The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Greetings, Friends and Colleagues.

I hope you and your loved ones are doing well during these difficult times. So many things seem to be on the retreat: unemployment is surging. People are getting sick and dying. Services are being cut. Businesses are collapsing. And yet, in the midst of all of this, there nonetheless remains a pretty much unceasing hive of activity. That would be Mopologetics, of course. If you were thinking to yourself: "Man, couldn't they find something else to do with their time during this crisis?" then you would be totally wrong.

What can I say? People are creatures of habit. The upshot seems to be that, at least, the Mopologists are in a more reflective mood lately. For example, did you know that on "Sic et Non" they are currently trying to imagine a world where their behavior is "moral"? I encourage you to check it out.

The entry, naturally, is based on the Mopologists' warped understanding of C.S Lewis. Just look at the way that Dr. Peterson spins Lewis's basic idea:
Sic et Non wrote:In his classic 1952 book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis discusses God and the moral law. He notes that, when people are quarreling, they often say things like these:

How would you like it if somebody did that to you?
That’s my seat. I was there first!
Leave him alone. He’s not doing you any harm.
Give me some of your brownie. I gave you some of my fries.
Come on! You promised!
Actually, no: Lewis doesn't "note" that people "often say things like these." These are Peterson's own, made-up twists on Lewis's ideas. (Note the line: "Give me some of your brownie. I gave you some of my fries." Yeah: sure--that's what first came to mind for Lewis. LOL! Classic, DCP. You know: salads--including, yes, kale salad--can actually be really tasty if they're made properly. But by all means: feel free to keep wolfing down the French fries and brownies!)

But the elaboration on the metaphor grows ever more interesting with each line:
DCP wrote:Essentially nobody ever says that there’s nothing wrong in doing to others what we wouldn’t like done to us, that fairness doesn’t matter, that it’s okay to harm innocent people, that promises needn’t be kept. In nearly every case the other person will try to show that what he has done or is doing doesn’t really contravene the standard, or that there is some special circumstance. For example, something has happened that prevents him from keeping his promise, or, in fact, the person had done him harm. We make excuses. Whether valid excuses or not makes no difference. We even make them to ourselves.
(emphasis added....lol)

Before long, we get to the real meat of the matter:
Sic et Non wrote:But if there is a Wrong, and if there is a Right, there must be some standard behind those identifications. There would be no point in calling a foul on a basketball player if there were actually no rules defining what a foul is.
Could it be that the Mopologists actually understand why their behavior is wrong? Or, at least, they understand the mechanics behind the reasons why critics consistently tell them that they're wrong? Maybe not:
DCP wrote:But where does this standard come from? Is it a natural law, perhaps? It certainly isn’t a natural law in the same sense that gravity is a natural law. If I choose to violate the law of gravity, I’m likely to wind up dead or, at least, with broken bones. If I find myself suspended in mid-air, I will fall. I have no alternative. I can’t violate the law of gravity. But I can break promises, be unfair, and unjustly wrong and harm innocent people. (Just wait: That last line is very liable to end up elsewhere online as my actual boasting about my actual unethical behavior. I’ve seen precisely that done with earlier things that I’ve posted.)
You don't have to say it, Dr. P.: we know that you're capably of breaking promises, being unfair, and unjustly wronging and harming innocent people. We've seen you and your pals do it plenty of times! Stuck in a bind, Peterson quotes Lewis himself:
C.S. Lewis wrote:I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. . . .

[SNIP!]

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.
All right. Let's set aside, for a moment, the proposal that morality is somehow equivalent to math. (It isn't.) Instead, let's look at DCP's bizarre endorsement of these ideas:
Sic et Non wrote:And if Right and Wrong are actually in some sense real, that may point to something really, really significant about the universe in which we live.
Okay, if you can hold back your laughter ("Look! It proves that God's real!") and gather your wits about you, then you'll see that this whole thing is ripe for analysis through the lens of Mopologetics Studies.

What if we make some minor adjustments to Lewis's quote?
Lewis the Mopologists wrote:Think of a realm where people were admired for trying to destroy a man's reputation, or interfere with his bid for tenure, or where a young man felt proud of making fun of Jewish wedding rituals.

Think of a planet where people are applauded for interfering with a professor's bid for tenure, or where a curmudgeonly nabob charges into a woman's bookstore in order to scream homophobic slurs.

Think of a blog where the proprietor posts images of black people being lynched as a "joke," or a list-serve that's used to coordinate gang-style attacks on critics.

Think of a splinter religious faction where you feel proud for lying about getting paid $20,000+ to do Mopologetics, or where you violate Church rules in an attempt to dox someone who dared to poke fun at you.
So, I ask you: are Right and Wrong "real"? Remember: all of the items I mentioned have, at one time or another, been in dispute, just like DCP describes in the opening of his blog post. He insists that this means that there is a very real "Right" at the center of all this. What does he "imagine" that that might be?

I have a question
God
Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by I have a question »

But if there is a Wrong, and if there is a Right, there must be some standard behind those identifications.
There is certainly a lot "wrong" with that sentence and the conclusions the writer forces upon the reader following the writing of it.
Why can't "Wrong" be variable?
Why can't "Right" be variable?
Why can't they be arbitrary dependant on other factors?
Right and Wrong are human constructs as can be shown be the species we share our planet with, including other humans. Let's take killing someone as an example - would the aforementioned writer say the act of killing someone was "Wrong" or "Right"? The answer, I suspect, would be "it depends". "Wrong" and "Right" is a moveable feast to which no standard applies except for the vagaries of how individuals or communities or societies or species want or agree to feel about something.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22050
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by moksha »

... or where a curmudgeonly nabob charges into a woman's bookstore in order to scream homophobic slurs.
Kiwi (Pahoran) has already fashioned an apologetic on Sic et Non in which the Midgley road trip to Tanner's bookstore did not happen. Perhaps the differing moralities topic should be expanded to include differing realities. The apologetic practice of Lying for the Lord can help span both topics.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10837
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by honorentheos »

Interesting. Dr. Peterson's view of morality seems to take issue with agency as well as social evolutionary forces that create very real norms and shared cultural values that are still context dependent. Yet he seems to dream of an alternative reality where Mormon-style moral values are as compulsory and universal as gravity. It's just a matter of time is all before those who think they are able to walk off a cliff without consequence will find themselves dashed on the rocks below it. What was that book he liked as a kid that essentially had that as it's theme? Anyway. I recall once long ago on the old MAD board him saying he didn't agree with socio-biological theories about cultural evolution and fitness such as memic evolution. I see why. It gets in the way of his belief in divine origin for ethics just as biological evolution throws a wrench into his views on the divine lineage of human kind. And that gets in the way of being special for nothing more than adamantly holding onto a belief in the face of conflicting evidence. Some people have to take what they can get I guess.

Seems like Mormon mythology once described a figure with the same ideas about how morality ought to work.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9699
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Gadianton »

Thanks Professor, for this important contribution.
Coach Obvious wrote: But I can break promises, be unfair, and unjustly wrong and harm innocent people. (Just wait:
Ha ha. You're welcome, Coach, for the restoration of your viewing privileges, but lets not be so enthusiastic as to immediately start with "sig-line bait" this obvious.

I have to chuckle at the earnest proposal here that morals are absolute, pointing to their objectivity, which thereby points to a "law-giver" as Neal A. would reason. What a laugh!

The Lewis quote hints at Kant's argument that morals must be absolute else the very words we use in moralistic language are meaningless "two plus two = five". But the Coach has bungled this up big time, misinterpreting the absolutist qualities of math (or morals) with objective ones. That 2+2=4 not 5 says nothing at all about whether or not numbers are real. And all kinds of mathematicians and philosophers reject the idea that numbers are "real". If numbers don't have to be real in order for math to work, then why would morals, which per CS Lewis pace math, need to be real?

Kant had a sneaky way of showing how these turnip-style philosophers that you find at places like Sic et Non get confused when attempting as the Coach does here, to make morals objectively real like gravity. Kant shows that in a dispute between Aristotle and Plato about the reality of triangles; Aristotle says no, you can't see them out there in nature, and Plato says yes; they are up there as a perfect form; that the two can have an intelligent argument about triangles precisely because what constitutes a triangle has nothing to do with whether they are "real" or not.

Anyway, the Coach has a further foot-shooting problem. Recall he's a Godel mysticist. Because of the undecidable propositions of Godel, math can't be reduced to formal proposition and therefore by extension, neither can science -- science is doomed, therefore God!

But so much worse for morality that paces math (in the world of Godel mystics). If there are formally undecidable propositions in math, there are formally undecidable propositions in morality! Now you just wait: I've given him the idea, so one day in the future when he's arguing from the other side of his mouth, he'll be struck with the intuition to say that undecidable propositions in morality cover the actions of Joseph Smith.

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Physics Guy »

No, it's not clear that morality has to be real just because it's objective. It's not clear to me, either, what it even means for numbers to be real or not. I'm with Kant on this one for sure. Thanks for the tip that he talked about this. I've been impressed with pretty much the entire subset of Kant to which I have been able to assign any meaning. I've been unimpressed with the fact that this subset is small.

I do wish there were a way to tell Mathematica (that is, Mathematica) that all numbers are Real. It's awfully tedious having to refine every doggone result with /. Assumptions -> Element(x,Reals).

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3360
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Dr Exiled »

I think Coach's real morality is defined by the anti-Mormon construct he and his colleagues create, the supposed battle of good v. evil. It's part of the humble superiority that is Mormonism. God supposedly chose them to be his people and rulers, the noble and great ones, the royal priesthood, the warriors. The antis supposedly know the truth and fight against it a la so many fantasy good v. evil novels. Coach and his group are there to fight the good fight. It may get messy at times, but ends always justify means.

MrStakhanovite
Anti-Mormon
Posts: 5248
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:32 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by MrStakhanovite »

I see the learned Sage of Provo and Jerusalem has emerged from his book-lined study to give us a summary of Book 1 Chapter 1 of Mere Christianity; the man’s intellectual labors are positively promethean. Heaven knows the transcripts of BBC radio broadcasts from early 1940s are nigh impenetrable and we humble readers of Sic et Non need a faithful summary wherein Daniel captures Lewis’ profundity and communicates it to us in a vernacular that we can comprehend.

Dr. Scratch already hinted at one example, when we look at the samples Lewis gave us of possible quarrelling we find this arcane sentence:
C.S. Lewis wrote:‘Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine’
This bit of mid 20th century British English is going to throw a 21st century American for a loop and I’m sure Daniel instinctively knew this, the man has translated classical neoplatonic writings of Islamic scholars afterall. Here is what Daniel gave us:
DCP wrote: ‘Give me some of your brownie. I gave you some of my fries.’
Say what you will, the man knows his audience.

But Daniel isn’t just sensitive to the mores of food consumption, but also displays a well earned competence when it comes to the economy of language. Consider this passage from Lewis that tips the scales at 61 words:
C.S. Lewis wrote:Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: ‘To hell with your standard.’
Daniel was not only to get that down to 56 words, but also switched the pronoun “he” to “she”.
DCP wrote:In all of these, Lewis notes, the person speaking isn’t simply saying that the other person is doing something that displeases her. Rather, she is appealing to an implicit behavioral standard that she expects the other person to know and to honor. As Lewis himself says, the other person rarely responds “To hell with your standard!”
I think the most admirable aspect of this blog post is that the thoughts and ideas original Daniel are altogether absent from this piece. I can truly appreciate that because like many Mormon Apologists I have trouble reading four whole pages and I’m saddled with the dire need to name drop someone in the comment sections of social media.

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

I really hope Mr. Stak does a follow-up piece to his MormonDiscussions.com magnum opus 'Lolcow'.

- Doc

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

moksha wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 4:02 am
... or where a curmudgeonly nabob charges into a woman's bookstore in order to scream homophobic slurs.
Kiwi (Pahoran) has already fashioned an apologetic on Sic et Non in which the Midgley road trip to Tanner's bookstore did not happen. Perhaps the differing moralities topic should be expanded to include differing realities. The apologetic practice of Lying for the Lord can help span both topics.
That's going to be a tough one to spin, especially since there are photos of the incident posted to SHIELDS--including a lengthy letter describing the incident, written by Midgley himself!

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Dr Moore »

Interesting set of questions, Doctor.

I’ve been wondering if Dr. P recognizes that it is wrong to make an oath and then break that oath while claiming to be keeping it?

DCP accepted a generous donation to The Interpreter and in return promised me to “pretty much ignore MormonDiscussions.com” and to wind down the name calling, such as “Malevolent Stalker Board” and “Sty”. And yet he posts such things as routinely as ever, making him a documented oathbreaker. Would his new morality condemn that behavior, or call it Right by some twisted rationale? My view is that DCP continues to show us how “Lying for the Lord” remains alive and well as a strategy.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:36 pm
Interesting set of questions, Doctor.

I’ve been wondering if Dr. P recognizes that it is wrong to make an oath and then break that oath while claiming to be keeping it?

DCP accepted a generous donation to The Interpreter and in return promised me to “pretty much ignore MormonDiscussions.com” and to wind down the name calling, such as “Malevolent Stalker Board” and “Sty”. And yet he posts such things as routinely as ever, making him a documented oathbreaker. Would his new morality condemn that behavior, or call it Right by some twisted rationale? My view is that DCP continues to show us how “Lying for the Lord” remains alive and well as a strategy.
Great points, Dr. Moore. Prof. Peterson must really be stewing with rage over your comment, because he's unleashed a series of attacks on Gemli. That's always what DCP does--whenever he's really torqued over something we've said, he takes it out on Gemli.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10218
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Lemmie »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:59 pm
Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:36 pm
Interesting set of questions, Doctor.

I’ve been wondering if Dr. P recognizes that it is wrong to make an oath and then break that oath while claiming to be keeping it?

DCP accepted a generous donation to The Interpreter and in return promised me to “pretty much ignore MormonDiscussions.com” and to wind down the name calling, such as “Malevolent Stalker Board” and “Sty”. And yet he posts such things as routinely as ever, making him a documented oathbreaker. Would his new morality condemn that behavior, or call it Right by some twisted rationale? My view is that DCP continues to show us how “Lying for the Lord” remains alive and well as a strategy.
Great points, Dr. Moore. Prof. Peterson must really be stewing with rage over your comment, because he's unleashed a series of attacks on Gemli. That's always what DCP does--whenever he's really torqued over something we've said, he takes it out on Gemli.
and Midgley follows his lead. It reminds me of a comment I read on reddit, posted several years back:

That interplay between Dan Peterson and Louis Midgley is interesting. Midgley goes off on some dementia fuelled rant that makes little sense, someone gives a bit of a challange then Dan jumps in to save the dear old professor.

I questioned a GA about apologists like these two. He said they are turning out to be a liability for the church.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... d/dmxe1jp/
No surprise there.

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Dr Moore »

Rage, sure. I don't know what to call it, because frankly the reaction is baffling.

It's like this. Say I make a deal with one of my teenage kids, in which I agree to raise his allowance from $10 per week to $15 per week, if he will make his bed every morning. Too generous, you say? Perhaps, but I have my reasons, and so we shake on it. And further, as a show of good faith, I offer to pay my son the extra allowance a year in advance, to encourage him along and show my faith in his commitment. He likes that very much! And he does make his bed diligently every day, for about 7 weeks. But then I begin noticing that on some days, the bed is hastily put together. Here and there, half made, the pillow in place but the blanket clearly disheveled. Another two months go by, and it becomes the norm for the bed to looks unmade or, at best, partly made. On most days, the pillow and blanket are sort of tossed in a heap, not on the floor, but certainly not made like he did it on those first 7 weeks. Objectively, the bed isn't being made. But I don't say anything, hoping that as time passes, various cues in life, such as going to bed or spending his money, will begin to remind him of his commitment. But it doesn't happen, and a few more months pass, bed not being made.

And then one day I say something at the dinner table with the family around. Son, you haven't been making your bed every day, as you promised. I wish you would remember your promise. Frankly, I am beginning to regret having paid the extra allowance all in advance. I should have kept it back in order to remind you and reward you each week. That was my mistake. If you would like to return the money, we can start over, or if you'd like to recommit to it then let's shake on it again.

Now my son has a choice. He can feel pricked, perhaps embarrassed at his perfectly human humanity, apologize and recommit to keep his side of the bargain. That's what I hope for.

But he doesn't react that way at all. Instead he responds with indignation and anger. He shouts at me: "Dad, some days you don't make your bed either! The double standard is breathtaking! Your smugly self-righteous superiority is unearned and undeserved, as is your condemnation of me. So why should I make my bed?!"

And that is precisely what is going on here. (And yes, more than half of the words in the hypothetical teenager response above were lifted word-for-word from an email from Dr. P to yours truly last night).

In case it wasn't clear: I have shared the gist of this before, but now to be abundantly clear -- the deal I made with Dr. Peterson had two super simple parts. I made a donation to the Interpreter. He promised to make a long-term commitment to continue abstaining from trash-talking MormonDiscussions.com and its heterogeneous group of users. Our word-for-word exchange on the matter is as follows:
(note: I offered 3 different versions of a deal, each a version of the same goal to eliminate DCP's harsh rhetoric aimed at MormonDiscussions.com and its heterogeneous users)
September 24, 2019
Via Email Correspondence

ME:
Suggestion 2: I make the donations now in exchange for nothing but your good word and commitment to adopt this little exercise into a long term vision. We know it, but no one else does. Everyone else can monitor the 6 months, as they like, but you won't feel like I wield any axes and we'll both know the real goal, using 6 months as a proof of concept period. I trust your best faith effort. We can trust each other not to reveal the real objectives. The benefits are obvious, but the risk is you can change your mind and make me look like a fool once the money is in. The prospect of a sustained directional change for the better is worth that risk. Bonus is that you can, in the future, consider me a potential recurring donor to Interpreter.

DANIEL PETERSON:
I would be happy with this, if you’re willing. I keep promises. Moreover, I would like to decrease the impact of MormonDiscussions.com on my blog comments section and to reduce the tonal contamination of my blog by MormonDiscussions.com.

ALSO FROM DANIEL PETERSON:
My goal is to more or less ignore the Mormon Discussions Board.
The "exercise" incorporated by reference above began with this offer:
Dr. Moore: And if the three of you would agree to eliminate the terms “hate site” and “cesspool” and other similarly provocative epithets about the MormonDiscussions board and its heterogeneous membership, and hold good to that deal for 6 months, then I will further donate $10,000 to a charity of Dan’s choice.
This exercise was later clarified to mean that Dr. P would stop referring in negative terms to MormonDiscussions.com, and that he encourage commenters on his blog to do the same. By committing to adopt that exercise into a long-term vision, Dan was promising to lead by example in perpetuity, by personally ceasing to make negative references to MormonDiscussions.com and its users -- by "being nice" to his enemies, so to speak.

Pretty simple, right? I thought so. And being a man of my word, I made good on suggestion #2 by immediately issuing a donation to Interpreter. And Dan thanked me for it, reiterating his commitment. Most people would think that promise might come for free, with nothing more than a suggestion and the virtue of leading by example a reward in itself.

I suppose for record keeping, I should post some evidence of violation. I haven't been too active in reading either this board or Sic et Non due to shifts in daily life under the Covid-19 lockdown, but I check in here and there to see what's being said. I'm pulling up the pages now and here's what I found in ~10 minutes of reading:
DanielPeterson Dr. Exiled 17 hours ago
Don't post stupid attempts at offending us, Self-Exiled.
You have an entire message board of your own dedicated to that. You don't need my blog for it.

DanielPeterson Dr. Exiled 21 hours ago
Self-Exiled: "As an aside, how do you like your new name "Coach?""
Perhaps I'll let you know when and if I notice anybody but you using it.
And, by the way, you probably shouldn't use it here. Over on the Malevolent Stalker Board, of course, it might well be hailed as sheer genius. They're a pretty uncritical audience for things of that sort.

DanielPeterson Dr. Exiled a day ago
Self-Exiled: "I think you have a guaranteed audience from the board that you cannot name should the Witnesses film make it to a public viewing."
It's not a question of whether, but a question of when. And, so far, anyway, we're still looking at October.
If your pals from the Malevolent Stalker Board -- I have no problem naming it! -- want to come, they should let me know. If we're given advance warning, maybe we can arrange for them to have the entire front row to themselves at one of the theaters. That way, they'll be able to hit the screen with their previously-chewed Milk Duds.

DanielPeterson Moksha a day ago
Moksha: "It seems Dr. Peterson has removed his warning post"
Dr. Peterson has removed nothing.
Moksha: "Neither the Shades group nor the Sic et Non adherents are brave heroes or villains"
Au contraire. Some on the Malevolent Stalker Board are villains by any reasonable meaning of the word. Let's not pretend moral equivalence.

DanielPeterson Moksha 2 days ago
No, Moksha, I suggested that you abandon your effort to make this blog the moral equivalent of the Malevolent Stalker Board.

DanielPeterson Moksha 2 days ago
Nope. But try that line of reasoning over at the Malevolent Stalker Board. They'll love it.

DanielPeterson Moksha 4 days ago
Which was raised vastly in importance and brought to its present level by an influx of downvoting from your online home, the Malevolent Stalker Board.

DanielPeterson Dr. Exiled 5 days ago
Self-Exiled: "the humble superiority that I think has always been a subtext of Mormonism"
Wow. That's really revealing. And it may help to explain the very non-humble superiority that is a primary feature of your current online home.
Thanks! A light bulb just went on for me.

DanielPeterson Dr. Exiled 7 days ago
While you're here, Self-Exiled, would you be willing to answer a question about your home message board?
I see that it's back up again, to a limited extent. Some are posting there these days, albeit at greatly reduced rates. But I'm unable to view what they've said.
This is unfortunate, since, if the past is any indicator, at least some of it is almost certainly about Y'r Obd't Servant. And I'm understandably curious.
What is needed in order to view what is posted there? Does one need to be a registered participant on the board? Does one need to have cursed Dan Peterson three times and mocked him twice? Must one repeat a mantra while spinning on one's left foot?

DanielPeterson Moksha 8 days ago
Is anybody in this "crowd" going through your very young children's Amazon wish lists in hopes of finding something to weaponize against you?
Is anybody here searching through IRS records with the goal of finding figures that can -- if misinterpreted -- be used to make you look bad?
Is anybody who comments here busily searching for decades-old diary entries about you from people you scarcely remember, hoping to locate second-hand accounts that can be used to defame you?
Every one of those things has been done to me. On your home message board.
Compared to your online home, the commenters here are a flock of gentle lambs.

DanielPeterson Moksha 9 days ago
Moksha: "Louis and yourself are the twin bullies of this board."
Stop it, Moksha.
Incidentally, Kiwi is here, but Professor Midgley isn't. So I'll speak on his behalf: I've known him now for somewhat more than half of my life. I've traveled with him in Europe, Oceania, and the Near East. He isn't a bully. He's never been a bully. The demonology of your message board is toxic and false, and -- if it really must exist at all -- it should stay on your message board.

DanielPeterson Zzyzx Zybisco 10 days ago
Maybe, when and if the Malevolent Stalker Board is ever fully up again, our trolls will mostly return to their native habitat.

And these blog posts:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... oment.html
For roughly thirty hours, thus far, the message board where my Malevolent Stalker, his mendacious wannabe the Mini-Stalker, and several others have anonymously published their work for approximately a decade and a half has been down. Now, I know that I should have more sympathy. But I frankly think it’s rather pleasant that, for part of two days now — to pick up just a few of the Peterson-related themes that were really, literally, trending on the board immediately before it went down — they’ve been unable to continue with their earnest discussions ...

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... serve.html
Over at a place that I sometimes call the “Peterson Obsession Board,” where I’ve been a principal target and a continual focus of defamation and attack for roughly a decade and a half — day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year — one of the unfortunate inmates who happens to possess some talent
So... yeah, it's been a little over 6 months now. And from what I can see, Dr. Peterson simply cannot help himself from a near daily helping of trash-talking MormonDiscussions.com. He doesn't have to do that, he chooses to do that. And he makes that choice, almost every day, in violation of a "promise" he vowed to keep.

Now, Dr. Peterson excuses this behavior (via recent emails to me) by shifting the blame on me for failing to adequately police MormonDiscussions.com users from making attacks on him. But, and this isn't open for debate:
(a) my behavior, and the behavior on MormonDiscussions.com, was NOT part of our deal -- never
(b) Dr. P knew all along that our arrangement intended for HIM to show some damn leadership

Furthermore, Dr. P accuses me, again via emails, of being a hypocrite for occasionally agreeing with, or even posting, articles at MormonDiscussions.com that critically address his writings. Fair enough, he is entitled to his opinion.

But once again, at the risk of being stupidly redundant, our agreement that he cease trash-talking MormonDiscussions.com and its users had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with:
* whether or not I behave in a way he deems to be hypocritical
* whether or not I attempt to police MormonDiscussions.com posts to be nicer to DCP
* whether or not other users at MormonDiscussions.com choose to wade over to Sic et Non and make flavorful comments

So this brings us to an unfortunate end to the 6 month experiment. And despite the reversion to old habits, I still hope that DCP will choose to keep his promise going forward. It isn't hard to be nice, and it isn't hard to lead at being nice. It's a daily choice that I'm confident he is capable of making.

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8257
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by SteelHead »

No more subjective morality can exist than this:
That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is...

User avatar
Dr LOD
Deacon
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:24 am

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Dr LOD »

Lemmie wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:40 am
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:59 pm


Great points, Dr. Moore. Prof. Peterson must really be stewing with rage over your comment, because he's unleashed a series of attacks on Gemli. That's always what DCP does--whenever he's really torqued over something we've said, he takes it out on Gemli.
and Midgley follows his lead. It reminds me of a comment I read on reddit, posted several years back:

That interplay between Dan Peterson and Louis Midgley is interesting. Midgley goes off on some dementia fuelled rant that makes little sense, someone gives a bit of a challange then Dan jumps in to save the dear old professor.

I questioned a GA about apologists like these two. He said they are turning out to be a liability for the church.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... d/dmxe1jp/
No surprise there.
My personal interaction with a GA on the subject of LDS Mopologetics is very similar to the reddit post you linked to. I specifically asked almost the same question last summer. I was told that the FARMS/Fair still have the support of ONE Q15. Which apparently is down from the higher number they had the support of in the past. And the changes at the Maxwell institute were a reflection of that.

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Dr Moore »

A few more minutes of searching comment history, and this hardly goes back 2 weeks... If Dr. P actually ever asked his colleagues to tone down the hostile rhetoric toward MormonDiscussions.com (AS HE PROMISED), he must have done it with a wink-wink or a subsequent approving nod to re-remove the gloves. Because Midge and Kiwi57 can hardly make a batch of comments without somehow incorporating "The Sty" or "The Sewer" in their sanctimonious battle with perceived enemies. It's as if Dan's promise and our mutually-agreed experiment for Dan to show some damn leadership at civility never. even. happened.

Louis Midgley Kiwi57 2 days ago
Even if the disgusting Shades board is still down, does he not have some prisoners to guard?

Louis Midgley Fred Kratz 11 days ago
Fred Kratz actually has a good idea. And Dr. Shades) miserable board is exactly that kind of venue, is it not?

Kiwi57 Moksha 2 days ago
You really still view yourself and your little gang of spitball-throwers as Brave and Mighty Heroes, don't you?

Kiwi57 DanielPeterson 10 days ago
Come on, Dan. When did Moksha ever need a legitimate reason for anything?
For that matter, when did anyone from the Sty ever need a legitimate reason to start rumour-mongering?

Kiwi57 USSJohnson 12 days ago
Moksha, switch some words around and you start sounding pretty racist. I know you probably think you're funny, but this is pretty bigoted stuff.
As I've observed before, Moksha has a very big blind spot about his "humour." It plays well at the Sty, so he expects it to play well everywhere - and gets the sulks when it doesn't.

Kiwi57 EV 12 days ago
Here, again, is what Lou said:
Ev: I should have added that you might keep in mind that this is not the sewer, and hence you will not be applauded by real people on Dan's blog,
This plainly means that the place where you could expect to be "applauded by real people" is the place Lou refers to as "the sewer." I prefer to call it "the Sty."
This is not just a guess. Earlier in this very same page, you can find Lou saying, "This is exactly why the most rabid critics of the Church of Jesus Christ, some of whom have come to sic et non from a notorious sewer to vent." A rational reader can easily see that both comments are talking about the same "sewer."

Kiwi57 EV 11 days ago
...
Getting back to your assessment that people who disagree with you come from a “sewer”, that’s what needs to stop.
As you perfectly well know, I made no such assessment. As you perfectly well know - because I pointed it out to you in embarrassingly complete detail - "the sewer" is an explicit reference to a specific internet forum. It's also referred to as "the Sty" (by me) "the Malevolent Stalker board" (Dan) and other names, such as "the great and spacious trailer park." It's a truly vile place. ...

Kiwi57 Moksha 13 days ago
Unfortunately, Moksha, all that really does is display your own complacency and lack of empathy. The Sty is the single most vicious, hostile place that I have ever seen on the internet. You just didn't notice it because the hostility wasn't directed at you, and you just don't care enough about anyone else to notice when it is directed at them.

Kiwi57 Moksha 14 days ago
I run with the humour I find in your absurd lack of self-awareness.
You come here from the Mos Eisley of the internet - "A wretched hive of scum and villainy" - bringing all of the stench of that vicious place, interjecting idiotically immature quips into adult discussions, and yet you clearly imagine yourself to be, not only some kind of innocent victim, but actually one of "the good guys."
That's hilarious!

Kiwi57 Moksha 15 days ago
Moksha, yet again you are trying to nanny Dan's blog. As soon as you do that, you remind us of the sewer where you are the most comfortable, and the kind of behaviour that is exhibited there.

Kiwi57 Moksha 13 days ago
...
As you do at the Sty; so of course, they love you for it. It validates their shared hostility to the Church of Jesus Christ, and for those who have previously belonged and left - i.e. apostates, which is many or most of them - it validates their apostasy, too.

Kiwi57 EV 15 days ago
You, of all people are trying to condescend to me? That's funny!
Sorry, EV. I don't need to go to your sty to learn about my faith. Nobody does.

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Dr. Moore,

Thanks for the follow-up to your experiment. It went predictably wrong. If you recall the thread where you floated the idea in the first place, and can link to it, I'd like to review our reactions to your proposal. I recall, more or less, that we were, "Mr. Peterson will certainly violate the terms of that agreement." Anyway. It'd be fun to review the initial predictions and compare them to your proofs above.

- Doc

MrStakhanovite
Anti-Mormon
Posts: 5248
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:32 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by MrStakhanovite »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:11 am
I really hope Mr. Stak does a follow-up piece to his MormonDiscussions.com magnum opus 'Lolcow'.

- Doc
Sorry Doc, I wasn't very happy with that thread and decided to abandon it. I don't think my notes for that thread survived either. I'm glad you appreciated it though!

User avatar
Flaming Meaux
Priest
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:06 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Flaming Meaux »

My personal favorite part is where DCP hypothesizes about the results of choosing to violate the law of gravity, only to describe the consequences that result from following the law of gravity, only to then circle back to say that one cannot choose to violate the law of gravity. That's his setup.

Good lord, man.

User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 3973
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: The Mopologists Fantasize About "A Totally Different Morality"

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

Dr. Scratch,

Excellent OP.

I remember not too long ago Coach Peterson posted a very strange article at Sic et Non about how you really don’t have to forgive people.

I believe he was attempting to justify why he holds grudges for so long. Truly bizarre morality.

Post Reply