The Peterson/Schryver Inquisition

[_The Dude]

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.

Maybe it was a spiritual experience. Maybe it was an angel appearing in the form of DCP. Like what happened to Alma the Younger (while we're on the topic). What could be more beautiful and moving than an angel in the form of DCP?

[_RayAgostini]

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.

Unfortunately my friendship with DCP was enormously strained because I listened to you, against my better judgement. There's no doubt that you're an intelligent and influential person - and manipulative. If you want to look at it that way, then it must have been a case of "which manipulator do I listen to?". DCP has never tried to "manipulate" me the way you have, both on the board and privately (and the most insane part of it is that I still don't even know who the hell you are). I'm afraid you'll have to wear that truth. The MBD meme doesn't help either. Once you get "sucked in" to this board, the negative and hypercritical spirit of it (specifically against Mormonism) overtakes you, and you never realise it until you step outside the circle and take a good look at yourself. That's why I don't participate in the "festivities" any more.

Kish is now in the same position I found myself a couple of years ago, often yielding his better judgement to your sophistry. I await his awakening.

[_RayAgostini]

I think Daniel Peterson getting his ego bruised on mormonstories after participating was one reason,

Did we watch the same podcast?

another reason I get the impression was that John's study showed that a lot of people who leave name mopologetics as a factor and they didn't like that.

Many of the people who follow John are "having issues", and they're mostly not TBMs. The TBMs would find FARMS/MI very compelling. DCP's writings, in particular, persuaded me to give the Church another go in 1995. So my experience was very contrary to your observation quoted above, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. For reasons stated elsewhere, the "type" of respondent to the survey/study was likely to be biased from the start.

[_RayAgostini]

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.

Is that what they did? That seriously raises in my mind how many issues of the FRB you've read, Kish.

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 s***.

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

I have no response to it, except that I've heard the rumour. I don't take rumours at face value, nor do I want to judge people on rumour, regardless of what they did in the past, be it John or Lou Midgley. For many on this board the rumour has been elevated to truth. I'll hold my judgement until I hear the whole story, if it's ever told, and I don't particularly care if it is, because I don't see it as relevant.

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.

Ultimately, me too, which is pretty much which I said previously.

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

Because you, Scratch and others don't have a corner on truth when it comes to evaluating or judging Mormon apologetics. TBMs do that too, and from very different perspectives.

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.

You entered the debate with saying something like what I wrote could have come right from Will Schryver. Then you insisted that I wanted to paint you as an anti-Mormon, which I didn't. You did this all by yourself. It was a lecture and a half, so I replied. I specifically said I wasn't "defending NAMIRS", but explaining why many people could find it "faith-boosting". In short, you basically misread almost everything I'd written. I almost didn't want to reply to this post of yours because you so misread what I said, and in fact placed motives on to me which were not there at all, but if I didn't at least reply to this, you'd accuse me of "dodging questions".

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.

All I said, and all I told John in an email, was don't become embroiled in nasty exchanges and lower yourself to the level of your attackers, whoever they are. Basically, what I said earlier in this thread, that Mormon Stories Podcast can stand on its own reputation, and that if he lowered himself into the mudslinging, it would also lower his reputation. In other words, don't do like many on this board do all the time by becoming obsessed with criticising apologists and trying to paint them as "the enemy", or he would lose many followers who've held his podcast in high esteem.

That's all, Kish. Virtually nothing you seem to have imagined.

Edit: Incidentally, I don't have an on-going email correspondence with John. He didn't reply, and that was the only email I ever sent him.

[_Kishkumen]

Is that what they did? That seriously raises in my mind how many issues of the FRB you've read, Kish.

It has happened enough times over the years to qualify as part of the culture. I think it is pretty lame to quibble about the hyperbole. Simply put, that is a classic apologetic response to my statement, and I have little patience for that in the context of my specific criticism.

I have no response to it, except that I've heard the rumour. I don't take rumours at face value, nor do I want to judge people on rumour, regardless of what they did in the past, be it John or Lou Midgley. For many on this board the rumour has been elevated to truth. I'll hold my judgement until I hear the whole story, if it's ever told, and I don't particularly care if it is, because I don't see it as relevant.

Do you know what a rumor is, Ray? When John reports to us his firsthand experience of what happened, and other eyewitnesses confirm his report, it is not a rumor. And it is completely pertinent in a discussion of the pattern of aggression and abusive behavior certain apologists have perpetrated over the years as they engaged members with whom they disagreed.

Ultimately, me too, which is pretty much which I said previously.

The difference between us, I guess, is that you choose to accept it as the way it is, while I see the very real and preferable possibility of an end to apologists abusing fellow members on an institutional level.

Because you, Scratch and others don't have a corner on truth when it comes to evaluating or judging Mormon apologetics. TBMs do that too, and from very different perspectives.

So? I believe I am right about this particular issue and no one has shown up to persuade me otherwise. You haven't even addressed the issue. All you do is tell me I don't have a corner on truth, as if that were somehow salient. Engage the issue if you care for me to engage you in this discussion. Banal observations about the limitations of the human mind don't count.

You entered the debate with saying something like what I wrote could have come right from Will Schryver.

Yes, it could have.

Then you insisted that I wanted to paint you as an anti-Mormon, which I didn't.

Please, Ray, you said this was the "next step." As though you peered into my soul and could see me on the verge of imploding and entering a bigoted, anti-Mormon attack mode. Maybe this is a transition you experienced on your journey. This does not mean it will be part of mine. I have a very specific agenda, which is to promote the end of Church-supported attacks on members in good standing.

I specifically said I wasn't "defending NAMIRS", but explaining why many people could find it "faith-boosting". In short, you basically misread almost everything I'd written. I almost didn't want to reply to this post of yours because you so misread what I said, and in fact placed motives on to me which were not there at all, but if I didn't at least reply to this, you'd accuse me of "dodging questions".

The problem here is the pertinence of your comments. You attack me, of all people, as though I have no clue about the benefit that certain apologetic activities have had for some members. You presume to tell me that I am ignorant of the larger view and so forth. Your representation of me is so incredibly inaccurate that I have a difficult time not viewing it as a deliberate distortion. I am the guy who brings up articles written by apologists that I enjoyed reading. I am the guy who consistently praises MST. Who are you talking about? It seems to me that your vision comes through the opaque lens of DCP, another person who reflexively misrepresents me. All this tells me is that his view is distorted, and he doesn't care to correct it. I guess you do the same.

My critique and aim is very focused and specific. You can do better than these ham-handed dismissals.

All I said, and all I told John in an email, was don't become embroiled in nasty exchanges and lower yourself to the level of your attackers, whoever they are. Basically, what I said earlier in this thread, that Mormon Stories Podcast can stand on its own reputation, and that if he lowered himself into the mudslinging, it would also lower his reputation. In other words, don't do like many on this board do all the time by becoming obsessed with criticising apologists and trying to paint them as "the enemy", or he would lose many followers who've held his podcast in high esteem.

That's all, Kish. Virtually nothing you seem to have imagined.

Edit: Incidentally, I don't have an on-going email correspondence with John. He didn't reply, and that was the only email I ever sent him.

Let's not mince words, Ray. John's attackers are Greg Smith, Lou Midgley, Trevor Holyoak, and Daniel Peterson. These are the participants we know of. Others may have contributed. Well, Schryver does his own MDD spewing about it. John has many a mile to dig beneath the earth's crust before he can hope to stoop to the level of some of his attackers. Rest assured that you hardly need to be concerned about that. It seems, rather, that you advocate him curling up in the fetal position and taking his licks.

He can do as he pleases. I will continue to develop a focused critique against the use of BYU and Church resources to attack members in good standing. You can join me, you can argue the specific point, or you can be ignored. I will not continue to engage you in a dilatory conversation about my standing to talk about this specific issue. I will talk about it without your by your leave or anyone else's.

[_Shulem]

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.

That is the funniest goddamn thing I've ever heard you say! Bravo!! I think there is some truth to it -- to some degree.



Paul O

[Guest]

-

[_RayAgostini]

It has happened enough times over the years to qualify as part of the culture. I think it is pretty lame to quibble about the hyperbole. Simply put, that is a classic apologetic response to my statement, and I have little patience for that in the context of my specific criticism.

Then I can't be of much help (not that you'd want it) if you have little patience for views that differ from yours.

Do you know what a rumor is, Ray? When John reports to us his firsthand experience of what happened, and other eyewitnesses confirm his report, it is not a rumor.

I didn't realise you accepted the Book of Mormon witness accounts. I learn something new everyday.

The difference between us, I guess, is that you choose to accept it as the way it is, while I see the very real and preferable possibility of an end to apologists abusing fellow members on an institutional level.

Scratch has really influenced your thinking, it seems, but carry on...

So? I believe I am right about this particular issue and no one has shown up to persuade me otherwise. You haven't even addressed the issue. All you do is tell me I don't have a corner on truth, as if that were somehow salient. Engage the issue if you care for me to engage you in this discussion. Banal observations about the limitations of the human mind don't count.

Well, you don't have a corner on truth, but if you think so, continue deluding yourself.

Please, Ray, you said this was the "next step." As though you peered into my soul and could see me on the verge of imploding and entering a bigoted, anti-Mormon attack mode. Maybe this is a transition you experienced on your journey. This does not mean it will be part of mine. I have a very specific agenda, which is to promote the end of Church-supported attacks on members in good standing.

Does the idea that the LDS Church is the kingdom of God on earth make you feel "repugnant"?

The problem here is the pertinence of your comments. You attack me, of all people, as though I have no clue about the benefit that certain apologetic activities have had on the members. You presume to tell me that I am ignorant of the larger view and so forth. Your representation of me is so incredibly inaccurate that I have a difficult time not viewing it as a deliberate distortion. I am the guy who brings up articles written by apologists that I enjoyed reading. I am the guy who consistently praises MST. Who are you talking about? It seems to me that your vision comes through the opaque lens of DCP, another person who reflexively misrepresents me, even in personal correspondence. All this tells me is that his view is distorted, and he doesn't care to correct it. I guess you do the same.

Well, I guess we're only going on what you've written. It seems clear that you not only dislike "the style" of NAMIRS, but the apologetic content itself. Do you see any value in that, even trying to be sympathetic to the point of view of a "TBM", who might even "relish" it as beneficial to his/her faith? Or are you trashing more than just "style".

My critique and aim is very focused and specific. You can do better than these ham-handed dismissals.

Seems like you're doing more "dismissing" than I am.

Let's not mince words, Ray. John's attackers are Greg Smith, Lou Midgley, Trevor Holyoak, and Daniel Peterson. These are the participants we know of. Others may have contributed. Well, Schryver does his own MDD spewing about it. John has many a mile to dig beneath the earth's crust before he can hope to stoop to the level of some of his attackers. Rest assured that you hardly need to be concerned about that. It seems, rather, that you advocate him curling up in the fetal position and taking his licks.

He can do as he pleases. I will continue to develop a focused critique against the use of BYU and Church resources to attack members in good standing. You can join me, you can argue the specific point, or you can be ignored. I will not continue to engage you in a dilatory conversation about my standing to talk about this specific issue. I will talk about it without your by your leave or anyone else's.

Congratulations, Kish. I had hoped for better from you, but you and Scratch are now almost indistinguishable. And no, I'm not going to join your Inquisition, nor your continuing support of Scratch in persistently attacking Daniel Peterson, and don't bring the lame excuse that because you "like MST" that this somehow absolves you.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray--

Which specific "attacks" do you think are unreasonable? Why don't you cite some examples? Or, instead, are you simply saying that no criticism is allowed?

[_RayAgostini]

I wasn't talking about the podcast which I think actually portrayed DCP very fairly. From memory it occurred in the comments section where Dan tried to maintain that the reason why people leave the LDS Church is predominantly due to sin or being offended. For obvious reasons John Dehlin disagreed with him over that and Dan didn't like John saying that people actually leave for a whole range of reasons and that there are a number of legitimate reasons why people leave the LDS Church. I believe this went on in the comment section of mormonstories for the podcast. What is your opinion on people leaving for legitimate reasons Ray?

Here is Dan's comment:

Daniel Peterson on August 29, 2011 at 12:33 am

I’ve been away for several days, and haven’t been keeping up here. I still haven’t read most of the new posts.

I’m really baffled, though, by the way some here are reacting to my claim that most people are inactive in the Church because of non-intellectual issues.

This seems utterly obvious and commonsensical to me. Most people — Mormon and non-Mormon alike — are relatively UNINTERESTED in intellectual issues. They don’t spend much time, if any, on reading about history or on seriously pondering theology and philosophy.

I don’t deny for a minute, and have never denied, that there are people who do indeed withdraw from activity in the Church because of what they see as historical/theological or other (for lack of a better word) intellectual problems. I know a number of such people.

But I think such people are in a distinct minority among all those who are inactive in the Church — both because of my sense of people generally and because of my specific experience (as ordinary member, home teacher, bishop, etc., as an “apologist,” and as part of an extended Mormon family with lots of inactives in it) with people who have withdrawn from participation in Mormonism.

There are a host of factors potentially contributing to a decision to distance oneself from Mormonism. These include such things as violation of commandments, desire to live a different way of life, sheer lack of interest in religious issues, taking offense, dissatisfaction with meetings, peer pressure, desire to show independence from parents and family, desire to spend time differently and focus on different things, inadequate social fit, and etc. Historical, theological, and other “intellectual” issues are certainly among those potential factors. I do not, and have not, denied that.

Yes, I agree with him. Why? Because being the bishop of a ward of over 350 members, and only about 80 fully active (one example only; another ward I attended had 770 members on record, and only 100 attending), I'm quite certain that most of those who left didn't do so for "intellectual reasons". How do I know? Because over a three year period I tried to contact all of those still living in the area. I'm not saying none left because of "intellectual reasons", but for most it was what Dan outlined in his post. That was my experience as a bishop, in a part of the world where most members were largely unaware of "historical controversies". Many left because they "wanted to play footy on Sunday", or "go to the footy on Sunday", or "have a BBQ and beer", or smoke and drink, and to be free from the "restricted Mormon lifestyle". Curiously, that was one of my reasons for walking away from the "robotic lifestyle" of Church, church, church. I got tired of it. However, in my case, the "intellectual reasons" only helped me exit faster than I might have. So in my case it was 50-50. Even without the "intellectual reasons", I very much doubt I would have stayed. "Weakness of the flesh, and all that."

So yes, Dan's assessments ring true to me.