Kishkumen Is Vile - Mocking The Church

[sethpayne]

As some of you are probably aware, Mr. Deity (the YouTube guy) recently produced an episode that lampooned the "beliefs" of the LDS Church.

Among some of the items Mr. Deity claims to have been taught as a Mormon included the standard fare. We'll have our own planet, Mormons are racist ..... you have heard it all before.

But what is most disgusting about this whole affair is how Kishkumen has responded. As expected, his response was full of nastiness, hatred, and irrational anger.

I can associate most of what Mr. Deity says with something that I heard or read about in the LDS Church, but I don't think I would identify almost any of it with core beliefs of the LDS Church. Maybe stuff like "Jesus visited America," but a lot of the other stuff is not all that important. And, I think it is particularly unfair to lump in odd material from a Smith sermon back in the day with core doctrines of the LDS Church in order to lampoon the religion.

Religions have odd teachings. Yeah, so?

It seems to me that what is of value in a belief system is not going to be learned from the statements of anti-faith from a former believer who gets yucks from making his old religion sound stupid.

Can you believe that? Awful. Just really really disgusting. How a man who claims to be well-educated can behave in such a manner is beyond me.

[The Grimace]

Easy....this amount of cognitive dissonance could kill most people.

[Bill Hamblin]

As some of you are probably aware, Mr. Deity (the YouTube guy) recently produced an episode that lampooned the "beliefs" of the LDS Church.

Among some of the items Mr. Deity claims to have been taught as a Mormon included the standard fare. We'll have our own planet, Mormons are racist ..... you have heard it all before.

But what is most disgusting about this whole affair is how Kishkumen has responded. As expected, his response was full of nastiness, hatred, and irrational anger.

Can you believe that? Awful. Just really really disgusting. How a man who claims to be well-educated can behave in such a manner is beyond me.

Just because everything Kish says is not anti-Mormon doesn't mean he's not an anti-Mormon.

[sethpayne]

Just because everything Kish says is not anti-Mormon doesn't mean he's not an anti-Mormon.

Of course. There are pages and pages and pages of his words to explore. An isolated quote means nothing within a context where focus is primarily on a few statements.

I'm just getting in on the fun.

[Daniel Peterson]

Seth:

I respect you, and I'm going to comment very briefly (it's late) but straightforwardly.

My problem with Kishkumen isn't his views on the Church. We disagree deeply on a number of important issues in that regard, but that's not the problem. You and I probably disagree on a very similar list of issues. In fact, like you, he's expressed considerable fondness for the Church on a number of occasions, both on his board and, privately, to me. I think, in fact, that he's attending church these days, and I'm happy about that, and wish the best for him.

The problem is the way he treats certain others, the way he personalizes his disagreements. And I'm not referring merely to the insulting, nasty, and unjust way that he treats me -- and treats me and treats me and treats me, in hundreds of posts annually, day in and day out, year after year -- but the vile and ferocious way he treats a number of other Latter-day Saints, some of whom actually post over at his board and some of whom have never appeared there at all. Taunting, mocking, insulting, maligning, sneering, defaming -- it's acutely painful to watch. Even when, sometimes, I think he actually has a point, the uncharitable, gleeful, seemingly sadistic reviling in which he indulges himself at the expense of his targeted victims makes me almost sick to my stomach. I expect such things from a number of those there; I think some of them may be seriously unhinged. But I'm disheartened to see such things coming from him.

Disagreement is one thing. Hateful nastiness is quite another.

I get it that he dislikes major aspects of my writing on Mormon subjects. Fine. We disagree. I think his criticisms are unfair. But he's become more and more vicious, it seems to me, as time has passed, and particularly so in recent weeks and months. I've compared it to the absorption of Weston by the Unman in C. S. Lewis's Perelandra, and also to the vanishing of Sméagol into Gollum. I was serious with those comparisons, and I regard Kishkumen's apparent evolution as deeply, deeply sad.

Finally, by the way, I've been struck by the fact that, as the passionately inflamed Kishkumen posts more and more, and ever more intemperately, on the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), the obsessive and coldly implacable Scratch, whose never-ending theme for seven years has been, precisely, the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), has all but vanished. Very strange.

[TAO]

That's a nice response.

EDIT: Woops, it looks like I was referring to Dan's post. Was referring to Kish's.

Edited March 21, 2013 by TAO

[The Grimace]

Finally, by the way, I've been struck by the fact that, as the passionately inflamed Kishkumen posts more and more, and ever more intemperately, on the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), the obsessive and coldly implacable Scratch, whose never-ending theme for seven years has been, precisely, the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), has all but vanished. Very strange.

Here we get to the heart of the matter: You believe Kish is Scratch and you this fuels your hatred.

[Calm]

Here we get to the heart of the matter: You believe Kish is Scratch and you this fuels your hatred.

Please....did you completely miss this part:

The problem is the way he treats certain others, the way he personalizes his disagreements.

Nor did he say he hated Kishkumen. If he did would he be happy for KK to be attending church and wish the best for him?

Why do you assume his motivation to criticize KK is hatred? Perhaps you are projecting some?

Edited March 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Please....did you completely miss this part:

I suspect he had to miss it because, as he projected earlier, "this amount of cognitive dissonance could kill most people."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

My dad had various forms cancer that inflicted several parts of his body, but not other parts. Were I to post a picture of the unaffected parts of the body, and sarcastically exclaim, "boy are you sick," would that make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 21, 2013 by wenglund

[sethpayne]

Seth:

I respect you, and I'm going to comment very briefly (it's late) but straightforwardly.

My problem with Kishkumen isn't his views on the Church. We disagree deeply on a number of important issues in that regard, but that's not the problem. You and I probably disagree on a very similar list of issues. In fact, like you, he's expressed considerable fondness for the Church on a number of occasions, both on his board and, privately, to me. I think, in fact, that he's attending church these days, and I'm happy about that, and wish the best for him.

The problem is the way he treats certain others, the way he personalizes his disagreements. And I'm not referring merely to the insulting, nasty, and unjust way that he treats me -- and treats me and treats me and treats me, in hundreds of posts annually, day in and day out, year after year -- but the vile and ferocious way he treats a number of other Latter-day Saints, some of whom actually post over at his board and some of whom have never appeared there at all. Taunting, mocking, insulting, maligning, sneering, defaming -- it's acutely painful to watch. Even when, sometimes, I think he actually has a point, the uncharitable, gleeful, seemingly sadistic reviling in which he indulges himself at the expense of his targeted victims makes me almost sick to my stomach. I expect such things from a number of those there; I think some of them may be seriously unhinged. But I'm disheartened to see such things coming from him.

Disagreement is one thing. Hateful nastiness is quite another.

I get it that he dislikes major aspects of my writing on Mormon subjects. Fine. We disagree. I think his criticisms are unfair. But he's become more and more vicious, it seems to me, as time has passed, and particularly so in recent weeks and months. I've compared it to the absorption of Weston by the Unman in C. S. Lewis's Perelandra, and also to the vanishing of Sméagol into Gollum. I was serious with those comparisons, and I regard Kishkumen's apparent evolution as deeply, deeply sad.

Finally, by the way, I've been struck by the fact that, as the passionately inflamed Kishkumen posts more and more, and ever more intemperately, on the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), the obsessive and coldly implacable Scratch, whose never-ending theme for seven years has been, precisely, the alleged evils of "Mopologetics" and "Mopologists" (especially me), has all but vanished. Very strange.

Hi Dan,

Apologies in advance for the brief reply .... have to head off to work soon.

I certainly appreciate your perspective and, were I in your shoes, I would likely feel the same way. I won't try and defend Kishkumen's acid tongue or some of his biting and personal criticisms as Kishkumen himself would probably agree that he has engaged you, and others, this way. He and I have had our disagreements about politics etc .... and I know that Kishkumen is deeply passionate and unafraid to tell me that I'm wrong when he disagrees -- sometimes in pretty frank terms. I've learned a lot from Kish and appreciate his friendship.

This situation is an interesting case study on how two individual perceptions can be so different when speaking about the same individual. For me, Kishkumen is often the voice of reason when a mob mentality breaks out against Mormonism at the other board. A poster will start some thread or discussion for the sole purpose of taking cheap shots and Kishkumen will step in, call it out for the irrational stupidity that it is, and in many cases his words change the entire tenor of a thread/discussion. Those are the comments and activities that stand out to me.

Obviously other comments and activities stand out to you because, well, you happen to be the subject! I didn't post the OP to belittle or diminish your perspective. I really did want to get in on the fun and also show some folks that Kishkumen often says/does things that are pretty fair towards Mormonism etc... Indeed there are several times where he has stepped in to defend you from absurd statements etc... that obviously crossed a serious line. IIRC, he was the first to denounce any threats you have received after first hearing about them here.

For the record, I can confirm that Kishkumen does indeed hate puppy dogs and has danced in a speedo.

Also, FWIW, I am 99% certain that Kishkumen isn't Scratch. As time goes on I'm beginning to think Scratch is the Keyser Soze of Mormon apologetics.

Seth

Edited March 21, 2013 by sethpayne

[Daniel Peterson]

Here we get to the heart of the matter: You believe Kish is Scratch and you this fuels your hatred.

1. I don't hate anybody.

2. I don't believe that Kishkumen is Scratch. There is a relationship between the two -- perhaps simple identity, but probably not -- but its nature isn't clear to me.

Other than that, though, your comment is right on the mark.

[The Nehor]

Until proven otherwise I am going with multiple personality disorder.

[wenglund]

Until proven otherwise I am going with multiple personality disorder.

I prefer the fad diagnosis of the day: bipolar.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[alter idem]

Seth, Kish has a reasonable, intelligent and fair side. Unfortunately, his darker side is what we see when he's discussing Dr. Peterson.

A perfect example is what he posted to Liz over at MDB when she explained she would be distancing herself from their board, in part because of her friendship with Dan and the attacks she's had to endure because of it.

One of the go-to tools of this group is to create division. Daniel Peterson is a master of this, and he has been doing it for decades. Where others seek to unite, Daniel seeks to divide. Sure, it may sound implausible given his involvement with efforts to create mutual understanding among religionists, but this has to be weighed against the relentless efforts to create sharp divisions regarding attitudes toward himself above all.

For a while I was a defender of Daniel Peterson, and I was a defender of Daniel Peterson because I came to realize the good part of some of the scholarship happening in connection with apologetics. And there is good stuff. Daniel has contributed to this. The bad stuff, however, is just plain bad. It is the sophomoric pranks, insults, Metcalfe is Butthead, threatening, contacting employers, lying about pointless things, anti-Semite accusations... the GARBAGE of classic-FARMS that fully deserved to be swept from the campus of BYU.

That is the stuff that I could not reconcile myself to. It has taken on a life of its own. It has sucked people into its vortex. It is not a person... not Daniel Peterson himself... but he plays a role in keeping it alive, fanning the flames, and feeding the beast. It is an illness. A storm that passes through the lives of others but carries no rain to bless the fields. It divides friends; it creates enemies; it makes good people doubt themselves; it makes bad people worse. Its weapons are accusation, false piety, deception, and ends-justifies-the-means behavior.

None of the outlandish charges Kish has written regarding Dan are remotely true, but this is what he spoon feeds his readers over there. If we didn't know he was referring to Dan, we'd think this was some malignant disease sweeping the internet! And I'm afraid we've seen the fruits of this years long relentless campaign against Dan--of which Kish has now become a driving force.

[Calm]

None of the outlandish charges Kish has written regarding Dan are remotely true

Metcalfe is Butthead

This is slightly grounded in reality (depending on the version being told) but it has certainly grown in legendary status over the years.

[sethpayne]

None of the outlandish charges Kish has written regarding Dan are remotely true, but this is what he spoon feeds his readers over there. If we didn't know he was referring to Dan, we'd think this was some malignant disease sweeping the internet! And I'm afraid we've seen the fruits of this years long relentless campaign against Dan--of which Kish has now become a driving force.

Hi alter idem,

Thanks for the reply. I agree that Kishkumen used very caustic language and threw in some serious hyperbole and I don't want to, nor do I think Kishkumen would want me to, become his apologist. He can stand by his own words.

I think what we are witnessing is a fundamental difference of opinion on what constitutes "scholarship." I also believe that this difference in view is one of the reasons people accuse FARMS or FAIR of being "nasty" but then not being able to provide specific and concrete examples of this nastiness.

For folks like Kish, the thought of discussing a person's personal and private life as part a critique or review is repugnant -- regardless of the subject of publication venue. I can see where this perception may come from. This past weekend I read Dan's "Answers to Legal Questions" again. An interesting essay with lots of good points. But, a good chunk of the essay focusses on the personal views/practices/beliefs of the individual contributors to Vogel's collection of essays. Now, Dan would likely argue, as Lou does when he wrote "Prying Into Palmer", that the authors made their individual faith/belief fair game. I think there is merit to this argument. Personally, I would have liked to have read more commentary on the contents of the essays themselves, but I *think* there are other FARMS reviews that deal with those specific issues so Dan rehashing them would be redundant. I felt the same way about "Prying Into Palmer." Without question Lou eviscerates Palmer's arguments regarding the Golden Pot -- a section of his book that I found very weakly argued. The rest of the review goes into great depth about Palmer's personal career and Lou calls Palmer's integrity into question -- in a none too subtle way. Again, perhaps it is relevant given how Palmer and Signature were promoting the book but I am not terribly interested in Palmer's past and I personally don't see its relevance to the contents of his book. I would have loved to see Lou dig deeper into other sections of Palmer's book but again, other reviewers probably did this and so perhaps it would have been redundant and unnecessary.

Anyway, I think the problem here is that you have folks who believe this level of personal criticism is inappropriate and that too much ink has been spilled in criticizing *people* instead of their ideas. I'll admit that I am very sympathetic to this view. If Satan himself wrote a book on Mormonism I would interested in the contents of the book, and not on reading a summary of his antics in the preexistence. Don't get me wrong -- I think that there are plenty of times mentioning an author's potential bias, past publications, etc... adds important context to some reviews. But again, my *personal* preference is to have such personal details provided only to add color to a analysis of the argument presented.

On the other side of the fence you have folks who believe that discussions of these private/personal issues is an integral part of a rebuttal of critical arguments. This isn't my personal preference but I can understand why people enjoy both writing and reading these types of reviews.

So in a general sense I think what we are witnessing is a clash of these two views of how scholarship should be approached. Some folks want Mormon scholarship to be in the style of Bushman/Givens. Others want to see the style of Hugh Nibley ala "No Maam That's Not History." I think that perhaps some at MDB justify their vitriolic statements about Dan by pointing to past reviews that touch on the personal lives of members and non-members alike. I don't believe it is right. And I don't believe it is reasonable. But maybe this is why it happens? I don't know.

Anyway, I'm not trying to justify anyone. As everyone here knows I slip into snotty and snarky moods from time to time so I'm in no place to judge. But as I've given this ongoing feud thought over the past few days I really do think it boils down to these divergent views on what constitues Mormon apologetic scholarship.

I'd actually love to hear your thoughts on the underlying disagreement that fuels this ongoing drama.... I think all of the intrigue masks something much more fundamental.

Seth

Edited March 22, 2013 by sethpayne

[Bill Hamblin]

For folks like Kish, the thought of discussing a person's personal and private life as part a critique or review is repugnant -- regardless of the subject of publication venue.

You've got to be kidding, right? This is obviously meant ironically, right? Right? What does Kish's board do except personal attacks?!

[sethpayne]

You've got to be kidding, right? This is obviously meant ironically, right? Right? What does Kish's board do except personal attacks?!

No. I was not intending to be ironic but I could have been more clear. I believe that this view may serve as the genesis of criticism but frankly, the criticism of Dan has taken on a life of its own. So much so that it has become very similar to what people claim to find objectionable about you, Dan, and Lou. Also, I would hardly call message board posts scholarship!

Harold Lee lamented the current state of affairs in a post today:

I don't know about you guys but I've felt my brain rotting away these past few days reading posts on Everybody Wang Chung and DCP that just echo each other. Good posters are getting gassed on being able to engage in these things. So my question is: There's so many bright people here how are we fixated on gossip and drama? It'd be great if someone who's knowledgable in one area or another post something engaging and educational. We have engineers here, people with backgrounds in history or science, or people who have had interesting experiences with religion. There's news every day about religion that's fascinating.

How does such a group with academic potential waste it by becoming the online mormon forum equivalent of the E! channel.

[Bill Hamblin]

No. I was not intending to be ironic but I could have been more clear. I believe that this view may serve as the genesis of criticism but frankly, the criticism of Dan has taken on a life of its own. So much so that it has become very similar to what people claim to find objectionable about you, Dan, and Lou. Also, I would hardly call message board posts scholarship!

Harold Lee lamented the current state of affairs in a post today:

Nothing I have ever said about anyone, anywhere, in any situation, comes within lightyears of the daily torrent of vituperation from Kish and his buddies. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

[rongo]

Here we get to the heart of the matter: You believe Kish is Scratch and you this fuels your hatred.

MDB's obsession with identities and sock puppets is borderline hysterical. There was even talk of someone called "rongo" being a sock puppet for Dan Peterson (google "rongo Dan Peterson" ---- first hit). That's flattering as far as I'm concerned, but still . . . I was also included in one of Scratch's "call for outing" requests (me, actually, not rongo). Talk about an unfruitful rabbit trail . . .

[sethpayne]

Nothing I have ever said about anyone, anywhere, in any situation, comes within lightyears of the daily torrent of vituperation from Kish and his buddies. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Well it is a good thing I'm not trying to sell you. I'm thinking out loud.

And, I agree that there are posters at MDB who are crude and insulting simply for its own sake.

[Daniel Peterson]

Seth:

I know that Kishkumen and others dislike a substantial portion of what I and some of my associates have published.

I think their charges against us are grossly exaggerated when not altogether misconceived, and I'm willing to defend our approach.

But Kishkumen has long since gone far beyond discussing such differences, which could be done civilly even if the upshot were merely an agreement to disagree, and far past civility. He has become hateful -- and, I think demonstrably, far harsher and more personal and less charitable than my friends and I would ever think of being.

I'm serious, I'm not just striking a pose, when I say that I find it extraordinarily sad.

[Tacenda]

Seth:

I know that Kishkumen and others dislike a substantial portion of what I and some of my associates have published.

I think their charges against us are grossly exaggerated when not altogether misconceived, and I'm willing to defend our approach.

But Kishkumen has long since gone far beyond discussing such differences, which could be done civilly even if the upshot were merely an agreement to disagree, and far past civility. He has become hateful -- and, I think demonstrably, far harsher and more personal and less charitable than my friends and I would ever think of being.

I'm serious, I'm not just striking a pose, when I say that I find it extraordinarily sad.

I guess they needed better MODS over there to break up any fights, like we do here. Then you might just be on friendly terms without seeing eye to eye, like so many here are.

[alter idem]

For folks like Kish, the thought of discussing a person's personal and private life as part a critique or review is repugnant -- regardless of the subject of publication venue. I can see where this perception may come from. This past weekend I read Dan's "Answers to Legal Questions" again. An interesting essay with lots of good points. But, a good chunk of the essay focusses on the personal views/practices/beliefs of the individual contributors to Vogel's collection of essays. Now, Dan would likely argue, as Lou does when he wrote "Prying Into Palmer", that the authors made their individual faith/belief fair game. I think there is merit to this argument. Personally, I would have liked to have read more commentary on the contents of the essays themselves, but I *think* there are other FARMS reviews that deal with those specific issues so Dan rehashing them would be redundant. I felt the same way about "Prying Into Palmer." Without question Lou eviscerates Palmer's arguments regarding the Golden Pot -- a section of his book that I found very weakly argued. The rest of the review goes into great depth about Palmer's personal career and Lou calls Palmer's integrity into question -- in a none too subtle way. Again, perhaps it is relevant given how Palmer and Signature were promoting the book but I am not terribly interested in Palmer's past and I personally don't see its relevance to the contents of his book. I would have loved to see Lou dig deeper into other sections of Palmer's book but again, other reviewers probably did this and so perhaps it would have been redundant and unnecessary.

Anyway, I think the problem here is that you have folks who believe this level of personal criticism is inappropriate and that too much ink has been spilled in criticizing *people* instead of their ideas. I'll admit that I am very sympathetic to this view. If Satan himself wrote a book on Mormonism I would interested in the contents of the book, and not on reading a summary of his antics in the preexistence. Don't get me wrong -- I think that there are plenty of times mentioning an author's potential bias, past publications, etc... adds important context to some reviews. But again, my *personal* preference is to have such personal details provided only to add color to a analysis of the argument presented.

Thanks Seth, for your comments. I think you've identified the main criticism made by Scratch and Kishkumen. I think their criticisms may be valid in some instances, but the problem is that they are so over the top in their method of attack that their message is lost. They have been some of the worst offenders in attacking the person, rather than the scholarship. And, many times, when attacking the scholarship, they've done so in such a mocking and dismissive way, that their criticisms are invalidated by their method of delivery. Most likely, they would turn around and say this was the case with LDS apologists--but, in my opinion, there is no comparison as to who is the biggest offender. Also, there is a very important question to ask; Which 'cause' is just? What 'motivates' those on either side? Why do they do it? These are valid questions to ask and to think about.

On the other side of the fence you have folks who believe that discussions of these private/personal issues is an integral part of a rebuttal of critical arguments. This isn't my personal preference but I can understand why people enjoy both writing and reading these types of reviews.

So in a general sense I think what we are witnessing is a clash of these two views of how scholarship should be approached. Some folks want Mormon scholarship to be in the style of Bushman/Givens. Others want to see the style of Hugh Nibley ala "No Maam That's Not History." I think that perhaps some at MDB justify their vitriolic statements about Dan by pointing to past reviews that touch on the personal lives of members and non-members alike. I don't believe it is right. And I don't believe it is reasonable. But maybe this is why it happens? I don't know.

Personally, I think there is a place for both. I've enjoyed reading books and articles in both styles. I think there may be times when exposing the person is a valid way to point out that what they 'say' is not who they really are or what they really think. 'By their fruits shall ye know them' not only refers to works but also to what motivates someone. I think the in depth look at Palmer in 'Prying into Palmer' was necessary for the reader to clearly understand the author and understand his work. I felt the same way about Greg Smith's in depth study of Dehlin and Mormonstories. If either author had decided to leave out the personal material, the reader would have come away with much less understanding of the subject. The problem is that much of the material is going to be unflattering, but it still needs to be included, IMO.

Anyway, I'm not trying to justify anyone. As everyone here knows I slip into snotty and snarky moods from time to time so I'm in no place to judge. But as I've given this ongoing feud thought over the past few days I really do think it boils down to these divergent views on what constitues Mormon apologetic scholarship.

I'd actually love to hear your thoughts on the underlying disagreement that fuels this ongoing drama.... I think all of the intrigue masks something much more fundamental.

Seth

I think your analysis is concise and valuable and if you've ever slipped into 'snotty and 'snarky', I've never seen it. I also think your desire that we change the direction and end the downward spiral this argument is headed in, is wise and would be the best thing that could happen. But, movement on both sides will be necessary for this to happen and I'm not sure who would make the first move to try and turn this around. A lot of damage has been done, and when it comes to the need to protect our faith, our religion and to stand up for and defend the gospel of Jesus Christ, it makes it much harder to risk the consequences of not doing what may be necessary in Defending the Kingdom and the members of Christ's church.

What do I think fuels this? Human folly, and the atmosphere of message boards which tends to encourage traits and interactions which otherwise would not be engaged in if the discussions were face to face.