DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by Mister Scratch »

Well, my very favorite LDS professor-cum-apologist has returned after a brief hiatus (to my infinite delight), amidst a flurry of activity on the fittingly named MADboard. One one thread, dealing with Mohammed, he takes smug pleasure in "outing" the sockpuppet of Kevin Graham:

Daniel Peterson wrote:On another board, "Dartagnan"/"Kevin Graham"/"X1X" reports that I've said here that I "will stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB [sic]."

I never said that I would "stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB [sic]" -- though I certainly might review it there too.

I much prefer it when people respond to what I write rather than to what they imagine me to have written. Unfortunately, that's surprisingly rare -- and particularly so on the board where "Dartagnan"/"Kevin Graham"/"X1X" makes his remark.

He can continue on his board. I guess they can't keep their board going without crashing this one. We haven't been able to be awful enough to keep Kevins sock puppets away for long. Maybe someday they will like what they have there and stay there, we sure hope so. ~ Mods
(red text ibid)

Yes, "Mods," and I guess our dear Professor P. can't keep posting on your board without lurking on this one! Funny how these things work, isn't it!?!

The real "intrigue," however, has to do with an upcoming documentary entitled "The Mormons," which is set to air on PBS at the end of March. It seems that this has created quite a buzz among Professor Peterson and his pals, including Terryl Givens. While the Good Professor has positive feelings for the doc's director, Helen Whitney, whom he claims to like "very, very much," he nonetheless has reservations about the film in general, and even seems to harbor a bit of paranoia about it, as if the "anti-Mormon element" at PBS is going to try and smear the Church:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I've spent a lot of time with Helen Whitney on various occasions, including two lengthy interviews (maybe three), and have been in pretty constant contact with members of her staff over the past 2-3 years. I like her very, very much.

I think she'll be fair. There will, of course, be elements of the film that will make believing Latter-day Saints uncomfortable, but I'm quite confident, too, that there will be much about it that will irritate critics.

That said, Terryl Givens has told me that the folks at PBS "Frontline" were dissatisfied with the preliminary version of the film because, they felt, it was too uncritically positive about Mormons and Mormonism, and that Helen has had to make some revisions at their request. I don't know his source for that, or precisely what to make of it. I've seen only snippets of the film thus far; he's seen more than I have.
(emphasis added)

This is very interesting to me, and I may be premature in this, but I am willing to wager that the stage is being set for some very significant drama. Will Professor P. be betrayed by the filmmaker that he likes "very, very much"? Will the movie smear Mormonism? Will it make critics such as Tal Bachman look bad? Time will tell! I know for certain that I will not be missing this film for the world!

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by Runtu »

Mister Scratch wrote:This is very interesting to me, and I may be premature in this, but I am willing to wager that the stage is being set for some very significant drama. Will Professor P. be betrayed by the filmmaker that he likes "very, very much"? Will the movie smear Mormonism? Will it make critics such as Tal Bachman look bad? Time will tell! I know for certain that I will not be missing this film for the world!


All I know about the documentary is that Tal said that Ms. Whitney was not particularly objective toward the church, so it wouldn't surprise me that the network made her go back and be less overtly positive toward the church.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by Mister Scratch »

Runtu wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:This is very interesting to me, and I may be premature in this, but I am willing to wager that the stage is being set for some very significant drama. Will Professor P. be betrayed by the filmmaker that he likes "very, very much"? Will the movie smear Mormonism? Will it make critics such as Tal Bachman look bad? Time will tell! I know for certain that I will not be missing this film for the world!


All I know about the documentary is that Tal said that Ms. Whitney was not particularly objective toward the church, so it wouldn't surprise me that the network made her go back and be less overtly positive toward the church.


Huh. That's interesting. Can you tell us more? I.e., was there some underlying reason why she was predisposed towards being overly generous (in Tal's view)? Of course, I think it goes without saying that anything "not faith promoting" will be seen by apologists and TBMs as "lacking in objectivity".

A sidenote: I could not help but notice what seemed to be some glee on the part of Prof. Peterson that the film would "irritate the critics." In other words, he is not interested in as objective of a film as possible, but is more interested in watching critics get lambasted.

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by Runtu »

Mister Scratch wrote:Huh. That's interesting. Can you tell us more? I.e., was there some underlying reason why she was predisposed towards being overly generous (in Tal's view)? Of course, I think it goes without saying that anything "not faith promoting" will be seen by apologists and TBMs as "lacking in objectivity".


Well, you'd have to ask Tal, but he said that she at times was positively gushing over the church and said at one point that she said something about how she would love to be a Mormon. He came away feeling like it wasn't going to be an objective portrayal of the church.

A sidenote: I could not help but notice what seemed to be some glee on the part of Prof. Peterson that the film would "irritate the critics." In other words, he is not interested in as objective of a film as possible, but is more interested in watching critics get lambasted.


Well, you know, we're evil, so we deserve it. ;-)
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

There was a thread on Muhammad and I just couldn't resist posting. There is something about misinformation about Islam that really makes my skin crawl. It is pretty weird when 17 LDS posters believe Muhammed was a true prophet, yet not a single one can make an argument for it.

The funny thing is that I said the same things as X1X as I did for so many years as Kevin Graham, yet the mods didn't delete or edit anything I said. They deleted other posts from other discussions, closed other nearby discussions, and they monitored the Muhammed thread closely as they said they would (the point here is that they were not on vacation, they knew what was being posted). But apparently they didn't find anything offensive to delete. This pretty much proves to me that it was not the content that made them go after me, it was me. And no, they didn't know it was me until I just advertised that fact here and on my forum. Though, I am sure DCP probably knew who I was.

But for Dan to quibble over my statement that he will "stick" to a review, is pretty petty I should say.
Last edited by dartagnan on Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

dartagnan wrote:There was a thread on Muhammad and I just couldn't resist posting. There is something about misinformation about Islam that really makes my skin crawl. It is pretty weird when 17 LDS posters believe Muhammed was a true prophet, yet not a single one can make an argument for it.


That is bizarre. Why on earth would Mormons believe that Muhammad was a true prophet? It boggles the mind.

The funny thing is that I said the same things as X1X as I did for so many years as Kevin Graham, yet the mods didn't delete or edit anything I said. They deleted other posts from other discussions, closed other nearby discussions, and they monitored the Muhammed thread closely as they saidthey would. But apparently they dn't find anything offensive to delete. This pretty much proves to me that it was not the content that made them go after me, it was me. And no, they didn't know it was me until I just advertised that fact here and on my forum. Though, I am sure DCP probably knew who I was.


Yeah, that's a safe bet. Oh, well. It really is their loss, isn't it?
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

He can continue on his board. I guess they can't keep their board going without crashing this one. We haven't been able to be awful enough to keep Kevins sock puppets away for long. Maybe someday they will like what they have there and stay there, we sure hope so. ~ Mods


Sorry, I have been recovering from a broken knee the past month but my internet participation wasn't regular even before that. I was hardly over at MAD to give this forum something to talk about. Anyone who knows me knows I am a passionate critic of radical Islam, and I post wherever I see misinformation. Including here: http://www.israelforum.com/board/forumd ... forumid=19

I know the MAD mods will chock this up as more evidence that their board is in some way superior, but I am not interested in any of that board war nonsense.

But I think it is a little silly for DCP to keep bringing up my sock puppets as if he is providing some kind of earth shattering revelation, especially since he has already admitted in the past that he tried to use different sock puppets at places like RFM, but decided to stop doing it because his style always gave him away. And just think, RFM is a place where debate and apologetics is manifestly not allowed. He went there knowing perfectly well his comments would not be welcomed. My comments at MAd are welcomed, even by those who disagree with me. Only when I cross paths with DCP does attention get called to the MODS. Funny how that always works, especially since DCP never complains to the mods about me.

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

dartagnan wrote:Sorry, I have been recovering from a broken knee the past month but my internet participation wasn't regular even before that. I was hardly over at MAD to give this forum something to talk about. Anyone who knows me knows I am a passionate critic of radical Islam, and I post wherever I see misinformation. Including here: http://www.israelforum.com/board/forumd ... forumid=19

I know the MAD mods will chock this up as more evidence that their board is in some way superior, but I am not interested in any of that board war nonsense.

But I think it is a little silly for DCP to keep bringing up my sock puppets as if he is providing some kind of earth shattering revelation, especially since he has already admitted in the past that he tried to use different sock puppets at places like RFM, but decided to stop doing it because his style always gave him away. And just think, RFM is a place where debate and apologetics is manifestly not allowed. He went there knowing perfectly well his comments would not be welcomed. My comments at MAd are welcomed, even by those who disagree with me. Only when I cross paths with DCP does attention get called to the MODS. Funny how that always works, especially since DCP never complains to the mods about me.


When character assassins can post with abandon and others get banned, it's never about posting style.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

dartagnan wrote:The funny thing is that I said the same things as X1X as I did for so many years as Kevin Graham, yet the mods didn't delete or edit anything I said. They deleted other posts from other discussions, closed other nearby discussions, and they monitored the Muhammed thread closely as they said they would (the point here is that they were not on vacation, they knew what was being posted). But apparently they didn't find anything offensive to delete. This pretty much proves to me that it was not the content that made them go after me, it was me. And no, they didn't know it was me until I just advertised that fact here and on my forum. Though, I am sure DCP probably knew who I was.

But for Dan to quibble over my statement that he will "stick" to a review, is pretty petty I should say.


Indeed it is. I think that he is just playing semantic games here by focusing on the word "stick." After all, he has said many times before (within the context of being invited to a debate) that he prefers to "discuss" via journal articles. In other words, he gets to hide behind the "wall" of the journal of which he himself is the editor! Not very fair or sporting, imo.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by harmony »

Mormons believe Muhammud was a prophet? Since when? Says who? That's the biggest bunch of bullshalocky I've heard in a long time. Daniel can't have it both ways. Either his prophet's the prophet, or else Islam's prophet is the prophet. So which is it?

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Post by Mercury »

dartagnan wrote:There was a thread on Muhammad and I just couldn't resist posting. There is something about misinformation about Islam that really makes my skin crawl. It is pretty weird when 17 LDS posters believe Muhammed was a true prophet, yet not a single one can make an argument for it.

The funny thing is that I said the same things as X1X as I did for so many years as Kevin Graham, yet the mods didn't delete or edit anything I said. They deleted other posts from other discussions, closed other nearby discussions, and they monitored the Muhammed thread closely as they said they would (the point here is that they were not on vacation, they knew what was being posted). But apparently they didn't find anything offensive to delete. This pretty much proves to me that it was not the content that made them go after me, it was me. And no, they didn't know it was me until I just advertised that fact here and on my forum. Though, I am sure DCP probably knew who I was.

But for Dan to quibble over my statement that he will "stick" to a review, is pretty petty I should say.


True Sock Puppetry is when one speaks to themselves, not as two separate names conversing in separate threads.
Last edited by Mercury on Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by harmony »


He can continue on his board. I guess they can't keep their board going without crashing this one. We haven't been able to be awful enough to keep Kevins sock puppets away for long. Maybe someday they will like what they have there and stay there, we sure hope so. ~ Mods
(red text ibid) [/quote]

What does this mean: "they can't keep their board going without crashing this one"? Are they using "crash" like "crash the party"? When they say "their board" are they referring to MormonDiscussions.com or Kevin's own board? And who is "they"? What do they mean by "awful enough"? I'm assuming they've banned Kevin's sock puppet, again... yes? What else can they do... torture him? How bad do they really want to be?

Inquiring minds and all that.

User avatar
Bond...James Bond
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
Posts: 4627
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by Bond...James Bond »

harmony wrote:
What does this mean: "they can't keep their board going without crashing this one"? Are they using "crash" like "crash the party"? When they say "their board" are they referring to MormonDiscussions.com or Kevin's own board? And who is "they"? What do they mean by "awful enough"? I'm assuming they've banned Kevin's sock puppet, again... yes? What else can they do... torture him? How bad do they really want to be?

Inquiring minds and all that.


I think they're referring to this board. DCP quoted dartagnan's thread (found in the link below) in the same thread. I'm sure they're referring to crashing the party as in being uninvited. "They" are the as yet unidentified critics who invade their sewing circle/faith promotion device/bull session.

As to "awful enough" I guess they think that the actions of their posters and moderators may irritate critics enough to the point of not wanting to come there. But who knows what the Mods over there are thinking. They seem to wander around looking for solutions the way a delirious man looks for pleasure resorts in the Sahara desert. The mods need to realize that message boards won't ever be perfect and that the little wrinkles brought by different posters give a board life.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1233
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07

User avatar
Bryan Inks
Elder
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:03 am

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by Bryan Inks »

Bond...James Bond wrote:The mods need to realize that message boards won't ever be perfect and that the little wrinkles brought by different posters give a board life.


MormonDiscussions. The all-natural Botox of the Message Board World.

User avatar
maklelan
God
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:51 am

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by maklelan »

Runtu wrote:Well, you'd have to ask Tal, but he said that she at times was positively gushing over the church and said at one point that she said something about how she would love to be a Mormon. He came away feeling like it wasn't going to be an objective portrayal of the church.


Since when does objectivity automatically equate with criticism? I objectively studied the church for some time without anyone knowing before I joined it, and I didn't have much to criticize. Sometimes being objective also means understanding why some things appear wrong to some people and not to others. When objectivity invariably translates into criticism for a certain group of people then maybe they have a bias.

harmony wrote:Mormons believe Muhammud was a prophet? Since when? Says who? That's the biggest bunch of bullshalocky I've heard in a long time. Daniel can't have it both ways. Either his prophet's the prophet, or else Islam's prophet is the prophet. So which is it?


He doesn't think he was ever a true prophet. He's said many times that he was a false prophet. Why does one person's facetious guess suddenly turn into verified information?
I like you Betty...

My blog

User avatar
CaliforniaKid
God
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by CaliforniaKid »

maklelan wrote:He doesn't think he was ever a true prophet. He's said many times that he was a false prophet. Why does one person's facetious guess suddenly turn into verified information?


I thought LDS believed that Muhammad was halfway-inspired or something like that?

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Re: DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

Post by Runtu »

maklelan wrote:Since when does objectivity automatically equate with criticism? I objectively studied the church for some time without anyone knowing before I joined it, and I didn't have much to criticize. Sometimes being objective also means understanding why some things appear wrong to some people and not to others. When objectivity invariably translates into criticism for a certain group of people then maybe they have a bias.


I did not say objectivity equates with criticism. From what Tal told me, she seemed unwilling to even discuss any problems with the church and instead focused on the church's positive self-portrayal, which to me seems not to be objective.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

I'm assuming they've banned Kevin's sock puppet, again... yes? What else can they do... torture him? How bad do they really want to be?


I don’t know because I haven’t tried it yet, but they did block the proxy server I was using to post as X1X as few days ago, which makes me wonder why they said, “He can continue on his board.” Well I know I can. Mainly because they’ve never been successful at stopping me, but I much prefer to observe than post. Only on rare occasions is the temptation too much for me to endure, and that seeing a bunch of misinformed LDS talk about how Muhammed was probably a prophet, is just too much to ignore.

Mormons believe Muhammud was a prophet? Since when? Says who?


Seven posters believe he was a bona fide prophet, same as Joseph Smith and Moses. Twenty-eight posters believe he was inspired by God to teach an “ethical monotheism”; whatever that is supposed to mean. Twenty-six posters said he was a false prophet. I think it safe to assume all the non-LDS posters who represent atheists and non-LDS Christianity, fall into the latter category.

Dan says he is not sure if Muhammed was a prophet. He leaves the door open on that one and it he comes across as a guy who is desperately trying to find out that this is true. He likes to reiterate what the first presidency said about religious leaders being inspired by God. He likes to reiterate what LDS leaders said (post 1854) about Islam as a misunderstood, persecuted religion. These guys spoke in public about how Islam was always on the defense and it was misrepresented by Christian scholars the same as Mormonism. Already you can see a sense of brotherhood intended here between the two faiths. 19th century Mormonism was very much anti-Christianity. Brigham Young frequently lambasted the “so-called Christian” world. The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Once I posted excerpts from LDS leaders predating this 1855 “let’s build bridges with Islam” movement, and the mods deleted them from the forum. Why? Because Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt didn’t have much to say about Islam and Muhammad that was nice.

I'm sure they're referring to crashing the party as in being uninvited. "They" are the as yet unidentified critics who invade their sewing circle/faith promotion device/bull session.


Well, how many people are actually invited to discussion forums anyway? The people I discuss with do not have problems with me, unless theya re Juliann, DCP and some other henchman for FAIR.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Once I posted excerpts from LDS leaders predating this 1855 “let’s build bridges with Islam” movement, and the mods deleted them from the forum. Why? Because Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt didn’t have much to say about Islam and Muhammad that was nice.


Perhaps they got this one right for a change?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aussieguy55, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 20 guests