DCP: Booted Off of "multiple Facebook groups"?

[_MrStakhanovite]

I was kinda hoping ol' Loran Blood would have been involved.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Good Sunnundag, Dr. Scratch!

Well, I must admit I'm left a bit speechless with the latest news of our friend, Mormon apostle-lite, Mr. Peterson. I had spent the better part of this beautiful Sunday passing time with the residents of The INN Between where I was afforded the opportunity to wash the humblest of our fellow brothers' and sisters' feet, change puss-riddled bandages, feed those who hunger, and share in their stories where sadly their survival is quite literally weeks and months away before they're called home to their Maker. I felt compelled, as it were, to serve my fellow man on a day where our Lord and Savior might give us cause to reflect on the plight of others.

It's not untimely, your exposé on the truculent and rather combative behavior by BYU's professor Daniel C. Peterson, getting banned from multiple Facebook groups for his callous and hostile attitude toward a rape survivor, that a front page article by the Salt Lake Tribune would mirror his character in a woman who has attempted to ban The INN Between from existence. And when I say existence I'm not dabbling in hyperbole. She was so offended The INN Between set up shop in her neighborhood, caring for the terminally ill who have no one else to look after them, she has made it her life's mission to not only shoo them out of her backyard, but to shoo them out of everyone's backyard. To shoo them out of existence!

I couldn't help but give myself pause, for I must admit I read not only Mr. Peterson's antagonistic and churlish blog post about the rape survivor, but the entirety of the comments sections where he gleefully poked, prodded, and goaded people into hostile comments about his character and behavior, and thought to myself, "Is this what Latter-day Saints have become?" A Latter-day Saint woman hatefully attacking the poor and destitute who have nowhere to turn? A Latter-day Saint man hatefully attacking a rape survivor for daring to question his commitment to dhimmitude? A Latter-day Saint apostle who refuses to bless a congregation if too many children are making too much noise?

Well. I won't deny that I took my Alain Figerat handkerchief from my pocket, and perhaps dabbed the corner of my eye when ashamedly I let my grief overcome my senses for a moment. How could this Latter-day Saint pick a fight and then encourage others to succumb to Satan's tridential prodding on a day meant to serve the Lord? Is this what those who were formerly known as Mormons do now? They seek to kill off the terminally ill? They seek to fight with others on the Sabbath? They deny blessings to children? I don't know. I don't know what my people have become.

I can't help but recall what Elder Nelson once said, speaking with the Spirit so strongly from the pulpit, "As we dread any disease that undermines the health of the body, so should we deplore contention, which is a corroding canker of the spirit." Indeed, if Mr. Peterson is any indication Latter-day Saints have become canker sores in spirit, and are in sore need of some Orajel.

Rest well, Dr. Scratch. Your work is invaluable and continues to enlighten the world while shining a spotlight on the darkness of Mopologetics.

- Doc

[_moksha]

When the long-prophesied rebuke by the Brethren of the upstart Maxwell Institute begins, those errant Facebook groups better watch their butts!!! Many Bradfordians and Strict Constitutionalists will be roasted in the depths of the Sloar on that day, I can tell you.


"Blessings unto he who suffereth indignities for righteousness sake."
-- Gozer 2:23

[_MsJack]

He names them? And one of them is a sexual assault survivor?!

I've had a number of Mormons (some of them well-respected in certain academic circles) behave abominably towards me on Facebook. I can't even imagine doing a post on my blog calling them out by name. They were certainly petty and ill-behaved, but I'm the one who would look petty and ill-behaved if I did.

And you really don't have to go to the FLDS to find examples of Mormons using their religion to justify sexual misbehavior. I haven't been sexually assaulted, but while I was pregnant with my second, my XH told me he was going to keep seeing another woman because he had prayed about it and God had told him to not stop seeing her, so he wasn't giving me any say in the matter.

I wonder where he got that from.

(By the way, do you see what I did there? Or rather, what I didn't do. I didn't call out my XH by name. His identity isn't Fort Knox, but I don't go around dropping his name everywhere and ensuring that my comments about him show up in searches for his name. That would just be petty.)

[_EAllusion]

There is an interesting sitcom entitled, “Haters Back Off,” in which every character is incredibly unlikeable and unsympathetic. It is as though the writers decided to experiment to see whether they could hold an audience despite the awfulness of every last character. Reading the OP reminded me a little of that show. Every person cited or mentioned in the post is unsympathetic. I am left to wonder why I keep watching the train wreck, and yet I do. I am sure it speaks poorly of me.

That's my impression here. I strongly suspect that DCP's description of virulent anti-Muslim bigotry where he felt obligated to challenge it happened. He probably was invited as a ringer. I don't have a problem with that. Being a sexual assault survivor isn't a license to have sharing bigoted opinions go unchallenged. I'd hope Scratch wouldn't have a problem if a woman were justifying her belief in the moral depravity of blacks by citing how she was almost raped by a black man and DCP jumped in to to challenge that logic. I can even see how he thought it was a "constitutionalist" group when it was an "end-times" group because it wouldn't be surprising if there's a lot of overlap in conversation between those two groups. He probably shades details to make himself look better, as that's his MO, but the core story probably is more or less true.

But it's really bad to then use his public platform to name and call that person out. Whatever goodwill he built up he immediately crushes. Everyone ends up looking terrible.

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, I have no reason to disbelieve that a conservative LDS Facebook group would host some anti-Muslim bigotry. That is certainly plausible. But, I have no idea what actually happened here, and it looks like the kind of mess that makes for entertaining light reading but is certainly not worth my time investigating. All I can say is that it has all the elements of a believable situation, and I do wish the it were not a believable situation. Beyond that I am stopping for the sake of my time and sanity.

[_Tom]

There is an interesting sitcom entitled, “Haters Back Off,” in which every character is incredibly unlikeable and unsympathetic. It is as though the writers decided to experiment to see whether they could hold an audience despite the awfulness of every last character. Reading the OP reminded me a little of that show. Every person cited or mentioned in the post is unsympathetic. I am left to wonder why I keep watching the train wreck, and yet I do. I am sure it speaks poorly of me.

That's my impression here. I strongly suspect that DCP's description of virulent anti-Muslim bigotry where he felt obligated to challenge it happened. He probably was invited as a ringer.

I tend to agree.

While pondering these matters, I was reminded of a Easter-themed post by Dr. Peterson back in late March of this year:

I mentioned the other day that, alerted by a friend, I had just joined a Facebook group called “LDS Conservatives” where, I was told, my Ensign article on Islam and I were being trashed in very harsh terms. (See “Some notes from a politically conservative Latter-day Saint Islamicist.”) I was being called, among other things, a “fool” and a “tool of Satan” — not to mention, worst of all, a “liberal.” I’m pretending to expertise on Islam that I obviously don’t possess. One woman reported that, with her husband, she had burned my article in their back yard. An angry man said that, upon receiving the copy of the Ensign containing my article, he had immediately gone to complain to his bishop, indicating that what I had written might very well kindle a “schism” — his word — in the Church.

I thought that maybe I should say something. So, disclaiming any intention to argue or contend with them, I posted a note explaining that I’m both a faithful, believing, committed, orthodox Latter-day Saint and a life-long and very serious political conservative, a believer in the Constitution, in federalism, and in free markets.

I was — despite abundant provocation — cordial, friendly, and good humored. Very deliberately so. And, though some came to my defense, I was accused of lying, of writing pro-Islamic propaganda, and even of having somehow deceived the leaders of the Church into publishing my article. President Monson was too ill to stop me, and President Nelson, at nearly 94 years of age, doesn’t understand what’s going on.

When I pointed out that I had been asked to write the article, that it hadn’t been my idea, it was demanded that I identify those who had requested it. I said that it was the leadership of the Church. “But precisely who asked for it?” came the demand. I replied that it was the same quorum that would be presiding at and conducting General Conference this weekend. “But exactly who?” Could I please identify that quorum? Well, I said, it was the First Presidency. But the demand persisted: “Exactly who?”

One wanted me to identify the precise name or names of any who had requested the article or indicated approval of it. The notion, so far as I could tell, is that there may be a faction among the Brethren — my bet would be on Europeans like Elders Dieter F. Uchtdorf and Patrick Kearon — that is aiding and abetting people who are (as one lady interestingly put it) trying to “destroy Christianity and the white race.” At least one person, though, seems to suspect that the Brethren themselves are, in whole or in part, in apostasy.

Anyway, I was eventually accused of having joined “LDS Conservatives” in bad faith. Had I not seen the question, when I joined, requiring me to pledge allegiance to President Trump? No, I had not. (I had imagined that, being both LDS and conservative, I qualified quite honestly for membership.) And then somebody discovered online evidence — I hope it wasn’t hard to find! — that I’m not an enthusiastic fan of Donald Trump. So, when I tried to access the site yesterday afternoon, I found that I had been blocked from it.

Oh well. I presume that I’m still being verbally assaulted there, and my intelligence and character denigrated, but I can no longer read what’s being said. Which, on the whole, is probably for the best.

I’m saddened, though, by the experience. Not so much for the personal attacks on me — such attacks have been the water that I swim in since I first began editing and publishing with the old Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) very nearly three decades ago — as for the evidence that at least some Latter-day Saints seem to be putting their political views — and perhaps even their cultural preference or, worse still, their race — ahead of the Church and the Gospel. Talk of a “schism,” and suggestions that some if not most or all of the Brethren are apostates, is genuinely depressing.

The post goes on and on. It seems to me that these "friends" of Dr. Peterson aren't doing him any favors by alerting him to such discussions or by inviting him to join "conservative" LDS Facebook groups to rebut personal criticism.

[_Kishkumen]

Wow! This is a whole other side of DCP's war.

[_Stem]

I'm not chiming in to defend Peterson nor to comment so much on this little event as reported to us (I'm feeling a bit like Kishkumen in that it hardly feels interesting enough to investigate further).

But...This Facebook group would be one excruciating community to be engaged in. I'm saying that with confidence without knowing anyone involved or what they like to social media about.


Ok one more comment, Peterson is an idiot for going there to defend himself in the first place. Oh and he naming them on his blog for their stupid social media battle, trying to embarrass them or whatever is just embarrassing. Nice try though, I guess.

[_Lemmie]

Anyway, I was eventually accused of having joined “LDS Conservatives” in bad faith. Had I not seen the question, when I joined, requiring me to pledge allegiance to President Trump? No, I had not. (I had imagined that, being both LDS and conservative, I qualified quite honestly for membership.)

So, Peterson says he didn't see the question about Trump. If you want to join the group in question, however, you have to answer these questions:

Please answer these questions from the admins. It helps them review membership requests and only they can see your answers.

D­o­ y­o­u­ s­u­p­p­o­r­t­ P­r­e­s­i­d­e­n­t­ T­r­u­m­p­?

Write an answer...

P­o­l­i­t­i­c­a­l­ g­r­o­u­p­,­ s­o­ h­o­w­ w­o­u­l­d­ y­o­u­ d­e­s­c­r­i­b­e­ y­o­u­r­s­e­l­f­?

Write an answer...

This is why Peterson's versions of stories are so difficult to believe. Thanks for catching this, Tom.