DCP's Role in the "Nygren" Debacle

[Marcus]

...And then there is this:

I haven’t called Mr. Neville or any other advocate or adherent of the “Heartland” model an apostate. Never. Ever. Not once. I absolutely do not believe that holding “Heartlander” views constitutes apostasy. Theories of Book of Mormon geography don’t rise to that level of importance. Nobody’s salvation will depend upon knowing the correct GPS coordinates of the Jaredite city of Lib.

Does he mean that he never actually used the exactly word apostate? Okay, fair enough, if that's what he means. But surely even he can understand how Neville--or anyone else--might read this statement:

"I worry that Mr. Neville is heading, whether deliberately or not, toward the creation of a schismatic faction within the Church, and that he will ultimately lead at least some faithful believers away from full fellowship with the Saints."

And interpret that as meaning essentially the same thing as "apostate."

In any case, the saga continues.....

From the same link you quoted above, just a paragraph away:

As I’ve said before, one of the problems that I have about certain exponents of the “Heartland” movement is their tendency to personalize disputes over what is, after all, a matter of distinctly tertiary importance compared to what we share, or ought to share, as believers in the Restoration. I worry that such contentiousness might even, someday, lead to schism or apostasy.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... tacks.html

So, "worrying" that a person's behavior might lead to apostasy is technically not calling them an apostate.

This is also from the same link:

What worries me is the elevation of any secondary or tertiary Gospel-related topic to unwarranted prominence and then becoming contentious over it. ... When anger and accusations ensue, they can lead to bitterness, inactivity, schism, and even apostasy.

Another example of technically not calling them apostates.

Both examples are in the same link where Peterson insists "I haven’t called Mr. Neville or any other advocate or adherent of the “Heartland” model an apostate. Never. Ever. Not once."

That's some severely twisted logic.

[Marcus]

Comment on SeN

Mike Parker
5 hours ago edited

Thank you very much, Dan; your support means the world to me, especially during this surreal and difficult time.

I don't mind getting some pushback from Jonathan Neville now that my real identity has been revealed; in fact, I suppose I should expect it. What's been unexpected, though, are the ludicrously false accusations from ex-Mormon sideshow barker Bill Reel and watching Neville throw in with Reel and other critics of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I can only hope that people of good will are watching all of this with the same amount of incredulity that I am.

He still insists that it was acceptable for him to go along with, and actively perpetuate the pretense of a fake persona of a 'african-american LDS apologist' running HIS blog, a persona which was made up to provide cover for him and to, according to Boylan, tweak racists?

Hmm.

[TwoCumorahFraud]

If DCP is throwing his *ahem* weight behind Mike “Peter Pan” Parker, why is Mike’s profile still deleted from the Interpreter site?



Once again DCP’s duplicity is on full display.

- Doc

Maybe he wants to change the name to Peter Pan or Richard Nygren. He’s certainly good at hiding this name = Louis Edward Hills

[Philo Sofee]

That is some batsh*t crazy crazy right there... we expect nothing less from apologists who, in their own minds, can do no wrong, simply because they claim "it's for Jesus, it's always for Jesus, therefor, no matter how we handle it, we are right, because we are on Jesus's side, and no one else is." They remain, as usual, peerlessly clueless.

[Res Ipsa]

...And then there is this:



Does he mean that he never actually used the exactly word apostate? Okay, fair enough, if that's what he means. But surely even he can understand how Neville--or anyone else--might read this statement:

"I worry that Mr. Neville is heading, whether deliberately or not, toward the creation of a schismatic faction within the Church, and that he will ultimately lead at least some faithful believers away from full fellowship with the Saints."

And interpret that as meaning essentially the same thing as "apostate."

In any case, the saga continues.....

From the same link you quoted above, just a paragraph away:

As I’ve said before, one of the problems that I have about certain exponents of the “Heartland” movement is their tendency to personalize disputes over what is, after all, a matter of distinctly tertiary importance compared to what we share, or ought to share, as believers in the Restoration. I worry that such contentiousness might even, someday, lead to schism or apostasy.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... tacks.html

So, "worrying" that a person's behavior might lead to apostasy is technically not calling them an apostate.

This is also from the same link:

What worries me is the elevation of any secondary or tertiary Gospel-related topic to unwarranted prominence and then becoming contentious over it. ... When anger and accusations ensue, they can lead to bitterness, inactivity, schism, and even apostasy.

Another example of technically not calling them apostates.

Both examples are in the same link where Peterson insists "I haven’t called Mr. Neville or any other advocate or adherent of the “Heartland” model an apostate. Never. Ever. Not once."

That's some severely twisted logic.

I don't think it's logic at all. It's part of the MO of Mopologetics: dogwhistle, then gaslight if called on it.

It's interesting how Peterson's "concerns" apply just as much to Parker's blog as it does to Neville himself, yet somehow he never gets around to discussing that. If the issue is "contention," then don't be contentious.

You're a basketball fan, right? When someone says "no uncontested slam dunks," does that mean "flagrantly foul the shooter?" Especially if you don't have to worry about fouling out? Or am I confusing basketball with FAMRS ball?

[Kishkumen]

In any case, the saga continues.....

I mean, is the Pope Catholic? Will the earth wind its way through its orbital path around the sun?

[Marcus]

From the same link you quoted above, just a paragraph away:

So, "worrying" that a person's behavior might lead to apostasy is technically not calling them an apostate.

This is also from the same link:

Another example of technically not calling them apostates.

Both examples are in the same link where Peterson insists "I haven’t called Mr. Neville or any other advocate or adherent of the “Heartland” model an apostate. Never. Ever. Not once."

That's some severely twisted logic.

I don't think it's logic at all. It's part of the MO of Mopologetics: dogwhistle, then gaslight if called on it.

It's interesting how Peterson's "concerns" apply just as much to Parker's blog as it does to Neville himself, yet somehow he never gets around to discussing that. If the issue is "contention," then don't be contentious.

You're a basketball fan, right? When someone says "no uncontested slam dunks," does that mean "flagrantly foul the shooter?" Especially if you don't have to worry about fouling out? Or am I confusing basketball with FAMRS ball?

Lol, good question. I will say that there is a school of thought (that i don't agree with) that argues that, if you decide to foul a shooter, make sure it's hard enough to hurt them.

This has been dealt with over the years by introducing flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 (ejection) foul calls, upgraded with future game suspensions if thought necessary, and stricter technical foul rules.

The rules are interesting, including discussions of excessive harm, unnecessary action (meaning outside of natural basketball action), and evaluaions of harm, both actual and potential.

What they mostly avoid is imposing on the referees an obligation to evaluate intent in determining common vs. flagrant fouls.

Which brings me full circle to a comment you made to MG 2.0 in another thread:

When you invoke Communist dictators as a basis to fear monger against your fellow Americans, that's about as uncivil as it gets. No amount of smilies or patronizing "I'd be happy to be your neighbor" makes up for that...

The 'happy to be your neighbor' with its invocation of good intent wouldn't get MG out of a flagrant foul call for unnecessary incivility.

Peterson's argument that he never, ever, EVER directly called someone "apostate" is a similar and equally meaningless argument over intent. What is observed is the argument he clearly makes that he thinks Heartlanders are either in or headed to apostacy. Pretending now he didn't mean it is just world-class flopping.

[Dr Moore]

Next.

[Res Ipsa]

I don't think it's logic at all. It's part of the MO of Mopologetics: dogwhistle, then gaslight if called on it.

It's interesting how Peterson's "concerns" apply just as much to Parker's blog as it does to Neville himself, yet somehow he never gets around to discussing that. If the issue is "contention," then don't be contentious.

You're a basketball fan, right? When someone says "no uncontested slam dunks," does that mean "flagrantly foul the shooter?" Especially if you don't have to worry about fouling out? Or am I confusing basketball with FAMRS ball?

Lol, good question. I will say that there is a school of thought (that i don't agree with) that argues that, if you decide to foul a shooter, make sure it's hard enough to hurt them.

This has been dealt with over the years by introducing flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 (ejection) foul calls, upgraded with future game suspensions if thought necessary, and stricter technical foul rules.

The rules are interesting, including discussions of excessive harm, unnecessary action (meaning outside of natural basketball action), and evaluaions of harm, both actual and potential.

What they mostly avoid is imposing on the referees an obligation to evaluate intent in determining common vs. flagrant fouls.

Which brings me full circle to a comment you made to MG 2.0 in another thread:

When you invoke Communist dictators as a basis to fear monger against your fellow Americans, that's about as uncivil as it gets. No amount of smilies or patronizing "I'd be happy to be your neighbor" makes up for that...

The 'happy to be your neighbor' with its invocation of good intent wouldn't get MG out of a flagrant foul call for unnecessary incivility.

Peterson's argument that he never, ever, EVER directly called someone "apostate" is a similar and equally meaningless argument over intent. What is observed is the argument he clearly makes that he thinks Heartlanders are either in or headed to apostacy. Pretending now he didn't mean it is just world-class flopping.

Thanks, Marcus. Issues of causation and intent are bread and butter legal issues. I had no idea how relevant they were in basketball.

[Res Ipsa]

If DCP is throwing his *ahem* weight behind Mike “Peter Pan” Parker, why is Mike’s profile still deleted from the Interpreter site?



Once again DCP’s duplicity is on full display.

- Doc

I was curious about this, so I took a look at the Wayback Machine. The weirdest thing to me is not that Parker no longer has a profile page -- it's that he ever had one. The profiles that he was listed under are "Author Profiles." They consist of a photo, biographical information, and links to things they've written. Parker's only had a photo. At some point, an e-mail address was listed. But, no bio information and no reference to anything he authored. The last archived page was May 17, 2022.

I also checked the Radio Hosts page. Oddly, it appears that Parker and Peterson were both removed from the list of hosts at about the same time.