The Peterson/Schryver Inquisition

[_RayAgostini]

I have it on good authority that this is not included in Smith's article.

Have a nice night, folks.

Previous drafts?

Possibly. But you know, John, far more publicity and rife speculation has been given to this here and elsewhere when, as far as I know, it has not even been published. The speculation can sometimes be more harmful than the actual document. Those who never knew about this "incident" will now be far more curious than ever.

If you ever want to witness "hit piece" after "hit piece", then just keep reading the threads on this board. If you were a wise man, you'd learn from this board how not to react to the problems in apologetics, through speculation, innuendo, character defamation and plain mob rule. It's far worse than anything ever published by NAMIRS.

Where I grew up there weren’t many trees
Where there was we’d tear them down
And use them on our enemies
They say that what you mock
Will surely overtake you
And you become a monster
So the monster will not break you

("Peace on Earth", by U2)

[_CaliforniaKid]

I would advocate avoiding hyperbole and seek a closer example, like adding Mary to the Godhead.

That's actually a pretty good comparison. There's a pretty significant Catholic movement advocating that Mary be regarded as a co-redeemer with Christ. The Church considers this to be heterodox, but it arguably stems from authentic strains of the tradition itself, just like Mormonism's Heavenly Mother movement.

[_Kevin Graham]

If you ever want to witness "hit piece" after "hit piece", then just keep reading the threads on this board. If you were a wise man, you'd learn from this board how not to react to the problems in apologetics, through speculation, innuendo, character defamation and plain mob rule. It's far worse than anything ever published by NAMIRS.

What does it say about Dan's hit pieces when the only way you can make him look good is by comparing his "scholarly publications" to anonymous bantering on an internet forum?

Yes, I'm sure you can find some spiteful comments on these forums, but the point is Dan is supposed to be a scholar. He is supposed to be operating at a much higher level, but as Kishkumen has demonstrated, he sets the bar extremely low as far as scholarship goes.

Dan is obsessed with attacking and lampooning former members and critics. He's been doing this since the 90's. He and I used to tag team on the Walter Martin forum, and I remember the way he'd take pot shots at these folks with a twisted sense of gratification. He loves it. He lives for it. He even admits being addicted to reading comments from the subculture known as the counter-cult. He's been using sock puppets for years on the ex-Mormon forum, just to be an offender for a word. He's done this on numerous forums, included one that I used to own and operate. He doesn't debate anyone on anything. He flees the scene when asked tough questions, and no, his departure has nothing to do with civility. He's ignored people who have been quite civil towards him. He then publishes hit pieces, taking advantage of the pulpit his Church has given him. That's despicable and speaks to his character.

Criticizing a public figure like Dan Peterson is what you might expect on discussion forums, but public figures spending all their time criticizing anonymous posters on discussion forums isn't what we'd expect to see from real scholars.

[_The Dude]

I read Dan's article after John Dehlin posted a link on Facebook. I didn't know Will Schryver was the muse behind it, but it definitely had the cadence of a sunday school lesson. What a crappy style of writing.

{quote a bunch of scripture] ... interpret .... [quote a bunch of scripture] ... interpret ... [quote a bunch of scripture] ... interpret....

Why don't you just say what you mean without intermingling the scripture bull crap??? Maybe exegesis has a place in some humanities disciplines, but in a printed article it is phony and stilted. Especially when the quoted scripture is a damn fairy tale.

[_Kevin Graham]

I read Dan's article after John Dehlin posted a link on Facebook. I didn't know Will Schryver was the muse behind it, but it definitely had the cadence of a sunday school lesson. What a crappy style of writing.

{quote a bunch of scripture] ... interpret .... [quote a bunch of scripture] ... interpret ... [quote a bunch of scripture] ... interpret....

Why don't you just say what you mean without intermingling the scripture bull crap??? Maybe exegesis has a place in some humanities disciplines, but in a printed article it is phony and stilted. Especially when the quoted scripture is a damn fairy tale.

ROFL!

[_Kishkumen]

That's actually a pretty good comparison. There's a pretty significant Catholic movement advocating that Mary be regarded as a co-redeemer with Christ. The Church considers this to be heterodox, but it arguably stems from authentic strains of the tradition itself, just like Mormonism's Heavenly Mother movement.

Yep. That's why I brought it up.

[_Kishkumen]

If you ever want to witness "hit piece" after "hit piece", then just keep reading the threads on this board. If you were a wise man, you'd learn from this board how not to react to the problems in apologetics, through speculation, innuendo, character defamation and plain mob rule. It's far worse than anything ever published by NAMIRS.

Far better to have a scary Brownshirt like Schryver who advocates sniffing out internal enemies, eh Ray? Far better to have paid apologists stalking the Internet talking about openly, and alluding to in vague accusations, the failings of those "enemies," all with the implied approval of the Church.

Far better to accuse Laura Compton of being a Satanic deceiver. Right?

Poor John would have a lot of explaining to do if he ever dared criticize such paragons of virtue and righteousness as those who do such things.

And yes, my citation of normal standards of academic book reviewing was quite the "hit piece" wasn't it?

[_Yoda]

If you ever want to witness "hit piece" after "hit piece", then just keep reading the threads on this board. If you were a wise man, you'd learn from this board how not to react to the problems in apologetics, through speculation, innuendo, character defamation and plain mob rule. It's far worse than anything ever published by NAMIRS.

Far better to have a scary Brownshirt like Schryver who advocates sniffing out internal enemies, eh Ray? Far better to have paid apologists stalking the Internet talking about openly, and alluding to in vague accusations, the failings of those "enemies," all with the implied approval of the Church.

Far better to accuse Laura Compton of being a Satanic deceiver. Right?

Poor John would have a lot of explaining to do if he ever dared criticize such paragons of virtue and righteousness as those who do such things.

And yes, my citation of normal standards of academic book reviewing was quite the "hit piece" wasn't it?

Kish brings out a good point.

Yes, Ray, there are quite a few negative posts on MDB. There are personal attacks, and "hit pieces", if you will, that attack personal character of folks who post here.

However, what is the real consequence of the "hit pieces" posted here?

Kish brings up a very valid point by recognizing that the "hit pieces" which ARE made on MI and FAIR have more far-reaching consequences for the subjects of those "hit pieces". Their Church membership can be investigated. Their work reputation can be compromised.

The reason that Shades and I acted as we did on the recent issue involving Dan and the Facebook episode was that we saw potential for harm to his employment. That is an area we, as administrators of this site, are sensitive to.

That same sensitivity does not seem to be consistently given to all who author "hit pieces" on MI or FAIR.

As much as MDB is a part of our every day world, MDB is still relatively small as far as its audience and circulation. The audience which permeates MI and FAIR is likely larger, (although this is speculation...I have no official studies) but beyond being larger, that audience also consists of people who can make or break careers and Church memberships.

[_Kishkumen]

That same sensitivity does not seem to be consistently given to all who author "hit pieces" on MI or FAIR.

No kidding. In fact, aggressive measures have been taken by the BYU-employed apologists to push for tenure denials, some at unrelated institutions, and to end people's membership in the LDS Church.

[_MrStakhanovite]

After that whole slavery issue, it's hard for me to read anything from Will or Dan without this running through my head.