Challenge to Dr. Scratch

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 3973
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Challenge to Dr. Scratch

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

moksha wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:09 pm
I cannot be a conduit that Everybody Wang Chung requested, after all. Dr. Peterson banished me till Wednesday.
Goodbye until Wednesday at noon, Moksha!

Until then, comments that you continue to make here will be placed in the spam folder for possible release at that time.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4962576497
Moksha,

Let me interpret for you. This is Dan’s way of throwing in the towel. Dan is hoping by Wednesday this thread will be long gone and forgotten. I guarantee if you ever bring up the topic again on Sic et Non, you will be banned, either permanently or temporarily.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014

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

Re: Challenge to Dr. Scratch

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:34 pm
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 8:58 pm
Very well said, Stake President Wang Chung. And it's worth noticing that the quotes you've cited span a period of decades. Does he do this all the time or make a habit about it? I would say, "No," but the fact remains that he *has* denigrated other faith traditions before. I know there is a quote floating around somewhere of him really trashing Calvinist beliefs. He originally said it over on the old FAIR board--I remember CK Salmon challenging him on it, and I know it was hashed out here on this board as well....

Dr. Scratch,

Yes, Daniel C. Peterson has said some truly disgusting things about Calvinism, among other faith traditions. There was even a thread over at the Third Hour discussing Peterson denigrating Calvinism: https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/1752 ... calvinism/

"Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." Daniel C. Peterson

Moksha, let us know when Peterson responds over at Sic et Non and I will provide many more examples of Daniel C. Peterson denigrating other faiths.
Thanks so much for adding that link to the Third Hour, Pres. Wang Chung. The thread is valuable because it includes commentary from DCP in which he explains why he made the Calvinism remark:
DCP wrote:I imagine that this will show up in some future propaganda item that you publish. Too bad. I thought we were just having a conversation. You made some rather negative comments about my religious beliefs; I have never said a word about yours, but decided that you should realize, at least on this one occasion, that it's a two-way street.

But now that I know that you're playing "gotcha" and looking for ammo for your publications, I'll understand better how to interact with you in the future. (Like, preferably not at all.) My mistake. I should have realized it.

Here's where things actually stand:

I have enormous respect for the intellectual achievement of John Calvin. He was brilliant, and he doesn't deserve the rather negative image (as religious totalitarian, etc.) that he has in certain quarters. He was also a supremely consistent thinker. But I find "Five-Point" Calvinism exceptionally unappealing -- one of the most unattractive religious options on the planet, to be completely candid -- and cannot remotely imagine why anybody would find it "good news." (Well, actually I can figure why some would: I'm reminded of what a prominent Arminian theologian told me one night over dinner: He said that he would think more highly of Calvinism and Calvinist theologians if he had ever met even one who, while professing belief in "unconditional election," didn't believe himself to be among those foreordained to be saved. But, although he had spoken with scores and scores of Calvinist theoreticians, he said he had never met any who were not confident that they were destined for heaven. Hell is for everybody else.) I recall a lengthy conversation with one of cksalmon's fellow Calvinist anti-Mormons some years ago. We were talking about the fact that the majority of those predestined to salvation appeared to be northern Europeans and descendants of northern Europeans. I raised the matter of the Chinese. "Maybe God doesn't like the Chinese," responded the good reverend's wife. I've pondered that remarkable comment for several years now.

Yet I do not write, publish, or edit attacks on Calvinism or Calvinists. The only things I've ever published on the subject have been either positive or, at worst, neutral and explanatory. I participate in no "ministry" to counter Calvinism. I've never picketed any meeting of Calvinists, or opposed the construction of any Calvinist place of worship. I don't go on Calvinist message boards, or any other message boards, to criticize Calvinism.

In response to unprovoked negative remarks about my religious beliefs here on this thread, I for once stated my own personal reaction to Calvinist dogma here, and now one of the saved elite, not content to contemplate my imminent and everlasting torture as among those (probably the vast majority of the human race) foreordained to damnation, evidently intends to use it as a weapon against me in some of the anti-Mormon materials that he produces. And he apparently feels very good about this.
A couple of points:
--Interesting that he's so open at the outset about scoring points. (And IIRC, he wrote this in response to CK Salmon, who operated a publication that the Mopologists regarded as "anti-Mormon.") He's basically saying, "See?? How do you like it!!" And yet, he spends a couple more paragraphs laying out, in more specific detail, the nuanced reasons why he finds Calvinism appalling. So, either this is among the most awful things a person could do, or, instead, it's just a reasonable difference of opinion. You wonder why it's okay for DCP to write this, but unacceptable for, e.g., Grant Palmer or Jonathan Neville to make criticisms of either Mormonism, or Mopologetics.
--He writes, "I do not write, publish, or edit attacks on Calvinism or Calvinists." I gather that this was back when he still was trying to make the case that his online activities were just him horsing around, whereas his "actual," legitimate commentary was only to be found in his academic publications. It's worth pointing out that the comment dates back to 2009--before the Mopologists were kicked out of the Maxwell Institute, so this is actually historically interesting. Back then, DCP felt like that BYU imprimatur "protected" him--he could always point to it as evidence that he was connected to this Grand Beacon of the Academy, and it gave him a "shield." *That* was where his real thinking was to be found! But all that went away, and now, of course, his main venue of publication is "Sic et Non." Anyways: I digress. My point was simply that, no, actually, he *does* "write [and] publish" attacks on Calvinism or Calvinists," and indeed, he was doing it in that very post. (Same for the bit about message boards: true, he doesn't go to Calvinist message boards; he went to *that* board, which was either the FAIR message board or MAD at the time.)
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

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

Re: Challenge to Dr. Scratch

Post by Gadianton »

I guess it was sheer luck that the person who had just "attacked" his beliefs happened to have his own beliefs that the protagonist in the story despised. But what would have happened if somebody attacked the beliefs of the protagonist but the protagonist didn't have any issues with that persons beliefs? What on earth could be done? Is that even thinkable?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have "one in the chamber" -- or carry a grudge -- against every religion as a little insurance policy, "just in case" a slight is made against Mormonism by a representative of any given religion?

It kind of looks like Lou has a respectable knowledge of all the major faith traditions and you even saw him go into "reduction" mode with Shades, trying to find the category his new-found belief belongs to. And then we've also seen both respect and disdain for Anglicanism; just depends on whether anybody needs to be taken down a notch at the time the subject comes up.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

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

Re: Challenge to Dr. Scratch

Post by moksha »

Gadianton wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:39 am
... you even saw him go into "reduction" mode with Shades, ...
Well, that is certainly better than tirade mode, but the line of questioning seemed like it was designed to elicit information that could later be used against Shades by a certified Melchizedek practitioner of the excruciation art.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Stem
God
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Challenge to Dr. Scratch

Post by Stem »

DCP is not much different than most other's who hold to their religion. They feel free to point out the errors of others, but if someone dare point out the errors of his religion, then offense shall justifiably be taken. The believers effort to call out everyone else to repentance, thereby criticizing their religion/philosophy/ideals is justifiable all because God asks them to do that. But someone pointing out the perceived problems of those pedestal-standing announcers is somehow the greatest offense of our existence. Religion tries desperately to make itself into an untouchable relic of our people, pretending it deserves a pass because it claims the sacred, and it inherently must be good because well people believe, and its good because people say so.

We were all believers, some still are, and perhaps some never were. We know what its like to endure criticisms, even ones we thought were unfair. To respond with personal attacks on the critic is simply lashing out. Turning it around and saying someone can't' be thoughtful or critical of our beliefs is just silly, "stop telling me what you think about life. I want to tell you, and I don't want to hear any responses." Sorry DCP and co, you're not particularly privileged beyond us all by virtue of you wanting to be.

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Challenge to Dr. Scratch

Post by Philo Sofee »

Very well said Stem!
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

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

Re: Challenge to Dr. Scratch

Post by moksha »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:49 pm
Moksha,

Let me interpret for you. This is Dan’s way of throwing in the towel. Dan is hoping by Wednesday this thread will be long gone and forgotten. I guarantee if you ever bring up the topic again on Sic et Non, you will be banned, either permanently or temporarily.
Wang Chung, I will take your advice. If I return there I will not mention it. This whole being urged to challenge Dr. Scratch was a bit of a set up for me. Had I not heeded the pleas, I would not have been banned. Not posting has been a relief from being abused. I figured my being there could act as a dramatic catharsis for their pent up anger, but it just kept building. Life would be hell if the posters on this board were so badly behaved. It has to be one of those cosmic ironies that they bash this board for the behavior of its posters.

I do miss interacting with active Mormons on a website, but those I have enjoyed in the past were Chapel Mormons and we became IRL friends. Those same message board friends traveled to support me when I went through the Temple the first time. We even went together to visit several other Temples. Believe me, that is not something one would ever contemplate with the apologetic variety of Mormons. Can you imagine being at some part of the ceremony and they yell out an insult? That would be disheartening.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Post Reply