From My Informant: Did Brian Hauglid Betray Schryver?

[_RayAgostini]

Well, how openminded would I be if I were only open to the pro-LDS position? Is that truly openminded?

Darth J and Scratch make some really good points.

Do you know who they are? I wouldn't have a clue. If I knew who "Scratch" is, he might actually get some more respect from me. Until then, it's a no go. I want to know, face to face, who I'm dealing with, and I won't trust him/them until I do. For all his faults, I know who Dan Peterson is, and regardless of his "online persona", I firmly believe he's a person of integrity. That counts for a lot. I've said before, and I'll say it again, DarthJ is a proper bore. You've never read his so-called "insightful rebuttals" before? He's just a plagiarist. He's a newcomer to exmoism. I've been reading them since 1985. But he likes to "play smart" here, as if he's revealing something new. He's full of BS.

If you want facts, Kish, regarding pros and cons, they have been available in hardcopy for years, going back to the early '80s. The DarthJ and Scratch spin has only one purpose in mind - to kill all faith without serious reflection, or at least being open to other views. They don't want dialogue - they want you to eventually hate Mormonism, and to accomplish this, they'll first get you to hate "apologists", then you'll eventually grow to hate Mormonism.

Works like magic.

[_RayAgostini]

And when it comes right down to it, logic and reason often produce more real charity and Christian-like behavior than you see from hypocritical religionists.

Oh, I've seen plenty of that here. LOL.

[_Kishkumen]

Do you know who they are?

I do know who Darth J is.

I wouldn't have a clue. If I knew who "Scratch" is, he might actually get some more respect from me. Until then, it's a no go. I want to know, face to face, who I'm dealing with, and I won't trust him/them until I do. For all his faults, I know who Dan Peterson is, and regardless of his "online persona", I firmly believe he's a person of integrity. That counts for a lot.

I don't know who Scratch is. That does not prevent me from being friendly with him.

I have already written my praises of Daniel today. I don't need to repeat them. I don't see this as an either/or situation simply because one or both of them do.

I am also not obliged to agree with Daniel and refrain from all criticism of everything he does.

I've said before, and I'll say it again, DarthJ is a proper bore. You've never read his so-called "insightful rebuttals" before? He's just a plagiarist. He's a newcomer to exmoism. I've been reading them since 1985. But he likes to "play smart" here, as if he's revealing something new. He's full of BS.

You know, I have seen that you and Darth have a real toxic relationship here. I am not getting involved in that. And I am not going to say anything more about it.

They don't want dialogue - they want you to eventually hate Mormonism, and to accomplish this, they'll first get you to hate "apologists", then you'll eventually grow to hate Mormonism.

Works like magic.

That may be true, Ray. But, you know, I have been around a few years myself, and I have yet to see the necessary connection between liking apologetics and liking Mormonism. In fact, I think the two things have little to do with each other in some ways. I admire the core principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I can't say I really care all that much for the behavior of apologists who act contrary to that Gospel on a regular basis. So, how does not approving of that transgression of Gospel principles lead me to hate the Gospel?

I would appreciate it if you could explain that to me.

[_RayAgostini]

I do know who Darth J is.

Still a mystery to me, anyway. But he's still a novice who thinks he's a "ground breaker", and apparently loves the adulation here. He's also a misguided and closed-minded skeptic preaching his own "gospel". Who knows, one day in the future he might be another "Alma the Younger". Nothing's certain in life.

I don't know who Scratch is. That does not prevent me from being friendly with him.

I have imaginary friends too. You're excused. How do you know, that if you cease this friendship, that he won't stab you in the back? Does he really like you, or just because you support him?

I have already written my praises of Daniel today. I don't need to repeat them. I don't see this as an either/or situation simply because one or both of them do.

Don't disappoint me. If you don't feel it in your heart to give sincere praise, then don't give it. It's not as if you have a "quota" of DCP praises to make you seem "fair". I believe, I hope, you are above that.

I am also not obliged to agree with Daniel and refrain from all criticism of everything he does.

I agree, but continuing to aid and abet those who want him abolished from "mopologetics", and who engage in blatant character assassination, is not a healthy way to "disagree".

You know, I have seen that you and Darth have a real toxic relationship here. I am not getting involved in that. And I am not going to say anything more about it.

That's because you still sympathise with Darth's myopia, who thinks that Mormonism can be dispelled with "cold, hard, facts". Sigmund Freud thought the same when he wrote The Future of the Illusion. The illusion turned out to be Freud's.

That may be true, Ray. But, you know, I have been around a few years myself, and I have yet to see the necessary connection between liking apologetics and liking Mormonism. In fact, I think the two things have little to do with each other in some ways. I admire the core principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I can't say I really care all that much for the behavior of apologists who act contrary to that Gospel on a regular basis. So, how does not approving of that transgression of Gospel principles lead me to hate the Gospel?

I would appreciate it if you could explain that to me.

Go back to when you first posted here. No doubt you have been "illuminated". Even DCP admired you then, and praised you as a "real academic".

[_EAllusion]

So Nevo agreed with Will's alias that this board is filled with a violent, irrational undercurrent in every conversation? That kinda lowers my opinion of Nevo, especially given the irony of Will himself being one of the nastier personalities to grace the board and Nevo's willingness to participate in a board with more significant issues with polite, fair discourse. It suggests a tunnel vision that I genuinely thought he was above.

[_asbestosman]

It suggests a tunnel vision that I genuinely thought he was above.

I find it in some sense to his credit. I think it shows him as more of a genuine believer and that a genuine believer can be polite and rather reasonable even if he has blind spots.

[_Kishkumen]

But he's still a novice who thinks he's a "ground breaker", and apparently loves the adulation here. He's also a misguided and closed-minded skeptic preaching his own "gospel". Who knows, one day in the future he might be another "Alma the Younger". Nothing's certain in life.

You know, Ray, I don't have any illusions about widespread adulation generating from participation on this board. I doubt Darth J does either. Darth has his own story, and it is harrowing in some ways. I think it is unfortunate that anonymity prevents us from being in contact with the whole person, and having sympathy for their struggle, but he has the very best of reasons not to reveal his identity.

I also respect Darth as a person of high intelligence, just as I respect you. But you are very different personalities and people who are in very different places. I am not surprised by the clash, but I regret it for selfish reasons. It makes for very uncomfortable reading as a guy who thinks of both of you as friends. Maybe your long exposure to criticisms of Mormonism is superior to mine, and therefore all that Darth says is "old hat" to you. Personally, I have never seen anyone do something I value so well: revealing the absolute farce of those who compromise their honesty or contradict the plain facts in apologetics.

I have imaginary friends too. You're excused. How do you know, that if you cease this friendship, that he won't stab you in the back? Does he really like you, or just because you support him?

You know, I do remember my own history with Doctor Scratch. I do think he "likes" me, but if I crossed him I think he would have no problem doing his best to knock me on my ass. Just like he did the last time we clashed. But so would Dr. Peterson, because his outward friendliness is every bit as conditional as Doctor Scratch's. Both of them may like me on some level just fine. But if you challenge people, they will smack you around to the best of their ability all the same.

Don't disappoint me. If you don't feel it in your heart to give sincere praise, then don't give it. It's not as if you have a "quota" of DCP praises to make you seem "fair". I believe, I hope, you are above that.

You see, Ray, you are just as capable of being rude and unfair as anyone else here. My praise was sincere, and would not have been offered if it were not. I just hoped that I did not have to repeat myself, since I assumed that you had read what I wrote.

I agree, but continuing to aid and abet those who want him abolished from "mopologetics", and who engage in blatant character assassination, is not a healthy way to "disagree".

I have indicated very clearly and consistently that I have a high opinion of his efforts in Mormon Scholars Testify. So, I personally have no agenda to see him abolished from LDS apologetics. I am not convinced that anyone else does either. You see, no matter how we may want to imagine otherwise, Daniel is responsible for provoking some of the response he gets. You know the old saying, "live by the sword; die by the sword." I think that in his case this is true. Of course, he will argue way past the tolerance of most people that his sword was really just a wooden cudgel, and that he merely smacked you with it using a modicum of force, whereas you came unfairly with a nuclear missile to obliterate him because you hate Mormonism, yaddy-yaddy, blah-blah.

It is a game, Ray. It is what he does. I don't have to buy it and run to his assistance because someone somewhere on the internet finds him to be a jerk. Frankly, he behaves like a jerk online all the time. Many, many people see that. He could always choose to behave differently, but something tells me that this is not going to happen. Does this make him awful? Does it overwhelm all of the other wonderful things he has done and will do? No. But I am not sure people are to be blamed for not enjoying and assenting to some of his apologetic tactics.

The man is not above criticism, but he will certainly torture you with pin pricks as long as you persist in your criticism of him. And you will be called an anti-Mormon because you don't like Daniel Peterson's apologetic tactics and partisan swipes.

That's because you still sympathise with Darth's myopia, who thinks that Mormonism can be dispelled with "cold, hard, facts". Sigmund Freud thought the same when he wrote The Future of the Illusion. The illusion turned out to be Freud's.

Actually, you are dead wrong there. I don't think Mormonism can be dispelled with "cold, hard, facts." I do believe that people can dispel it from themselves by coming to view it in a different, less flattering light. And, it may be that the religion is hampered by the level of criticism and bigotry aimed at it. But dispel? No. I don't believe that. I am surprised that you think I believe that. Really.

Go back to when you first posted here. No doubt you have been "illuminated". Even DCP admired you then, and praised you as a "real academic".

I was here for quite some time before DCP praised me for being a "real academic." He praised me for being one when I was behaving in a way he could deal with better: when I was fighting with Scratch. I mean, come on, Ray, it is so predictably partisan. Maybe he meant it, but from my point of view it is exactly the kind of conditional admiration that plagues most minds. Although I respect Daniel's scholarly achievements, as much unfair criticism as they receive around here, I am not making too much of his praise for me as a "real academic."

I do believe that he has been puzzled at how someone like me could be here, saying what I have said, and yet be a "real academic." Fair enough, I suppose. But there are plenty of other "real academics" a lot smarter than I am who post here regularly. I recognize that, and I so I don't see why I should be particularly concerned about his shifting assessments of me in that regard.

[_Some Schmo]

Seriously Ray, what do you hope to accomplish here these days, and do you honestly imagine you're doing a good job?

I'm sincerely curious.

[Guest]

That's because you still sympathise with Darth's myopia, who thinks that Mormonism can be dispelled with "cold, hard, facts". Sigmund Freud thought the same when he wrote The Future of the Illusion. The illusion turned out to be Freud's.

Cold hard facts are to Mormonism as garlic is to vampires.

[_harmony]

Nevo was wrong, as much as I like him.

Well it's obvious you're not inclined to do an evaluation, or even think for one moment that there could possibly be something wrong here. That's not what I call being open-minded, nor considering other viewpoints.

1. Why do we care that Nevo enjoys posting at MDDB? Good for him. Why do we care that Nevo doesn't enjoy posting here? Too bad for him.

2. Nevo is the one who is not being open-minded nor is he considering other viewpoints. If he did, he'd post here, since we know that "other viewpoints" will get a poster swiftly banned from MDDB, while "other viewpoints" ... for that matter "all viewpoints" are valued here.

3. Just because someone doesn't agree with you (or Nevo or anyone else) doesn't mean they aren't capable of evaluation.

4. There are likely many things wrong here (for one thing, we're chatless). Open mindedness, fair moderation, all views welcome... none of those is what's wrong here.