The Peterson/Schryver Inquisition

[_RayAgostini]

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?

Context:

So am I to understand that Daniel Peterson is offering the anti-Semite conspiracy theorist Eugene Michael Jones as a model for the effective, nay compelling, and proper use of the ad hominem argument?

What gives here?

I find this really troubling.

Kishkumen's alter-ego replies:

It has been sitting there for years. I'm ashamed that no one has spoken up about it until now. I hate to think that nothing will be done about it, though I fear that this will be the outcome of our calling attention to this travesty.

C'mon, Dan. Do the right thing.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 5&start=21

[_RayAgostini]

Even resentment over the LDS practice of Bishop's interviews as a teenager flowing from the LDS doctrine of discernment or the rules and stigma associated with modesty are intellectual enough to drive someone away, like the illogical piercings rule.

You have a very broad take on what "intellectual reasons" are. In that category, we could also include Thomas Marsh's "milk apostasy" (I know there's a lot of legend behind this) as "intellectual reasons". No, you're whipping the wrong horse.

That's not what we're talking about, Hasa, this is what we're talking about:

Daniel Peterson on August 29, 2011 at 3:21 am

I don’t do empathy, apparently.

The fact is that most members don’t know much about their history.

Books on Mormon history sell a few hundred copies. A few thousand if they’re really successful. Journals devoted wholly or in part to Mormon history have subscriber lists in the same numerical range. This in a Church with millions of members.

Thus, it’s very easy for members to be blindsided by things that they could have known.

A case in point: I spent an hour or so on the phone with a very angry and profoundly disaffected member several years ago, who had just learned that there are multiple accounts of the First Vision. The Church, he said, had kept this fact from him. I pointed out that BYU Studies and Dialogue and the Journal of Mormon History and even the Ensign and other journals had published these accounts and had published discussions of them, and that at least two or three books from Deseret Book and Bookcraft had treated the subject and published the texts. He continued, nonetheless, to insist that the Church had kept him in the dark.

This strikes me as quite unjust.

Could the Church do a better job of teaching its history? Yes. Could the general membership be more curious about the history of the Church? Absolutely yes. There are excellent resources that are very easily accessible.

And, for the record, I should not close without saying that, in my judgment, a deep and detailed knowledge of Mormon history is not at all antithetical to a firm conviction of the truth of Mormon claims.

[_RockSlider]

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

5 Billion dollar mall

[_RayAgostini]

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

5 Billion dollar mall

I don't have a problem with that view:

27 And it shall come in a day when the blood of saints shall cry unto the Lord, because of secret combinations and the works of darkness.
28 Yea, it shall come in a day when the power of God shall be denied, and churches become defiled and be lifted up in the pride of their hearts; yea, even in a day when leaders of churches and teachers shall rise in the pride of their hearts, even to the envying of them who belong to their churches.
29 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be heard of fires, and tempests, and vapors of smoke in foreign lands;
30 And there shall also be heard of wars, rumors of wars, and earthquakes in divers places.
31 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity.
32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.
33 O ye wicked and perverse and stiffnecked people, why have ye built up churches unto yourselves to get gain? Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls? Behold, look ye unto the revelations of God; for behold, the time cometh at that day when all these things must be fulfilled.(Morm. 8)

But remember, Rock, it's not the mall, silly - it's NAMIRS apologetics that's really "killing the Church".

[Guest]

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?

A member in good standing is a person who has not been disciplined by the LDS Church, in other words, not disfellowshipped or excommunicated. I don't see what the false premise is in that. If you don't know what I mean, just ask. Your ignorance is not me attacking. It's just you not knowing what I mean.

As for who is qualified to judge LDS apologetics, I would say anyone with a fair amount of exposure to LDS apologetics. Is there some other standard you would hold? Like moral perfection perhaps? Just a temple recommend? Of course, you know that in the very act of criticizing apologetics for anything, one is accused of being in the wrong, so having such spiritual bona fides is really of no help in fending off personal attacks for simply disagreeing with certain apologetic activities.

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.

You're not learning much of anything here at all, Ray. You're just showing me what phase you are in at the moment, and who the devil of the week is. Today, for God knows what reason, it is me. Tomorrow it could be Daniel Peterson.

Now that you see your little comparison with the Book of Mormon witnesses flopped, you require that I get Lou's side of the story. After all, the other people who saw it happen were just lying about the whole thing. Hey, if he wants to tell us what happened, you can invite him here, or transmit his account to us. We are all ready to read or hear what he has to say. Perhaps you can also get his account of laying into Rodney Meldrum, heckling Grant Palmer, calling Mike Quinn a queer in the process of dressing down Sandra Tanner, ridiculing people holding a vigil during a church court. I am sure we would all love to know what it is that justifies this completely inappropriate behavior from a Melchizedek priesthood holder who has taken upon him the name of Christ.

He can register here and give us his account of all of these incidents. Given his record, I'd have to be completely off my gourd to take anyone's word when they claimed that he verbally abused them in public. He's such a lamb.

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)

Yes, they do it all the time in publications. Why, in the Sugar Beet we commonly see ads taken out wherein members in good standing accuse other members in good standing of being under the influence of Satan. It's a veritable tradition. No problems there.

I love the above scripture by the way, the apologists should heed it as we all should.

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.

I very clearly showed how Greg Smith leveled this accusation against Laura Compton. You are welcome to visit my post and respond to it there. I am not simply pulling this stuff out of my ass for craps and giggles.

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

Stick to the subject. You accused me of something. I defended myself against the charge and showed it to be false. Now you want to hold me personally responsible for Doctor Scratch's career because you failed in your accusation against me. That simply does not work.

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

I don't understand the question. I am not going to make up some hypothetical interpretation of the Kingdom of God in order to call it repugnant so you can attack that. Don't be absurd.

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

I refer you to the Cassius CFP thread. Read it at your leisure, take notes, come up with specific arguments against my criticisms, and get back to me.

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

By your choice. I have no beef with you. I can't fathom why my specific criticism of apologetic attacks against members of the LDS Church in good standing is something that you have decided to end our friendship over. That is your decision, and if you care to change your mind at some point, I will happily forgive you. I find the whole episode completely inexplicable.

[_Tobin]

But remember, Rock, it's not the mall, silly - it's NAMIRS apologetics that's really "killing the Church".

Ray, you are giving NAMIRS a lot more credit than it deserves. I don't think many in the general membership of the Church pay that much attention to NAMIRS material.

[_Kishkumen]

But remember, Rock, it's not the mall, silly - it's NAMIRS apologetics that's really "killing the Church".

Ray, you are giving NAMIRS a lot more credit than it deserves. I don't think many in the general membership of the Church pay that much attention to NAMIRS material.

And my answer is, who cares?

I guess someone has to prove that the problem is big enough in order for it to be a bad thing.

I know when I was a kid, parents generally only punished their children for stealing if the problem was big enough. If the value of the stolen item was, say, under 5 bucks, they would just shrug it off and wait for the heist to reach a level worth worrying about.

Because it is not the principle that is important, only the the extent of the damage.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So, I guess, Ray, that you're conceding that you were totally wrong? Here I was, all expectant that you were going to produce a quote where I (or anyone else) called DCP an "anti-semite," and insteand you produce a quote where Kishkumen is calling E. Michael Jones an "anti-semite"? (And do you really want to argue whether or not the label is appropriate in this case?)

I think that Dan himself acknowledges that Jones is an "anti-semite," and his (i.e., DCP's) excuse for citing Jones's grossly homophobic book in his FARMS editorial, "Text and Context," is that he (DCP) "didn't know at the time." Well, why not issue a correction in the next FARMS editorial?

But apart from that, you've pretty much ignored everything I said about context. And you've failed to back up your two accusations re: supposed "defamation."

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, you are giving NAMIRS a lot more credit than it deserves. I don't think many in the general membership of the Church pay that much attention to NAMIRS material.

I've already said my piece on that. It was very important to me in the early '90s, but I was under no illusion that it was important to most members, and that's why I've argued that "leave-taking" is largely not based on "intellectual reasons". But thanks for supporting my point. You might need to whisper a word in "save the Church from NAMIRS" Kiskumen's ear. Ark Steadier, modern secular Moses rescuing Mormons from Dan Peterson.

[_Kishkumen]

A case in point: I spent an hour or so on the phone with a very angry and profoundly disaffected member several years ago, who had just learned that there are multiple accounts of the First Vision. The Church, he said, had kept this fact from him. I pointed out that BYU Studies and Dialogue and the Journal of Mormon History and even the Ensign and other journals had published these accounts and had published discussions of them, and that at least two or three books from Deseret Book and Bookcraft had treated the subject and published the texts. He continued, nonetheless, to insist that the Church had kept him in the dark.

This strikes me as quite unjust.

You know, if I were in the leadership of a worldwide Church, and I saw that many of my members were not picking up on certain important pieces of information for one reason or another, and as a result a fair number of them were getting sufficiently upset about it to leave, I would find out why and rectify the situation. My reaction wouldn't be, "well, listen here idiot, we published that in this particular issue of the Ensign, or some obscure journal with a circulation of a few thousand copies, so you should blame yourself for now knowing!"

LOL. You just can't make this crap up. One can laugh, or one can cry. One should probably do both in turns. It is just that awful and yet comical at the same time.

God forbid that they should stick it in the curriculum of Sunday School, where they know they have a captive audience. Unbelievable.