J Green wrote: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:
You tried to characterize me as "hate-filled" yourself on at least one occasion, Joey. Further, this "Let's avoid the issue and tell a joke instead" thing is a favorite gambit of yours. And hey: maybe I was exaggerating. I personally think that comparing someone on an online messageboard to a combat veteran with PTSD-related angery issues is in "remarkably" bad taste, but hey: your mileage may vary. Maybe you intended this, too, as a "joke"?
Regardless, I don't think your "creating a persona" thing really holds much water, unless you're also willing to accept that saying things like, "Will Bagley is a venomous gasbag, consumed with bombastic hatred for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Mormonism," or the characterization of Kevin Graham as someone who is "rage-fueled/angry" and/or always calls his opponents "liars" is also a form of "persona creation." That's the problem with your little theory, Joey: at what point is this kind of thing "persona creation," and at which point is it an accurate assessment of the other person?
Shall we take bets on whether or not your answer "toes the party line"?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
First, the Anger Management piece wasn't a diversionary joke. I was trying to make a serious point (through humor) about how people react to personas vice the real person.
Second, you objected to my characterization of you. Essentially, you have suggested that I am reacting to a "persona" of you. Fair enough. It wasn't a joke, but my concerns about what I see as an unhealthy obsession with Dan is a perception we could test. (One that we could also test in the "FARMS rhetoric" case or even my own, by the way.) I've followed your campaign against Dan since you first started posting on the old FAIR board, and it still has the feel of something personal to me and something that clusters specifically around Quinn.
So let me suggest an experiment by way of a test. Kish is someone I respect, and yet he can be critical in his perception of the tone of FARMS/NAMIRS. If you did a search on all of his threads and posts over the last five years and compared them to all your threads and posts during the same time period, what percentage of his posts in comparison to yours would you guess deal with Dan specifically? Are there any patterns? Can we tell if anyone is singularly obsessed with something in particular? Contrast this to Kish's inquisitive posting style that ranges over many subjects and is able to hold nuanced positions on this very issue of which he is also critical (see his response above).
Third, you ask me about the "personas" that have been created for others online and whether or not I agree with them. However, this gets us into the realm of the very things I've told you I wouldn't discuss with you. And I still don't intend to do so now. But I have offered to discuss it with others and that offer stands. In fact, the very excerpt you quoted from my conversation with Gadianton is just such an example, where I had declined to discuss it with you but was willing to do so with Gad. I had in fact started to discuss it with him by probing his reaction to the terminology used by Greg. Unfortunately, Gad didn't answer my questions, so we never finished the conversation. But that also means that I didn't make any real observations of my own either. What you dissected were preliminary questions meant to refine Gad's position and not my own. So much for context.
I came to this board many years ago simply following the faith discussions from elsewhere. But I still visit occassionally in large part because I enjoy many of the personalities here, regardless of whether or not I agree with them on faith issues or any other topic. I simply like posters like Kish, Runtu, Beastie, Chris Smith, Ms. Jack, Blixa, Honorentheos, Uncertain, Sethbag, and any number of others here that I haven't named. These are people I've grown fond of over the years and the kind of people I wouldn't mind knowing in real life. They often make me laugh or think about my assumptions. As I've said before, I'd be willing to discuss this issue (or any other issue) with any of them here or in person.
And as I've indicated to you before, I'm still willing to explore other LDS or non-LDS issues with you: Islam, the American Revolution, the fall festival in ancient Israel, Book of Mormon translation? What about my thesis of Nephi as a priestly scribe and metalworker from a Kenite/Rechabite clan? Any interest there?
Cheers
". . . but they must long feel that to flatter and follow others, without being flattered and followed in turn, is but a state of half enjoyment" - Jane Austen in "Persuasion"
Joey: Why must you always try to make this about me? All I said was that your "persona" theory doesn't hold up. Instead of providing a counter-explanation, or some kind of rebuttal--some kind of measurement that would show why you think that the hundreds of complaints about your Good Friend Dan Peterson are in error, versus why, say, his comments on Will Bagley or Kevin Graham (or, I guess, me, since you seem obliged to haul me into this) *are* accurate--you've gone off on your trademark diversion. What's up with that?
Well, okay: you did supply one sort of measurement, which is the frequency that the other person is mentioned in relationship to posts made by Kishkumen. The Kishkumen Ratio, as it were. So, if we compare the number of times that Bill Hamblin has said negative things about John Dehlin with the number of times Kishkumen has criticized Daniel Peterson, we'll have a clearer sense of who is crafting a "persona" and who isn't? Is that about it?
I think you get my point, which is that your point is pretty nonsensical and indefensible. It really isn't a very good means of determining anything beyond the comparative ratio. It has nothing to do with whether or not a "persona" is accurate; whether the amount of posting is "healthy" or "obsessive" or whatever else.
And I know all too well why you won't discuss the alleged wrongdoings of FARMS, the MI, SHIELDS, FAIR, and the Mopologists. It's because it's an argument you can't win. What I don't understand is why, if you "won't discuss it," you keep inserting yourself into these threads.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Rushing into the fray, and for for what it's worth, I do see a different Dan persona online as compared to in real life. Perhaps it's not so much by what he writes online, but by what he doesn't. His online persona can be "cold", and easily misinterpreted (so can mine, for the record). Knowing Dan for 30 years, as J. Green has, could be seen as "final authority" on the subject (or even Dan's own self-perceptions), but I'd argue that sometimes "first impressions" (so to speak, or only a few hours acquaintance) can be more accurate. It's not a question, at all, of "szhizophrenia", that's silly. I'd also argue that the Dan who blogs is different to the message board Dan, and that isn't because there are two Dans, but the circumstances are different. For me, this difference came as a striking realisation years ago, and was only reinforced by the Mormon Stories interview.
MsJack wrote: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.
I'm not saying there's something good, fair or right about MDDB - far from it, just for the record. I take them on their stated aims and goals, which is largely to rid the board of what they might call "unproductive critics", or those they perceive as "anti-Mormons". I've been banned for several years now and have no intention of going back. I'd sooner walk on broken glass.
1. No interest in making this about you. And I didn't haul you into this conversation. I simply made an observation about a friend on the other board and you responded with a nice feature piece on me over here.
2. I think the Hamblin comparison is a good idea. Out of all Hamblin's posts, how much has he actually focused on Dehlin as opposed to, say, ascension texts, or masonry, or ancient Christian iconography, or the temple in Ancient Israel? Could we graph the results? Now let's graph your interest in, say, (picking something at random) Dan as opposed to your posting on other subjects like ancient Christian iconography. Then let's compare it to Kish's interest in Dan as you suggest. Is one of these graphs not like the others? At what point does a quest for "accuracy" turn into an obession?
3. I'm willing to discuss just about any subject, including the perception of FARMS rhetoric, as evidenced by my discussion with Gad. He asked me my opinion on the tone of Greg's article and I started to engage him on the issue. And as I've told you repeatedly, there are others here with which I would discuss it as well. I just don't think it would be very fruitful with you. For example, there are those on this and the other board who are obsessed with their political paradigms to the point that every post they make (whether the topic is MMM or Book of Mormon translation) turns out somehow to result in a diatribe on the political party they despise. I don't propose to discuss politics with them either, no matter how hard they wanted me to, although I would certainly do so with others who showed a willingness to engage in nuanced discussion.
But here's my caveat, Scratch. I'm willing to change my opinion based on personal experience. If Jane Austen has taught me anything, it would be to rethink first opinions. So let's change my opinion. Let's discuss something that isn't the usual flashpoint issue, taking our cue from that awkward scene at Netherfield: I'll talk about the dance and then you can make some kind of remark on the size of the room or the number of couples. Once I know reasonable discussion is possible on other subjects, I'm fair game for anything you want to discuss with me, including your perception of FARMS rhetoric. Worth a shot?
Regards
". . . but they must long feel that to flatter and follow others, without being flattered and followed in turn, is but a state of half enjoyment" - Jane Austen in "Persuasion"
RayAgostini wrote:Rushing into the fray, and for for what it's worth, I do see a different Dan persona online as compared to in real life. Perhaps it's not so much by what he writes online, but by what he doesn't. His online persona can be "cold", and easily misinterpreted (so can mine, for the record). Knowing Dan for 30 years, as J. Green has, could be seen as "final authority" on the subject (or even Dan's own self-perceptions), but I'd argue that sometimes "first impressions" (so to speak, or only a few hours acquaintance) can be more accurate. It's not a question, at all, of "szhizophrenia", that's silly. I'd also argue that the Dan who blogs is different to the message board Dan, and that isn't because there are two Dans, but the circumstances are different. For me, this difference came as a striking realisation years ago, and was only reinforced by the Mormon Stories interview.
Ray,
An interesting take. I agree that circumstances can color our perceptions of others and make it appear as if there are difference voices at work. And as you suggest, we can influence this just as much by how we choose not to participate as by how we do. Sometimes I read something here or on the other board that causes me to reflect for several days. By then, the conversation has moved on, and nobody has any idea how it has affected me, even though it has dominated my thinking for the better part of a week. Nobody sees that and likely won't simply due to my choice not to participate in in the conversation that has gone too fast for me or for which I'm too busy. So they miss a part of who I am and what defines me.
Good stuff.
Cheers
". . . but they must long feel that to flatter and follow others, without being flattered and followed in turn, is but a state of half enjoyment" - Jane Austen in "Persuasion"
J Green wrote:What about my thesis of Nephi as a priestly scribe and metalworker from a Kenite/Rechabite clan? Any interest there?
Cheers
That sounds a lot more interesting than discussing Daniel Peterson.
Amen.
Nephi/Lehi display the characteristics of three different vocations from the ancient world: priest, scribe, and metalworker. All of these vocations were regulated by guilds by clan, and there weren't actually metal workers among the Israelites. Metalworking was found among the Phoenicians to the north and the Kenites/Rechabites to the south in the Arabah/Trans-Jordan.
If Nephi is a pure Israelite, how is he a metalworker? If Lehi is a priest, why doesn't he know his Israelite geneology? If Lehi is an Israelite priest, from whence the Melchizedek priesthood?
The Kenites, however, included family clans of scribes who intermarried with the Israelites at different times during Israel's history. They worked metal in the same location to which Lehi and his family flee after leaving Jerusalem. And the Melchizedek priesthood is transferred through at least one Kenite/Midianite clan, where D&C 84 gives us the priesthood lineage of Melchizedek. If Lehi is from a similar clan whose family had intermarried with Israel at some point in the past, it would explain how he could be a priest and hold the Melchizedek priesthood without even knowing his Israelite geneology.
Short version. All speculation, of course.
Cheers.
". . . but they must long feel that to flatter and follow others, without being flattered and followed in turn, is but a state of half enjoyment" - Jane Austen in "Persuasion"
J Green wrote:Nobody sees that and likely won't simply due to my choice not to participate in in the conversation that has gone too fast for me or for which I'm too busy. So they miss a part of who I am and what defines me.
I notice that "in the real world" I get very different comments about me than some I see online, and that's precisely because of what you note above. Posters really only see "parts" of you online, no matter how much you post, and that's not to say it's impossible to be correct in some, or even many online assessments, but not "the whole" of you.
For years I've been trying to express online what I believe, yet so many just don't "get it". I have to be frank in saying, though, that sometimes even I don't "get it", and how to more clearly express myself in this "journey", and that's what it is. By chance, I came across the following article this morning, and realised that I finally found an article that comes very close to my own personal beliefs; my own personal journey, if you like. For me it was a eureka moment, and because I know you're an intelligent and reflective person, perhaps you might also enjoy it: