Question for Dr. Peterson and any other Apologist from MAD

[_Maxrep]

Though I agree with most of what has been said here, there is also an alternate view that can help in tolerating some of the attitude at MAD/FAIR. For quite a while I have just viewed the forum partly as "Mormons Behaving Badly".

At any one time, there are a healthy number of lurkers who are just browsing the FAIR forums. These folk can see fellow members on a vigorous attack as opposed to turning ones cheek, or employing the Golden Rule when discussing doctrine. Bad behavior doesn't go unnoticed. There is quite a large "Silent" audience reading the posts.

Pahoran has been mentioned here on the thread a few times. I had posted at FAIR on several occasions that he was my favorite apologist simply because he would swing the bat for our side unwittingly through his contempt and angry adjectives. Some say they want him in "battle" with them. Haha, sorry - its just a forum. "Battle" is a bit of a stretch in romanticizing forum participation. Besides, the church is stuck with him, and its no feather in their hat!

The unbalanced nature of the FAIR/MAD forums was always apparent, but hit home when I found out that Truth Dancer was sent packing. Didn't she get some online forum award - *Least Likely to be Offensive* ? Just kidding, but really Truth Dancer was one of the last people I could picture spitting venom.

I don't post much at all over there anymore. The main reason is that starting a thread, or participating in one can be a monumental time commitment. One cause is that the dialog sometimes plays out like a war of attrition. You make one post, then two or three apologists purposefully find ways to "miss the point" and then proceed to argue ancillary details, semantics, etc. Sometimes the idea gets buried before any real exchange takes place on the heart of the matter. They are quite good at evasive questions. Its like a wild goose chase fielding statements that are all over the map.

I know I have come across like critics have no blame - they do, but I honestly feel that in this type of environment it is only possible for the apologists to bear the greater responsibility. When we criticize doctrine, they feel personally attacked, though the criticism isn't actually personal at all. The only way to return the perceived blow is to personally attack the critic since we are not holding up a specific doctrine to criticize. Of course this does not apply to all faithfull forum members, I'm just being very general here.

[_Some Schmo]

You make one post, then two or three apologists purposefully find ways to "miss the point" and then proceed to argue ancillary details, semantics, etc. Sometimes the idea gets buried before any real exchange takes place on the heart of the matter. They are quite good at evasive questions. Its like a wild goose chase fielding statements that are all over the map.

This is a superb analysis, and is a big reason why I laugh at the charge that an apologist can't find a substantive conversation over here. Well of course not: you need a Mormon willing (and able) to have one first!

hehe

[_Runtu]

I think this is an important observation. PP and Merc are vulgar and attack Mormonism vociferously. But Pahoran has descended to some depths that are stunning, matched by very few on any of these boards. There was another poster, years ago, on ARM, called Red something. He was as vicious as Pahoran in crafting malicious attacks. Aside from him, I haven't seen another poster, on either side, match Pahoran.

How could you forget Red Davis? I remember him well. I remember being rather embarrassed to be on the same side as those two and a few other assorted folks, but then we had David Bowie, Craig Harman, and Yeechang Lee on our side, so we couldn't be all bad. But you're right. I've never seen anyone on the critics' side who match Pahoran and Red for outright viciousness and hatred. The one person DCP and others pick on as the epitome of irrational exmo hatred is SusieQ from RfM. Heck, she comes across as a sweet old grandma compared to those two.

There are some believers who had problems with Pahoran, although often they were expressed privately rather than on the board. But most seem to take secret pleasure in his approach, or even open admiration. (like Ray has recently)

Back then I was probably not as vocal as I should have been in expressing disapproval of Pahoran et al., but I do remember calling for more civility, even way back then. Kind of hopeless, though, wasn't it? Someone said not long ago that Pahoran was the way he is because he's been defending the church so long he's just gotten tired and cranky. As you said, if that's true, he's been exhausted since at least 1995.

[_Trevor]

It was a combination of a.r.m. and FARMS reviews that turned me against Mormon apologia. I was a huge fan of Nibley. I went to BYU to take classes from the guy, which I did. Man 8 am was early in the morning! Nibley's influence also inspired me to become a Classics major. I'll never regret that.

Anyway, by the time I was earning my first MA, I had spent I good deal of time reading FARMS reviews, the books they had reviewed, and much time watching and participating in the back & forth at a.r.m. I was so put off by many of the reviews and the arguments of hobbyist apologists at a.r.m., that I started arguing with the apologists. At the time, it never crossed my mind that the LDS Church was not true (now I find the concept 'true' empty for me). I simply thought that the apologists were, in too many cases, acting nuts!

Here I sit now, a cautionary tale to all curious TBMs out there. If you want to stay in, beware how you probe into the arguments of the apologists and about the conclusions you draw from that investigation.

[_richardMdBorn]

I don't post much at all over there anymore. The main reason is that starting a thread, or participating in one can be a monumental time commitment. One cause is that the dialog sometimes plays out like a war of attrition. You make one post, then two or three apologists purposefully find ways to "miss the point" and then proceed to argue ancillary details, semantics, etc. Sometimes the idea gets buried before any real exchange takes place on the heart of the matter. They are quite good at evasive questions. Its like a wild goose chase fielding statements that are all over the map.

A few years ago, i started a thread on ZLMB. A staunch LDS posted a comment and I responded. Other LDS then complained that I was going off topic. Some folks are impossible to please!

[_wenglund]

Beastie brought out these points on another thread, and I think they are worth addressing in a separate topic:

These people are angry about the way they were treated by the folks that are so vocal and seem to control FAIR/MAD. They were already going through a very difficult period due to doubting the belief system that fed their entire world view - that is never an easy experience - and they know that the issues they're struggling with are important. So being told, on top of that already existing internal struggle, that something is wrong with THEM, and being treated like a troll - is so hurtful that it creates an extremely jaundiced attitude towards internet apologists. This is part of the seed of their later behavior.

I remember being told years ago, privately, why Pahoran was the way he was. I was told that when he first participated on ARM, he was actually very nice and didn't attack people. In fact, Pahoran himself alluded to the "old Pahoran" at times. But then he was mistreated by some critics, and decided to start attacking instead. Did it ever occur to you that some of the exmormon "Pahorans" were created in the very same way?

If you really are simply interested in bad behavior over religious issues, and not just accumulating bad behavior on the "other" side in order to discredit them, then you would study the bad behavior of your own tribe, too. But I've never seen you do that.

Would you, Dr. Peterson, and several of you here, such as BC, Asbestosman, and any others who have some influence on MAD address this issue?

Looking at the last few threads, I think the venom has really gotten out of hand.

And I'm not claiming complete innocence here, either. When I get my feelings hurt, I strike out, too.

Maybe we really should all just take a step back for a moment.

Many of us are parents, but we're acting like children.

Would it kill us to be a little more polite with each other?

Seriously....I know that if someone disagreed with me, if they started out their post by saying, "I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree and this is why..." I would be less likely to feel like I was being attacked personally.

I was told when I posted on FAIR/MAD that I was just too thin-skinned to be posting on boards like this. This message came from fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints....people I have been taught all my life to trust.

Even amidst all of the strife that has happened here, I have felt more welcomed and more accepted on this board than on an apologetic board that is suppose to be "church member friendly".

I find that both ironic and sad.

I am certainly open to any specific and viable suggestions you and Beastie may proffer. In fact, if the two of you could model your suggestions using your "tribe" here, that would help us to better understand what you mean and hopefully evince the effectiveness and value in our employing your suggestions. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I am certainly open to any specific and viable suggestions you and Beastie may proffer. In fact, if the two of you could model your suggestions using your "tribe" here, that would help us to better understand what you mean and hopefully evince the effectiveness and value in our employing your suggestions. ;-)

I already gave you my advice. If you seriously want to help heal destructive behavior between Mormons and exmormons, you need to focus on your own tribe. You simply don't have enough capital to work with the other tribe, and instead, simply engage in behavior that satisfies you for some reason other than healing destructive patterns of behavior between the two groups. You once stated your intent to do so. Can you link us to where you have done so?

If Dr. Peterson is truly interested in bad behavior over religion, and not simply interested in accumulating evidence of bad behavior in the "other" side, then he would study the examples in his own tribe, as well. He doesn't.

In both of you, your behavior speaks louder than your words.

As for me, I gave up long ago on hoping to improve relations between Mormons and exmormons. I view these exchanges solely as entertainment.