Richard Mouw - DCP's next target?

[_Kishkumen]

I have a feeling that 'backing up' will have little impact one way or another with the crew he is accusing. Where it makes a difference is in the eyes of onlookers.

[_MsJack]

And no one anticipated this banning? Even some of the more level-headed posters here said they were surprised that you lasted as long as you did. No, it wasn't just about Dan. Your last sentence is the reason you tend to inflame rather than encourage dialogue.

For the record, when I said I was surprised that Kevin lasted as long as he did, that was meant as a judgment on the tendencies of the MDDB moderation to ban non-LDS/ex-LDS posters for no reason. Kevin can certainly be churlish and hotheaded, but he isn't any worse than any number of the LDS posters over there who are allowed to post unmolested. His most recent banning was undeserved.

[_TrashcanMan79]

I would never term Richard Mouw an anti-Mormon. Nor Douglas Davies. Nor Craig Blomberg. Nor Larry Foster. Nor Jan Shipps. Nor David Trobisch. Nor Kenneth Winn. Nor would I have called Thomas O'Dea an anti-Mormon. Nor Wallace Stegner.

Wait. I thought "anti-Mormon" was merely "a descriptive term for those whose tactics or desires oppose or fight against the beliefs, members, or practices of the Church," and "is not a slur nor is it pejorative in its use."

None of those folks qualify for the clinically-descriptive-and-totally-objective-and-void-of-any-emotional-loading-whatsoever term "anti-Mormon"? Honestly?

Craig Blomberg's contribution to How Wide the Divide seemed to me to oppose the beliefs of the Church, but it's been some time since I've read it. I haven't read any of the others, but I'm willing to bet some of you have. No anti's among em? None? Set me straight here.

I can't believe that I've ever called Richard an "anti-Mormon." Anything's possible, I suppose, but I don't remember it and I don't regard him as one. In fact, I've praised him publicly and privately for his fair-mindedness. I like him very much, and respect him.

Is the implication here that anti-Mormons aren't fair-minded, likeable, or respectable? I hope not, because then I would have to question the credibility of the whole "'anti-Mormon' is simply a non-perjorative descriptor" thing, and I don't like questioning things like that.

[_RayAgostini]

For the record, when I said I was surprised that Kevin lasted as long as he did, that was meant as a judgment on the tendencies of the MDDB moderation to ban non-LDS/ex-LDS posters for no reason. Kevin can certainly be churlish and hotheaded, but he isn't any worse than any number of the LDS posters over there who are allowed to post unmolested. His most recent banning was undeserved.

You weren't the only one who expressed this.

Quite a number of non-LDS/ex-LDS posters still remain on MDDB. Another one who surprised me is Craig Paxton. If you read his posts, there might be a clue (I'm not saying I know what that clue/answer is) there as to why he hasn't (yet) been banned.

[_RayAgostini]

Is the implication here that anti-Mormons aren't fair-minded, likeable, or respectable? I hope not, because then I would have to question the credibility of the whole "'anti-Mormon' is simply a non-perjorative descriptor" thing, and I don't like questioning things like that.

From your link:

FAIR and other apologetic organizations tend to use the term "anti-Mormon" when it is an accurate description of an author and his/her tactics.

FAIR does not believe or argue that everyone who disagrees with the LDS Church is "anti-Mormon." As one prominent scholar of anti-Mormonism put it:

The hallmark of anti-Mormonism is an agenda, whether covert or openly expressed, of combating the faith of the Latter-day Saints and opposing their church.

[_MsJack]

Quite a number of non-LDS/ex-LDS posters still remain on MDDB.

Yes, I never said that they banned all of them.

But the fact remains, several non-LDS/ex-LDS posters (myself included) were banned from the forum when we weren't even posting there. There's just no excuse for that.

[_MsJack]

The hallmark of anti-Mormonism is an agenda, whether covert or openly expressed, of combating the faith of the Latter-day Saints and opposing their church.

(The FAIR Wiki only cites "a scholar of anti-Mormonism" and the reference it gives doesn't even contain this quote; Mormon Voices attributes it to Dan.)

The problem with this is that anybody can be accused of having a "covert agenda" against the LDS church. A person who objects to the "anti-Mormon" label will insist that s/he has no agenda against the LDS church, and the apologist will reply by asserting that s/he really, really, secretly does. It's happened to me, which is when I realized that the term "anti-Mormon" had jumped the shark.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I was perplexed by this post from J Green:

I agree with CASteinman on this issue. Dan's in a fairly unique position as a prominent scholar, church member and apologist. I asked him once to keynote a Military Intelligence conference dinner and speak to a bunch of spooks (essentially) about his view on the state of Islam. The next day, several non-LDS civilian analysts from various intelligence agencies told me that they knew of and respected Dan because of their shared background in the Middle East, but they also told me that they had seen some of his LDS apologetic efforts online. He has chosen to be fairly public in his efforts, and he is a visible representative of BYU. If I were in his position I would likely also want to set the record straight when I felt others misrepresented me or my views.

(emphasis mine)

This is weird--i.e., the part I've emphasized. Notice that J Green--whose hobby is "literary themes," meaning, I suppose, that he's rather well-attuned to semantics--says, "but they also told me..."

He doesn't elaborate on what this means, but he goes on to say that "If I were in his position I would likely also want to set the record straight." I interpret this to mean that, in his conversations with non-LDS civilian analysts, the opinions weren't exactly glowing. Otherwise, why the need to "set the record straight"? J Green doesn't say that these "non-LDS civilian analysts" had seen other people's commentary on DCP. He specifically cites DCP's "LDS apologetic efforts online."

This is telling. Lots and lots of people have said--repeatedly--that DCP is very different in person compared to his online persona. This gets dismissed by The Good Professor himself--he says that it's impossible for anyone to be that "schizophrenic" (or complex?). Nonetheless, that is what people--including Kevin Graham and Chris Smith--have said.

The thing is, J Green's opinion is extremely problematic:

But I think I'm in a unique position here. I've known Dan in real life for over three decades. I've been in wards and branches with him from Ma'adi, Egypt to Orem, Utah. I've known him socially and discussed a variety of issues with him. He was one of the first people to whom I introduced my wife, and I consider him to be a sort of spiritual godfather in the sense that he was with me when I took out my endowments as I was preparing to serve a mission.

What this means is that J Green has never tested DCP's loyalty. He's basically been DCP's lapdog since he was 19 years old. What he doesn't seem to understand is that longstanding loyalties don't necessarily have a bearing on the way a person seems to the Wider World. Quote Borges all you want, Joey Green: the fact remains that your "Good Friend Dan Peterson" has, quite literally, hundreds of enemies. Do you sincerely think that these people arose simply due to a misunderstanding of tone? Do you think that was the case with, e.g., John Dehlin?

But J Green, in the end, just can't be taken seriously. The fact is, he has admitted to loving the FARMS-style smears. When asked about his opinion on the Greg Smith hit-piece on Rodney Meldrum, this was his reply:

As I've said, I actually don't think that strong rhetoric is the preferable option. But let me ask you this: Did you read the entire article yourself? Do you think Greg's claims are accurate? I.e., is it just the rhetoric to which you object, or do you take issue with the evidence itself? If the terms hadn't been used in a published article but in a backyard conversation instead, would you agree that "snake oil salesman" accurately describes the behavior that Greg documents?

viewtopic.php?p=502480#p502480

I remember that, when I first read the underlined portion, I was blown away. J Green had consistently represented himself as someone who was primarily interested in decent, kindly, scholarly conversation. And yet look at this: here he is, admitting that, in "backyard conversation," he would be all too happy to label TR-carrying Rodney Meldrum a "snake oil salesman."

This is Joey Green's real persona poking through the contrived calm of his posting style. This is someone who actually likes it when DCP and the rest of the Skinny List crew crap on people. Later, J Green said some remarkably hateful and rage-fueled things about me--claiming that I was no different from a returned soldier with PTSD, and that I needed mental health treatment. This coming from a man who claims that online postings aren't indicative of the real person.

So the real conundrum here is this: Can you size up a person based on his/her posts? J Green and Calmoriah seem to say "No," at least as this is applied to Daniel C. Peterson. Is it true, though?

Just some food for thought....

[_Kishkumen]

He's basically been DCP's lapdog since he was 19 years old. What he doesn't seem to understand is that longstanding loyalties don't necessarily have a bearing on the way a person seems to the Wider World. Quote Borges all you want, Joey Green: the fact remains that your "Good Friend Dan Peterson" has, quite literally, hundreds of enemies. Do you sincerely think that these people arose simply due to a misunderstanding of tone? Do you think that was the case with, e.g., John Dehlin?

But J Green, in the end, just can't be taken seriously. The fact is, he has admitted to loving the FARMS-style smears. When asked about his opinion on the Greg Smith hit-piece on Rodney Meldrum, this was his reply:

As I've said, I actually don't think that strong rhetoric is the preferable option. But let me ask you this: Did you read the entire article yourself? Do you think Greg's claims are accurate? I.e., is it just the rhetoric to which you object, or do you take issue with the evidence itself? If the terms hadn't been used in a published article but in a backyard conversation instead, would you agree that "snake oil salesman" accurately describes the behavior that Greg documents?

viewtopic.php?p=502480#p502480

I remember that, when I first read the underlined portion, I was blown away. J Green had consistently represented himself as someone who was primarily interested in decent, kindly, scholarly conversation. And yet look at this: here he is, admitting that, in "backyard conversation," he would be all too happy to label TR-carrying Rodney Meldrum a "snake oil salesman."

A couple of things here:

1) J Green, according to my limited knowledge of the man, is no one's "lapdog." I think someone else here who has met and broken bread with him can speak to this better than I can. I believe Runtu has.

2) As much as I am troubled by the role that NAMIRS has taken up as the unofficial, self-appointed doctrinal watchdogs of Mormonism, especially when it is clear that there is an ideological tinge to the enterprise, I do not condone the nativism that is often associated with Rodney Meldrum's following. If it is true that Meldrum's viewpoint is taken as justification for an LDS American exceptionalism, I have no sympathy for it. I say that even though I really hate Greg Smith's so-called "reviews."

[_J Green]

Thanks, Kish. You're a good man.

And I should clear up one thing--I've actually been Dan's lap dog since I was 12.

Actually, the thing I like about Scratch's post is that it shows how an online persona can be created. I note that not only am I hateful and rage-fueled in my postings but that I am remarkably so. But the whole rage/angry thing is a favorite gambit of Scratch. It always reminds me of that scene in Anger Management:

Dave: Uh, excuse me, could I maybe get that headset, please?

Flight Attendant: Do not raise your voice to me, sir.

Dave: I wasn't raising my voice.

FA: Okay, just calm down.

Dave: I am calm. I just want my headset.

FA: Sir, our country is going through a very difficult time right now. And if you're not going to cooperate . . .

Dave: I don't know where a headset ties into patriotism.

Air Marshal: Is there a problem here, sir?

Dave: I . . . I don't think so.

FA: Calm down, sir. Just calm down!


Regards