The Peterson/Schryver Inquisition

[_Kishkumen]

Do you find my reasoning on that unsound? Are you saying that a good old smear in the Review is better than the scriptures and leadership manuals for bringing people unto Christ?

I wouldn't suggest that. But if you and Scratch co-authored a book on Mormonism, or Mormon apologetics, I'd have my latest copy of the FRB right next to it. Just to compare notes.

OK, so you agree with me that Greg Smith's defamation of Laura Compton in the FARMS Review journal is a poor substitute for the guidance of the scriptures and the leadership manuals of the Church in bringing her to Christ.

At least we agree on that.

I would further add that the probable reaction of someone who is thus defamed in a journal published with Church support, however indirect, is likely to feel more alienated from the Church, and thus less likely to "come unto Christ" as the Church understands that phrase.

Do you agree or disagree?

[_Kishkumen]

...my alleged unfair attacks against Daniel Peterson...

Not "alleged". Proven.

Really? When and where?

[_RayAgostini]

So, you concede that my definition of "member in good standing" is reasonable, and that my reasons for defining it as I do are fine, but now you want me to speculate as to why NAMIRS is still associated with BYU and the Church.

That makes close to no sense whatsoever. My guess is that since NAMIRS does a number of things that are unrelated to smearing people like Laura Compton and John Dehlin, it is not clear that they are an unmitigated evil that needs to be rooted out. Certainly I don't believe it is an unmitigated evil that needs to be rooted out. I simply believe that they need to stop publishing attacks on members in good standing in their FARMS Review journal.

You are a funny guy, Ray. In making this argument you seem to be saying that you are the kind of person who would walk through a factory, see a pipe leaking dangerous chemicals and say, "well, if there were a problem here, the CEO of the corporation would have done something about it," and then move on, taking no action of your own to fix the problem.

I think it is pretty clear that not everyone at BYU or the LDS Church leadership precisely agrees about the value of all of NAMIRS' various activities. I have picked out one that I find it very difficult to justify, and focused on that specific thing. If others were to take notice and say, "hey, you know, that guy is right," and then the editor were told to knock off that specific activity, the sun would still shine the next day, the journal would still be published, people would still read it and benefit thereby, and it is highly likely that everyone, including the Church, would be the better for the change.

I am having a real problem seeing a downside to my humble and practical suggestion. Yet you are here having a complete meltdown over it. Why? I can't even begin to imagine.

There's two sides to every story:

I have to admit that I've been extremely disappointed in Kishkumen over the years, and especially over the past several months. He seems to spend much of each day sneering at and deriding "apologists" in particular, but also, to a remarkably large extent, Mormons in general. And, while he's rigorous to the point of blatant injustice with regard to the flaws he sees in those targets, he's remarkably serene (to the point of blissful unconsciousness) about the obvious flaws on his side.

The old Popular Front slogan and implicit rule of thumb was Pas d'ennemi à gauche ("No enemy to the left"), which meant, in practice, that the preferred enemy was always somebody or something on the right. For Kishkumen, there seems to be no enemy, nobody to be seriously criticized, among critics of the Church and of those who seek to defend it. But he subjects defenders of the faith to withering disdain and moral indignation, often on remarkably flimsy and even downright illusory grounds. And he's notably credulous with respect to often extraordinarily wild charges leveled against them.

I'm not only disappointed in you, but reading back on your first posts on this board, I don't know how I could have missed that you were a Scratch clone in the making, the perfect "Dolly".

There are, and it seems (looking back) have always have been so many similarities between you two peas in a pod that I've been tempted to think you and he are one and the same person. Your misreadings, your sophistry, your arrogance, your manipulation, your intention to trap others in their words, and make anyone who disagrees with you "an offender for a word", is a special kind of arrogance and intimidation I'd reserved only for Scratch.

Hello, Dolly.

[_RayAgostini]

Really? When and where?

Don't be such an arrogant pig.

[Guest]

There's two sides to every story:

OK, so instead of addressing my suggestion, you've decided to short circuit any discussion by substituting a particularly inaccurate, unflattering, and unfair caricature of me that Daniel Peterson published on a board that is stage-managed for his benefit. I can see why that seems completely just and fair to you.

Hey, Ray, if you are disposed to buy into this garbage, which stands in direct conflict with evidence to the contrary which exists here right under your nose and to which I have made reference, what can I possibly say to disabuse you of your folly?

I have to admit that I've been extremely disappointed in Kishkumen over the years, and especially over the past several months.

Dear Daniel,

Sometimes I have been very disappointed in you too. At other times, I have been very proud of you. I have shared those feelings of pride for the good things you do here on this board and with my friends. You know about some of them, because I have also communicated them to you personally in our private email correspondence. I am sorry that we are both disappointed with each other, but I don't buy into your caricature of me in this post.

You also know, in spite of your inaccurate caricature, that I have come to your defense at times, and I have spoken out against certain things that have been said and done against you here on this board. I have edited posts, at your request, that you thought represented the facts inaccurately. Most recently, people here were having fun at your expense in connection with an innocent mistake you made on the internet. I publicly called to have the offending threads removed, and was successful in prompting the moderators to remove the embarrassing images connected to them.

So, when you say:

The old Popular Front slogan and implicit rule of thumb was Pas d'ennemi à gauche ("No enemy to the left"), which meant, in practice, that the preferred enemy was always somebody or something on the right. For Kishkumen, there seems to be no enemy, nobody to be seriously criticized, among critics of the Church and of those who seek to defend it. But he subjects defenders of the faith to withering disdain and moral indignation, often on remarkably flimsy and even downright illusory grounds. And he's notably credulous with respect to often extraordinarily wild charges leveled against them.

There is abundant evidence, stretching all the way back to my first participation in online discussions of LDS subjects and moving forward all the way to the present day that shows this is a blatant falsehood. Yet you wrote it, and somehow Ray Agostini, formerly a dear friend whom I greatly admire, has now ended our friendship over this. Yes, this is another instance in which I believe you have been grossly unfair, and inspired others to be grossly unfair. You have told a falsehood, and you have managed to turn one of my friends against me. That hurts very much.

I'm not only disappointed in you, but reading back on your first posts on this board, I don't know how I could have missed that you were a Scratch clone in the making, the perfect "Dolly".

There are, and it seems (looking back) have always have been so many similarities between you two peas in a pod that I've been tempted to think you and he are one and the same person. Your misreadings, your sophistry, your arrogance, your manipulation, your intention to trap others in their words, and make anyone who disagrees with you "an offender for a word", is a special kind of arrogance and intimidation I'd reserved only for Scratch.

Hello, Dolly.

Maybe you should reserve it for yourself too, Ray. You have done a bang up job in this thread. Anyone can see that.

[_Kishkumen]

Really? When and where?

Don't be such an arrogant pig.

Is it more arrogant to ask, or more arrogant to declare it proven without proving anything?

[_cafe crema]

It was a concerted campaign not just to question his apologetics, but his character.

The manner in which he participates in apologetics is a window to his character.

[_RayAgostini]

The manner in which he participates in apologetics is a window to his character.

Yes, but Kishkumen doesn't see it.

[_RayAgostini]

Yet you repeat it, and somehow Ray Agostini, formerly a dear friend whom I greatly admire, has now ended our friendship over this. Yes, this is another instance in which I believe you have been grossly unfair, and inspired others to be grossly unfair. You have told a falsehood, and you have managed to turn one of my friends against me. That hurts very much.

One of your friends? Poor, poor you. It must hurt. You and alter-ego Scratchie turned a whole board against Dan Peterson. But let me see if I have a satchel of crocodile tears I can shed for you.

Maybe you should reserve it for yourself too, Ray. You have done a bang up job in this thread. Anyone can see that.

Scratch all over.

[_RayAgostini]

Is it more arrogant to ask, or more arrogant to declare it proven without proving anything?

Scratch all over. It just bleeds Scratch, no matter where you "scratch" it.