DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, my very favorite LDS professor-cum-apologist has returned after a brief hiatus (to my infinite delight), amidst a flurry of activity on the fittingly named MADboard. One one thread, dealing with Mohammed, he takes smug pleasure in "outing" the sockpuppet of Kevin Graham:

On another board, "Dartagnan"/"Kevin Graham"/"X1X" reports that I've said here that I "will stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB [sic]."

I never said that I would "stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB [sic]" -- though I certainly might review it there too.

I much prefer it when people respond to what I write rather than to what they imagine me to have written. Unfortunately, that's surprisingly rare -- and particularly so on the board where "Dartagnan"/"Kevin Graham"/"X1X" makes his remark.

He can continue on his board. I guess they can't keep their board going without crashing this one. We haven't been able to be awful enough to keep Kevins sock puppets away for long. Maybe someday they will like what they have there and stay there, we sure hope so. ~ Mods

(red text ibid)

Yes, "Mods," and I guess our dear Professor P. can't keep posting on your board without lurking on this one! Funny how these things work, isn't it!?!

The real "intrigue," however, has to do with an upcoming documentary entitled "The Mormons," which is set to air on PBS at the end of March. It seems that this has created quite a buzz among Professor Peterson and his pals, including Terryl Givens. While the Good Professor has positive feelings for the doc's director, Helen Whitney, whom he claims to like "very, very much," he nonetheless has reservations about the film in general, and even seems to harbor a bit of paranoia about it, as if the "anti-Mormon element" at PBS is going to try and smear the Church:

I've spent a lot of time with Helen Whitney on various occasions, including two lengthy interviews (maybe three), and have been in pretty constant contact with members of her staff over the past 2-3 years. I like her very, very much.

I think she'll be fair. There will, of course, be elements of the film that will make believing Latter-day Saints uncomfortable, but I'm quite confident, too, that there will be much about it that will irritate critics.

That said, Terryl Givens has told me that the folks at PBS "Frontline" were dissatisfied with the preliminary version of the film because, they felt, it was too uncritically positive about Mormons and Mormonism, and that Helen has had to make some revisions at their request. I don't know his source for that, or precisely what to make of it. I've seen only snippets of the film thus far; he's seen more than I have.

(emphasis added)

This is very interesting to me, and I may be premature in this, but I am willing to wager that the stage is being set for some very significant drama. Will Professor P. be betrayed by the filmmaker that he likes "very, very much"? Will the movie smear Mormonism? Will it make critics such as Tal Bachman look bad? Time will tell! I know for certain that I will not be missing this film for the world!

[_Runtu]

This is very interesting to me, and I may be premature in this, but I am willing to wager that the stage is being set for some very significant drama. Will Professor P. be betrayed by the filmmaker that he likes "very, very much"? Will the movie smear Mormonism? Will it make critics such as Tal Bachman look bad? Time will tell! I know for certain that I will not be missing this film for the world!

All I know about the documentary is that Tal said that Ms. Whitney was not particularly objective toward the church, so it wouldn't surprise me that the network made her go back and be less overtly positive toward the church.

[_Mister Scratch]

This is very interesting to me, and I may be premature in this, but I am willing to wager that the stage is being set for some very significant drama. Will Professor P. be betrayed by the filmmaker that he likes "very, very much"? Will the movie smear Mormonism? Will it make critics such as Tal Bachman look bad? Time will tell! I know for certain that I will not be missing this film for the world!

All I know about the documentary is that Tal said that Ms. Whitney was not particularly objective toward the church, so it wouldn't surprise me that the network made her go back and be less overtly positive toward the church.

Huh. That's interesting. Can you tell us more? I.e., was there some underlying reason why she was predisposed towards being overly generous (in Tal's view)? Of course, I think it goes without saying that anything "not faith promoting" will be seen by apologists and TBMs as "lacking in objectivity".

A sidenote: I could not help but notice what seemed to be some glee on the part of Prof. Peterson that the film would "irritate the critics." In other words, he is not interested in as objective of a film as possible, but is more interested in watching critics get lambasted.

[_Runtu]

Huh. That's interesting. Can you tell us more? I.e., was there some underlying reason why she was predisposed towards being overly generous (in Tal's view)? Of course, I think it goes without saying that anything "not faith promoting" will be seen by apologists and TBMs as "lacking in objectivity".

Well, you'd have to ask Tal, but he said that she at times was positively gushing over the church and said at one point that she said something about how she would love to be a Mormon. He came away feeling like it wasn't going to be an objective portrayal of the church.

A sidenote: I could not help but notice what seemed to be some glee on the part of Prof. Peterson that the film would "irritate the critics." In other words, he is not interested in as objective of a film as possible, but is more interested in watching critics get lambasted.

Well, you know, we're evil, so we deserve it. ;-)

[Guest]

There was a thread on Muhammad and I just couldn't resist posting. There is something about misinformation about Islam that really makes my skin crawl. It is pretty weird when 17 LDS posters believe Muhammed was a true prophet, yet not a single one can make an argument for it.

The funny thing is that I said the same things as X1X as I did for so many years as Kevin Graham, yet the mods didn't delete or edit anything I said. They deleted other posts from other discussions, closed other nearby discussions, and they monitored the Muhammed thread closely as they said they would (the point here is that they were not on vacation, they knew what was being posted). But apparently they didn't find anything offensive to delete. This pretty much proves to me that it was not the content that made them go after me, it was me. And no, they didn't know it was me until I just advertised that fact here and on my forum. Though, I am sure DCP probably knew who I was.

But for Dan to quibble over my statement that he will "stick" to a review, is pretty petty I should say.

[_Runtu]

There was a thread on Muhammad and I just couldn't resist posting. There is something about misinformation about Islam that really makes my skin crawl. It is pretty weird when 17 LDS posters believe Muhammed was a true prophet, yet not a single one can make an argument for it.

That is bizarre. Why on earth would Mormons believe that Muhammad was a true prophet? It boggles the mind.

The funny thing is that I said the same things as X1X as I did for so many years as Kevin Graham, yet the mods didn't delete or edit anything I said. They deleted other posts from other discussions, closed other nearby discussions, and they monitored the Muhammed thread closely as they saidthey would. But apparently they dn't find anything offensive to delete. This pretty much proves to me that it was not the content that made them go after me, it was me. And no, they didn't know it was me until I just advertised that fact here and on my forum. Though, I am sure DCP probably knew who I was.

Yeah, that's a safe bet. Oh, well. It really is their loss, isn't it?

[_dartagnan]

He can continue on his board. I guess they can't keep their board going without crashing this one. We haven't been able to be awful enough to keep Kevins sock puppets away for long. Maybe someday they will like what they have there and stay there, we sure hope so. ~ Mods

Sorry, I have been recovering from a broken knee the past month but my internet participation wasn't regular even before that. I was hardly over at MAD to give this forum something to talk about. Anyone who knows me knows I am a passionate critic of radical Islam, and I post wherever I see misinformation. Including here: http://www.israelforum.com/board/forumd ... forumid=19

I know the MAD mods will chock this up as more evidence that their board is in some way superior, but I am not interested in any of that board war nonsense.

But I think it is a little silly for DCP to keep bringing up my sock puppets as if he is providing some kind of earth shattering revelation, especially since he has already admitted in the past that he tried to use different sock puppets at places like RFM, but decided to stop doing it because his style always gave him away. And just think, RFM is a place where debate and apologetics is manifestly not allowed. He went there knowing perfectly well his comments would not be welcomed. My comments at MAd are welcomed, even by those who disagree with me. Only when I cross paths with DCP does attention get called to the MODS. Funny how that always works, especially since DCP never complains to the mods about me.

[_Runtu]

Sorry, I have been recovering from a broken knee the past month but my internet participation wasn't regular even before that. I was hardly over at MAD to give this forum something to talk about. Anyone who knows me knows I am a passionate critic of radical Islam, and I post wherever I see misinformation. Including here: http://www.israelforum.com/board/forumd ... forumid=19

I know the MAD mods will chock this up as more evidence that their board is in some way superior, but I am not interested in any of that board war nonsense.

But I think it is a little silly for DCP to keep bringing up my sock puppets as if he is providing some kind of earth shattering revelation, especially since he has already admitted in the past that he tried to use different sock puppets at places like RFM, but decided to stop doing it because his style always gave him away. And just think, RFM is a place where debate and apologetics is manifestly not allowed. He went there knowing perfectly well his comments would not be welcomed. My comments at MAd are welcomed, even by those who disagree with me. Only when I cross paths with DCP does attention get called to the MODS. Funny how that always works, especially since DCP never complains to the mods about me.

When character assassins can post with abandon and others get banned, it's never about posting style.

[_Mister Scratch]

The funny thing is that I said the same things as X1X as I did for so many years as Kevin Graham, yet the mods didn't delete or edit anything I said. They deleted other posts from other discussions, closed other nearby discussions, and they monitored the Muhammed thread closely as they said they would (the point here is that they were not on vacation, they knew what was being posted). But apparently they didn't find anything offensive to delete. This pretty much proves to me that it was not the content that made them go after me, it was me. And no, they didn't know it was me until I just advertised that fact here and on my forum. Though, I am sure DCP probably knew who I was.

But for Dan to quibble over my statement that he will "stick" to a review, is pretty petty I should say.

Indeed it is. I think that he is just playing semantic games here by focusing on the word "stick." After all, he has said many times before (within the context of being invited to a debate) that he prefers to "discuss" via journal articles. In other words, he gets to hide behind the "wall" of the journal of which he himself is the editor! Not very fair or sporting, in my opinion.

[_harmony]

Mormons believe Muhammud was a prophet? Since when? Says who? That's the biggest bunch of bullshalocky I've heard in a long time. Daniel can't have it both ways. Either his prophet's the prophet, or else Islam's prophet is the prophet. So which is it?