The Peterson/Schryver Inquisition

[_RayAgostini]

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?

I'll have to get back to this later. I have a life and other things to do now, so for a short answer:

I'm not saying no criticism is allowed, but what we've seen isn't just criticism. It has also been a deliberate attempt to bring the character of Dan Peterson into disrepute, to slander and defame him so that he had little or no credibility left on this board. It was a concerted campaign not just to question his apologetics, but his character.

Need I go through the descriptions of him from having "homocidal urges" to charges of being an "anti-semite"? What does this have to do with apologetics? And yes, Scratch, you're the one who whipped all this hysteria, and now egged on and encouraged by Kishkumen. He's on an allout war not just with apologetics, but Dan Peterson himself. It's personal, and has been for a long time.

[_Doctor Scratch]

An interesting 2010 post:

I'll break my self-imposed ban just for this once. 'Tis too much to ignore, and I speak as one of Dr. Scratch's former foremost opponents. Ignore him at your peril, because the Mopologists are finally getting the retribution they deserve! Why does DCP take him so seriously? Maybe a guilty conscience and some self-justification, for 20-plus years (not four) of attacking and demonising critics, and attempting to leave their reputations in tatters? Remember, you must be with them, or against them. Scratch is against them, just as they ordered in black and white!!!

Scratch is usually three or four steps in front of everyone in determing motives, which is why so many of his posts seem "radical".

Some of you on here seem like pseudo-apologists, following Churchill's idea of feeding the crocodile, hoping it will eat you last!!

'Ave and good day. And now back to more important matters.

(bold highlighting ibid)

viewtopic.php?p=312707#p312707

[Guest]

-

[_RayAgostini]

An interesting 2010 post:

I'll break my self-imposed ban just for this once. 'Tis too much to ignore, and I speak as one of Dr. Scratch's former foremost opponents. Ignore him at your peril, because the Mopologists are finally getting the retribution they deserve! Why does DCP take him so seriously? Maybe a guilty conscience and some self-justification, for 20-plus years (not four) of attacking and demonising critics, and attempting to leave their reputations in tatters? Remember, you must be with them, or against them. Scratch is against them, just as they ordered in black and white!!!

Scratch is usually three or four steps in front of everyone in determing motives, which is why so many of his posts seem "radical".

Some of you on here seem like pseudo-apologists, following Churchill's idea of feeding the crocodile, hoping it will eat you last!!

'Ave and good day. And now back to more important matters.

(bold highlighting ibid)

viewtopic.php?p=312707#p312707

Yes, I knew this was coming. Here is my challenge to you, Scratch. Go to the archives and find one post by me where I defame Dr. Peterson's character, in any way, as you have.

Let me issue you this warning: Your true identity will be revealed sooner rather than later (and no, it won't be here).

[_Doctor Scratch]

As for finding "one post by me where I defame Dr. Peterson's character, in any way"--see the above. At the time, you agreed that he'd tried to destroy others' reputations. Plus, I'm fairly sure that you had far worse things to say back on ZLMB.

But, it doesn't matter either way. Carry on.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

If you have different views that are actually pertinent to the issue I am concerned about, I am ready to read them. What I will not do is waste my time with endless preliminary conversations about side-issues and more global concerns.

Here is what I see as going on with you, Ray. You have jumped to conclusions about where I am coming from because of whatever demons you are dealing with. And, in the time-tested fashion of LDS apologetics, you say, "well, before we can discuss your very specific concern, we have to have this long wind-up conversation about the larger picture."

I'm not falling for that bogus tactic. Robert M. Price did an excellent little piece on engaging in Mormon Studies, published in Dialogue, in which he called that tactic out for what it was and explained why it is not necessary to jump down that endless rabbit hole just because an apologists declares it necessary.

You either have a specific argument in defense of why attacking LDS members in good standing is just, or you do not. If you think you do, then by all means, lay it down. I will happily have that conversation with you. But I am not going to justify my very existence and standing to have any criticism of any kind about apologetics just because you want to throw out diversions.

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

Hey, if you want to equate the capacity of John Dehlin and bystanders to apprehend when Lou Midgley is shouting accusations at John implicating him in the death of a fellow missionary during his mission with 19th-century yokels declaring some object ancient plates of a lost Hebrew civilization in America, then you have already essentially conceded the entire argument.

That is bonkers. You aren't thinking clearly.

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

Yes, Ray, I am sure that the capacity to imagine a world wherein a journal run from a major American university does not accuse members of a church in good standing of being deceived by Satan and seeking to deceive others is the exact equivalent of alleged "malevolent stalking."

Did you put any thought into this, or are you just kinda throwing crap out there to see whether anything will stick? Are you just trying to get a rise out of me?

You're gonna have to try harder, because this is complete malarkey.

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

Yes, Ray, everyone here has exactly this impression of me. I am the single most inflexible, pigheaded, unfair, arrogant, and unyielding person on this board. Of course I am completely convinced that I have "a corner on truth." That is why I ask you to address the specific point that I am making, and discuss that, instead of engaging in this impertinent and bafflingly inept form of character assassination you have suddenly turned to.

The ghost of Simon Belmont is haunting this board.

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

No, not in the abstract. Certain interpretations of that idea might be repugnant to me. Why do you ask? Are you going somewhere with this?

I have no doubt I have expressed such a sentiment in response to a particular view or interpretation of that concept. Is that wrong? It is probably a good thing, depending on the interpretation.

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".

Ray, I am done talking in generalities. You can address the specific reviews I have drawn our attention to. If you would like to defend those specific reviews against my specific criticisms of them, that is fine, but I will not be duped into making blanket condemnations of all of apologetics just because you begin with that assumption about me and proceed to argue from that assumption. I don't start an argument by conceding someone else's incorrect assumption about me. I have been very clear that this is not what I am doing.

I am discussing the unfriendly criticism of the spirituality of members of the LDS Church in good standing in a journal that is published from BYU campus.

You see, that is specific. That is what I am talking about. Do you have anything to say in response to my position on that practice?

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

Neener, neener.

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.

Ray, I really expected better from you. You have clearly gone off of the deep end, if you think simply saying, "Gee, you're just like Scratch," substitutes for making an argument of some kind to address my specific concern. You're just wimping out because you know you can't defend it. It is glaringly obvious.

[_Kishkumen]

And yes, Scratch, you're the one who whipped all this hysteria, and now egged on and encouraged by Kishkumen. He's on an allout war not just with apologetics, but Dan Peterson himself. It's personal, and has been for a long time.

That is a false accusation, a load of cow manure.

My personal vendetta against Daniel Peterson, wherein I seek to spare him the humiliation of others making sport of an innocent mistake he made on the internet. Wherein, on this very thread, I state that his desire to help Ray Agostini was not for purposes of manipulation and apologetic advantage, as Doctor Scratch had suggested, but rather out of genuine interest in cultivating faith in Mormonism in a person who showed voluntary willingness to embrace it.

What single-minded hatred I have.

Do you have any thought for your own continuing credibility as you throw out accusations that can be falsified by evidence in the very thread where you level them?

[_Kishkumen]

I want to add a couple of thoughts here about the exchange between Hasa and Ray.

1. I don't think it really matters what percentage of people are leaving over which reason. They leave for various reasons, and the Church can choose to address those problems or not.

2. If intellectual and historical reasons are such an insignificant factor, then the apologetic effort is time and energy poorly spent.

3. Sin is only a factor in people's desire to leave equal proportion to all humankind's desire to sin and actual sinning. You will probably find as much sinning in the Church as you find outside of it, or among its ex-members. (Ergo, I find this to be the limpest argument about defection of all.)

4. I can see people leaving for lifestyle and social reasons, because the Church has become an unbelievably boring organization. Its one virtue is to force people to seek to become sages in order to hang on in the face of the monotony and dreariness. I found temporary solace in the writings of Viktor Frankl. Then I realized I could also just not go.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Need I go through the descriptions of him from having "homocidal urges" to charges of being an "anti-semite"? What does this have to do with apologetics? And yes, Scratch, you're the one who whipped all this hysteria, and now egged on and encouraged by Kishkumen. He's on an allout war not just with apologetics, but Dan Peterson himself. It's personal, and has been for a long time.

I think you should chase down the links, Ray, so we can all see what you're talking about here. For starters, let's take the "homicidal urges" bit. Wasn't this a joke? It was Dan himself who made the statement about wanting to fire off rounds from his "assault rifle" at me. Was this a joke? A self-description? Why don't you go chase down the link and explain it to us?

And what about the supposed calling of him an "anti-semite." Where, in all of the postings, is there even one instance of someone explicitly labeling Dan Peterson an "anti-semite"? Can you find even one instance? Heck, even he knows better than to do that--he always claims that he's been portrayed as an anti-semite, but even that is problematic. Go chase down the links. I can tell you that there are two instances of this that he's likely referring to. The first is a thread that I didn't even start--it was started by Rollo Tomasi, and it dealt with DCP posting in the comments section of a blog entry on how proxy baptisms are offensive to Jews. This was where Dan said, as a means of defending LDS practice, that "Jews have precious few friends in the world." Several of us--including me and Rollo--thought that this was a "foot-in-mouth" moment. Is this calling him an "anti-semite"? Or "portraying" him as one? You tell us, Ray.

The second bit is that "fluff" (as it was labeled by the person who sent it to me) where he was mocking the Jewish wedding ritual during his youthful stint in Israel. Again, where is he being called an "anti-semite"? I believe I said that I found his behavior off-putting and/or offensive, but then again: was I the one who wrote the original diary entry? Was I the one who engaged in the behavior?

You see, Ray, the reason you are probably inclined to think this stuff is because DCP never provides context for the things he says. Try to find a single link to the original context in any of his blog entries or FARMS articles. You won't find one, because he deliberately omits them. If this is really the "Marketplace of Ideas," and if we're just misrepresenting him, distorting him, making false accusations about his character--rather than offering up legitimate and plangent assessments of the way he represents LDS apologetics--then why not give the context and Let the Readers Decide? What, in your view, is the justification for omitting the links?

[_RayAgostini]

Here is what I see as going on with you, Ray. You have jumped to conclusions about where I am coming from because of whatever demons you are dealing with. And, in the time-tested fashion of LDS apologetics, you say, "well, before we can discuss your very specific concern, we have to have this long wind-up conversation about the larger picture."

I'm not falling for that bogus tactic. Robert M. Price did an excellent little piece on engaging in Mormon Studies, published in Dialogue, in which he called that tactic out for what it was and explained why it is not necessary to jump down that endless rabbit hole just because an apologists declares it necessary.

You either have a specific argument in defense of why attacking LDS members in good standing is just, or you do not. If you think you do, then by all means, lay it down. I will happily have that conversation with you. But I am not going to justify my very existence and standing to have any criticism of any kind about apologetics just because you want to throw out diversions.

I have placed the false premise of your argument in bold. Name me some members "in good standing" who have been attacked by NAMIRS. Do you consider yourself "in good standing"? If not, what qualifies you to be a judge of LDS apologetics and apologists?

Hey, if you want to equate the capacity of John Dehlin and bystanders to apprehend when Lou Midgley is shouting accusations at John implicating him in the death of a fellow missionary during his mission with 19th-century yokels declaring some object ancient plates of a lost Hebrew civilization in America, then you have already essentially conceded the entire argument.

That is bonkers. You aren't thinking clearly.

Have you asked Lou Midgley for his side of the story? I'm fast learning about your capacity to "dismiss other opinions", "not relevant to you" and your Herculean biases.

Yes, Ray, I am sure that the capacity to imagine a world wherein a journal run from a major American university does not accuse members of a church in good standing of being deceived by Satan and seeking to deceive others is the exact equivalent of alleged "malevolent stalking."

Did you put any thought into this, or are you just kinda throwing s*** out there to see whether anything will stick? Are you just trying to get a rise out of me?

You're gonna have to try harder, because this is complete malarkey.

FYI, it is "members of the Church in good standing" who most frequently quote scripture about the influence of Satan. It is members of the Church who quote:

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
(2 Ne.9)

Tell me which members "in good standing" NAMIRS has accused of "being deceived by Satan and seeking to deceive others". Be specific. Name them. If you cannot be specific, take your malarky and plant in your paranoia garden.

Yes, Ray, everyone here has exactly this impression of me. I am the single most inflexible, pigheaded, unfair, arrogant, and unyielding person on this board. Of course I am completely convinced that I have "a corner on truth." That is why I ask you to address the specific point that I am making, and discuss that, instead of engaging in this impertinent and bafflingly inept form of character assassination you have suddenly turned to.

What do you call Scratch's comments about DCP over the years? "Fair and balanced"?

No, not in the abstract. Certain interpretations of that idea might be repugnant to me. Why do you ask? Are you going somewhere with this?

I have no doubt I have expressed such a sentiment in response to a particular view or interpretation of that concept. Is that wrong? It is probably a good thing, depending on the interpretation.

Which part of the LDS claim to be "the kingdom of God on earth" do you find to be "repugnant? Be specific.

Ray, I am done talking in generalities.

So am I. Answer my specific questions above?

You can address the specific reviews I have drawn our attention to. If you would like to defend those specific reviews against my specific criticisms of them, that is fine, but I will not be duped into making blanket condemnations of all of apologetics just because you begin with that assumption about me and proceed to argue from that assumption. I don't start an argument by conceding someone else's incorrect assumption about me. I have been very clear that this is not what I am doing.

I am discussing the unfriendly criticism of the spirituality of members of the LDS Church in good standing in a journal that is published from BYU campus.

Name some of these "members in good standing", and specifically show where and how they have been attacked.

You see, that is specific. That is what I am talking about. Do you have anything to say in response to my position on that practice?

See above.

Ray, I really expected better from you. You have clearly gone off of the deep end, if you think simply saying, "Gee, you're just like Scratch," substitutes for making an argument of some kind to address my specific concern. You're just wimping out because you know you can't defend it. It is glaringly obvious.

Don't expect anything from me. Our friendship is over.