Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_harmony]

If struggling members who show up on MDD are told that they are already good as lost to Christ, I am simply exaggerating by saying they have been brutalized.

I've never seen this.

Being intentionally blind does not mean it doesn't happen. In other words, just because you choose to not see doesn't mean people aren't regularly thrown under the MADD/FAIR bus.

People with genuine questions are generally treated compassionately—trolls looking to pick a fight, not so much.

This fits really well with the substance currently composting in my corral.

In any case, what has MDD to do with FAIR or the Maxwell Institute?

Check the cast of characters. See any familiar names?

Yes, I am aware that MDD grew out of a board once run by FAIR, but message board posters do not now and never have spoken for FAIR.

You are aware, of course, of who owns MDDB, right? And who runs it?

[_harmony]

What doesn't really make sense to me is your apparent view that *any* "fire" is justifiable. Even if someone is a bona fide troll, what use is there in treating this person badly?

+1

This is an excellent point, which is virtually always overlooked in the War.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Also: I can think of at least a couple of instances off the top of my head where Dr. Peterson has been dismissive or rude to people asking sincere questions. One was here on this board, up in the Celestial Forum, when Liz asked him about blood atonement. He basically just blew her off, as I recall.

On another occasion, someone on MAD/MDD asked him a direct question about Adam-God, and again: he gave them the cold shoulder, explaining that he refuses to publicly discuss Adam-God (though as I recall, he later came out and admitted that he believes it is false doctrine).

While I don't think these illustrate "brutality," they do show how apologists--in this case a top-ranking MI apologist--responds to sincere questions. And in a context like MDD, DCP doesn't really need to be a jerk. All he'd need to do is shrug and Pahoran, Scott Lloyd, and the others would come storming in with their accusations of trolling. After all, they have lots of models to draw upon for dealing with people with critical questions: the Review, SHIELDS, and so on. This behavior is okay because the Top Dawgs at FAIR and the MI do it.

[_Kishkumen]

Being intentionally blind does not mean it doesn't happen. In other words, just because you choose to not see doesn't mean people aren't regularly thrown under the MADD/FAIR bus.

Just the other night I was in chat with an apologist who admitted to me that after getting ejected from a FAIR email list s/he went inactive for two years and even considered resigning from the LDS Church. This person claimed that the ejection occurred over "questions."

Now, in my opinion this person is pretty volatile, so I think our reading of that strong reaction has to be tempered by that understanding, but at the same time it amazes me that you guys are so oblivious to all of the people who are maltreated in your society. Frankly, I find the denial bizarre.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Another example that comes to mind is jskains, who actually tried to volunteer with FAIR, but was shunned and kicked to the curb by them.

[_Kishkumen]

Another example that comes to mind is jskains, who actually tried to volunteer with FAIR, but was shunned and kicked to the curb by them.

I feel badly for the guy. Odd duck that he is, he has reached out to these apologists, who, in spite of the admonitions of Christ, have simply decided that he is a pain in the butt and not cool enough for them. I daresay a number of people on this board probably treat him as well or better than the apologetic community does, and he thinks we're all terrible people!

[_EAllusion]

It's possible that a sincere questioner has occasionally been hit with friendly fire but I really don't think it has happened very often. If it has, they weren't victimized by FAIR or the Maxwell Institute but by overzealous amateur defenders of the faith.

I can only point out again that I've seen it repeatedly. And it's not like I follow the board in a day to day basis. The problem is that if someone's line of questions rhetorically sets up a critical argument, the default assumption is troll/sockpuppet. The moderating team are some of the worst culprits, which complicates the point a bit. The issue at hand aside, I also don't think it is Ok to be mean to critics, but kind to sincere questioners when the argument is the same.

Remember when Pahoran accused John Corrill of projecting his nascent pedophile fantasies on Joseph Smith? Classy guy, that Pahoran. Why would whether John Corrill's line of comments being that of a questioning member or a critic matter as far as whether that's kosher or not? I don't think you think it matters, but if you did, the implication is that critics are "fair game." Your friendly fire metaphor would be more apt than I thought.

I just looked at the FAIR Wiki page you're referring to.

It was edited to tone it down recently. Check out the screencaps here.

But I'm not sure that anyone should feel beaten and bloodied by such apologetic responses. At worst, they're simply unconvincing.

Beaten and bloodied obviously is hyperbole. But it also is more than unconvincing. People can be awfully meanspirited in their approach. If all you think of Pahoran-style writing is that it is "unconvincing" then you just have a blindspot.

[_Nevo]

What doesn't really make sense to me is your apparent view that *any* "fire" is justifiable. Even if someone is a bona fide troll, what use is there in treating this person badly?

Is giving a troll what they want—a fight—treating them badly? I'm not sure. Online discussions can get heated, especially if the opposing viewpoints are deeply entrenched. What use is there in partisan bickering? Probably none at all, except that the participants experience the thrill of doing combat with an ideological "enemy." But I'm preaching to the choir here...

Instead, people with real questions come to these publications and can see the snark and the biting lanaguage. E.g., someone might have read Quinn's book on magic, only to follow up by reading Bill Hamblin's review of it.

Funny. I had this very experience. I read Quinn's book and then read Hamblin's critical review. It didn't alter my opinion of Quinn's book, which remained largely favorable, but neither did I feel "betrayed" by it. Professor Hamblin and I simply don't see eye-to-eye on every question.

[_Nevo]

Another example that comes to mind is jskains, who actually tried to volunteer with FAIR, but was shunned and kicked to the curb by them.

Personally, I'd like to see FAIR become more exclusive in determining who represents it online, not less so.

[_Nevo]

Beaten and bloodied obviously is hyperbole. But it also is more than unconvincing. People can be awfully meanspirited in their approach. If all you think of Pahoran-style writing is that it is "unconvincing" then you just have a blindspot.

I freely concede that some LDS message board participants can be mean-spirited in their dealings with critics—and with their fellow Mormons. But it doesn't follow from this that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, as organizations, routinely abuse and otherwise "harm" struggling members. They don't.