I can play this game, too, Dude.

A Farewell to Daniel Bashing.

I'm not playing a game, Ray.

(Let me just add that it's "sad" only from my perspective. You may perfectly happy and I sincerely hope that you are. )

Tell me, Ray: do you approve of Greg Smith calling Laura Compton a Satanically deceived deceiver in a book review publication published on the campus of a major American university? Does such conduct redound to BYU's good reputation for Christian behavior and academic integrity? If so, why? If not, why not?



You do understand, I would hope, that incorporation into the university system does have an impact on both the university and the journal itself. Ideally, you don't want theological accusations and spiritual judgments attached to your reputation as an academic institution. As a journal operating through a university, it is of little use to call yourself "academic" and "scholary" if your activities include smoldering witch hunts.

Remember, this is the modern, not the medieval university.



I would settle for Christian, scholarly, and focused on books rather than the personalities and speculative spiritual biographies of the people who wrote them. But I guess that is too much to ask, in your view. Especially on the campus of an avowedly Christian university.



Bravo for you, Ray. You just have a problem with me advocating the cessation of spurious book reviews written by unqualified people that speculate about the spiritual health or illness of the author. That really sets you off. How dare I? Right?



Gee, Ray. Do I hold two degrees from Signature Books? When I go out looking for a job, and they see Brigham Young University on my CV, will it be my relationship with Signature Books that counts for something, or the reputation of BYU?

Oh, but you don't have to concern yourself with such things, do you, Ray? For you this is all an abstract issue about fairness, or perhaps something to do with your longtime friendship with the editor of the journal I am criticizing?

So, you can take your balance issue, and shove it up your rear end.



Since the suffering of members of the LDS Church at the hands of Daniel Peterson, Louis Midgley, Greg Smith, and others is not really a matter for the courts of the USA, I really don't see what your point is. Does the court have any role in determining the ecclesiastical appropriateness of what these guys are doing? Does it really have a role in measuring the impact of theological accusations on the academic reputation of a journal and the university that hosts it?

?

So, why in the hell should I have anything to say about this? What is there to be impartial about? The fact that a court doesn't care how nasty an apologetic rag is?

Am I missing something here? Has my criticism ever focused on legal issues?

What IS your point?

Is the legality of the practice all you are concerned about Ray? Is that your gold standard and Christian ideal?



Since when has an appeal to authority ever carried weight with me? If President Hinckley or Elder Maxwell were to tell me I had married the wrong woman, but that their granddaughter was an acceptable substitute, I would tell him to go to hell.

What is your point?



What do you care about ark steadying, Ray? It is odd of you to speak in these terms, since you are an ex-Mormon, as you claim.

And, by the way, you may not have noticed, but I would like to draw to your attention the fact that the apologetic organizations of the Church repeatedly tell us that they do not operate as agents of the Brethren. So, either the problem is one of BYU's reputation, and the basic demands of Christian humanity, or the Brethren really do run the show, and I should shut up. In that case, the apologists can no longer claim that they are not agents of the Brethren, and we have to assume that they approve of the spurious reviews of Laura Compton and others.



I think it most unfortunate that the phrase "true believer" has any purchase. Anyone can claim to believe something, Ray. I want to see how they behave. They can claim to believe whatever they want, but God will be the judge of their hearts and their actions. So, wow, these guys will assent to all propositions that they believe the LDS Church authorities demand of them as good members. All of that, in my view, is worth spit in my hand.

What makes a difference, Ray, is God's judgment of the human heart. You don't get that by counting how many angels fit on the head of a pin, by sniffing out wrong-thinking people, or by showing up on time to raise your hand in assent. So I don't really give a tinker's damn what any of your fine brethren think. I care about what is right. The Review will still be published, and the sun will still rise on Provo, if they stop the devilish practice of sliming members in good standing in its pages.

Your reaction to all of this is bizarre and really beneath you. Where did you lose it?

Pull your head out of your ass, Ray. Seeking the end to a particular practice at the journal is not "Daniel bashing."

You know, I don't get it. Someone else here, not me by the way, criticizes what he sees as your temperament issues, and you strike at me?

Does that strike you as being somewhat bizarre and ill-aimed?

I know it does me.

What in the hell did I do to you to merit this kind of treatment?

"Hey, you accuse me of "x", well look at what my longtime friend and advocate Kishkumen did, because that REALLY stinks!"

I forgive you, Ray. I have no idea what has gone on with you to bring you to this.

You know, I think my finest Daniel bashing moments were when I told people here to lay off of him, and recently when I advocated removing two very embarrassing threads about an innocent mistake he made. I am such a f*****g bastard.

This after he lampooned me on a public blog with a couple of hundred followers and God knows how many lurkers.

How can I sleep at night? How do I live with myself?

The Dude is one of your own. He's "with you", do you deny that? He's quite content to attack me, but he will leave you untouched. That's how it works here. I've been psychoanalysed enough here, beginning with Scratch. Tell your buddies to butt out with the insults and character slander, and we can sort this out between us.

That's how this board works, and that's why 99% of the "mopologists" have left it. There's no real dialogue here - it's just another version of the MDDB "echo-chamber". Over "there", they mercifully ban you. Here, they will slander and attack you until they think you have no credibility left. That's basically what happened to DCP. Do you deny that?

Did you just read what the Dude said to me? He insulted me for caring what you think.

Are you and I reading the same material here, Ray?



If you think being tossed out on your ass is merciful, then that is what you prefer. If given the choice between a fascist regime that will "mercifully" kill me for being the wrong ethnicity, and living in a society where racists have free speech and can call me nasty names, I will choose the latter.

Oh come on now, lay off the melodramatic comparisons.

Here is my direct response to Daniel's reaction to this thread and, presumably, others.

What in this is "Daniel bashing?"

I disagreed with his article. I thought pieces of it were wrongheaded and ill-advised.

So big deal.

No, thanks.

Let me remind Ray of this, as he speaks of how apologists are just chased off of the board, while I sit idly by and do nothing at all.

Lifeboats on the Titanic, comes to mind. But never mind, we know that Scratch has a conscience too.

My Retirement.

LOL. Well, Daniel might not fully agree with you. But you stick to your version of the story.

I'm out of time for today, but I'll reply to this before I get moving.

I don't "claim" to be an ex-Mormon. I am. And I have an official letter to prove it. Are you?

Last thought for the day. The NAMIRS (when it was FARMS) didn't begin responding to critics in full until it was more than ten years old. No one, least of all the Tanners, ever thought they'd respond. I had read their book Shadow Or Reality, and was frankly glad to see some kind of response, if for no other reason than a sense of fairness, and an insight into the "other side". Yes, some members were shocked, and others thought it best to leave them alone and say nothing, as I think Le Grand Richards advocated.

Yes, it certainly has its blemishes, and some justifiable anger was present (probably for all the years of neglect) and that was expressed in the form of mockery, but that aside, there was a lot of "wheat" to contemplate in those rebuttals. They still stand today, for those who care to go over older responses. I'm not persuaded enough by them to make a journey back, but for many members they still remain a source of "faith building", and "seeking faith through books and knowledge". The needed "booster", I suppose.

I decided long ago that I'd never seek to rationalise or "entice" members away from their beliefs, and if there was no place for me in Mormonism I certainly wouldn't try to do this from within, nor advocate some kind of "reform Mormonism".

John has done good things, and his podcasts actually once again made me feel, well, "kind of Mormon", like, maybe I could "sort of belong" again. Everything, from the music, the intros, and the interviews themselves, never made me feel any sort of antagonism for the Church. If anything, they made me feel more positive about the Church, but maybe for the wrong reasons? That's really what I'm trying to explore, among the shouting and accusations. And that's why I said earlier that the approach taken here, and to apologetics in general, isn't going to do one single productive thing, whether it comes from John, or posters here. If anything, it could actually sour my formerly very positive view of Mormon Stories Podcast. That's the ironical thing that maybe John has not yet seen, that his best defence is not proactive attacks, but to let Mormon Stories Podcast "speak for itself".

Have a good night.

If they are willing to throw all the dead prophets under the bus, they sure as hell are willing to throw their dead polygamous prophetess wives.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

It would be a sad day for the LDS Church if they did throw out the Brooks, Dehlins, Bournes and Lizs. Even if they personally don't believe that having unorthodox beliefs stop NOMs from getting to the Celestial Kingdom what happened to the parable of the wheat and the tares? Let them be together and God will sort that out if they are so sure they are right.

You are completely right above Jason and I think that is what scares the mopologists so much. When it was just their publications and tracts from evangelical christians they had a certain amount of control and power. The day of their power came to an end with the internet and a more secular critique of the LDS Church that they have never managed to come up with an adequate response to.

In reality John Dehlin saw a niche and filled it with high quality content. He and NOM like sites have probably helped far more people stay in the LDS Church than any of FAIR/FARMS or the mopologists ever have. The reason for that is that the people aren't faulty it's the Church that is a faulty product. Trying to deny that the Church has the problem leads good members away as they reject the mental gymnastics. Acknowledging to those good dedicated members that they are right, they are justified and are reasonable in their positions actually opens doors to keep them contributing but on their terms.

While it isn't for me, because I have no reason to stay within it and I value the truth about it too highly for me to go through the motions for an organization that doesn't value my staying within it, I recognize that for some people they do want to stay in it for a whole range of reasons and that's their choice. I have concerns about bringing up children within it, but I've seen people lose children to it and also the strain it can put on family relationships in the lives of people I care about a lot. Some of its teachings for example on homosexuality even with a parent raising the child in a loving and accepting home I personally feel can cause extreme distress in those individuals, sometimes to the point of suicide. That doesn't mean that for some people staying in it isn't right for them and having people who are more tolerant and accepting within it no doubt helps so many because they have someone they can turn to and trust.

You said it better than I feel I could express it in the above post.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

I really wonder what is going on with Dan Peterson at the moment. Ever since the Time Lightbox incident he just seems to be unhinged. The way they targeted what was just a simple bunch of photographs was unbelievable. I can't imagine any group of religious "apologists" doing that to a member of their own group even if they were lapsed, except maybe Scientology.

DCP and Schryver seem to share a lot more opinions than I realized before. Maybe Peterson was just good at hiding it before. Every ward has the charismatic b***s*****r who talks about their wayward youth and then their reconversion. Everyone enjoys the stories vicariously enjoying the life that they lived even if there is always an object lesson at the end and a "don't make the mistakes I did". Maybe it is because Schryver does do and say what he wants and DCP doesn't feel able to and so he vicariously lives through him. It is a very odd friendship that they have together.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

I couldn't agree more!

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Ray,

If you were confronted by someone who was close to mopologetics get in your face spouting lies and b***s*** about you being responsible for the death of a missionary in your mission and at the same time you heard a hit piece was being written about you how would you respond? Would it be completely unreasonable to think that the person shouting at you may have got the idea from the hit piece?

Your appeal to "good authority" means nothing unless you are in possession of every draft of the article and know for a fact that it was never there or discussed in relation to it then you understand why it is unreasonable for anyone to take your word for it.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

It's true Kishkumen, how many times have I seen you stand up when you felt things were going too far? Or calling for people to be more fair?

It's sad that they live in such a black and white world, but I guess there would be no need to attack members of their own church with hit pieces and innuendo if they didn't.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Ray,

I may completely disagree with almost everything that you have posted in this thread, but I actually find myself agreeing with some of the sentiments that you express in this post.



I think here you have missed the mark to be honest Ray. While it may have begun as a way of combating external criticisms of the Book of Mormon and I think having a critique where it is deserved is a valuable enterprise, I think they went too far with it. I see the justifiable anger as more an evidence of their own cognitive dissonance and as a poor way to deal with some of the issues that the LDS Church faces in reconciling its claims with the historical record that is currently available. I don't think they do stand today and in fact there is a whole thread detailing how dreadful they are. I also don't think they booster anything. Anyone with access to both the original books and the "review" is able to see them for what they are.




Good for you, that is your path in life and I wish you all the best in it. Through choice or not some people find themselves in a position where a large number of people reach out to them and they have a choice whether to help where they see suffering or to ignore it and say it's not their life and turn a blind eye. John Dehlin in making his initial offering on the web about why people leave the LDS Church found himself in that position and felt that he should do what he could to help people in their transitions and in finding a voice to their issues that is what mormonstories seems to be to me. When you know enough history about mormonism you understand the LDS Church is already reform Mormonism. There's no polygamy and blacks are allowed the priesthood. With the black issue it took so many years for them to abandon the tradition of racism. So if the LDS Church leaders are so sure about homosexuality why don't they issue a revelation explaining in detail the issues straight from God? Have they even asked God? There is no evidence of them doing so.

I can understand why a number of people might not want the LDS Church to go down the same road with gay rights that they did with the priesthood ban for so many years. Not only that I can see why they would feel an obligation and even their conscience telling them to act. That is their path and if they choose to act in that way then that is for them.



This is the part that I really agree with on because I had similar feelings. I think that John Dehlin does do a lot to be inclusive and allow people to tell their stories. I do think that the mopologists were deliberately trying to antagonize John Dehlin, why else would Midgley show up at the conference he was speaking and accuse him of such dreadful things? I think they wanted to get under his skin to get a reaction from him, but why? I think Daniel Peterson getting his ego bruised on mormonstories after participating was one reason, another reason I get the impression was that John's study showed that a lot of people who leave name mopologetics as a factor and they didn't like that. I think the Mormon Stories Podcast does speak for itself, but you can understand Ray why those who could lose influence and power like the mopologists feel they have with FARMS and FAIR might not be so willing to give that up so easily? Especially to someone who is coming to terms with their own position in Mormonism? I don't think John always handled it that well, but if I was put in that situation by them I don't think I would have handled it any better and he handled it much better than Daniel Peterson ever has to anything from what I have seen of his online antics.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai