Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Moksha »

Gadianton wrote:
Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:35 am
They plumb the depths, "you created that board for hate! It's a hate board!! a cyber-stalking board!"
The message section of Sic et Non was created as an experiment on how many ways "ditto" can be said.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Dean Robbers:

Do you think that they let Dr. Shades back in as a means of demonstrating their alleged "inclusiveness"?
"If, 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
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Many of the modern high profile critics of the Church have a proven track record of clear deception and manipulation. Jeremy Runnells has lied about his own origin story and motivations countless times.
Inclusive!
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Gadianton »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:09 pm
Dean Robbers:

Do you think that they let Dr. Shades back in as a means of demonstrating their alleged "inclusiveness"?
You mean drum up controversy and get things going again?

um, yes.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Philo Sofee »

Gadianton wrote:
Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:47 am
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:09 pm
Dean Robbers:

Do you think that they let Dr. Shades back in as a means of demonstrating their alleged "inclusiveness"?
You mean drum up controversy and get things going again?

um, yes.
And all I ever saw Shades do was ask some really good questions! (shrugs shoulders)
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Trying to strawman gemli into a corner about atheism, some pillowhead said:
It's just something you can write books about, make films about, get paid for debating about, build entire governments around, make clubs about, murder in the name of, and even defend online! You know, not a doctrine.
Murder in the name of. -_-

Inclusiveness abounds over at Dan’s blog.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:13 am
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:07 pm
Looks like Dan was dropped by the DN.

The Church is moving on from apologetics?

- Doc
I guess the Church's notion of "inclusiveness" doesn't include a noted Mopologist, eh? LOL! The timing of this does seem meaningful, in any case. I wonder how much longer it'll be until the hammer gets dropped on "Interpreter"?
My, my: it would seem that this comment really touched a nerve! Just look at this!:
Daniel Peterson wrote:But a small and anonymous handful of my most fevered critics — think of QAnon, but without QAnon’s vivacious charm, lacking its kindness toward those with whom it disagrees, falling short of its intellectual rigor, and stripped of its optimistic idealism — want to see in the end of my Deseret News columns the heavy hand of karmic justice falling upon me. The Church, they say, is embarrassed and repulsed by my mendacity, depravity, and sheer viciousness. And, so, I’m being suppressed. (I’m also, it’s been suggested, being forced into early retirement from Brigham Young University, effective this coming 1 July. After all, who ever heard of anybody retiring, in order to pursue other interests, at the young age of 68?). How much longer will it be, they ask, before the hammer of the General Authorities’ wrath falls upon the Interpreter Foundation?
Bear in mind that all of this is happening in the wake of Interpreter publishing Gee's attacks on the JSPP: an event that apparently necessitated an (emergency?) three+ hour meeting of the Interpreter Foundation's leadership.

Look: I'll admit that the notion of a "hammer getting dropped" can be interpreted in many ways, and I apologize for being unclear with my metaphors. For example, it's true that a hammer can be dropped clumsily--like, it slips out of somebody's hand. Or, somebody could drop it on purpose. They could let it go so that it squashes a bug, for example. Or it can get "dropped" more forcefully--think of the scene in Martin Scorsese's Casino where they take a ball peen hammer to the cheating card player's hand. ("Look what they did!" he bawls to his partner.) It can also "fall" on a nail, thus serving a more proprietary and useful function. Suffice it to say: I'm sure that interesting things are playing out behind the scenes as we speak. Somebody, I'm confident, was given quite the tongue-lashing.
"If, 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
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Well, it seems that some people are having a difficult time letting go of this whole issue. Just look at the way that things have spun out of control at "SeN":
Cobra Kai 4 Life wrote:DanielPeterson wrote, “My perpetual rage and my life-long consuming hatred of all who differ from me — and most especially of religious faiths other than my own (another observation that has recently been made) — are abundantly documented and are manifest in everything I write and say.”

Do you think it’s possible some people have this impression about you because of your posts about Calvinism, Evangelicalism, Atheism, Secularism, etc?

Regardless, you’ll find life much more enjoyable if you just ignore what other people think about you. Simple advice, but true.
DCP wrote:CK4L: "Do you think it’s possible some people have this impression about you because of your posts about Calvinism, Evangelicalism, Atheism, Secularism, etc?"

I don't think that anybody can honestly have that "impression" of me based on my longstanding record, though there is a small group of people that affects such an impression and that has dedicated itself over the past fifteen or twenty years to fostering it.

I have a very long and consistent record over at least three decades -- across the United States and on every inhabited continent -- of appreciative and charitable lectures, columns, classes, articles, books, and activities expressive of my friendship to other faiths and those who adhere to them. I've spoken on these topics at colleges and universities worldwide (including Catholic and Muslim ones) and in synagogues and mosques and non-LDS churches. I've been centrally involved in joint projects with the Vatican, at a very high level.

Attempts to portray me as a narrow-minded religious bigot are either breathtakingly uninformed or deeply dishonest.

It's true that I'm a believing Latter-day Saint. And I have, it is true, defended my faith against attack. I don't apologize for that.

On one occasion deeply treasured by my Malevolent Stalker and his small handful of disciples and lovingly trotted out by him every once in a while, I expressed my dislike, in an online conversation, of certain aspects of Calvinism -- to a Calvinist who had been assaulting my faith.

I haven't written much on Calvinism, but what I have written is hardly an expression of hatred for it. These three examples should suffice to illustrate that:

https://www.deseret.com/201...

https://www.deseret.com/201...

https://www.deseret.com/201...

CK4L: "you’ll find life much more enjoyable if you just ignore what other people think about you."

Your friends would, I think, be deeply disappointed to know how little their nearly-two-decade-old anonymous campaign actually hurts me. I simply find it incredibly bizarre. I'm incapable of such obsessive hatred.
(Ahem, ahem...cough, cough: Gerald Bradford...)
Cobra Kai 4 Life wrote:DanielPeterson, “ Your friends would, I think, be deeply disappointed to know how little their nearly-two-decade-old anonymous campaign actually hurts me. I simply find it incredibly bizarre. I'm incapable of such obsessive hatred.”

Thanks Daniel. We’ll just have to respectfully disagree.

Also, I would be shocked if my friends have even heard of you. They don’t run in the same circles.

As for the “board” you continually mention, if it’s the one I’m thinking about, it’s much more your board than mine. It has been several months since I’ve read the posts there. And, not that it matters, but it appears you visit that board daily. You should try to abstain.

Regardless, I’m just glad that you haven’t paid any heed or attention (the last 20 years) to your critics. There is much wisdom and happiness in following such a course.
Daniel Peterson wrote:CK4L: "Thanks Daniel. We’ll just have to respectfully disagree."

About whether I'm an obsessively hateful religious bigot?

Nope. Sorry. If you disagree with me on that point, your disagreement will be ipso facto disrespectful.

CK4L: "I’m just glad that you haven’t paid any heed or attention (the last 20 years) to your critics."

I said nothing of the sort, of course.

I said -- quite clearly, I think -- that their decades-long daily campaign against me has hurt me far, far less than, I expect, they have been hoping that it would.
Cobra Kai 4 Life wrote:DanielPeterson wrote, “About whether I'm an obsessively hateful religious bigot?”

It sure seems like you are hell-bent to attribute all sorts of nefarious motives and erroneous beliefs to me.

No Daniel. About whether a reasonable person could read some of your prior statements and come to the conclusion that you have disparaged (and even hold in contempt) some other belief systems.

I personally don’t feel you hold other belief systems in contempt, but I can easily see other people coming to a different conclusion based on some of your writings.

I’ve read some of your prior statements and for just one example, If I recall correctly, you’ve publicly stated you hold Calvinism in contempt. You’ve made other similar statements about certain belief systems (whether you believe them or not).

So, as I previously stated, I respectfully disagree with you on this point.
Daniel Peterson wrote:CK4L: "It sure seems like you are hell-bent to attribute all sorts of nefarious motives and erroneous beliefs to me."

Not at all. I'm not actually very interested in you.

CK4L: "About whether a reasonable person could read some of your prior statements and come to the conclusion that you have disparaged (and even hold in contempt) some other belief systems."

I definitely criticized Calvinism on one occasion, once, quite a few years ago, somewhere -- on Facebook, I think, or maybe in a comment (not a blog entry) here.

And I definitely disagree with atheism.

I definitely prefer the things that I believe over the things that I don't believe. (That seems pretty axiomatic, doesn't it?)

If disagreement offends some folks, I'm afraid that they're going to have to learn to live with such offense.

CK4L: "I personally don’t feel you hold other belief systems in contempt, but I can easily see other people coming to a different conclusion based on some of your writings."

I have a very, very, very long and voluminous record on other faiths. I'm sure that some comments can be cherry-picked and ripped from context in order to make me look bad, but, even under such abuse, my record will offer very slim evidence to those seeking to make that case.

CK4L: "I’ve read some of your prior statements and for just one example, If I recall correctly, you’ve publicly stated you hold Calvinism in contempt."

Yup. And specifically on the matter of the predestined eternal torture of all non-Calvinists.

That's the comment to which I've already referred twice during this conversation -- the one that my Malevolent Stalker clutches so passionately to his breast.

I dislike the doctrine of predestination coupled with a limited atonement and eternal damnation. I make no secret of that.

CK4L: "You’ve made other similar statements about certain belief systems (whether you believe them or not)."

Really? I would be interested in seeing a sample of them, in context.

CK4L: "So, as I previously stated, I respectfully disagree with you on this point."

You're free to be wrong, and you're exercising that freedom.
Ah, well, then: at last. Nice to get him on the record on this matter once again. See? He *does* hold the Calvinist doctrine of "predestination" "in contempt." It sort of reminds one of the ways that LDS critics say similar things about polygamy, or how the Heartlanders say such things about the LGT. And yet here is Dr. Peterson, President of an Internet Blog that recently posted an article about "inclusiveness," hurling insults at another faith's doctrine?

But, of course, the most honest sentiment in this whole exchange is buried in the middle of this last post:

"If disagreement offends some folks, I'm afraid that they're going to have to learn to live with such offense."

In other words, "if I say hateful and offensive things about your beliefs, too bad for you."

The mask comes off yet again.
"If, 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
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Cobra Kai 4 Life is really doubling down! I predict a banning any moment now, possibly with deletion of the posts so that the "fan club" doesn't see that he's said these things:
Cobra Kai 4 Life wrote:DanielPeterson wrote, “Really? I would be interested in seeing a sample of them, in context.”

You’re clearly more interested/invested in this discussion than I am. In fact, I just don’t care if there are people who feel (or don’t feel) you hold their beliefs in contempt. Your life holds no interest to me, as it should be. Here you go (there are many more) Daniel:

"You misunderstand when you imply that I think you corrupt. You may or may not be. I haven't thought about it. That would be a matter for your wife, or perhaps for the legal authorities to look into. Do I think your theological beliefs have been corrupted by various extra-divine influences? Certainly. And I regret it very much." Daniel C. Peterson in a letter to Evangelical, James White. http://www.shields-research...

"I do think that the creeds, to the extent that they blind people to the truth revealed to prophets ancient and modern, are an abomination. Primarily, I think that because God said so, and I am hesitant to challenge him on it." Daniel C. Peterson, April 15 1998 http://www.shields-research...

"Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." Daniel C. Peterson
Ha ha ha! "You're clearly more interested/invested in this discussion than I am." Roflol!
"If, 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
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Gadianton »

My vote for big "inclusivity" points:
Not at all. I'm not actually very interested in you.
Post Reply