So Called "Middle Way" Or "New Order" Mormons

[wayfarer]

It's your problem if you hold him accountable and make accusations for not taking action on messages he hasn't even seen.

that's a non-sequitur. I held him accountable for Midgley's article -- he clearly read that and stood behind it. And the article explicitly calls those like Dehlin who question certain truth claims as being "anti-christ".

As for whether his website lost my posts... I know I submitted them, he says he didn't receive them. That's not my problem, and I'm not holding him accountable. In fact, I posted all three of my replies to my own blog so that they wouldn't get lost. That his website loses messages is his problem, and if I were him, I would remedy that.

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR.

The "Midgley's Defending the King and His Kingdom" thread, post #177:

Right now, having plainly found a different venue not bound by my alleged "terms," one that is more welcoming to his style of discourse (which has recently included his amateur diagnosis that I'm mentally ill), he's busy on his new home message board insinuating that at least one of his critics here (not me) is a homosexual.

Plainly, Wayfarer has very, very high standards for online conversation.

With that set-up in place, I'm now prepared to provide an example of a Church member without specific stewardship appropriately calling another to repentance:

Wayfarer, you should stop bearing false witness. Just stop it.

That's enough to answer the CFR. But it seems to me he has more than once called you to account for your behavior on the other board. Curbing that, it seems to me, would be a giant step toward resolving the conflict, if that's really what you want.

[Daniel Peterson]

Why not just copy paste his comment into your blog and respond to it?

As noted above, I've already copied and pasted his comment into my blog, and I will respond to it.

[mfbukowski]

Dr. Dan, we all get our share of flak over there. I have had a few threads all to myself and I am a true nobody.

I have found that the more I respond the more it happens. I no longer feed the trolls. There is one over there who I will call the "grocer" who still throws a bomb or two my way totally gratuitously usually not even quoting things I have said. Totally made up stuff, out of the blue, for no reason.

My advice is to let it go. Just be glad you are not in the National Inquirer. Everybody likes train wrecks and all they do is draw more attention the bigger they get. At least you don't have paparazzi following you around.

We get that a lot in LA

Edited January 3, 2013 by mfbukowski

[wayfarer]

But you need to come clean about what you have posted on that other board. It shows your intent. And of course if you are writing about dan on that other board, he does have the right to comment here about it.

I think my intent was clear on the other board.

[Scott Lloyd]

that's a non-sequitur.

It's nothing of the sort. You asserted that his not having seen your posts to his blog is his problem. I say it's your problem if you unfairly hold him accountable for messages from you that, for whatever technical reason, are not getting through.

As for whether his website lost my posts... I know I submitted them, he says he didn't receive them. That's not my problem, and I'm not holding him accountable.

By making public accusations against him over the matter, you are indeed holding him accountable.

By the way, the rep point from me on your post above was given in error. I meant to click the "quote" link.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[wayfarer]

The "Midgley's Defending the King and His Kingdom" thread, post #177:

That's enough to answer the CFR. But it seems to me he has more than once called you to account for your behavior on the other board. Curbing that, it seems to me, would be a giant step toward resolving the conflict, if that's really what you want.

I can't read that topic. If the quote is the message you're claiming, you are taking Dan Peterson's misquoting and mischaracterization of my words and calling it false witness on my part? That doesn't work as a CFR. That's called a "straw man".

[wayfarer]

Dr. Dan, we all get our share of flak over there. I have had a few threads all to myself and I am a true nobody.

I have found that the more I respond the more it happens. I no longer feed the trolls. There is one over there who I will call the "grocer" who still throws a bomb or two my way totally gratuitously usually not even quoting things I have said. Totally made up stuff, out of the blue, for no reason.

My advice is to let it go. Just be glad you are not in the National Inquirer. Everybody likes train wrecks and all they do is draw more attention the bigger they get. At least you don't have paparazzi following you around.

We get that a lot in LA

nice.

[Scott Lloyd]

Dr. Dan, we all get our share of flak over there. I have had a few threads all to myself and I am a true nobody.

I have found that the more I respond the more it happens. I no longer feed the trolls. There is one over there who I will call the "grocer" who still throws a bomb or two my way totally gratuitously usually not even quoting things I have said. Totally made up stuff, out of the blue, for no reason.

My advice is to let it go. Just be glad you are not in the National Inquirer.

The difference is that with Dan it is incessant and far more intense than with anyone else, as far as I have observed.

The urge to defend one's own reputation is a reasonable one.

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;

'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him,

And makes me poor indeed.

(Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3)

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't read that topic. If the quote is the message you're claiming, you are taking Dan Peterson's misquoting and mischaracterization of my words and calling it false witness on my part? That doesn't work as a CFR. That's called a "straw man".

The CFR was pertaining to my statement that he has urged you to stop bearing false witness. I have answered the CFR.

[Daniel Peterson]

I offered you an opportunity to make right on this

To make right on what?

I've done you no wrong.

and you refused.

I refused nothing. I engaged in civil conversation with you. You stomped off in a huff, and have been calling me names ever since.

I HAVE posted to your website. that it loses my posts is not my problem, it is yours.

I don't believe that Patheos has lost any of your posts. Nobody, so far as I'm aware, has ever reported lost posts before. That it has suddenly, just this morning, lost not one but three of yours, and only of yours, is . . . unlikely. And it suggests that the problem is, in fact, on your end.

Note that I offered you the hand of fellowship on this -- I would defend you if you had the decency to do the right thing, but you chose otherwise.

Which, being interpreted, means that, if I failed to agree with you and to comply with your demands, you were going to malign me, call me names, and accuse me of serious mental illness at various places on the web.

And if what I have said about you on another site touches your ego so much that, lacking courage to deal directly with this, you need to post here and on your own blog -- in what appears to be a pretty messy response, by the way -- then I would ask you to consider whether my harsh words have struck a bit close to home for you.

I neither know nor care who you are, and I don't care much about your opinion of me. (I care even less now than I might have a few weeks ago.) I simply think that your hypocrisy should be publicly stigmatized, and your false claims of fact (e.g., that I've suppressed your supposed submissions to my blog) should be publicly contradicted.

I am nothing. I am but a fool.

LOL. Sadly, I expect that you'll shortly be attributing those words to me.

[why me]

Or does wayfarer merely intend to launch verbal assaults as a means of punishment or vengeance? In which case, I would ask which is more egregious: criticism with the intent of motivation to repentance or calumny with the purpose of vengeance?

I think that there is more to it. Dan is an apologist for the lds church and so, he gets attacked by people attempting to find their 'way'. The verbal assaults cannot happen here because wayfarer would be banned. But he can do it on a different board, if he chooses. People attempting to find a 'way' should be peaceful, content, and satisfied. Not wayward in speech and actions.

[mfbukowski]

The difference is that with Dan it is incessant and far more intense than with anyone else, as far as I have observed.

The urge to defend one's own reputation is a reasonable one.

(Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3)

I know- I totally get it. That's the way I feel and probably even this will provoke something over there.

But after a while it just feels like high school all over again- he said she said. And the next time it happens to me, it will be just as hard and maybe I will respond maybe not.

I'm just glad I am not a Royal with all those English tabloids! But I know how they would handle it.

[why me]

I think my intent was clear on the other board.

And what is your intent? It seems that dan believes that it is to bash him. One can disagree with someone intelligently and gracefully.

[Daniel Peterson]

I let most attacks on me go unanswered, mfbukowski. By far. If I responded to every nasty epithet thrown my way across the internet on any given day, I'd have little time for sleep, let alone productive work, teaching, and etc. I'm sure that I'm not even aware of most of them.

But this one -- the accusation that I had suppressed wayfarer's comments on my blog -- had the kind of pseudo-factuality attached to it that I thought it worthwhile to publicly contradict wayfarer's claim.

[mfbukowski]

I let most attacks on me go unanswered, mfbukowski. By far. If I responded to every nasty epithet thrown my way across the internet on any given day, I'd have little time for sleep, let alone productive work, teaching, and etc. I'm sure that I'm not even aware of most of them.

But this one -- the accusation that I had suppressed wayfarer's comments on my blog -- had the kind of pseudo-factuality attached to it that I thought it worthwhile to publicly contradict wayfarer's claim.

Yes I can see how that would be different, now that you explain it that way.

[Scott Lloyd]

wayfarer, on 03 January 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

I am nothing. I am but a fool.

LOL. Sadly, I expect that you'll shortly be attributing those words to me.

Or perhaps to Neil Sedaka?

[wayfarer]

To make right on what?

I've done you no wrong.

It is disingenuous to deny your own words. I referred explicity to my request to have you repudiate the article which called people like me 'anti-christ'. You did not do so, and in fact stood behind Midgley's words. That does me wrong, sir.

I refused nothing. I engaged in civil conversation with you. You stomped off in a huff, and have been calling me names ever since.

Since you spend SIGNIFICANT time reading this stuff, I assume you aren't stupid. You refused to repudiate Midgley's article, so that puts a lie to your statement that you refused nothing. Saying that you 'engaged in civil conversation' when your very first post threatened to humiliate me is hardly civil conversation, and I only 'walked off' after being invited to leave. When you mischaracterize the situation like you do above, that's called "disingenuous".

I don't believe that Patheos has lost any of your posts. Nobody, so far as I'm aware, has ever reported lost posts before. That it has suddenly, just this morning, lost not one but three of yours, and only of yours, is . . . unlikely. And it suggests that the problem is, in fact, on your end.

You may be 'the great apologist', but I can assure you I know systems and I did in fact post to your blog. Be that as it may. I copied and pasted my material elsewhere so that it wouldn't be lost.

Which, being interpreted, means that, if I failed to agree with you and to comply with your demands, you were going to malign me, call me names, and accuse me of serious mental illness at various places on the web.

I said you reap what you sow. You have not treated me with any degree of respect, and I believe calling you disingenuous fits for the reasons I listed above, even in your response here. I have questioned your courage to dialog on a level playing field and you continue to refuse that. I will be banned here, I'm sure of that, but you will never be banned here because this is your safe haven. And yes, you do reflect significant tendencies toward the specific DSM IV disorder I mentioned. It's not a shame to be NPD, most great leaders have a lot of that. But it's still none the less a fact that you tend to draw strength from those here who support you and find no wrong in anything you do. That's called "narcissistic supply" no matter how you slice it.

I call it the way I see it, Dan.

I neither know nor care who you are, and I don't care much about your opinion of me. (I care even less now than I might have a few weeks ago.) I simply think that your hypocrisy should be publicly stigmatized, and your false claims of fact (e.g., that I've suppressed your supposed submissions to my blog) should be publicly contradicted.

It is a fact that I submitted them. And given your adamant claims to the contrary, I'm willing to come to "Middle Ground" and say that they got "lost" somehow, through no fault of either of us.

What I find ironic is that you spend so much time and effort worrying about a fool like me. I am nothing, and I have nothing at all to lose. Yet you want to "publicly stigmatize" my alleged hypocrisy.

LOL. Sadly, I expect that you'll shortly be attributing those words to me.

You should be so fortunate. Moses 1:10. Isaiah 35:8.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm not worried about you at all. I don't know who you are, I don't care who you are, and I don't care about your low opinion of me.

If I knew you and had reason to respect your judgment, I would. But I don't.

I'm simply disinclined to let false accusations against me stand uncontradicted.

You claim to call things as you see them.

So do I.

[wayfarer]

I'm not worried about you at all. I don't know who you are, I don't care who you are, and I don't care about your low opinion of me.

If I knew you and had reason to respect your judgment, I would. But I don't.

as if...

I'm simply disinclined to let false accusations against me stand uncontradicted.

You claim to call things as you see them.

So do I.

See, this is your problem. You don't seem to be capable of reading a message and responding to it. You don't acknowledge what the other person is saying. If that is calling things as you see them, then you see amiss. I shouldn't be surprised, because the very art of apologetics you practice requires the ability to mischaracterize truth in order to sustain untenable claims. Evidence of your wrongdoing -- in saying that you didn't refuse anything and then denying it, washes off you like water on the back of a duck. Truth is not important here.

[Daniel Peterson]

Gee. Why would I not want to devote a lot of time and energy to personal conversation with you?

For the record: If wayfarer is booted from this thread or from the board, it won't be because I've requested it.

[wayfarer]

The urge to defend one's own reputation is a reasonable one.

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;

'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him,

And makes me poor indeed.(Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3)

So, by that same logic, those who claim that people in the so-called "Middle Way" are antichrists... who will defend their reputation? Dan is making a big deal about some lost messages -- I noted above that the website may have lost them, although I may suspect otherwise, I don't know that he deliberately moderated them out of existence.

[wayfarer]

Gee. Why would I not want to devote a lot of time and energy to personal conversation with you?

you wouldn't, because I'm in that category you consider unworthy to be full latter day saints. You "insist so firmly on the literal" and stand behind a patetly polemic article that insists that people like me are anti-christs. I get it. And you have just made my point with all this. Your kind vilifies the person in the middle and then slurs them when they get angry about it and stand up for our own reputation.

For the record: If wayfarer is booted from this thread or from the board, it won't be because I've requested it.

I am overwhelmed with your sense of fair-play.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, by that same logic, those who claim that people in the so-called "Middle Way" are antichrists... who will defend their reputation?

Anyone who feels he has been unfairly maligned has the right to defend himself. I never suggested otherwise.

Dan is making a big deal about some lost messages --

No, it is you who made a big deal out of it, by making accusations on the other board and chattering about them with your sympathizers there. Dan has merely defended himself against the accusations.

I noted above that the website may have lost them, ...

Or perhaps the problem was on your end.

... although I may suspect otherwise, I don't know that he deliberately moderated them out of existence.

Accusations and insinuations notwithstanding (see the portion I emphasized above).

[Scott Lloyd]

I am overwhelmed with your sense of fair-play.

Or it could be considered a pre-emptive move precluding your going on your favorite board and complaining that Dan got you ousted from here.