Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[Guest]

Robuchan, let's say hypothetically that Peterson had found out Everybody Wang Chung really was a bishop. Based on past experience, what do you suppose would have been the most likely course of action had our Mormontologist friends discovered Everybody Wang Chung's real identity?

I don't know. You're taking a hypothetical out about five steps further than you need to.

But let's wait till he actually commits a crime to hang him. Remembering, if we're doing this for fun it's hilarious, go for it, crucify the bastard, he has it coming to him. If you're serious about it, then you have issues.

Feel free to copy and paste anything I have posted, underlining the parts where a fluent speaker of the English language would conclude that I am interested in crucifying anyone, or have accused anyone of a crime.

Still waiting for your real name, address, etc.

Anyway, Robuchan, since you are suggesting I just have issues, ask [edit: someone about something he doesn't want on the board]. Or tell me about Russell McGregor dropping hints on this board that he knows who I am, or Lou Midgley implying he would contact Kishkumen's employer. Or tell me how Daniel Peterson didn't gratuitously share gossip with me about another board member here, even though I am a total stranger to him.

Tell me all about how this creepy, stalker, cultish BS is some insane fantasy I have concocted.

[_Darth J]

That is a big deal, a BYU Professor asking a Bishop to break Church policy about private information to seek out the identity of some anonymous jackoff on a message board is not something that happens every day.

That's one of the aspects that is lost on Peterson's minions. If you suggest this is not normal behavior for most Mormons, you're an anti-Mormon.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Just to make it clear, I'm not going to publicly confirm the identity of the persons who have contacted my University, nor do I want Dan Peterson's name attached to that speculation. Could you edit that out for me Darth?

[_Kishkumen]

Anyway, Robuchan, since you are suggesting I just have issues, ask MrStakhanovite about Peterson contacting his college. Or tell me about Russell McGregor dropping hints on this board that he knows who I am, or Lou Midgley implying he would contact Kishkumen's employer. Or tell me how Daniel Peterson didn't gratuitously share gossip with me about another board member here, even though I am a total stranger to him.

Yes, it is interesting that those who seem to shine this on as insignificant have never been on the receiving end of any of these intimidation tactics. As someone who has received threatening emails from LDS apologists on my work account, I take this stuff a little more seriously than some others.

[_Kishkumen]

The following email was sent to me at work:

Dear XXXXXXXX (a.k.a. Kishkumen, a.k.a. Scratch),

We’ve never met, but you have come to my attention as an anti-Mormon on the internet. I recently read the following statements by you on the Mormon Discussion board.

“Personally, all I had hoped would happen was an end to the practice of sliming of members. ... Even if it is a small portion of what they do, it was a shameful blot on its record, and a shameful blot on the university that supports it. Far better to be done with the skinny-l slam tactics and turn to more interesting and legitimate scholarship.”

“I will say that I hope the Mormon Studies Review succeeds in its new direction, if that new direction excludes attacks on LDS Church members in good standing.”

First, I should note that John Dehlin is not a “member in good standing.” He is an apostate who doesn’t believe in God, in Christ, in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s prophetic call, etc. etc. And that’s fine; lots of good sincere people don’t believe in the church. The problem is tries to pretend to be a “member in good standing” to one audience, but shows his true colors to another. Furthermore, no one is sliming him. I’ve read the article, you haven’t. Greg Smith’s article simply calls attention to the reality behind Dehlin’s carefully crafted, though utterly false, public image.

Second, I note the high irony in your objection to “sliming” and “attacking” a member of the Church, while participating with great gusto in sliming and attacking Dan Peterson--a member of the church in good standing, and a good friend of mine. Why is it just and meritorious for you to relentlessly “slime” and “attack” Dan?

How would you feel if there was a discussion board in which you were relentlessly attacked, slandered, maligned, lied about, mocked, degraded, etc.? What if this had been going on for a decade? What if confidential letters regarding your promotion and tenure at XXXXXXX were leaked to that board? What if they became the subject of relentless mirth and slander?

How would you feel if I were to draw attention to your chairman and dean about your active and extensive participation as Kiskumen and Scratch in the most vile and repugnantly bigoted anti-Mormon discussion board I’ve had the misfortune to ever see? (So what if you aren’t Scratch--all we need to do is accuse you of it, right? Rumor is truth on the Mormon Discussion board, right?--at least when it’s about Dan Peterson.) Do you think your chair and dean would approve of this use of your time? Do you think that they would be happy or dismayed that you spend your time prancing around on anti-Mormon message boards rather than preparing classes, researching, and writing professional publications? Do you think it might be considered this a “shameful blot on the university that supports you?” How would they feel about your extensive participation in, say, a similar discussion board filled with raving anti-Semites?

[_Darth J]

Could you edit that out for me Darth?

I did, but only because of your boyish good looks.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The following email was sent to me at work:

Dear XXXXXXXX (a.k.a. Kishkumen, a.k.a. Scratch),

We’ve never met, but you have come to my attention as an anti-Mormon on the internet. I recently read the following statements by you on the Mormon Discussion board.

“Personally, all I had hoped would happen was an end to the practice of sliming of members. ... Even if it is a small portion of what they do, it was a shameful blot on its record, and a shameful blot on the university that supports it. Far better to be done with the skinny-l slam tactics and turn to more interesting and legitimate scholarship.”

“I will say that I hope the Mormon Studies Review succeeds in its new direction, if that new direction excludes attacks on LDS Church members in good standing.”

First, I should note that John Dehlin is not a “member in good standing.” He is an apostate who doesn’t believe in God, in Christ, in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s prophetic call, etc. etc. And that’s fine; lots of good sincere people don’t believe in the church. The problem is tries to pretend to be a “member in good standing” to one audience, but shows his true colors to another. Furthermore, no one is sliming him. I’ve read the article, you haven’t. Greg Smith’s article simply calls attention to the reality behind Dehlin’s carefully crafted, though utterly false, public image.

Second, I note the high irony in your objection to “sliming” and “attacking” a member of the Church, while participating with great gusto in sliming and attacking Dan Peterson--a member of the church in good standing, and a good friend of mine. Why is it just and meritorious for you to relentlessly “slime” and “attack” Dan?

How would you feel if there was a discussion board in which you were relentlessly attacked, slandered, maligned, lied about, mocked, degraded, etc.? What if this had been going on for a decade? What if confidential letters regarding your promotion and tenure at XXXXXXX were leaked to that board? What if they became the subject of relentless mirth and slander?

How would you feel if I were to draw attention to your chairman and dean about your active and extensive participation as Kiskumen and Scratch in the most vile and repugnantly bigoted anti-Mormon discussion board I’ve had the misfortune to ever see? (So what if you aren’t Scratch--all we need to do is accuse you of it, right? Rumor is truth on the Mormon Discussion board, right?--at least when it’s about Dan Peterson.) Do you think your chair and dean would approve of this use of your time? Do you think that they would be happy or dismayed that you spend your time prancing around on anti-Mormon message boards rather than preparing classes, researching, and writing professional publications? Do you think it might be considered this a “shameful blot on the university that supports you?” How would they feel about your extensive participation in, say, a similar discussion board filled with raving anti-Semites?

That is some scary schiznits! I'm guessing the author was Lou.

[_Alter Idem]

I am baffled. Since when is who is or is not a Bishop confidential information?

It's usually not confidential and what's completely baffling is that Everybody Wang Chung is the one who 'outed' himself as a Bishop. He's the one who supposedly shared in real life information on the public board and this whole dust up is because someone decided to verify his claims--and he's also the one who gave Dan the opportunity to verify his public claims by also telling the public board he was going on this tour of Israel--and he's the one who said he'd provide proof of his trip.

Everybody Wang Chung handed Dan the opportunity AND incentive to check on his claims because he's been such a public critic and acted very much NOT like a Bishop on this board. There have been a number of us who've questioned his claims.

Everybody Wang Chung practically threw down the gauntlet for Dan to look into it. It was not a violation. This is one of the situations this information was made available to Bishops to use. So that claims like this can be verified.

[_stemelbow]

Here are the problems with your suggestion: (a) we don't know who the bishop friend is,

How is that a problem? If you really feel this is some egregious breach, then just turn in Peterson himself. If authorities think its a breach, then they'll get out of him who this friend of his is.

and (b) DCP has been uncharacteristically silent about all this

I think he's said what he's wanted. It appears he finds it a laughable offense.

-- my guess is he's soiling his pants for inadvertently exposing his bishop friend's detailed involvement in all this. This is one instance where DCP's candor might get him in trouble.

Alright...get him in trouble then. We'll see how it all goes down.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

DELETED: I hit the "Submit" button before typing anything. Let me try again.