Lest Ye Celebrate Too Heartily....

[_Kishkumen]

And, for the record, I consider real friendship to be the kind of bond that does not depend on one's politics or religious stance. It does not depend on ideological purity or never changing one's opinion.

Real friendship is sticking by one's friends and giving them the benefit of the doubt even when things get rough.

I never claimed to be Daniel Peterson's friend. I was not the one who ended the friendship with Ray.

I have good LDS friends who know who I am, know that I post on this board as 'Kishkumen,' have followed my posts over the years, and still call me friend all the same. And yet they remain firm in their testimonies and loyal to their faith.

That is what I admire, not inflexible and unreasonable demands attached to conditional friendship.

[Guest]

-

[_Kishkumen]

This quote alone, ignoring the seemingly pointless story, says so much about how DCP views the world. In his world the majority of the time the result is going to be win-lose or lose-win, win-win is some rare event and uncommon event. That alone would explain his behavior and the way he acts online and in print. Allowing someone else to win, even in a small way means that he loses and he isn't willing to let that happen. So he fights and argues over small quibbles and insignificant points because that way he feels he's won. It is probably why Bradford has been in a really difficult position trying to change the direction of the review while dealing with DCP who refuses to budge an inch because to do so would mean losing to him.

What DCP didn't realize is he and his friends could have stopped the personal attacks against people and continued all the other apologetic work they did and then everyone would have been happy and it would have been win-win. Could DCP let that happen though? No, because that would mean in his mind because he was giving something up that he'd lost and Bradford had won. In reality it would have been a win for everyone because the attacks do nothing positive for Mormon Studies and simply make the scholars look really petty and close-minded.

So now I'd go as far as to say that the situation is lose-lose because Bradford didn't want all of this and no doubt wanted to keep DCP involved and all the other contributors, not to mention the donors. DCP has lost because he went nuclear and acted in a way that has damaged him, but the reason for all this appears to be DCP's black and white win-lose mentality. I hope this episode helps him get over it, because he has a lot more to lose.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Very insightful, Hasa. And, in my view, likely true. It is amazing, however, how the completely boneheaded way of responding to Bradford's letter has attracted scant criticism from DCP's supporters. One can imagine any number of more productive ways of finessing the situation, but DCP did indeed go 'nuclear.' Instead of acknowledging that this was pretty dense, all of these folks in DCP's camp press on as far as opining that this rather quotidian replacement of an editor of a journal is in fact an event of apocalyptic and cosmic significance, signaling a significant falling away and apostasy among the elect (GAs included) in the Last Days.

You know, many disillusioned members have become convinced that they had been dupes to a cult. I am beginning to wonder whether this impression was not reinforced, if not born, in their interactions with the DCP squad of apologists. Because if any group looks cultish in all of this, it has to be them.

[_harmony]

I hope this episode helps him get over it, because he has a lot more to lose.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Don't bet the farm on that.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I haven't been on this board long enough to know whether DCP has an archive here where he calls a critic a "dipstick". He probably doesn't since he doesn't have a home field advantage and we are not is intended audience. However, I dare you to mosey on over to another board like MDD and find a DCP post where he calls someone on this board a "dipstick" or something like unto it.

DCP doesn't have any problem using derrogatory language. He's been calling me a "malevolent stalker" for over half a decade. He's also called me a "loon," an "obsessive," and he's said that I'm being controlled by "the Adversary." He's also said that he thinks I'm "emotionally and/or psychologically disturbed." That's just me. He said insulting things to a lot of other people, too: e.g., calling Markk "Markkk"; referring to Buffalo as "Buffalo Chip"; Tal Bachman becomes "Tall Tales Bachman," and so on. There are varying degrees to the offensiveness of his invective. Another of his personal insults was directed at Will Bagley, whom DCP called a "venomous gasbag."

The Mopologists have always liked to pretend that they don't stoop to insults like this, but the fact is that much of the time they're just choking back what they really want to say.

[_Kishkumen]

LOL. I didn't catch Racer's objection to my use of the term "dipstick," Doctor. Thanks for quoting that. I find it odd that anyone would take exception to me calling Droopy a dipstick, while certain apologists have such a long history of deriding so-called critics by insulting them. A certain BYU professor recently sent me a "kind" (scare quotes for Ray) email in which he called me an anti-Mormon among other things. But, yes, insulting so-called critics is such a regular practice among certain apologists that it is practically a given.

But, in any case, perhaps I should apologize to Droopy for using such harsh language, while he addresses us as socialists, apostates, people incapable of "serious discourse," and so forth. And Ray adds his bit about me being a traitor, a pathetic person, etc. Yes, I can see how "dipstick" was completely out of line in the face of such polite and conciliatory attempts to dialogue in a mature fashion. I should be ashamed of myself.

[_Bond James Bond]

LOL. I didn't catch Racer's objection to my use of the term "dipstick," Doctor. Thanks for quoting that.

Maybe Racer has a dipstick distribution dealership and doesn't want his fine product connected to a drunken venture capitalist who blew his bankroll on paintball like Loran Blood.

[_SteelHead]

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

John 8
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Ray,
In regards to Kish...... What role are you playing?

[_harmony]

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I wonder how long it will take for the Brethren to crack the whip and get them back in line?

[_Cylon]

Ray, I find it perplexing that you can chastise Racer for turning on the church (in the form of posting humorous remarks poking fun at some of the church's more implausible claims), but you have quite publicly turned on someone you apparently used to be friends with just because of a difference of opinion in how LDS apologetics should be conducted (not even whether it should be conducted, just how). You said Racer couldn't be truly happy if he is saying negative things about the church (I really don't get the connection there, for the record), but then you turn around and say extremely negative things about your former friend.

I hope you and Kish can find it in your hearts to forgive one another, because from where I'm sitting, it looks like there is real pain there for both of you, although I really don't know what the source of that pain is for you.

Kishkumen, for what it's worth, I have been completely baffled by Ray's extremely personal attacks on you as a result of you stating your opinion on the direction the church should take its apologetics. I don't understand it at all.