. If I had such "smoking gun" evidence, I would post it in a heartbeat.

Evidence of what? What are you talking about? "Smoking gun"?

I doubt that he promoted the two DN articles on MDB or MD&D. He may have on Facebook, but he admitted that.

No one has said anything about MormonDiscussions.com or the MAD board? Certainly not me. I'm positively sure that other places exist on the Internet where Junior Peterson's articles could be promoted by Brother Peterson.

Don't you think it's hypocritical of Brother Peterson to complain about people being critical of Junior Peterson's writing, in light of all the criticizing he's done?

Don't you think it's hypocritical of Brother Peterson to complain about people discussing Junior Peterson's writing on the Internet when he himself promoted the articles and boasted about who wrote them?

For your benefit, Simon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

[_Simon Belmont]

Evidence of what? What are you talking about? "Smoking gun"?

The evidence that Dr. Peterson mentioned his son's articles on the Internet. All you would have to do is provide links. That's what Dr. Peterson asked, and that's what I am asking. If you have no evidence, you should not claim that you do, right?

No one has said anything about MormonDiscussions.com or the MAD board? Certainly not me. I'm positively sure that other places exist on the Internet where Junior Peterson's articles could be promoted by Brother Peterson.

Great, then you'll surely post the links and end this bickering.

Don't you think it's hypocritical of Brother Peterson to complain about people being critical of Junior Peterson's writing, in light of all the criticizing he's done?

I do not believe two wrongs make a right, Eric. Further, I do not believe that Dr. Peterson would even be an apologist were it not for critics of the church. You have only yourself to blame, in my opinion.

Don't you think it's hypocritical of Brother Peterson to complain about people discussing Junior Peterson's writing on the Internet when he himself promoted the articles and boasted about who wrote them?

Well, until I have some evidence that Dr. Peterson has done this (links, Eric), I have no opinion on the matter.

[_Eric]

The evidence that Dr. Peterson mentioned his son's articles on the Internet.

Bro. Peterson hasn't denied mentioning the articles on the Internet, so who is that needs convincing? You? Do you doubt that Bro. Peterson promoted the two articles in question publicly on the Internet?

If you have no evidence, you should not claim that you do, right?

Evidence of what, Simon?

Great, then you'll surely post the links and end this bickering.

If Bro. Peterson denies promoting the articles publicly, I will gladly post links showing otherwise as a rebuttal. Has Bro. Peterson denied promoting the articles publicly on the Internet?

Don't you think it's hypocritical of Brother Peterson to complain about people being critical of Junior Peterson's writing, in light of all the criticizing he's done?

I do not believe two wrongs make a right, Eric. Further, I do not believe that Dr. Peterson would even be an apologist were it not for critics of the church.

Ah, I see. You have no integrity and are unable to recognize any wrongdoing in people you think are on your "side". Disappointing, but not surprising. Integrity is a horrible thing to lack, in my opinion. You're wrong, by the way, about apologists existing because of critics. Mormon apologists exist because Mormons needs the apologists to help them reconcile certain beliefs.

You have only yourself to blame, in my opinion.

Your opinion is that I have only myself to blame for Daniel Peterson's poor character and choices? I think Bro. Peterson is to blame for his own behavior, don't you. Aren't we all gifted with free agency? Very interesting, Simon Walker.

Well, until I have some evidence that Dr. Peterson has done this (links, Eric), I have no opinion on the matter.

So, if it turns out that Bro. Peterson did promote the articles on the Internet in a public place, would you think he was a hypocrite? (Answer, Simon.) I will gladly post whatever links you would like if you can answer that simple question.

I do think it is interesting that you can't recognize any of his faults but seem almost eager to ridicule the faults of "critics".

[_Simon Belmont]

Bro. Peterson hasn't denied mentioning the articles on the Internet, so who is that needs convincing? You? Do you doubt that Bro. Peterson promoted the two articles in question publicly on the Internet?

It is I who needs convincing.

Evidence of what, Simon?

That Dr. Peterson bragged about his son on the Internet.

If Bro. Peterson denies promoting the articles publicly, I will gladly post links showing otherwise as a rebuttal. Has Bro. Peterson denied promoting the articles publicly on the Internet?

But why the conditions, Eric? If you don't have the evidence, just say so.

Ah, I see. You have no integrity and are unable to recognize any wrongdoing in people you think are on your "side". Disappointing, but not surprising. Integrity is a horrible thing to lack, in my opinion. You're wrong, by the way, about apologists existing because of critics. Mormon apologists exist because Mormons needs the apologists to help them reconcile certain beliefs.

Integrity would mean you displaying that you have the evidence for the action which you accuse Dr. Peterson of doing. It would also mean that if you don't have the evidence, you cease the accusation.

Here's hoping.

[_Eric]

Simon Walker,

In your hastiness to type out a snarky reply I believe you forgot to answer the one question I posed to you:

So, if it turns out that Bro. Peterson did promote the articles on the Internet in a public place, would you think he was a hypocrite? (Answer, Simon.) I will gladly post whatever links you would like if you can answer that simple question.

Go ahead Simon. Admit that it would make Bro. Peterson a hypocrite.

[_Simon Belmont]

Go ahead Simon. Admit that it would make Bro. Peterson a hypocrite.

My intention was not to be "snarky", I am simply confused at the difficulty in posting the supposed evidence you have.

If you have none, that's fine, but I expect to hear no more about this from you.

[_Eric]

Simon,

Why are you avoiding such an easy question? If you don't want to answer it, just say so instead of playing games.

One last time, hoping that Simon has a little integrity.

So, if it turns out that Bro. Peterson did promote the articles on the Internet in a public place, would you think he was a hypocrite? (Answer, Simon.) I will gladly post whatever links you would like if you can answer that simple question.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

Why are you avoiding such an easy question? If you don't want to answer it, just say so instead of playing games.

I don't want to answer it.

Now then, post the links or admit you don't have them, please.