Wow, guys. Don't you think this is getting a little out of hand?

1000+

Over the top and headed downhill fast.

Indeed. The mockery and character assassination of Professor Peterson and Mormons in general on this board has been out of hand for quite a few years now.

Thanks for bringing some balance to this, Chris.

From the man who said:

Do you understand the concept of irony? Or are you just thick?

I think you know very well that this is not what Chris said.

Why all the nonsensical psychobabble about motives, agendas etc? You have no way of lnowing any of this so you just come across as a bitter jackass very much like most mopologists.

Peterson has done wrong by many of us here. All we've done is point out his own agenda and hypocrisy. You turn a blind eye to his faults while pretending he is a victim? Seriously?

Peterson is intellectually dishonest in a number of ways and he attacks apostates on a regular basis using the church as his publication venue. He has no integrity because he refuses to debate the issues or answer direct questions. He just runs over to MAD or NAMIR to launch his attacks where he lnows he won't have to deal with refutations or criticism. So please stop acting like Dan has it bad. He made his own bed.

From the most bitter and foul-mouthed apostate on MDB? Yeah, I'll take you seriously, dude.

You are one hell of a show.

Who really has it worse. Dan who is criticized on a forum he has already successfully convinced his flock is a pig sty that must be avoided at all costs... or people like Dehlin, whose only crime is trying to help struggling Mormons and who, thanks to people like Dan, must constantly be looking for over his shoulders for the orthodoxy police and watching to see when he gets attacked in a tithe funded publication?

The fact is you have no argument Ray. You sound like some pissed off kid who doesn't like the fact that his friend, who is a bully, is getting a taste of his own medicine.

All you have done here is psychoanalyze us all. Just to defend your buddy.

If the only way you can defend Dan is by attacking everyone else, then you lose all credibility.

"Convinced his flock"? You think DCP "convinced" "his flock" (who are they?) that this board is a pig sty?

Aren't you posting on MDDB? Is it DCP who "convinced" them that this board is a pig sty? I think they arrived at that conclusion on their very own, without even a nudge from DCP. (The-board-that-will-save-Mormons-from-Apologists.)

LOL.

Kev, to use one of your favourite phrases - Don't be an idiot.

I have to concede, though, you never psychoanalyse Mormons. No, never. Ah, for the ZLMB days. You were so much better as an apologist. I confess I really respected you then. And you let the Book of Abraham issue turn you into an anti-Mormon bigot. Sad.

(I hope your wife and children are doing well, and that as a family things are good for you.)

That's a hill I'm prepared to die on, Kev.

"Credibility" on MDB. LOL.

Ray all you have done is come in and juge people's motives. You have no argument or valid defense of Dan's actions. If attacking me makes tou feel better then be my guest. I just don't know why, if you really think so ill of me, that you ever requested me to be added to your facebook friend's list.

And I am interested in any valid argument about my alleged "bigotry". Coming to the evidence based conclusion that the Church has made a number of false claims, hardly makes me bitter or a bigot.

That's just something apologists like to say. Question is, why are you saying it?

And you were a good and discerning friend on FB (I have no regrets), and I appreciated the fact that on FB, you were not in "MDB mode". I "added you" because I think there's much more to you than just "board discussions".



I admired your posts, when, I believe, you were well aware of the problems. It wasn't just the Book of Abraham that sent you spiraling. You made some very good arguments as to why one should still remain a faithful Mormon, in spite of the difficulties, problems and challenges. I wish I had access to those posts now. They are gone, but still embedded in my memory, because you were prodding me to think much more about my own opposition.

Then all of a sudden, I see this aggressive Kevin Graham.

Nothing you ever did as a critic, ever inspired me as much as what you did as an apologist.

Those were good days.

Ray, I consider you a friend. I feel I can take your admonitions as they are intended, in the right spirit, if you will. I am grateful that you continue to see that I am trying my best to work things out. I don't think that process ever ends, by the way. It only goes on in different modes. You are still trying to work it out. Darth J is still trying to work it out, and so is Daniel Peterson. We are all trying our best, I believe. I am silly enough to think that there are very few sociopaths out there.

I do believe, however, that there are destructive situations that can bring out the worst in people and end in tragedy. Maybe MDB is one of them. I think it is, in some ways, risky territory to walk through. I may have already, in some respects, done irreparable harm to certain aspects of my life by persisting in this hobby. If that is true, however, I would imagine it is because I angered someone out there who thinks that I deserve to be hit hard for doing what they perceive to be "fighting the truth." That is what I see as the real risk. That and the fact that I have spent way too much time on this.

Do I think that my immortal soul is on the line here? No. Why? Because I believe that God is much bigger than that. I believe God is much more merciful than that. I certainly do not think that doctrines should be used as weapons to marginalize and to ostracize others.

While I understand the utility of a certain kind of boundary maintenance, and that in practical terms all human organizations will have their leaders, etc., I think that here we see self-defense gone very much awry in how it is turned even against people who are more or less on the same "team." And I think those who engage in this excessive boundary maintenance have gone too far. I am far from the only person who thinks so. Obviously people much smarter and more faithful to the LDS Church share my view.

But it makes no sense for this to be conceived of as being a personal problem. One cannot see it as a matter of a few bad apples. I think it is more the case that it is a problem that only a structural/organizational solution can ameliorate. It is obvious to me that at the present time there simply will be a spirited, aggressive defense of Mormonism against external critics, because, as the campaigns of Mitt Romney have made clear, American culture has not fully embraced Mormons as belonging to the human race on the same terms as those in the realm of the normative and privileged. LDS apologists are there to hit back against that.

But the other side of it, the preservation of group integrity on matters of doctrine, is something else. Only in a very insecure sect does one find insiders savaged in ways that are too close to the treatment dealt to external enemies. In my view, this is one of the reasons ex-Mormons call Mormonism a cult. Having been treated like pariahs when they started to have problems with the Church, now that they are outsiders they easily join the chorus of those who recognize that the tactics for dealing with turncoats in Scientology or some other marginal group are not that far from what they experienced, and they reach an understandable conclusion. Precision in terminology is not a sufficient antidote to that problem.

But I say that the Church can do something about that that will work. They can't control how local ward folk respond to internal dissent, but they can surely do something about how they deal with it. If their answer is to unleash the rhetorical skills of Greg Smith on John Dehlin or Laura Compton to do what he has honed his skills for, then I think it is fair to say that they will set the tone for how others, the lesser lights, the Schryvers and Droopys of the world, treat struggling members. And, as we have seen, it is not pretty, and it does not lead to altogether positive things. I would say that the anger and negativity of this board cannot simply written off theologically as the influence of "Satan." I think it is also a function of the way the Church allows its apologists to savage fellow members.

It is the Golden Rule on an organizational level, right? And the self-preservation mechanisms of the apologetic set move them to attack my personal tone and personal faith, and what have you, in a bid to distract people from considering what I have to say as having any value at all. Of course, that is simply a distraction. If the LDS Church does not permit its daughter organizations to support the publication of these kinds of attacks, it will be an incremental improvement on the situation. Not a sea change of some kind, but it will diminish the sense, however erroneous, that there is this conspiracy at work between the apostles and the apologists, in which the apologists serve as the attack dogs who abuse and harass members the apostles can't afford to attack in the open for fear of bad PR.

I think that these things are worthy of serious consideration.

Thanks to Darth J and others like Chap, who have in my mind offered us another thread to demonstrate the hostility that so many posters here have for others. Even if they pretend there is no hostility. Its clear the hostility they harbor does not allow free and open discourse at all. I can explain.

'Tis a sad shame, in my view, to see so many complain about LDS people, like some on MDD or MI or FAIR folks, when any of them say something personally offensive about another, but a large number of posts here do nothing but attack LDS folks. Anyone who says something about it, like Ray, join the crowd of those attacked as gangs of thugs jump all over him. The bullies are always out to attempt to get people they don't like out of here so their attacks can go unabated. I would say its very hard to take any complaints here seriously, even the ones that come off as quite reasonable and credible. In nearly every attempt to do so some LDS person is being maligned. Offer criticism to someone's thought and that does nothing but open you up, well if you are LDS, to personal attacks.

Yeah right.

Actually, I think that Kish has done a very nice job in balancing opposing points of view on the topic without attacking Dan personally, and, even giving kudos to Dan on portions of his article.

I have found that the best way to deter personal attacks is to redirect the thread so that it is back on topic.

Maybe the topic can resume?

Since I have not yet read the article in question, I really can't comment at this point.

That is a selective and thus unfair reading of the thread as a whole. Disappointing.

Fair enough, Liz and Kish, there are exceptions found within this thread to the accusations I leveled.

Ray, God knows I love ya, but you have some serious rage issues.