The Church Tells DCP, Midgley, Ostler, McGregor, Scott Lloyd and The Mopologists To Quit Posting Online.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

“Social media commenters: Your church has added strong wording to its General Handbook, condemning “threatening, bullying, degrading, violent, or otherwise abusive language or images online.”

No groups or individuals are specifically named, but there is no exception for those claiming to defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . who frequently employ harsh rhetoric to attack church critics or Latter-day Saint progressives.”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/12 ... t-online/I

[drumdude]

I'll hold my breath waiting for DCP or Midge to get brought in for their "court of love."

[Moksha]

“Social media commenters: Your church has added strong wording to its General Handbook, condemning “threatening, bullying, degrading, violent, or otherwise abusive language or images online.”

No groups or individuals are specifically named, but there is no exception for those claiming to defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . who frequently employ harsh rhetoric to attack church critics or Latter-day Saint progressives.”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/12 ... t-online/I

For those of us without Tribune subscriptions, could some excerpts be printed from the story?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

By Peggy Fletcher Stack
| Dec. 15, 2021, 11:04 a.m.
| Updated: 6:16 p.m.
Memo to Latter-day Saint social media commenters: Your church has added strong wording to its General Handbook, condemning “threatening, bullying, degrading, violent, or otherwise abusive language or images online.”

No groups or individuals are specifically named, but there is no exception for those claiming to defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including users associated with @DezNat (or Deseret Nation), who frequently employ harsh rhetoric and drawings of knives and guns to attack church critics or Latter-day Saint progressives.

If online threats “of illegal acts occur,” the new section says, “law enforcement should be contacted immediately.”

Further, members should avoid “all statements of prejudice toward others,” the new wording states. It links to the handbook’s section on prejudice, which says, “This includes prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, gender, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religious belief or nonbelief, and sexual orientation.”

Latter-day Saints should share uplifting content, the updated handbook says, and “strive to be Christlike to others at all times, including online, and reflect a sincere respect for all of God’s children.”

Adam Ebberts, who has used and defended the #DezNat hashtag, acknowledged Wednesday on Twitter that the handbook language “is probably a #DezNat inspired policy.”

It doesn’t matter, he went on, “if you think this is a justified critique or not, it’s a [church] policy that we are being asked to comply with.”

Ebberts further tweeted that “there are definitely biases behind it, but there’s also no direct call to knock it off. I feel like we are being warned about the boundaries to the limits we push.”

Calvin Burke, an openly gay student at church-owned Brigham Young University who has been insulted and threatened by some who deploy the #DezNat hashtag, welcomed the addition to the handbook.

“I’m extremely grateful that the church is taking seriously the concerns and experiences of its marginalized members, some of whom have been harassed by these people for years, both online and in person,” Burke said. “I hope this can also indicate a change in the way we Latter-day Saints speak about marginalized communities over the pulpit, and in the way we treat those who are vulnerable at BYU.”

These latest changes to the handbook were announced Wednesday in a news release.

Other changes included:

• Removal of the policy that required a mission president’s approval before baptizing a person “who violated the law of chastity with someone of the same sex.”

Through the years, members have “seen progress and retrenchment on these issues,” tweeted Jacob Newman, an LGBTQ former member, “but this change feels like progress to me, albeit a small scrap to LGBT Mormons.”

• Additional statements about what to do when a member embezzles church funds or steals church property.

• The need for stake (regional) presidents to counsel together if a couple commits a “serious sin” together but live in different wards, or congregations, or stakes to decide whether to impose membership restrictions.

• The need for some people who have broken civil or criminal laws to follow the law and report such matters “when required.”

• An openness to more “culturally diverse music” in church meetings and allowance to use instruments other than a piano or organ.

“Sacred music that is written or sung in culturally diverse musical styles may help unify congregations,” the text says. “Music coordinators and priesthood leaders may include a variety of appropriate musical styles that appeal to members of various backgrounds.”

The church is in the process of producing a new hymnbook.

With these updates, the release notes, the handbook revisions that began in February 2020 are complete.


“We have seen the hand of the Lord in this process,” Reyna I. Aburto, second counselor in the general presidency of the women’s Relief Society, said in the release. “[God] has actually helped us word by word, line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. And we have just been witnesses of how he takes us by the hand when we look for that revelation.”

Aburto served on the committee of general authorities and officers that met weekly to review every line of the new handbook, which is available on the church’s website.

author
pstack@sltrib.com
Follow @religiongal
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible

[drumdude]

Dan is having quite the meltdown at being shown he is full of it.

Chewy, drawing upon the cherry-picked, decontextualized, and very short list that he and his small group of Peterson-hating obsessives so treasure: "Dan, “But you will search in vain to find an article that I've ever published in which I've attacked Catholicism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Presbyterianism...”"

And, as your proudly-displayed example here shows, you have searched in vain to find an article in which I've attacked another faith:

Chewy, drawing once again upon the cherry-picked, decontextualized, and very short list that he and his small group of Peterson-hating obsessives so treasure: "You misunderstand when you imply that I think you corrupt. You may or may not be. I haven't thought about it. That would be a matter for your wife, or perhaps for the legal authorities to look into. Do I think your theological beliefs have been corrupted by various extra-divine influences? Certainly. And I regret it very much." Daniel C. Peterson in a letter to Evangelical, James White."

Zowie! Daniel Peterson, a believing Latter-day Saint, voices his belief -- many years ago, in an exchange with a professional anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon -- in the standard Latter-day Saint doctrine of a "Great Apostasy." Stop the presses!

Chewy, drawing yet again upon the cherry-picked, decontextualized, and very short list that he and his small group of Peterson-hating obsessives so treasure: ""I do think that the creeds, to the extent that they blind people to the truth revealed to prophets ancient and modern, are an abomination. Primarily, I think that because God said so, and I am hesitant to challenge him on it." Daniel C. Peterson, April 15 1998"

Alert the major news outlets! In correspondence nearly a quarter of a century ago with a hostile critic -- not an article -- Peterson, who is a believing Latter-day Saint, affirms his belief in Joseph Smith's First Vision.

Chewy" "There are many, many more examples."

No there aren't. And you've already used your best. They're just not very good. And, once again, you will search in vain to find an article in which I've attacked other faiths.

Chewy" "Don’t even get me started on the contempt you’ve publicly expressed on Atheism."

I've expressed disagreement. And -- brace yourself! -- I'll continue to do so.

Chewy" "Again, we can and should do better. All of us."

Oh, the charming fake humility. You could do better here. But I doubt very much that you will.

[Moksha]

Without a specific exemption (such as a Church calling to apologetics) this would hamstring such organizations as FAIR, the Interpreter, Sic et Non, and others. If you take away the power of ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments, then the dreaded slam dunk realizations that occur when studying the history and practice of Mormonism would be uncontested. Apologists can't go head to head without such attacks and obfuscation.

This policy will be akin to mentioning the Scottish Play in the presence of 17th Century British actors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0

[Moksha]

“But you will search in vain to find an article that I've ever published in which I've attacked Catholicism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Presbyterianism...”

The Peterson researchers on this board will have a field day with that claim.

[drumdude]

Regarding the personal character of Daniel Peterson, Exhibit A: Daniel pulls wonderfully charitable stunts like this:

I wrote something personal, but still anonymously, out of respect for my parents, and posted it here. I didn't disguise it very well, but the only recipients of the email I was commenting on were "Latter-day Saints" and I certainly didn't think any of them would would use it maliciously against one of their own.

After all, let's remember the timing; Professor Daniel Peterson decided to "rub my dad's nose in it" and forward links to my anonymous posts on this message board to my step-dad while he was traveling back and forth from between his work in California and the Intensive Care Unit in Utah. While I was traveling back and forth, as well as most of the other members of my family.

To be frank, I underestimated Dan would be so egregiously evil. I did nothing to provoke this sort of thing, never exposed anyone to any in real life consequences. Keep that in mind.

This is completely in character with other recollections of Peterson's abusive behavior towards questioning and former Mormons. How about a little charity, Daniel?

viewtopic.php?t=108882

[Marcus]

What about this claim from peterson?

If others refrain from attacking my beliefs, I’ll happily spend most of my time and effort in positively advocating those beliefs. But I won’t back down if they’re assaulted.

Still, even then, my focus is not, and never has been, on the personalities of others.

Good grief. That is so blatantly not true I am really surprised he had the nerve to post it.

[drumdude]

In which DCP focuses on the personalities of others:

My problem with Kishkumen isn't his views on the Church. We disagree deeply on a number of important issues in that regard, but that's not the problem. You and I probably disagree on a very similar list of issues. In fact, like you, he's expressed considerable fondness for the Church on a number of occasions, both on his board and, privately, to me. I think, in fact, that he's attending church these days, and I'm happy about that, and wish the best for him.

The problem is the way he treats certain others, the way he personalizes his disagreements. And I'm not referring merely to the insulting, nasty, and unjust way that he treats me -- and treats me and treats me and treats me, in hundreds of posts annually, day in and day out, year after year -- but the vile and ferocious way he treats a number of other Latter-day Saints, some of whom actually post over at his board and some of whom have never appeared there at all. Taunting, mocking, insulting, maligning, sneering, defaming -- it's acutely painful to watch. Even when, sometimes, I think he actually has a point, the uncharitable, gleeful, seemingly sadistic reviling in which he indulges himself at the expense of his targeted victims makes me almost sick to my stomach. I expect such things from a number of those there; I think some of them may be seriously unhinged. But I'm disheartened to see such things coming from him.

Disagreement is one thing. Hateful nastiness is quite another.

I get it that he dislikes major aspects of my writing on Mormon subjects. Fine. We disagree. I think his criticisms are unfair. But he's become more and more vicious, it seems to me, as time has passed, and particularly so in recent weeks and months. I've compared it to the absorption of Weston by the Unman in C. S. Lewis's Perelandra, and also to the vanishing of Sméagol into Gollum. I was serious with those comparisons, and I regard Kishkumen's apparent evolution as deeply, deeply sad.

Finally, by the way, I've been struck by the fact that, as the passionately inflamed Kishkumen posts more and more, and ever more intemperately, on the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), the obsessive and coldly implacable Scratch, whose never-ending theme for seven years has been, precisely, the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), has all but vanished. Very strange.

Kish quickly dials in on DCP's bull:

Dan will take things I have said about their apologetics and, in his lovely way, treat them as though they were aimed at him as a person. So, for example, I might say that I find a certain argument "idiotic" and then Daniel will post something on MDDB about how I called him idiotic. I am not sure whether he is unable to distinguish between the two things or simply doesn't believe there is a distinction, but I find that kind of tactic slippery at best.

viewtopic.php?t=128843