Peterson promises to ignore Mormon Discussions Board

[Lemmie]

...Mockery, on the other hand, is a deadly serious threat to Mormonism, no matter how gentle the mockery is.

So I'm beginning to think that these people may not really be such nasty people; maybe they're just really on edge. They probably perceive your light-hearted comments as vicious attacks on everything they hold dear and are reacting in what they perceive as the same vein.

Sounds like a hate crime defense! Lol. Luckily, mopologist poison pens are quite a bit less lethal than the typical weapons used.

[Dr Moore]

Dan defending himself from personal attack, including what he describes above as a disagreeable conspiracy speculation, by specific individuals was explicitly allowed for in our agreement. I'm actually very encouraged to see Dan observing the line we drew together, and doing so explicitly.

Blanket QAnon labels ascribed to the board clearly crosses the "line" he promised to monitor, and I flagged a number of those previously in this thread. In fairness to the letter and spirit of our agreement, I see Dan's comments above as a narrowing the accusation to a "half dozen" people that he finds offensive. I don't believe I have any reason to get worked up about that.

Dan seems to address a small group of ~6 people from this forum who regularly engage Peterson watch-dogging. I don't think he's wrong about that observation -- though it would help to see a specific list of users. If to him those 6 are doing the equivalent of "deep-state" theorizing on all things Peterson, well then as far as our deal goes, he's in bounds firing back that way.

Labeling the neighborhood as "QAnon" is out of bounds. But addressing specific users is his prerogative. I hope that distinction is clear -- it's clear in my mind, anyway. I would hope that Dan's integrity alerts him to the fact that wading into the gray area in between those two distinct places only risks turning good faith into bad faith, and would only make him look bad. For instance, it might be tempting to migrate from a clarifying comment such as, "I think of QAnon and I think of roughly a half dozen folks -- the Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon -- on a certain message board" to something more generic like "that home to ex-LDS QAnon" which now labels the whole forum in just the manner he promised not to do.

I've grown weary of Dan forcing me to circle back, going on 8 months now, to the basic idea that a deal is a deal. I'm hopeful that Dan has decided, finally, to express good faith all around on our agreement. If so, it will show in what he says online over time. If not, I'll probably have to get a bit more aggressive and would offer in the mean time to simply nullify our deal on confirmation that Dan and/or the Interpreter have forwarded my donation on to another charity (this time, one of my choosing).

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Who are the 6 ex-LDS QAnon, whatever that actually means?

- Doc

[Lemmie]

Labeling the neighborhood as "QAnon" is out of bounds. But addressing specific users is his prerogative. it's clear in my mind, anyway. I would hope that Dan's integrity alerts him to the fact that wading into the gray area in between those two distinct places only risks turning good faith into bad faith, and would only make him look bad. For instance, it might be tempting to migrate from a clarifying comment such as, "I think of QAnon and I think of roughly a half dozen folks -- the Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon -- on a certain message board" to something more generic like "that home to ex-LDS QAnon" which now labels the whole forum in just the manner he promised not to do.

Good point, but i do feel that implying that Mormondiscussions is associated with and harbors a QAnon chapter has taken that extra step:

Peterson [in reference to associations with Dr. Shades]:

...But I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with QAnon.

[when asked to explain the association]:

...the Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon -- on a certain message board that it would be churlish of me to identify further.

Yes, he’s defining “association” in that passive-aggressive way that allows for indignant deniability. You know, the way honest people who keep their promises do. But you are correct, Dr. Moore. Technically, it probably doesn’t count.

And no I’m not rolling my eyes so hard my contact just fell out. I am just tearing up at the way an apologist keeps his word. It’s downright godly.

[Lemmie]

Who are the 6 ex-LDS QAnon, whatever that actually means?

- Doc

Obviously the persons who have documented Peterson’s extensive plagiarism are QAnon, right? Or maybe not. How do you get a conspiracy theory out of the full and irrefutable documention of regularly repeated plagiarism?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I've grown weary of Dan forcing me to circle back, going on 8 months now, to the basic idea that a deal is a deal. I'm hopeful that Dan has decided, finally, to express good faith all around on our agreement. If so, it will show in what he says online over time. If not, I'll probably have to get a bit more aggressive and would offer in the mean time to simply nullify our deal on confirmation that Dan and/or the Interpreter have forwarded my donation on to another charity (this time, one of my choosing).

Dr. Moore,

Please make sure to have The Interpreter forward your donation to MormonStories, care of John Dehlin. https://www.mormonstories.org/donate/

MormonStories can then put The Interpreter on their list of donors. That would be something for the ages.

Or, in the alternative, you could also have The Interpreter forward your donation to Sacred Space, Kate Kelly's organization. I would love to see The Interpreter on Kate Kelly's donor list.

And, there is always the Maxwell Institute. I don't think Dan would ever get over having to donate to the Maxwell Institute.

Finally, there is always the Utah Gay And Lesbian Alliance. Dan would probably stroke out if The Interpreter had to write a check to that charity.

[Philo Sofee]

The assumption here is Dan has integrity. We all know the answer to that.....

[Physics Guy]

Sounds like a hate crime defense! ... Luckily, mopologist poison pens are quite a bit less lethal than the typical weapons used.

Well, yes. But exactly. Your reaction is accurate but your qualification is important to me.

Apart from what might have been the odd attempt to mess with somebody's pension, which isn't a completely clear case to me, the nastiness of the Mormon apologists is limited to snide comments on a blog that few people are going to see who haven't already signed the waiver. We have to keep this in perspective. They may fall short of what one would expect from the only true priests of the only true God, but once you've dropped that expectation they're not even on the radar of really bad things in the world. I hope I don't make excuses for people who do make that list, but below a certain point, hey, few people are nearly as good as we should be and I want to be as understanding as possible of anyone who isn't really doing much harm.

[Lemmie]

Sounds like a hate crime defense! Lol. Luckily, mopologist poison pens are quite a bit less lethal than the typical weapons used.

Well, yes. But exactly.

Apart from what might have been the odd attempt to mess with somebody's pension, which isn't a completely clear case to me, the nastiness of the Mormon apologists is limited to snide comments on a blog that few people are going to see who haven't already signed the waiver. We have to keep this in perspective. They may fall short of what one would expect from the only true priests of the only true God, but once you've dropped that expectation they're not even on the radar of really bad things in the world. I hope I don't make excuses for people who do make that list, but below a certain point, hey, few people are nearly as good as we should be and I want to be as understanding as possible of anyone who isn't really doing much harm.

Just to make sure I am understanding what I bolded, are you saying you think that mopologists have never had a significant negative influence on anyone’s real life with their writings? Or just this week?

[Physics Guy]

I don't believe they've physically attacked anyone. Writings can certainly have a negative influence if people believe the writings and change their own lives in bad ways, but from that point of view I think a suavely polite defense of Mormonism might have a more negative influence than all the snark in the world, to be honest.

And all kinds of things have negative influences. I try not to have them but I'm sure I do, too, so I try to be sure I'm without comparable sins before I go casting stones. Louis Midgley's grammatically unreliable rancor seems bad to me, but more sad than bad.

[Lemmie]

I don't believe they've physically attacked anyone. Writings can certainly have a negative influence if people believe the writings and change their own lives in bad ways, but from that point of view I think a suavely polite defense of Mormonism might have a more negative influence than all the snark in the world, to be honest.

And all kinds of things have negative influences. I try not to have them but I'm sure I do, too, so I try to be sure I'm without comparable sins before I go casting stones. Louis Midgley's grammatically unreliable rancor seems bad to me, but more sad than bad.

A negative influence doesn’t have to be physical. I’m not the historian here, so maybe there can be a better response regarding mopologetic activity, but I am aware that people have had their places of employment contacted resulting in disturbance, people have been verbally accosted in their work places, a boy was outed to his father resulting in a major family rift, etc. The written “hit pieces” surely have had a negative effect in people’s professional lives, and just the all around hatred for those who leave their church is causing many ongoing problems if people in your family are still LDS and hear mopologetic as well as official church output.

Maybe someone else can offer a more comprehensive list of the damage done.

[Gadianton]

"...But I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with QAnon."

lol. He *is* associated with QAnon. He made a contract and took a big check from a representative of QAnon binding him not to reference QAnon as QAnon. I count Dr. Moore as one of my good friends and not just a dedicated member of the faculty, in IRL also, and I'm pretty sure I'm on the QAnon "list of six".

[Dr Moore]

A tip of the hat to you too, Dean Robbers!

I guess we should be more gracious, no? Think about it. The chartering of a new chapter of QAnon is automatically bestowed when a person speculates among friends on the personal beliefs and intentions of others. Therefore, how can Doctor Scratch do anything but offer a friendly salute to his sister chapter, headed up by Midgley, Kiwi57, Peterson and Gee?

Protests from the gallery? Well, may the guiltless cast the first stone. Can any of those 4 honestly claim to have never speculated on another’s faith, beliefs, intentions, or integrity?

I don’t know if you’re on the list of 6, Gadianton (perhaps that clarification is warranted), but even if not, you may consider a welcome party to honor the anti-ex-LDS chapter of QAnon!

[Lemmie]

...I guess we should be more gracious, no? Think about it. The chartering of a new chapter of QAnon is automatically bestowed when a person speculates among friends on the personal beliefs and intentions of others. Therefore, how can Doctor Scratch do anything but offer a friendly salute to his sister chapter, headed up by Midgley, Kiwi57, Peterson and Gee?

Lol. Karma.

[Doctor Scratch]

"...But I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with QAnon."

lol. He *is* associated with QAnon. He made a contract and took a big check from a representative of QAnon binding him not to reference QAnon as QAnon. I count Dr. Moore as one of my good friends and not just a dedicated member of the faculty, in IRL also, and I'm pretty sure I'm on the QAnon "list of six".

Does Donald Trump accept donations from Antifa? Could this be seen as a kind of "mafia payment"? How does Dr. Peterson justify accepting money from such a group?

[Gadianton]

Does Donald Trump accept donations from Antifa? Could this be seen as a kind of "mafia payment"? How does Dr. Peterson justify accepting money from such a group?

A profound question, Professor.

I think the most realistic answer is that he doesn't really see this board as a "hate site" or nearly as bad as he portrays it.

[moksha]

I'm pretty sure I'm on the QAnon "list of six".

Let's call it the July Six:

Scratch
Gadianton
Everybody Wang Chung
Lemmie
Shades
Blair Hodges

I had to make a wild guess for those last two.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Huh. Apparently the QAnon thing has pretty strong roots among Republican types:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/07/08/ ... hrke-utah/

"On election night, he [Burgess Owens, the newly selected GOP challenger to Utah's 4th District Congressman Ben McAdams] tweeted congratulations to Lauren Boebert, a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theories who won a primary in Colorado and who shares Owens’ zeal for rooting out both socialists AND Marxists.

Shortly after winning the primary, President Donald Trump tweeted out his endorsement of the candidate."

It should be noted Burgess Owens had a total screed-appearance on Fox about Socialists and Democrats or.. whatever. I don't watch Fox.

Anyway.

Once again we see Dowsin' Dan jump balls deep into projection. It's psychologically fascinating, really.

- Doc

[Lemmie]

DanielPeterson Mod TimErnst • a day ago

I've always distinguished between the Shades board as a whole and the very prominent and vocal subset of its participants to which I refer -- partly but not entirely in jest -- as the "Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon." (On QAnon, see https://www.nationalreview..... They're a stunningly weird bunch.

http://disq.us/p/2agcpy2

A backtrack, of sorts...obviously he read your comment, Dr. Moore:

Blanket QAnon labels ascribed to the board clearly crosses the "line" he promised to monitor, and I flagged a number of those previously in this thread. In fairness to the letter and spirit of our agreement, I see Dan's comments above as a narrowing the accusation to a "half dozen" people that he finds offensive. I don't believe I have any reason to get worked up about that.

Dan seems to address a small group of ~6 people from this forum who regularly engage Peterson watch-dogging. I don't think he's wrong about that observation -- though it would help to see a specific list of users. If to him those 6 are doing the equivalent of "deep-state" theorizing on all things Peterson, well then as far as our deal goes, he's in bounds firing back that way.

Labeling the neighborhood as "QAnon" is out of bounds. But addressing specific users is his prerogative. I hope that distinction is clear -- it's clear in my mind, anyway. I would hope that Dan's integrity alerts him to the fact that wading into the gray area in between those two distinct places only risks turning good faith into bad faith, and would only make him look bad. For instance, it might be tempting to migrate from a clarifying comment such as, "I think of QAnon and I think of roughly a half dozen folks -- the Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon -- on a certain message board" to something more generic like "that home to ex-LDS QAnon" which now labels the whole forum in just the manner he promised not to do.

Although in my opinion, labeling people QANON these days is the equivalent to people wondering if he is operating a chapter of the KKK there on his board, with a few select members. Is the group on Daniel C. Peterson’s blog, Sic Et Non, a chapter of the KKK? Or simply agents of the SMC? Obviously not. Well, at least not the first.

[Gadianton]

Haha, great find Lemmie. I actually saw that quote and nearly brought attention to it, I can't remember why I didn't. Indeed, no, he has not always made that distinction, in fact, his entire program until Dr. Moore through a wrench into it, has been to avoid that distinction, and he only makes it now as he's forced to.

Allow me to explain: A common political tactic is to saddle a class or community with the perceived worst actions of representatives, in order to encourage the community to denounce the representatives. This has long been his MO. So please, nobody should believe his "backtracking" here. And nobody does.

[Lemmie]

Exactly, Gad. And his “backtrack” was in response to this:

TimErnst • a day ago

After having read the majority of the comments on this blog, I finally reach the conclusion that Dr. Exiled, Moksha and others are having a quibbling contest over at their own hate-sponsored blog. Their blog apparently consists of many disaffected members, and might be referentially known as QAnon?

http://disq.us/p/2ag8c2s

A post he is allowing to stand, by the way, giving further credence to your theory about this as a tactic.