Mopologetics and the Sending of Emails

[_Daniel Peterson]

Care to re-adjust your argument, my dear Professor P.?

Nope. You and I aren't moral equivalents, Scratchy.

I've never attempted to do to anyone what you've sought to do to me.

[_beastie]

Your analogy probably breaks down at this point.

I know that Eric claims that my sharing the link with his stepfather caused conflict and problems, but Eric's stepfather has told me that it didn't. That, yes, there are (and, as I knew, have long been) problems, but not on account of my having shared the link.

Was there a "compelling need" for Eric stepfather to have the link? Plainly, no. Precisely because there wasn't really anything in it that was new or shocking to him (which makes even more plausible his statement to me that it didn't cause any significant new conflict or problems). In sending it to him, I didn't imagine for a moment that I was sending him something that was earth-shatteringly new, nor even all that important. But we had talked for many years (even about Eric), and had been going back and forth somewhat more than usual in the previous week or two, and I judged that he would want to know.

If, in my relationships with friends, I communicated to them only what they had a "compelling need" to know, we would seldom communicate at all. Perhaps that's how it is for some of you here. But not for me. My friends and I exchange insights, jokes, political comments, links, travel tips, family news, personal stories, jibes, book recommendations, advice, news items, sports commentary, and many other things for which there is, strictly speaking, no "compelling need."

This wasn't -- and isn't -- as big a deal as some here want to make it out to be. It didn't fundamentally alter things within the family.

Are you actually claiming that you are in a better position than Eric to know whether or not this caused problems in their relationship?

The relationship in question is between Eric and his step-father. At least one person in that equation thinks it caused problems. I think that one person probably knows better than you do.

Aside from that, surely you must realize that you - or the hypothetical EV - could not possibly predict whether interfering in this way would cause problems or not. So it doesn't make sense to focus on the "causing problems" part.

So, let's put the problem in the uncertain arena - which it would have been at the point of alerting the step-father.

The EV did not know whether or not alerting the step-father would cause problems.

Do you think the EV engaged in the most appropriate behavior?

Or could it have better been handled some other way?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Care to re-adjust your argument, my dear Professor P.?

Nope. You and I aren't moral equivalents, Scratchy.

I've never attempted to do to anyone what you've sought to do to me.

ROFL! Wow, what a howler! This might be the biggest laugh of the year. (And you say *I* have no sense of irony!)

Your ZLMB posts, your FAIR/MAD posts, your SHIELDS exchanges, your skinny-l gossip, your FARMS articles---all of these things say otherwise, my dear friend. You live to destroy other people, as is becoming more and more clear in the "Eric" thread. Or, at least, you hurt people and dismiss all of it with little more than a hubristic shrug.

On second thought: I agree. You and I aren't moral equivalents. I haven't devoted my life to an institution that's designed to hurt people. I haven't spent thousands of hours of my life writing hit pieces like "Text and Context" or "Questions to Legal Answers." I haven't contributed articles to institutions like SHIELDS. I never posted private email correspondence that led to people losing job opportunities. I never emailed people's family members in the hopes that ill would befall them. I never got paid over $20,000 to do apologetics. I've never told hundreds of people that a person's professional work is "untrustworthy." So: you're right. We're not equivalent. Well done, Professor P. You and I agree on something. How that must gall you.

Actually, I've been doing people a service by warning them against you guys. People need to know that the Mopologists will do things like peep into your IP information, or send letters to the people overseeing your tenure decisions, or send emails to your family members in order to destroy your relationships. People need to know that the apologists are "juiced in" with the SCMC. So on and so forth.

[_Ray A]

I've never attempted to do to anyone what you've sought to do to me.

I almost hate to say it, but I think now that Doctor Scratch is your deserved karma.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I've never attempted to do to anyone what you've sought to do to me.

I almost hate to say it, but I think now that Doctor Scratch is your deserved karma.

Ray---

Literally dozens of people have privately echoed to me precisely what you've said here. On the other thread, Dan was trying to make a claim about how "civil" he is. Well, in real life, maybe he is. But online he has made hundreds if not thousands of enemies. Hopefully, something some of us says will hit him in the face like a splash of cold water, and he'll rethink his strategy. But, hey: he's stubborn, as we all know. I'm an optimist, though, so I continue to hold out hope that he'll one day apologize for the things he's done, and that he'll admit that he feels bad about hurting people.

Let me say this plainly: I don't mean Dan any harm. I've never said a word about his actual career as an Islamicist, nor have I mentioned his family (except to wish his missionary son well), or anything like that. I have focused exclusively on apologetics, and for that I've had my life threatened, I've been called "insane," "malevolent," and practically every other name in the book, and I've *thrice* been threatened with a lawsuit. Have I been rough at times? Sure. But I have never stooped so low as the apologists. DCP claims that what I've done is "despicable," but, in all honesty, what would happen if my criticism somehow made it so he could never do apologetics ever again? What harm would that do to him? The answer is: none. His salary would remain the same. He'd have more free time to concentrate on his professional research. He'd have more time to devote to his family. If I have somehow hindered his ability to successfully do Mopologetics, then I think that's a good thing: good for the Church, good for the critics, and good for DCP himself. In fact, I defy anyone to show how DCP's departure from apologetics would be anything other than a huge positive. He'd still be there to communicate and offer advice to those who wanted it. He'd still go on his lecture circuit. The only thing that would be missing are the smears, the meddling in people's lives, the aggressive polemics. And so on. He has claimed that his apologetics has save people's testimonies, but how good can you really feel about that if you had to hurt other people in the process? If he's saving these testimonies simply by offering Bishop-like counsel, well, then, that is something different than apologetics, in my opinion.

[_beastie]

I do not believe DCP lives to hurt or destroy people. I think that, like all human beings, he engages in behavior that he feels is morally justified.

If someone really believes the LDS church is the "one true church", and the best thing that any human being could do, in terms of the future, is to accept the truth of that proposition, then anyone who fights against it is really doing Satan's work - deliberately or not. So it's morally justified to do all one can to fight against Satan's work - even if a few people get hurt in the process. It's a righteous war.

Now, one could debate whether or not critically analyzing apologia is the equivalent of fighting against the church, but I suspect most apologists tend to think it is. They're defending the church's claims, after all, so any attempt to undermine their effort is the same as undermining the mission of the church.

[_Ray A]

Literally dozens of people have privately echoed to me precisely what you've said here. On the other thread, Dan was trying to make a claim about how "civil" he is. Well, in real life, maybe he is. But online he has made hundreds if not thousands of enemies. Hopefully, something some of us says will hit him in the face like a splash of cold water, and he'll rethink his strategy. But, hey: he's stubborn, as we all know. I'm an optimist, though, so I continue to hold out hope that he'll one day apologize for the things he's done, and that he'll admit that he feels bad about hurting people.

Doctor, I don't see this happening unless Dan went the way of Thomas Ferguson, and I don't see that happening. You are right, offline he's a very cordial and likable person, but online his heart can at times be as hard as the Pharaoh's. I am just stunned at his responses on the "Eric" thread. I went to bed last night shaking my head, hoping I'd wake up to see some signs of a heart somewhere there, but it was not to be. All I'm seeing is when the animal is attacked, it bites back. Jesus would be impressed out of his mind.

I expect the animal back to attack, soon.

I defy anyone to show how DCP's departure from apologetics would be anything other than a huge positive.

Well he persuaded me briefly in 1995, but in the long term all it did was delay the inevitable. From my POV, there's no longer any point defending the Book of Mormon as history. There's no point persuading people to stay in the Church because Nephites and Lamanites were running up and down Mesoamerica killing each other. It's patently silly. And to people like DCP, if it's not history, it's worthless. I won't go that far, but I think apologetics is worthless.

I would not miss his apologetics.

[_Ray A]

I do not believe DCP lives to hurt or destroy people. I think that, like all human beings, he engages in behavior that he feels is morally justified.

If someone really believes the LDS church is the "one true church", and the best thing that any human being could do, in terms of the future, is to accept the truth of that proposition, then anyone who fights against it is really doing Satan's work - deliberately or not. So it's morally justified to do all one can to fight against Satan's work - even if a few people get hurt in the process. It's a righteous war.

One-Third of God's children are forever doomed to be demons in hell, with a special assignment to tempt and torment us to follow them. A few more million casualties in this "righteous war" has to be on God's agenda. After all, "he loveth his children". So much that he has provided a spouse-less and family-less kingdom - just for them. Surely better than being dead for Eternity.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You live to destroy other people . . . I haven't devoted my life to an institution that's designed to hurt people.

Great stuff.

I never posted private email correspondence that led to people losing job opportunities.

???

I never emailed people's family members in the hopes that ill would befall them.

???

I never got paid over $20,000 to do apologetics.

???

I've never told hundreds of people that a person's professional work is "untrustworthy."

And you've apparently never read a negative book review, since you seem to imagine that my saying such a thing is somehow unprecedented.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I do not believe DCP lives to hurt or destroy people. I think that, like all human beings, he engages in behavior that he feels is morally justified.

If someone really believes the LDS church is the "one true church", and the best thing that any human being could do, in terms of the future, is to accept the truth of that proposition, then anyone who fights against it is really doing Satan's work - deliberately or not. So it's morally justified to do all one can to fight against Satan's work - even if a few people get hurt in the process. It's a righteous war.

DCP loves amateur mind-reading of this sort. It's so wrong-headed, DCP observes, and yet so charmingly earnest.