The Peterson/Schryver Inquisition

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

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

I am not an ex-Mormon. I am a Mormon.

And, I apologize for using the word "claim." All good Mormons would take your word for it, and would not use the word "alleged" or "so-called" ex-Mormon, simply because they had not personally seen the letter in question.

I had forgotten that you had actually had your name removed, and I apologize for that.

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.

Let's see now, I really loved Le Grand Richards, so I am not surprised he wasn't into "sticking it" to the anti-Mormons. That said, I think there is nothing wrong with the factual correction of bad information. I do think there is something wrong with being mean. Of course, what I am talking about here is not criticisms of self-avowed anti-Mormons whose purpose is explicitly to destroy Mormonism and lead people to leave it. Hey, I am practical and reasonable, and I don't think it would be either practical or reasonable to say to the guy who sees an enemy lunging at his jugular, "Hey, remember, you be nice now."

What I am talking about is trashing every person who says something about the LDS Church that you don't like, or even just grossly misrepresenting their work. But, hey, if I can't expect academic integrity, I'll settle for an end to the innuendos and sliming.

You know, I can't help but ask myself: how did Lou Midgley know about that death of the missionary in John's mission?

What kind of person looks for such information to abuse in a public confrontation and attack on another person?

Sorry, Ray, but that kind of behavior is so far out of bounds, that, in my view, the fact that Midgley isn't before a disciplinary council for doing it is a huge mark against the LDS Church. That is scary stuff. Really wrong.

I would even say, wow, and shake it off, if it weren't for the fact that this is not the first time the man has pulled that kind of evil crap.

Is this the kind of spirited response you are applauding? I hope not.

...but for many members they still remain a source of "faith building", and "seeking faith through books and knowledge". The needed "booster", I suppose.

All I can say is that these people must have a different definition of faith and different understanding of how to obtain it than I do.

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".

OK. So, in the context of engaging me on my specific criticisms of a particular journal, why is this pertinent?

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".

What are the wrong reasons, Ray?

It is odd that you say you are trying to explore something here. What I have seen from you so far on this thread is 1) slam me, 2) defend NAMIRS. On neither account have you done anything that has any traction, at least as far as I can see. Indeed, you have not so much as engaged me on a single point I have made. All you have done is to provide a little history about the time when FARMS decided to fight back against anti-Mormons.

Since I am not talking about anti-Mormons, I have no idea why this is pertinent, in your view.

As for your contention that suddenly John Dehlin is attacking people, well, that is frankly bizarre. Oh, I know, it must have been when he invited any apologist to come on his show in response to the Grant Palmer episode. I think each segment of the recording had such an invitation.

What a dirty bird! How dare he invite any apologist to come on the show to give his or her interpretation of the same events?

Or was it the survey he conducted in which people voluntarily identified LDS apologetics as contributing to their disaffection from the Church?

How dare he share that information?

Or maybe it was when he pleaded with apologists to stop doing things that hurt the members, since his survey gave everyone who read it the distinct impression that this, in fact, was what was happening?

John Dehlin, how do you sleep at night?

I think John Dehlin should be much more concerned about the tender feelings of Allen Wyatt, Lou Midgley, Daniel Peterson (who voluntarily appeared on Mormon Stories, and who was treated very politely there), Greg Smith, and their friends than he is about the scores of people who say that LDS apologetics contributed to the heartbreaking loss of their faith and the devastating consequences thereof.

Obviously John's priorities are horribly skewed.

[_Kishkumen]

Every ward has the charismatic b***s*****r who talks about their wayward youth and then their reconversion. Everyone enjoys the stories vicariously enjoying the life that they lived even if there is always an object lesson at the end and a "don't make the mistakes I did".

Boy you really hit the nail on the head there.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think, in all the years I have been on message boards, I have never known a person as strange in personality and temperament as Ray A. His character arc is mystifying, pointless, and sad.

It's sad because so much of it seems predicated on manipulation. To this day, Ray is still obsessed with the fact that he was visited in his "bachelor pad" by DCP. He probably lays in bed at night, fingers laced behind his head, staring up at the ceiling and asking himself, Why? Why me? Why, out of all the wayward Latter-day Saints, would this noble BYU professor take time out of his hectic schedule to come and visit me? It's as if this was a kind of spiritual experience for Ray.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can clearly see how badly he's been played. DCP only ever meant to use him as a pawn in this endless war with critics. I can only imagine how much Dan has been loving these attacks on Kishkumen. Ray is supposedly Kish's "friend," and yet this Mopologetic manipulation has so badly warped him that he's really a terrible friend.

[_Kishkumen]

It's sad because so much of it seems predicated on manipulation. To this day, Ray is still obsessed with the fact that he was visited in his "bachelor pad" by DCP. He probably lays in bed at night, fingers laced behind his head, staring up at the ceiling and asking himself, Why? Why me? Why, out of all the wayward Latter-day Saints, would this noble BYU professor take time out of his hectic schedule to come and visit me? It's as if this was a kind of spiritual experience for Ray.

I would be pretty moved by the experience as well, and I am not sure why he should not be moved by it. Dr. Peterson is very genuine in his intentions to help people whom he deems to be sincere in trying to have faith in Mormonism. I don't believe that there is any intentional manipulation in this at all.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can clearly see how badly he's been played. DCP only ever meant to use him as a pawn in this endless war with critics. I can only imagine how much Dan has been loving these attacks on Kishkumen. Ray is supposedly Kish's "friend," and yet this Mopologetic manipulation has so badly warped him that he's really a terrible friend.

In my view the situation is much more complicated than you portray it. First of all, I don't know what is going on behind the scenes here. I don't know what if any communications pass between Daniel, Ray, Schryver, and so forth. Maybe few if any. Who knows?

In fairness to Ray, he views me as a crummy friend to him, and he has some justification to feel that way. I have seen various friends and acquaintances savage each other here, and I have failed to intervene for people, like Ray, for whom I profess friendship. I feel that my friendship is genuine, but Ray is not seeing the goods to back that claim up, so he has decided to privilege Daniel's friendship over ours, perhaps feeling that if I were on the right side of these issues, I would not be cooperating with you, I would not be criticizing Peterson, and I would come to his assistance when various people are rude and nasty to him. Daniel visited Ray in Australia. What have I ever done for Ray that is anywhere near comparable? Who, then, is showing the real fruits of friendship?

I see this as a real tangle of conflicting friendships, loyalties, and moral issues. I understand exactly why Ray is doing what he is doing. Unfortunately, I am resolute in my view that institutional attacks against individual people who are members in good standing is a wrong. Regardless of any justification a person might offer, I can't be persuaded that I am somehow incorrect about this, and I will gladly go the distance over it.