Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Kishkumen]

Well, this has been a most revealing episode in "As the Mopologist Crashes and Burns." What we have learned most of all is that members of the Cult of Dan (or "Danites," if you will) are very strong in their convictions if not their reasoning skills. Perhaps this was their Zion's Camp experience. They have shown by defending something as incredibly boneheaded as this that they will defend practically anything Daniel Peterson might do, believing very fervently that he is a wonderful fellow who only ever does upright things for the best of reasons.

Personally, I am not all that worked up about it. The whole event is as petty and sad as the usual Mopologetic follies we've observed for decades. Pranks, insults, spying, abusing privileges, this is more of the same, when you think about it. What I found interesting was the unguarded way in which Dr. Peterson frankly admitted that he would happily abuse ecclesiastical privileges to poke around and spy in order to satisfy either his idle curiosity (the tour was, after all, long over) or fuel his obsession with the idea that someone out there might be having fun at his expense.

Personally, I don't find very much that is admirable in this, and it certainly maintains the Mopologetic mindset we have long grown accustomed to, but somehow there exists a tight group of Danpologists who are willing to defend such stupidity to the point of calling those who question it "evil" or "hate-filled."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Darth J being "concerned" about "LDS intellectual property" is like Hitler being concerned about the gassing of Jews in concentration camps.

Godwins wins! Godwins wins! Thaaaaaa Godwins win. The Mormon Discussion Board Godwins take the apologetic pennant once again led by their mercurial manager, Ray Agostini!

I gotta admit, I was loathe to assign cult status to Mormonism, but the sheer stubbornness of its culty members have surprised me on this thread. They're impervious to morality when it comes to conceding just the eensiest teeniest ground on this subject.

It be cray cray!

- Doc

[_sock puppet]

I realize that if there was a step by step document stating how bishops should do every little thing, it would make things a lot easier for you to understand.

Don't they call it the CHI?

[_Yoda]

I realize that if there was a step by step document stating how bishops should do every little thing, it would make things a lot easier for you to understand.

Don't they call it the CHI?

The CHI is a guide. Believe me, if it detailed every little thing a bishop was supposed to do, it would be about 20 times as thick.

[_Yoda]

Personally, I don't find very much that is admirable in this, and it certainly maintains the Mopologetic mindset we have long grown accustomed to, but somehow there exists a tight group of Danpologists who are willing to defend such stupidity to the point of calling those who question it "evil" or "hate-filled."

And the Dathapogists call those of us who question their side of things "stupid", "lacking integrity and morals", "blind followers", etc.

[_Kishkumen]

And the Dathapogists call those of us who question their side of things "stupid", "lacking integrity and morals", "blind followers", etc.

Dathapologists? What on earth is that? Dathon? Is Dathon somewhere around and I did not realize it?

I don't think I ever called you stupid, lacking in morals, or a blind follower, but I have explicitly said that, in my opinion, you have made some bad decisions. I stand by my judgment on that. I think you have the best of intentions, but I believe they have led you to make some bad decisions. And would I call you a Danpologist? Oh yes. Do I think that is to your credit? Hell no.

[_beastie]

What I find interesting about this story is how it demonstrates the human capacity to engage in post-hoc rationalizations for choices and behavior. We all do this, of course, to a degree that is somewhat disturbing in terms of "free will". But we do tend to notice it in the "other", rather than in our own selves. So my observations about the post-hoc rationalizations of the defenders of Dan (and this is all about defending Dan, and nothing to do with defending the church) should not be taken to mean that I think I am above the behavior. It's just hard to see it in yourself, because the post-hoc rationalizations are meant primarily to convince one's own self of the rightness of one's actions.

My impression, based on what I've followed on this board, is that when this story first came out, defenders of Dan were first trumpeting it because, in their view, it exposed a critic as a liar. If I am incorrect, please correct me with evidence. It was only later, when the possible ethic breach was pointed out, that other explanations began to arise. That timeline, along with simple logic, seems to indicate quite clearly that Dan's primary purpose in getting his bishop friend to access the directory was in order to hopefully expose a critic as a liar.

One of the post-hoc rationalizations being offered is that Dan engaged in this behavior to protect the church, somehow. The fact that this additional post-hoc explanation even arose demonstrates clearly that Dan's defenders realize that if, as it originally appeared, Dan asked his friend to access the directory simply to prove that an anonymous critic of the church on the internet is a liar, that is not an adequate defense of the ethical breach. So, to me, that point is already settled. Even Dan's defenders realize that would be unethical. So other reasons were created. I'm not saying Dan's defenders consciously made up other reasons. That's not how post-hoc rationalization works. They genuinely believe these other post-hoc rationalizations. That's the whole point of post-hoc rationalizations - to comfort oneself with the righteousness of one's own actions, or the actions of one's tribe.

But it falls apart when the timeline is analyzed. As I already stated, the first way in which this information was used was to trumpet that Wang is a liar. AHA! It was only after the ethical breach was explored that it changed. Even aside from that, if Dan had accessed this information because he was primarily concerned about the church's integrity, about the fact that possible a bishop was a secret critic on the internet, he would have acted long ago, when the tour first happened. And his intent would have been to take that information and report it to - what? The strengthening the members committee, or whatever it's called now? Wang's stake president? He would forward that information along with the internet trail that proves Wang is not worthy of being a bishop and is a danger to his ward?

This demonstrates so perfectly the beehive nature of the church. It wouldn't matter if Wang actually hid his criticisms of the church in real life, and only used the internet to vent. It wouldn't matter if he was actually a very good bishop, despite his criticisms. He still must be rooted out and exposed. There are internet apologists who have openly admitted that would be their goal, if possible. It wouldn't matter what the possible cost to Wang would be, personally, socially, or even professionally. It wouldn't even matter if some of his criticisms were justified. He must be exposed. He is a threat.

This is the reality that critics of the LDS church face. The cost of criticism can be quite high. That's why the internet offers a release valve - one can explore one's doubts, vent one's frustrations, anonymously. But then the second reality becomes clear - many defenders of the faith on the internet would like to expose the identities of any and all critics of the church. Why? In order to make them pay the price in a very real way.

I think that's disturbing in terms of what it says about the church and its influence on people.

[_Yoda]

And the Dathapogists call those of us who question their side of things "stupid", "lacking integrity and morals", "blind followers", etc.

Dathapologists? What on earth is that? Dathon? Is Dathon somewhere around and I did not realize it?

I don't think I ever called you stupid, lacking in morals, or a blind follower, but I have explicitly said that, in my opinion, you have made some bad decisions. I stand by my judgment on that. I think you have the best of intentions, but I believe they have led you to make some bad decisions. And would I call you a Danpologist? Oh yes. Do I think that is to your credit? Hell no.

Sorry for the typo. I meant to say Darthapologists as in followers of Darth.

And Kish, I do appreciate your ability to at least be adult and allow us to agree to disagree without tearing me down. It's a pity that Darth, Lulu, and several others can't learn from your example. Harmony is also like you in that respect, and I appreciate it.

[_lulu]

And Kish, I do appreciate your ability to at least be adult and allow us to agree to disagree without tearing me down. It's a pity that Darth, Lulu, and several others can't learn from your example. Harmony is also like you in that respect, and I appreciate it.

Thanks for another topper.

I think we need to keep this issue up front for as long as possible.

[_TrashcanMan79]

What I find interesting about this story is how it demonstrates the human capacity to engage in post-hoc rationalizations for choices and behavior. We all do this, of course, to a degree that is somewhat disturbing in terms of "free will". But we do tend to notice it in the "other", rather than in our own selves. So my observations about the post-hoc rationalizations of the defenders of Dan (and this is all about defending Dan, and nothing to do with defending the church) should not be taken to mean that I think I am above the behavior. It's just hard to see it in yourself, because the post-hoc rationalizations are meant primarily to convince one's own self of the rightness of one's actions.

My impression, based on what I've followed on this board, is that when this story first came out, defenders of Dan were first trumpeting it because, in their view, it exposed a critic as a liar. If I am incorrect, please correct me with evidence. It was only later, when the possible ethic breach was pointed out, that other explanations began to arise. That timeline, along with simple logic, seems to indicate quite clearly that Dan's primary purpose in getting his bishop friend to access the directory was in order to hopefully expose a critic as a liar.

One of the post-hoc rationalizations being offered is that Dan engaged in this behavior to protect the church, somehow. The fact that this additional post-hoc explanation even arose demonstrates clearly that Dan's defenders realize that if, as it originally appeared, Dan asked his friend to access the directory simply to prove that an anonymous critic of the church on the internet is a liar, that is not an adequate defense of the ethical breach. So, to me, that point is already settled. Even Dan's defenders realize that would be unethical. So other reasons were created. I'm not saying Dan's defenders consciously made up other reasons. That's not how post-hoc rationalization works. They genuinely believe these other post-hoc rationalizations. That's the whole point of post-hoc rationalizations - to comfort oneself with the righteousness of one's own actions, or the actions of one's tribe.

But it falls apart when the timeline is analyzed. As I already stated, the first way in which this information was used was to trumpet that Wang is a liar. AHA! It was only after the ethical breach was explored that it changed. Even aside from that, if Dan had accessed this information because he was primarily concerned about the church's integrity, about the fact that possible a bishop was a secret critic on the internet, he would have acted long ago, when the tour first happened. And his intent would have been to take that information and report it to - what? The strengthening the members committee, or whatever it's called now? Wang's stake president? He would forward that information along with the internet trail that proves Wang is not worthy of being a bishop and is a danger to his ward?

This demonstrates so perfectly the beehive nature of the church. It wouldn't matter if Wang actually hid his criticisms of the church in real life, and only used the internet to vent. It wouldn't matter if he was actually a very good bishop, despite his criticisms. He still must be rooted out and exposed. There are internet apologists who have openly admitted that would be their goal, if possible. It wouldn't matter what the possible cost to Wang would be, personally, socially, or even professionally. It wouldn't even matter if some of his criticisms were justified. He must be exposed. He is a threat.

This is the reality that critics of the LDS church face. The cost of criticism can be quite high. That's why the internet offers a release valve - one can explore one's doubts, vent one's frustrations, anonymously. But then the second reality becomes clear - many defenders of the faith on the internet would like to expose the identities of any and all critics of the church. Why? In order to make them pay the price in a very real way.

I think that's disturbing in terms of what it says about the church and its influence on people.

Excellent post.