Kishkumen wrote:Hello, Everyone:
After watching and participating in the latest thread about D. Michael Quinn, I am done with attacking Daniel Peterson. Done.
I ask that all of our resident apologists make a note of this thread and throw it in my face if I ever go back on my word.
Life is too hard for everyone without all of this nonsense. Daniel no more needs this drama in his life than I do, and I can't help but think that there is something fundamentally unhealthy in continually dredging up the past to beat up on anyone like this.
The madness has to stop for me. You all do whatever you like, but I can't take it anymore. Daniel has been nothing but kind and polite to me outside of the heated arguments we have had online, and I can't in good conscience attack him or stand by and not comment when other people do. My comment: I denounce these incessant attacks.
Do I agree with apologists and the way apologetics are sometimes conducted? No. But I'll be damned if I am going to continue to single out and hound any one person as the sacrificial lamb for the "evils" of LDS apologetics.
I don't care who did what when. I don't care who is right or who is wrong. There is a time for compassion and grace extended to our fellow human beings. Now is that time for me. Daniel, I am sorry.
Trevor
Well said Kish. Add me to the list of those who wish to see the personal attacks cease. There is a difference between heated debate and character assassination. One of the reasons I don't post here very much is because there are very few apologists here. I think there are very few apologists here partly because of the way they see Dan and others being treated.
In my book, Dan gets enormous credit for engaging critics directly on a field where he is outnumbered. He deserves basic respect, as does anyone else who comes here under their real name.
I'm all for parody and even subtle mockery when it's deserved, but the incessant allegations of bigotry etc., which are clearly undeserved, constitute genuine harassment.