The Peterson/Schryver Inquisition

[_RayAgostini]

Pull your head out of your ass, Ray. Seeking the end to a particular practice at the journal is not "Daniel bashing."

You know, I don't get it. Someone else here, not me by the way, criticizes what he sees as your temperament issues, and you strike at me?

Does that strike you as being somewhat bizarre and ill-aimed?

I know it does me.

What in the hell did I do to you to merit this kind of treatment?

"Hey, you accuse me of "x", well look at what my longtime friend and advocate Kishkumen did, because that REALLY stinks!"

I forgive you, Ray. I have no idea what has gone on with you to bring you to this.

The Dude is one of your own. He's "with you", do you deny that? He's quite content to attack me, but he will leave you untouched. That's how it works here. I've been psychoanalysed enough here, beginning with Scratch. Tell your buddies to butt out with the insults and character slander, and we can sort this out between us.

That's how this board works, and that's why 99% of the "mopologists" have left it. There's no real dialogue here - it's just another version of the MDDB "echo-chamber". Over "there", they mercifully ban you. Here, they will slander and attack you until they think you have no credibility left. That's basically what happened to DCP. Do you deny that?

[_Kishkumen]

The Dude is one of your own. He's "with you", do you deny that? He's quite content to attack me, but he will leave you untouched. That's how it works here. I've been psychoanalysed enough here, beginning with Scratch. Tell your buddies to butt out with the insults and character slander, and we can sort this out between us.

Did you just read what the Dude said to me? He insulted me for caring what you think.

Are you and I reading the same material here, Ray?

That's how this board works, and that's why 99% of the "mopologists" have left it. There's no real dialogue here - it's just another version of the MDDB "echo-chamber". Over "there", they mercifully ban you. Here, they will slander and attack you until they think you have no credibility left. That's basically what happened to DCP. Do you deny that?

If you think being tossed out on your ass is merciful, then that is what you prefer. If given the choice between a fascist regime that will "mercifully" kill me for being the wrong ethnicity, and living in a society where racists have free speech and can call me nasty names, I will choose the latter.

[_RayAgostini]

If you think being tossed out on your ass is merciful, then that is what you prefer. If given the choice between a fascist regime that will "mercifully" kill me for being the wrong ethnicity, and living in a society where racists have free speech and can call me nasty names, I will choose the latter.

Oh come on now, lay off the melodramatic comparisons.

Here, they will slander and attack you until they think you have no credibility left. That's basically what happened to DCP. Do you deny that?

[_Kishkumen]

Incidentally, as regards McCarthyism, witch hunts, and Inquisitions?  I’m against ‘em.

Reassuring to know, Daniel, and not surprising. Unfortunately, whether you intend to advocate a spiritual McCarthyism or not, your pal William Schryver is holding court on MDDB, where he is taking credit for inspiring your article and advocating sniffing out apostates.

Maybe he didn't get the memo.

Regardless of your avowed opposition to the above-listed items, the potential ramifications of encouraging others to fear secret enemies who may not even realize they are enemies is something you ought to have foreseen and avoided.

Here is my direct response to Daniel's reaction to this thread and, presumably, others.

What in this is "Daniel bashing?"

I disagreed with his article. I thought pieces of it were wrongheaded and ill-advised.

So big deal.

[_Kishkumen]

Oh come on now, lay off the melodramatic comparisons.

No, thanks.

[_Kishkumen]

You know, I think my finest Daniel bashing moments were when I told people here to lay off of him, and recently when I advocated removing two very embarrassing threads about an innocent mistake he made. I am such a f*****g bastard.

This after he lampooned me on a public blog with a couple of hundred followers and God knows how many lurkers.

How can I sleep at night? How do I live with myself?

Let me remind Ray of this, as he speaks of how apologists are just chased off of the board, while I sit idly by and do nothing at all.

[_RayAgostini]

Let me remind Ray of this, as he speaks of how apologists are just chased off of the board, while I sit idly by and do nothing at all.

Lifeboats on the Titanic, comes to mind. But never mind, we know that Scratch has a conscience too.

My Retirement.

[_Kishkumen]

Lifeboats on the Titanic, comes to mind. But never mind, we know that Scratch has a conscience too.

LOL. Well, Daniel might not fully agree with you. But you stick to your version of the story.

[_RayAgostini]

What do you care about ark steadying, Ray? It is odd of you to speak in these terms, since you are an ex-Mormon, as you claim.

I'm out of time for today, but I'll reply to this before I get moving.

I don't "claim" to be an ex-Mormon. I am. And I have an official letter to prove it. Are you?

Last thought for the day. The NAMIRS (when it was FARMS) didn't begin responding to critics in full until it was more than ten years old. No one, least of all the Tanners, ever thought they'd respond. I had read their book Shadow Or Reality, and was frankly glad to see some kind of response, if for no other reason than a sense of fairness, and an insight into the "other side". Yes, some members were shocked, and others thought it best to leave them alone and say nothing, as I think Le Grand Richards advocated.

Yes, it certainly has its blemishes, and some justifiable anger was present (probably for all the years of neglect) and that was expressed in the form of mockery, but that aside, there was a lot of "wheat" to contemplate in those rebuttals. They still stand today, for those who care to go over older responses. I'm not persuaded enough by them to make a journey back, but for many members they still remain a source of "faith building", and "seeking faith through books and knowledge". The needed "booster", I suppose.

I decided long ago that I'd never seek to rationalise or "entice" members away from their beliefs, and if there was no place for me in Mormonism I certainly wouldn't try to do this from within, nor advocate some kind of "reform Mormonism".

John has done good things, and his podcasts actually once again made me feel, well, "kind of Mormon", like, maybe I could "sort of belong" again. Everything, from the music, the intros, and the interviews themselves, never made me feel any sort of antagonism for the Church. If anything, they made me feel more positive about the Church, but maybe for the wrong reasons? That's really what I'm trying to explore, among the shouting and accusations. And that's why I said earlier that the approach taken here, and to apologetics in general, isn't going to do one single productive thing, whether it comes from John, or posters here. If anything, it could actually sour my formerly very positive view of Mormon Stories Podcast. That's the ironical thing that maybe John has not yet seen, that his best defence is not proactive attacks, but to let Mormon Stories Podcast "speak for itself".

Have a good night.

[Guest]

-