Tyler Livingston--Former FAIR Stalwart--Has Left the Church

[Philo Sofee]

That means a lot to me. I hope you know that I feel the same in return. All the best.

Thanks, Wade Englund

Much appreciated, Wade. All the best to you too!

I 2nd this. Good to see you active and posting a bit and mixing it up Wade. Always good exercise for my own brain cells when I do so - GRIN! And heavens knows, at this age, I need it...

[wenglund]

Wow….you read his Facebook page every day? You must be quite a fan.

I am a huge fan. Dr Peterson is highly intelligent, articulate, insightful, witty, and engaging. I am just one of hundreds of people who actively follow his Facebook posts.

And that’s interesting that you don’t see any of his efforts as “apologetic.” (And this includes “Interpreter,” too, I guess? I can’t help but wonder what you thought of the articles on, e.g., the Transhumanists, or Jonathan Neville, or Gee’s piece on the JSPP.)

I said I saw very little, which isn't the same as "don't see any." And, yes, that includes Interpreter, though I mostly stick to the Come Follow Me material.

I am aware that Dr. Peterson has been extensively involved in the Witnesses movie and video casts, etc. over the last several years. And, while they may provide some apologetic utility, they seem to me to be more gathering oriented. The same is true for the group travel activities he has participated in.

If memory serves me correctly, the only mention Dr. Peterson made on Facebook that harks back to his days on apologetic discussion boards was back last summer when he posted a brief correct of certain false allegations made against him personally by someone he simply identified as his "internet stalker" and that persons "informant." But, this, too, wasn't apologetic in nature.

He simply moved to a different venue where he could utilize censorship to his advantage. The nature of what he did on the boards didn’t really change.

I was an active participant on that board as well, and recall the bogus charges of using censorship to his advantage. He wasn't a censor, and people, such as myself, who were favorable to his position, were being censored there as well. As it was, he left that board before me alsol.

I was referring more specifically to Mopologetics, and especially to FAIR Mormon. Once upon a time, you attended a FAIR Conference, no? Do you still go to them, or do you have any meaningful involvement with FAIR?

I don't attend any more, though I have watched some of the presentation online once they become available for free. Dr. Peterson tends to be an annual presenter, but his last talk regarding apologetics was back in 2018. It is instructive: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/con ... hy-and-how

Thanks, Wade Englund

[wenglund]

I 2nd this. Good to see you active and posting a bit and mixing it up Wade. Always good exercise for my own brain cells when I do so - GRIN! And heavens knows, at this age, I need it...

Likewise. You have been, and still are, one of my favorite people. Seeing your jovial personality, keen intellect, and well intentioned spirit on a recent podcast, is what drew me back here. You are a genuinely a loveable guy. My only regret is that we don't have you fighting the good fight on our side. All the best.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Shulem]

My only regret is that we don't have you fighting the good fight on our side. All the best.

The Backyard Professor will never, ever, defend the Book of Abraham again. I can assure you, my apprentice is well trained and fully capable of handling the likes of any Book of Abraham apologetics!

[Doctor Scratch]

And that’s interesting that you don’t see any of his efforts as “apologetic.” (And this includes “Interpreter,” too, I guess? I can’t help but wonder what you thought of the articles on, e.g., the Transhumanists, or Jonathan Neville, or Gee’s piece on the JSPP.)

I said I saw very little, which isn't the same as "don't see any." And, yes, that includes Interpreter, though I mostly stick to the Come Follow Me material.

That’s interesting. I wonder if that squares with the goals of the Interpreter Foundation? Dr. Peterson has said many times that one of the main disagreements he had with Gerald Bradford was over the issue of apologetics. In fact, that seems to have been one of the main reasons why DCP was “sacked,” and he and Midgley have both emphasized *repeatedly* that the “new” Maxwell Institute was “spanked” due to *not* being apologetic enough! And yet here you are, one of DCP’s biggest fans, and you barely notice any apologetics in Interpreter, or on “Sic et Non”? (I realize that you didn’t mention SeN, so perhaps you don’t follow it?)

I doubt that Dr. Peterson would ever say that he has abandoned apologetics, but if such an ardent fan as yourself only sees “very little,” then doesn’t that put him in the same category as the “new” Maxwell Institute?

I am aware that Dr. Peterson has been extensively involved in the Witnesses movie and video casts, etc. over the last several years. And, while they may provide some apologetic utility, they seem to me to be more gathering oriented. The same is true for the group travel activities he has participated in.

Right: the trips where he got to travel for free—along with free lodging and food. Quite a deal!

He simply moved to a different venue where he could utilize censorship to his advantage. The nature of what he did on the boards didn’t really change.

I was an active participant on that board as well, and recall the bogus charges of using censorship to his advantage. He wasn't a censor, and people, such as myself, who were favorable to his position, were being censored there as well. As it was, he left that board before me alsol.

My apologies: I should have been clearer. What I meant is that his fundamental behavior didn’t change. He still does all the exact same things that he did on the message boards except that now he does them on his own Patheos blog (or in the Comments section) where he has full banning powers, which he exercises liberally.

[wenglund]

The Backyard Professor will never, ever, defend the Book of Abraham again. I can assure you, my apprentice is well trained and fully capable of handling the likes of any Book of Abraham apologetics!

Don't forget what ultimately happened between Darth Vadar and Chancellor Palpatine.

Rumor has it that orcs were once elves: https://www.cbr.com/lord-of-rings-orcs- ... lves-lotr/



Thanks, Wade Englund

[Gadianton]

Wenglund, how many people have you "gathered"?

While I don't doubt you have a streak of sincerity here, the bulk of your renewed posting so far just seems like more subtle sarcasm and needling. Like, if you were show up at SeN one day and brag about coming to this site to kicking the ant hill and troll, then it would all make perfect sense. Everything you post right down to your supreme open admiration for DCP's writings when you know he's so controversial seems to be needling. You specifically amplify his virtues because you know people here in general find him offensive. You're needling.

I don't care, this site is made for conflict, I'm just pointing it out.

I do know the difference between gathering and trolling. My dad was hardcore member missionary, a "gatherer", who actually gathered people and brought them into the Church (for better or worse). All kinds of people, including atheists and including intellectuals. I can think of one world-class engineer in his field and sort of reactivated one rocket scientist. He'd never come to a board like this or even SeN to gather, for obvious reasons. His reality in the Church was totally different then anything I see coming from apologists. He had a big gospel library and that's where I got my first Nibley books for starters. So it's not like he wasn't open to intellectual varieties of Mormon thought. But the way he interacted with people was just completely, polar opposite from DCP, you, Kiwi57 and all of the old guard. He probably has more baptisms and re-activations then all of you put together -- easily I'm sure.

I remember a very, very long time ago when the Internet was first coming out, and I was younger and not as mature as I am today, that I found a Wicca venue, pretended to be a born-again Christian and preached Christ Jesus to them. I don't think I've ever pissed off so many people at once on the Internet. That same kind of angle I played to get under people's skin is exactly what all of you guys do. I'm not sure at this point any of you could do otherwise, as it's so much of who you are. As a libertarian, I don't really care, have at it and enjoy the one life you have. I just think it's possible that knowing yourself could be worth achieving before the final curtain call.

[Marcus]

Wenglund, how many people have you "gathered"?

While I don't doubt you have a streak of sincerity here, the bulk of your renewed posting so far just seems like more subtle sarcasm and needling. Like, if you were show up at SeN one day and brag about coming to this site to kicking the ant hill and troll, then it would all make perfect sense. Everything you post right down to your supreme open admiration for DCP's writings when you know he's so controversial seems to be needling. You specifically amplify his virtues because you know people here in general find him offensive. You're needling.

I don't care, this site is made for conflict, I'm just pointing it out.

I do know the difference between gathering and trolling. My dad was hardcore member missionary, a "gatherer", who actually gathered people and brought them into the Church (for better or worse). All kinds of people, including atheists and including intellectuals. I can think of one world-class engineer in his field and sort of reactivated one rocket scientist. He'd never come to a board like this or even SeN to gather, for obvious reasons. His reality in the Church was totally different then anything I see coming from apologists. He had a big gospel library and that's where I got my first Nibley books for starters. So it's not like he wasn't open to intellectual varieties of Mormon thought. But the way he interacted with people was just completely, polar opposite from DCP, you, Kiwi57 and all of the old guard. He probably has more baptisms and re-activations then all of you put together -- easily I'm sure.

I remember a very, very long time ago when the Internet was first coming out, and I was younger and not as mature as I am today, that I found a Wicca venue, pretended to be a born-again Christian and preached Christ Jesus to them. I don't think I've ever pissed off so many people at once on the Internet. That same kind of angle I played to get under people's skin is exactly what all of you guys do. I'm not sure at this point any of you could do otherwise, as it's so much of who you are. As a libertarian, I don't really care, have at it and enjoy the one life you have. I just think it's possible that knowing yourself could be worth achieving before the final curtain call.

I have to agree completely with your assessment. My interactions with him left me wondering, mltiple times, if this was some sort of Poe scenario. For example, it's difficult to imagine him really saying, in all sincerity, that he considers homosexuality a disorder, in the same way things like bulimia and dyslexia are disorders, and yet he posted that earlier today.

His preaching about coming from a higher level of understanding but being willing to mix it up with those who occupy the great and spacious buildngs so that he can save souls just doesn't ring true.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Wenglund, how many people have you "gathered"?

While I don't doubt you have a streak of sincerity here, the bulk of your renewed posting so far just seems like more subtle sarcasm and needling. Like, if you were show up at SeN one day and brag about coming to this site to kicking the ant hill and troll, then it would all make perfect sense. Everything you post right down to your supreme open admiration for DCP's writings when you know he's so controversial seems to be needling. You specifically amplify his virtues because you know people here in general find him offensive. You're needling.

I don't care, this site is made for conflict, I'm just pointing it out.

I do know the difference between gathering and trolling. My dad was hardcore member missionary, a "gatherer", who actually gathered people and brought them into the Church (for better or worse). All kinds of people, including atheists and including intellectuals. I can think of one world-class engineer in his field and sort of reactivated one rocket scientist. He'd never come to a board like this or even SeN to gather, for obvious reasons. His reality in the Church was totally different then anything I see coming from apologists. He had a big gospel library and that's where I got my first Nibley books for starters. So it's not like he wasn't open to intellectual varieties of Mormon thought. But the way he interacted with people was just completely, polar opposite from DCP, you, Kiwi57 and all of the old guard. He probably has more baptisms and re-activations then all of you put together -- easily I'm sure.

I remember a very, very long time ago when the Internet was first coming out, and I was younger and not as mature as I am today, that I found a Wicca venue, pretended to be a born-again Christian and preached Christ Jesus to them. I don't think I've ever pissed off so many people at once on the Internet. That same kind of angle I played to get under people's skin is exactly what all of you guys do. I'm not sure at this point any of you could do otherwise, as it's so much of who you are. As a libertarian, I don't really care, have at it and enjoy the one life you have. I just think it's possible that knowing yourself could be worth achieving before the final curtain call.

I have to agree completely with your assessment. My interactions with him left me wondering, mltiple times, if this was some sort of Poe scenario. For example, it's difficult to imagine him really saying, in all sincerity, that he considers homosexuality a disorder, in the same way things like bulimia and dyslexia are disorders, and yet he posted that earlier today.

His preaching about coming from a higher level of understanding but being willing to mix it up with those who occupy the great and spacious buildngs so that he can save souls just doesn't ring true.

Call me naïve, but I really didn't think Wade was going to troll. It's too bad. I was looking forward to his participation here.

Like Gadianton said, if Wade wants to spend his time trolling that's fine, but I think Wade is missing a great opportunity to engage in interesting discussions and share different perspectives.

[dastardly stem]

You almost got it. There is, in fact, a lack of rational basis for discussion. However, it isn't because there is no rational basis for "gathering." Rather, it is because, between gatherers and critics, there is little to no overlap in acceptable evidence, methods of testing, purposes, etc.. And, absent sufficient overlap, then rational discussions aren't viable. There is no rational basis for non-viable discussions. Quite the contrary.

I would say religion in general has a big problem with rationality. I like religious arguments not because they are convincing. Quite the contrary. But because they provide sufficient illustration for problems with such reasoning. That's why apologetics is a problem. And it appears you recognize that, which is a good thing. Religious discussion can be rational if one presupposes a religious, or spiritual or however you wish to say it, framework. And secular concepts of rationality, rules of logic and all of that simply do not hold to such presuppositions. Therefore interaction really doesn't work well.

This isn't for lack of respect for "human reason" or the kind of evidence, methods, purposes, etc. used by the critics. Indeed, many gatherers have flourished in secular academics and various occupations: doctors, lawyers, pilots, linguist, teachers, scientist, economist, philosophers, etc. They could not flourish in these fields except they were to respect and even firmly believe in such evidence, methods, purposes, etc.

So, to help me understand better when you mean by "gatherer" who might be another "gatherer" besides you? I will add, sure...we humans are often oddly contradictory objects. We can simultaneously hold reason in one way and outright reject in many other ways. That's not really a religious or "gatherer" thing though. We all do that to some extent or another. Any doctor or scientist could be incredibly irrational in many ways, and yet be quite good at their work, while staying really quite rational in relation to it.

And, while these gatherers may draw from their secular professions to illuminate principles and practices in their religious gathering endeavors (Elder Uchtdorf often employees airline metaphors in his conference talks), they don't use their secular methods in bringing people to Christ. Gatherers who are cardiologist, don't perform open heart surgery in order to affect a change from a carnal and sensual and devilish heart to a spiritual heart.

Thanks, Wade Englund

yes...That is true. They don't excel in their work and simultaneously get people to reasonably accept their religious myths. They can try to reasonably convince people and it often works because people aren't always reasonable in their conclusions. That's the groundwork for apologetics--attempts to use reason to convince people to believe. Apologetics most often works on those who are already pre-disposed to believe. It works as a discipline to convince believers there is room to think their beliefs are reasonable. But that hardly means the arguments employed by apologists are reasonable.

Well, it's good to get a better feel for where you're coming from. I can agree that the two very different foundations we rely on make it very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to find enough common ground to acxtually work from. But I don't see the harm in trying. I also can appreciate the grankness of the failures or weakness of apologetics. I have no doubt very smart people will convince many others to believe through apologetic endeavors, but I'm also more and more convinced apologetics itself fails rationally, overall. There may be some good points raised now and then but ultimately the position of religion is not reasonable in terms of what we accept as rules and concepts of reason.