Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for Help

[_Tobin]

We all see God and Angels eventually. It is not a question of if, just when.

How do you know?

Because I've experienced God and the scriptures and other accounts of God are true.

[_Darth J]

Because I've experienced God and the scriptures and other accounts of God are true.

And of course nobody else believes they have experienced God, nor have their experiences with God led them to different conclusions than yours.

Meanwhile, I suggest getting back on the good list as soon as possible, Tobin. You can take my word for it. Just leaving out milk and cookies the night before won't be enough.

[_DonBradley]

EA wrote:

I've mentioned several times how Don Bradley's joy at being accepted by people like DCP as someone to be treated kindly as a friend creeps me out. That's because it suggests what matters to them is not truth or friendship based on personal character, but rather fellowship with the faith. That reads to me as vaguely cultish where loyalty rises above all. Doubtless those bonds will just as easily be severed should Don apostatize once more. What kind of friendliness is that? What kind of discourse can you have with that?

Hi EA,

I think you would see this somewhat differently if you knew, or remembered, the fuller story.

Dan Peterson was friendly to me while I was outside the Church. He and I ran into each other in the periodicals section of the BYU library two or three years before my return to the church and had about a two hour conversation in which I explained why I believed the problem of evil was insoluble and why I thought there was no afterllife. He explained his own perspectives on those same issues and was very kind in how he did so.

Subsequently, when I appeared on the FAIR board to critique the NHM argument, he responded with a polite comment about how 'it may be helpful for non-Semiticists' to understand a certain thing about the Hebrew language that was relevant to my critique but of which I had been ignorant. Rather than whacking me over the head with my ignorance, he simply explained what I had not known.

Admittedly, this is not always Dan's posting style; but he was then and continued to be polite and informative to me in our subsequent exchanges . He also later told me he would use whatever influence he had to help me publish a couple faith-neutral papers I wanted to submit to The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, even though I was then a nonbeliever, and very publicly so.

His approach to me was, I think, based on his awareness, from our conversation, that I was not at heart an enemy to the church. His friendliness toward me was decidedly not conditioned on my being a believer, since I was not.

Also, if you will think back to the old days on ZLMB, you may remember that in 2003-2004 I spent several months being the nearest thing there was at the time to Dr. Scratch. I at that time made it my personal mission to combat "Freethinker" and then Daniel Peterson posting under his own name. I used a great deal of biting wit against him and called him, among other things, "a pious fraud"--at which he was, of course, greatly and rightly offended. For him to later take me as a friend meant he was willing to simply forgive and forget any such offenses.

I appreciated that then, appreciate it now, and will continue to appreciate it the future. I am glad for his friendship--and that he offered it well before I had the least glimmer of returning to belief in God, much less the church.

Cheers,

Don

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Totally. It will be just like Alma the Younger on the road to Damascus.

Whoops! I meant Saul and the four sons of Mosiah.

Do, or do not. There is not try. - Gandalf, Harry Potter 7

[_DonBradley]

EAllusion,

To expand my response beyond just how Dan Peterson has treated me, and to help you better understand my gratitude at being re-accepted into the Church, let me explain why I am grateful, and what I think you're overlooking.

Loyalty is, as you rightly point out, hugely important in the LDS Church. To be loyal to the Church is understood as one of the greatest goods, and to be disloyal to it as one of the greatest evils.

From those correct observations you reason that it is and always was self-evident that once I returned to the Church (i.e., became loyal to it again), I would be joyfully accepted and all would be well.

A first problem with this is that it assumes that what is perfectly 'predictable' in hindsight was also predictability. The illusion of "predictability in hindsight" is one of the cognitive biases I believe I've seen you point out among the religious. But it isn't, of course, a religious thing, but a human one. And you are prone to it as well.

If you can show me old posts in which you predicted in advance that a returning apostate would be completely welcomed and forgiven, with no lasting "stains" or mistrust from their apostasy, then I'll believe that for you this was, indeed, self-evident. Otherwise, I'll have to go with the general tenor of your comments about Mormonism, which show no such awareness that past apostasies would be forgiven and forgotten.

And this leads to the second problem, which is that you confuse the matter of loyalty with that of forgiveness. They are not the same, and the one does not entail the other. It most certainly does not follow from a group valuing loyalty that will completely forgive past disloyalties in anyone who is presently loyal. Indeed, the more a group values loyalty, the more serious, and thus the harder to forgive, disloyalty will be.

What I see very clearly, having experienced it, is how remarkable it is that a Church that so greatly values loyalty is so willing to forgive and forget past disloyalty in those who are loyal now. Many groups, and individuals, are unwilling to forgive past disloyalty, and certainly to forgive it completely. Marriages crumble because of this; friendships are lost; careers are ruined; and peace between nations is preempted by enduring grievances and mistrust.

It doesn't follow in the least that valuing loyalty entails forgiveness; and if you can't see that the LDS Church and its members have been meritoriously forgiving to me, I nonetheless can. And it is my life, and I am entitled to gratitude for what others have done for me.

Old friend EA, if you don't have better things to do with your time than criticize my gratitude, then we need to help you find some things of actual (i.e., positive) value. You are interested in philosophy, right? There is no end to what you could read and explore there. I seem to recall also that you have some pretty definite political values--and volunteers are always needed for political causes, as well as for local charities. For that matter, you could also undertake a more personal project--for instance, start a gratitude journal and take stock of the things others have done for you, for which you are grateful.

Cheers,

Don

[_Drifting]

Loyalty is, as you rightly point out, hugely important in the LDS Church. To be loyal to the Church is understood as one of the greatest goods, and to be disloyal to it as one of the greatest evils.

If leaving Mormonism to go believe something else wether religious or not is treated as one of the greatest evils, how come this is still part of the canon?

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Or are members of the Church just real bad at living the principles they claim to believe in? I'm not really trying to be antagonistic. I just find that Mormons as a group are some of the most disengenuous people that I know.

If entry into the Celestial Kingsom is based on what you say and preach, most members will get in.
If its dependant on what you do, regardless of what you say, there ain't gonna be many Mormons in there.

[_Kishkumen]

I strive for loyalty to certain principles and friends/loved ones. I am not big on loyalty to organizations as such. Maybe that is my problem.

[_harmony]

Hi EA,

I think you would see this somewhat differently if you knew, or remembered, the fuller story.

Dan Peterson was friendly to me while I was outside the Church. He and I ran into each other in the periodicals section of the BYU library two or three years before my return to the church and had about a two hour conversation in which I explained why I believed the problem of evil was insoluble and why I thought there was no afterllife. He explained his own perspectives on those same issues and was very kind in how he did so.

Subsequently, when I appeared on the FAIR board to critique the NHM argument, he responded with a polite comment about how 'it may be helpful for non-Semiticists' to understand a certain thing about the Hebrew language that was relevant to my critique but of which I had been ignorant. Rather than whacking me over the head with my ignorance, he simply explained what I had not known.

Admittedly, this is not always Dan's posting style; but he was then and continued to be polite and informative to me in our subsequent exchanges . He also later told me he would use whatever influence he had to help me publish a couple faith-neutral papers I wanted to submit to The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, even though I was then a nonbeliever, and very publicly so.

His approach to me was, I think, based on his awareness, from our conversation, that I was not at heart an enemy to the church. His friendliness toward me was decidedly [i]not[/] conditioned on my being a believer, since I was not.

Also, if you will think back to the old days on ZLMB, you may remember that in 2003-2004 I spent several months being the nearest thing there was at the time to Dr. Scratch. I at that time made it my personal mission to combat "Freethinker" and then Daniel Peterson posting under his own name. I used a great deal of biting wit against him and called him, among other things, "a pious fraud"--at which he was, of course, greatly and rightly offended. For him to later take me as a friend meant he was willing to simply forgive and forget any such offenses.

I appreciated that then, appreciate it now, and will continue to appreciate it the future. I am glad for his friendship--and that he offered it well before I had the least glimmer of returning to belief in God, much less the church.

Cheers,

Don

Was there ever a time when Dan learned something from Don? Or was this a one-way street?

[_EAllusion]

Hi EA,

I think you would see this somewhat differently if you knew, or remembered, the fuller story.

But I remember, quite distinctly, Dan being harsh to you at times in his posting. Maybe I can mine ZLMB for some examples, but it would be inaccurate to characterize it as responding to your vitriol with unrelenting kindness. You weren't that bad and DCP wasn't that nice. I can't speak to personal exchanges, and I fully understand if those weight more in your mind. While I fully believe and expect DCP is nicer in person, we have always disagreed about how much online interaction counts just as much for how you are in "real life."

Comparing yourself to Dr. Scratch way, way oversells what you were doing by the way. Maybe you're been cheeky with that comment, but maybe not as I think you might actually see more blackness in your past than I would for reasons that escape me. Again, maybe that goes to the offline world that I'm not privy to. We've spent countless hours talking - not even that long ago when you think about it - but in a way that was narrowly focused.

That all said, I think I may have made a mistake to simply focus in on DCP, because I really just had in mind the group that all too often he acts as a symbol for. Scott Lloyd, I recall, was a complete dick to you and then welcomed you with open arms, slaying the fatted calf as it were, once it was announced you were back in the fold. And you seemed thrilled by that behavior while I have the opposite reaction. I find the whole thing distasteful for reasons I mentioned in the previous post. You're not the only person I've seen this happen with. It strikes me as wrong.

[_EAllusion]

Old friend EA, if you don't have better things to do with your time than criticize my gratitude, then we need to help you find some things of actual (i.e., positive) value.You are interested in philosophy, right? There is no end to what you could read and explore there. I seem to recall also that you have some pretty definite political values--and volunteers are always needed for political causes, as well as for local charities. For that matter, you could also undertake a more personal project--for instance, start a gratitude journal and take stock of the things others have done for you, for which you are grateful.

Cheers,

Don

First, my comment was made in the context of discussing my disapproval with how loyalty to one's side can Trump more important values like truth and friendship based on personal character. Your story just served as a ready made example. I wouldn't characterize that as spending my days criticizing your gratitude for being welcomed with open arms and kindness so long as you bow on bended knee to the faith. While you find such behavior at any high investment religion, it's not like I'm dedicating hours each day to critiquing it in your case.

Second, I spend approximately 10 hours a day 5 days a week improving the lives of the developmentally disabled and victims of TBI's. I could easily be doing something that paid more or offered more prestige, but I do not because I care about the cause. I think most people consider that laudable thing to do that falls in line with your condescending advice to find something more valuable and productive with my time to do. On the totem pole of bettering the human condition, I'm fairly certain that ranks well above studying Mormon history. I also am currently working on a political campaign. I also routinely read phil texts. Come to think of it, I'm a pretty busy guy.

Third, this criticism is apt for pretty much anyone since no one divides their time and mental resources to the most efficient way to charitably act. People have hobbies and there's nothing wrong with that. Indeed, people indulging in superficially frivolous hobbies is important to advancing the common welfare as individual pursuit of happiness feeds collective happiness. That one of my hobbies happens to involve posting here and that your name happened to come up was an example in a point I was attempting to make doesn't mean I'm wasting my life way in ungrateful frivolity or lost opportunities for personal betterment.