Pseudo-Psychology and DCP

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

On another thread I posted the following. Rather than derail that thread, I am making its own.

1. P, on some level, understands that Mormonism is essentially false. The evidence is lacking or contradictory.
2. P needs to create a situation where Mormonism can be bolstered.
3. P seeks critics out, not to communicate ideas, but to passively aggressively prompt them to attack him personally. All posts by him must eventually become about him, and the more unsettled the critic the better. But P cannot initiate the hostilities, the critic must take the bait. Why?
4. The critic attacks P "unfairly, showing P that they have nothing to say worth hearing, that exmoism produces bitter people, that Mormonism must have something to it, otherwise why make it personal instead of talking issues?

If true we would expect:

1. P will especially seek out the most unbalanced critics to interact with.
2. P will avoid calm critics who only talk issues.
3. All interactions with P will either end in him going somewhere else and leaving the conversation, or the critic will attack him, whereupon P will reinvest MORE time encouraging more attacks. (This would be limited to interaction concerning Mormonism. Anyone can talk to him about politics, the Jazz, or the weather.)
4. P will find it very, very hard to stay away from disrespectful critics, and will be bored (disturbed?)by respectful ones.

How close am I?

[_brade]

On another thread I posted the following. Rather than derail that thread, I am making its own.

1. P, on some level, understands that Mormonism is essentially false.

I don't think that's true.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

So P, sees all the evidence, all the arguments, all of it, and on some level doesn't sense that there are no answers to the questions? Not buying that. Take a gander at his responses to Isaiah problems in the Book of Mormon. That reveals it all.

[_brade]

So P, sees all the evidence, all the arguments, all of it, and on some level doesn't sense that there are no answers to the questions? Not buying that. Take a gander at his responses to Isaiah problems in the Book of Mormon. That reveals it all.

From my own discussions with Daniel Peterson it seems to me that he sees all the evidence, all the arguments, all of it, and believes that there are answers to most of the questions. In fact, he goes further than that. In a discussion I had with him around here not too long ago he claimed that the best available evidence (setting aside spiritual experience) weighs in favor of the Church's major claims. I'm willing to take him at his word, that he sincerely believes that.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

So P, sees all the evidence, all the arguments, all of it, and on some level doesn't sense that there are no answers to the questions? Not buying that. Take a gander at his responses to Isaiah problems in the Book of Mormon. That reveals it all.

From my own discussions with Daniel Peterson it seems to me that he sees all the evidence, all the arguments, all of it, and believes that there are answers to most of the questions. In fact, he goes further than that. In a discussion I had with him around here not too long ago he claimed that the best available evidence (setting aside spiritual experience) weighs in favor of the Church's major claims. I'm willing to take him at his word, that he sincerely believes that.

Sure. Go ahead. I prefer to judge actions, reality, evidence, rather than "his word". I mean, it's not like lying would be in his interest.

Anyone else?

[_brade]

Sure. Go ahead. I prefer to judge actions, reality, evidence, rather than "his word". I mean, it's not like lying would be in his interest.

Anyone else?

I don't see what about his actions suggests that he doesn't believe most or all major Mormon claims. He claims to believe, and I'm willing to accept his word about his own mental states.

[_Willy Law]

In a discussion I had with him around here not too long ago he claimed that the best available evidence (setting aside spiritual experience) weighs in favor of the Church's major claims. I'm willing to take him at his word, that he sincerely believes that.

I'm beginning to understand why Michael Quinn said that people in academia have zero respect for the academic integrity of BYU facility.

[_Jaybear]

I don't see what about his actions suggests that he doesn't believe most or all major Mormon claims. He claims to believe, and I'm willing to accept his word about his own mental states.

What does he claim to believe, specifically?

I asked him once if he believed that Smith had the ability to locate treasure buried beneath the earth by looking a stone placed in his hat. Despite the simplicity of the question, he would not answer, yes, or no, choosing instead to answer a question I did not ask.

When someone is not willing to give you a straight answer to a simple question about what they believe, you should not assume that they believe all of the claims that they defend.

[_stemelbow]

P seeks critics out, not to communicate ideas, but to passively aggressively prompt them to attack him personally.

Stupid. The attacks that people throw at him are his fault. Its always someone else's fault I guess.

I cna't help myself. He prompted me to start up a thread about him on the site where people who hate him frequent to mock him and try to make him look bad.

[_Buffalo]

P seeks critics out, not to communicate ideas, but to passively aggressively prompt them to attack him personally.

Stupid. The attacks that people throw at him are his fault. Its always someone else's fault I guess.

I cna't help myself. He prompted me to start up a thread about him on the site where people who hate him frequent to mock him and try to make him look bad.

Two points, Stem:

1) DCP only responds to mocking/ad hom attacks, not calm discussion of substantive issues
2) He is incredibly condescending and passive aggressively insulting in his behavior toward others. Are you saying the purpose of this is not to prompt a flame war? If not, to what end does he engage in this behavior?