Mister Scratch wrote:For whatever reason, the Good Professor is spiraling out of control again. Perhaps it is the pressure/concern over the imminent broadcast of The Mormons. In any case, I was quite astonished to see this rather angry post from him, which came in response to the email from Bro. Holland, which I already posted on the other thread:
Daniel Peterson wrote:The speculation will all be over in just a few days, but I would be dumbfounded, amazed, astonished, and . . . well, surprised if the film turns out to be anything like a "bigoted and unprincipled assault."
Will it discuss and emphasize things that many of us would rather not have emphasized, or even publicly discussed? Probably. Will it always handle them the way we would prefer? Probably not. Will it give a few critics a platform that we ourselves would not have given them? Almost certainly. But I expect that there will be things in the film that we -- or, at least, that I -- will like very much. Helen Whitney isn't a public relations flack for the Church, or a missionary. We have no right to expect her to act like one. We do, however, have a right to expect that she will be reasonably fair and sympathetic, and that is precisely what I, for one, do expect. If she's not, I'll be disappointed in the film and in her, and (for what little it's worth) will tell her so.
(emphasis added)
Wow! Not only does he manage to insult both Church PR and the missionaries in one fell swoop, he is threatening to chastise Helen Whitney if the film doesn't meet his standards? Krispy Kreme King indeed! This seems like a significant slip-up on his part, and I think he really should have known better than to label Church PR people as "flacks." Not very nice at all! Does this mean, by extension, that he thinks the Church whitewashes its history and image? So, not only does he engage in malicious gossip, but he secretly looks down on Church PR as well! Stunning!
All of a sudden, I'm happy with Daniel. He sounds like he's finally getting a clue. Maybe there's hope for him yet.
Mister Scratch wrote: Does this mean, by extension, that he thinks the Church whitewashes its history and image? So, not only does he engage in malicious gossip, but he secretly looks down on Church PR as well! Stunning!
No, what this means is that DCP in his inflated world of ego building name dropping, is again letting all the little people know how in touch he is with the movers and shakers, and he has direct access to the maker of the movie.
You see, no matter who it is, or what the line of discussion, DCP can one-up even a church PR man with "insider information/access".
Daniel C. Peterson wrote:Helen Whitney isn't a public relations flack for the Church, or a missionary. (emphasis added)
This seems like a significant slip-up on his part, and I think he really should have known better than to label Church PR people as "flacks." Not very nice at all! Does this mean, by extension, that he thinks the Church whitewashes its history and image? So, not only does he engage in malicious gossip, but he secretly looks down on Church PR as well! Stunning!
Oh, I think it's equally likely that he's just being sarcastic, sort of like how he uses self-deprecating humor.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Personally I find Scratch's obsession with DCP odd. Also, I find Mr. Scratch, that you read a lot into what you pick apart from Peterson that just ain't there.
Ray A wrote:Scratch, you are more full of crap than the old sh*t trucks which came around to empty household refuse. What more do you want Scratch? Have you not basked in your own diaherra long enough. What do you want - applause? Get a f*cking life arsehole.
Ray, this sounds like something you would read on RFM. I have lurked on FAIR/RFM/FLAK for several years now. I have read many of your posts and frankly, you make me wince. I have followed your journey, often with sympathy for your situation. However, I can find no consistency in your position regarding Mormonism. I don't see your position changing based on new information. You seem to respond out of frustration.
Are you hung up on Book of Mormon authorship? I seem to recall a post of yours on FAIR that suggested your inability to view the Book of Mormon as having anything but divine origins. Now, I am not trying to convert you one way or the other. I would just like to see you have some peace.
At any rate, I am sorry to see you ranting in such a fashion and am rather shocked. You make it hard to take you seriously, and I would prefer to. I rather like you.