Containing 5,418 Articles Spanning 370 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1
Total Articles:
22
Daniel C. Peterson, Mormon Apologist and Mormon Secret Service Agent (SCMC). Daniel is the leading Apologist for the Mormon owned and operated "Neal Maxwell Institute", also known as "Foundation For Ancient Research And Mormon Studies" or FARMS.
|
|
Dr. Daniel C. Peterson..
Is a Mormon Apologist that works at BYU as a professor.
He is a member of the executive council of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, a purely apologetic drivel organization.
Is paid directly or indirectly by the LDS Church to publish Mormon apologetic works, and even if he isn’t paid, the LDS Church looks the other way while Dr. Peterson posts tens of thousands of messages on forums as a Mormon Apologist.
Is an admitted agent for the SCMC (past, unknown if current).
Writes articles on both FAIR and NWI (formerly FARMS).
Posts an incalculable amount of messages on Internet Forums, including MAD, MDB, and various other websites (including but not limited to blogs and online news agency comment sections). Please note that as of December, 2010 - the Mormon Apologetic And Discussion board wiped thousands of Dr. Peterson's messages from the board.
Writes hit pieces on both Mormon, Ex-Mormon and non-Mormons (see John Dehlin).
He has made himself a public figure.
He has placed himself and his works into the public where it can be read by anyone.
He has written articles defending the LDS Church on open public forums.
He has openly attacked critics of the LDS Church on open public forums.
He has attacked critics of the LDS Church in private emails, and then had those emails published on Mormon Apologetic Sites (see SHIELDS).
Has his own Facebook page so that people can "like" him.
In Early March 2006, Daniel C. Peterson was challenged to a debate concerning Mormonism with Bob McCue and Steve Benson. Daniel tucked his tail and ran. Daniel had previously stated that no Ex-Mormon was willing to challenge him. The reason Daniel did not want to debate? Bob was "[sic].. dismissed as insufficiently credentialed; unprincipled in various ways and hence likely to waste his time in debate; unworthy of his special attention in part because I have shown unscholarly tendencies in Internet postings;"
The Ex-Mormon community dismisses Daniel C. Peterson simply as a Mopologist (Mormon Apologist).
"Daniel C. Peterson launches his personal attacks against ex-Mormons, then runs and hides among his friends when evidence to back his accusations is demanded--and he realizes that, well, he just can't produce it.
There, safely tucked away in the rear lines among his Mormon compatriots, Peterson enjoys their cover, their comfort, their condolences and their kudos." - Steve Benson, "Daniel C. Peterson: Master Mason Of Attack And Evasion" LINK.
On December 20th, 2006, Daniel C. Peterson posted the following on a Jewish Blog after the Jewish Community was in outrage over Mormons baptising Simon Wiesenthal:
I would respond that we Latter-day Saints do, quite unapologetically, insist that Jews "are not worthy enough to receive G-d's eternal blessing" "on their own."
On May 4th, 2008, in response to the Catholic Church stating that no Catholic records should be given to the Mormons, Daniel wrote on a Mormon Apologetic board:
I would guess that barring baptisms for the dead would have to be part of a broader strategy that would forbid masses for the dead, prayers for the dead, invoking the memory of the dead, and, perhaps, thinking of the dead altogether.
On November 17th, 2004 on a public blog, Daniel wrote:
The total depravity of those who disagree with me is an important article of my personal faith.
On June 4, 2012 Daniel Peterson was caught by "SocialCam" on FaceBook watching a video, "Pitbull gets a boner dancing with jenifer Lopez (Hot Booty Shaking) American Music Awards 2011."
| I was reading over on RfM the synopsis of the Van Hale show with our nemisis Daniel Peterson. If the synopsis is accuracte, Danny boy sniffed at the suggestion that more troublesome aspects of Mormon history are not accessible to members. He claimed that one can find such informatin in a slew of resources, including principally books written by LDS historians.
Now, it strikes me that this statement is very, very North American centric. The people who read such books are probably mostly in N. America, and probably predominantly in the inner-mountain West. And, they usually include people who are already interested in such information and thus more likely to seek it out anyway.
I wonder if Danny boy ever considered how someone living in the Bolivian Altiplano is going to get and read a book written by the LDS historians Danny boy loves so much. What about all the new members in Ghana? Are these books published in Russian yet? Are they translated into Korean, Japanese, German, etc. You get the idea.
I find his claim that such information is accessible to the rank and file to be absolutely ludicrous. The vast, vast majority of members know only what is spoon fed them by the correlation committee. They now absolutely nothing about the multiple versions first vision, JS's polygamy, the events and reasons leading up to JS's murder, the wacky teachings by early prophets and apostles, nothing about blood atonement, Adam God, nothing about polyandry. They know what the missionaries teach them, what's in the Ensign, Friend, New Era, and lesson manuals, and that's about it.
Peterson lives in a fantasy world where everybody shares his interests and his passions for the minutae of Mormon hisotry and doctrine. He, like other apologists, refuse to concede that they are unique among membership, the elite of the elite, if you will.
His view is so warped , his head so high up in the clouds, that he is incapable of seeing the church from the level of the rank & file, and particularly the rank & file in the developing world, most of whom will never even have the chance to read any of this stuff in their native language, assuming they can read at all.
Just who the hell is he fooling, other than himself and his acolytes?
|  | Left The Church But Can't Leave It Alone - Those Who Oppose The LDS Church Are "Secular Anti-Mormons"
Thursday, Sep 1, 2005, at 09:49 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | Here's a little clip from an email I receive from FAIR. I'm glad Daniel C. Peterson is able to tell us why we leave the church but can't leave it alone. We are all guilty on this site! According to DCP... "Thus, truly consistent secularist critics of Mormonism may have sawed off the limb on which they were sitting." It has nothing to do with the plethora of outright deceit and deception we have been subjected to over the years and possibly a desire to help others figure the truth out! These guys and gals are worse the the Third Reich propaganda machine!
Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism - by Daniel C. Peterson
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been subjected to a steady stream of hostile criticism and attack since its organization. In recent years, however, a new form of anti-Mormonism has appeared, relying not on Biblical proof texting or dredging up quotes from the Journal of Discourses, but rather on more subtle and
nonreligious arguments. In his 2005 FAIR Conference presentation, Peterson looks at this new wave of "secular anti-Mormonism" and how this approach and its adherents attempt to refute LDS claims. Secular anti-Mormonism appears to be the preferred approach for those who
"leave the Church but can't leave it alone."
Peterson looks at the atheistic and secular basis for this newer brand of anti-Mormonism and finds it seriously flawed, both in terms of its assumptions and its ramifications. "Thus, truly consistent secularist critics of Mormonism may have sawed off the limb on which they were
sitting."
Read the article: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2005...
| I had never heard of Dan Peterson to be honest with all of you. I read the link and my observations of him fit my description of several of my former law school professors. They love to see themselves for more than they really are. In their confined academic arena, their students see them as intellectual giants and these professors bask in the adulation, but then students graduate and become lawyers. I've been hired to represent several of my former law school professors and now they are my clients. I am mildly amused that I ever held them in awe. Prof. Peterson couldn't compete in the real world so he has carved out a little enclave at BYU and Fairs where is self-important.
Here is just an example of what I find contradictory. He states:
"This is more sophisticated than the description of "Morgbots" given in my message board laboratory, but its general content is remarkably similar. Yet it is demonstrably wrong. The data rather consistently demonstrate that Latter-day Saints who live lives consistent with their religious beliefs experience greater general well-being, greater family and marital stability, less delinquency, less depression, less anxiety, and less substance abuse than those who do not, and there is very little evidence that religious belief and practice are harmful to mental health."
A few paragraphs later he states:
"With specific regard to Mormons, Utah death rates are below rates in the nation at large and in the mountain states for most major causes of death, including heart disease, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, accidents, pulmonary disease, pneumonia/flu, diabetes, liver disease, and atherosclerosis. Utah suicide rates are higher than the national average, but lower than the mountain states as a whole. Studies of specific LDS populations in California, Utah, and Alberta, Canada, show that LDS men are about half as likely to die of cancer as other men. LDS women also have lower cancer mortality, but the difference is not as great as for men. Death rates are lower for Latter-day Saints who have higher levels of religious participation. In short, adherence to the Mormon code of health appears to lower death rates from several diseases. The benighted Morgbots seem to be doing rather well."
I find his use of the two paragraphs interesting. In the first, Peterson claims that LDS are mentally healthy people or at least that LDS practices are not mentally harmful. In the next quoted paragraph, Peterson specifically points to Utah demographical data to support his contention that LDS live healthier lives.
What is deafeningly quiet is the lack of his addressing the very well and known use of anti-depressants in Utah. By ignoring this fact (or perception), Peterson destroys his own credibility. Nothing is 100% sunny, not even Mormonism. Those who, like Peterson, ignore reality, cannot argue against the so called secularist. Evangelists are easy to discredit because they attack with their passion and ignore logic.
It appears that Peterson must have been somewhat successful as an LDS apologist with evangelicals, but he is out of his comfort zone in countering secular challenges to Mormonism. I do agree with him in his contention that the secularist attack on Mormonism is damaging in Europe and will become a larger challenge in the US.
One problem I believe is Peterson, and those like him, will face is that the secular attack may not be defendable. The LDS church has long advocated that truth is ultimately only confirmable by the Spirit. Ironically, Peterson attacks a 19th Century seemingly ill-conceived attack on the church with this quip:
"To those who have actually attended the temple yet seen no such garb and no such rituals, Mr. Beadle might well say, with apologies once more to Groucho Marx, "Who are you gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes?")"
What Mr. Peterson would say is: "What are you gonna believe? Your warm fuzzy heart or your lying intellect and reason?"
[Additionally, I find it interesting that Peterson attacks Mr. Beadle's misinformed attack on the LDS endowment as ignorant. But I wonder how Mr. Beadle was supposed to understand the endowment in that the LDS church fervently keeps the ceremony secret. If the only information Mr. Beadle has is from apostates, is he to blame for his misunderstanding, or is the Church to blame for its overzealous secrecy?]
It is my observation that (1) Prof., Peterson is out of his league when entering the new arena of secular attacks on the Church and (2) the Church is not presently able to defend itself in the secular arena because of its ultimate defense of warm fuzzy feelings which negate the need for logic or reason.
Lastly, I noticed that Peterson repeatedly demeaned those who disagreed with his views on religion. Is that the tactic of a good apologist? He must resort to personal insults because he either cannot refute the message, or he is too personally attached that he has lost his objectivity.
Personally, whenever I read anything in which the author resorts to name calling, I become skeptical of what is being delivered.
| | | Criticism Of Daniel Peterson's Latest Talk, "Reflections On Secular Anti-Mormonism"
Wednesday, Sep 7, 2005, at 12:12 PM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | I dont usually bother with polemical stuff, but, being compelled by boredom, I started reading Daniel C. Peterson's reflections on secular anti-mormonism, and made it about half way through until I got bogged down by the pretentious quotes (e.g., Bryant, Yates, Voltaire, Graucho(!), etc.) and gratuitous blatherings about his extensive world travels. I dont know this guy at all, he appears to be a professor at BYU, but is this his typical writing style? The article is awful, I have to assume its the text of a speech from their conference. Is it representative of what FAIR publishes/promotes? I learned absolutely nothing about secular anti-mormonism. How can anyone take them seriously when they promote this kind of stuff? Does anyone know this guy well enough to say whether this a representative of his writings?
In his comments I have to assume he is obliquely referencing ex-mormon.org, does anyone have any inkling who the person is whom he is referring to when he says "one frequent poster in particular, who claims simply to be doubting and troubled, but who in fact never misses an opportunity for a snide remark about his Church, in which he remains active"? Is he making reference to the bloggernacle, or just web sites in general?
Kurt
- -
I read the transcript of Peterson's talk. I even enjoy pretentious quotes, but my reaction was similar to Kurt's. The paper rambles all over the place and is weighed down by irrelevant distractions. For example: Is Europe really culturally infertile? Who knows. More importantly, who the h*ck cares, since the paper is supposed to be about secular anti-Mormonism. His gratuitous line about post-War Germany having no standing to lecture anyone on anything is unmotivated by the preceding quote; it's a thoughtless and reflexive response to an imaginary opponent and, coming from Peterson as a self-proclaimed Germanophile, does not inspire confidence in the rest of the paper. And, whether you agree with him on the point or not--why is he raising the issue in this paper? Was the governor of Pennsylvania barred from speaking at the '92 Democratic convention because he was pro-life, or, as some Democrats will insist, was he not invited because he didn't endorse Clinton? More importantly, what does it have to do with theissue at hand? Perhaps Peterson thinks of the entire Democratic party as secular anti-Mormons; if he did, he'd undoubtedly even get a few sustaining votes. But for others, the point is irrelevant and only weakens the paper.
As far as I could tell, Peterson doesn't distinguish clearly between secular anti-Mormonism, secular antipathy to Christianity in general, and secular misunderstanding of all forms of religious experience in general and Mormonism in particular. I don't think those three should be conflated. There's a huge difference between studied anti-Mormon agitation and uninformed statements rooted in ignorance.
Ben, you mention that it's just D. Peterson's speaking style, but I'm not sympathetic. Presenting papers at a conference requires a lot of advance preparation. If I tried to make up with spontaneity what I lacked in preparation, I would end up saying a lot of stupid things. Maybe Peterson can pull it off, but the transcript isn't strong evidence for it.
Jonathan Green
- -
To which Daniel Peterson responded:
A friend called my attention to this thread, and I had resolved not to post in it until I read the last comment. That was simply too rich to pass up.
I would like to reassure Adrian Hall that I have, in fact, been out of Utah County, and, even, outside of the entire state of Utah. Several times. Most recently, until Wednesday night, I was lecturing at universities in Singapore, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Taipei, and Hong Kong. I was born and raised in California, where I also earned my doctorate following four and a half years of study in Jerusalem and Cairo. I served a mission to Switzerland. That sort of stuff.
I know, I know. More boastful travel narrative. But I'm not sure how else to make the point. I just don't want Mr. Hall to worry too much: I'm aware of the external world. Really, I am. I've even read several books by non-Mormons.
Nauseatingly yours,
- -
Let me expand on the somewhat cheeky response above by saying, simply, that (a) I disagree with your criticisms, largely because I think them misdirected, and that (b) I believe you may be confusing a rather popular presentation to a non-scholarly audience with a paper in academic philosophy or the sociology of ideas. (I was serious in my description of the presentation as "sketches and preliminary reflections.")
That said, of the critical comments here, yours were, by several light years, the most reasonable, substantive, and coherent. They could be discussed. The assertions by Kurt and the other fellow (that I'm boring, disconnected from reality, elitist, self-absorbed, nauseating, pretentious, naïve, ill-educated, clueless, and unaware) are probably true, but don't seem to lend themselves to real discussion -- not, at least, to any discussion that would interest me -- unless I were meeting with a therapist.
- -
I declined to mention specific fora for a specific reason. In the major case, I had no particular wish and no particular motive to publicize a noxious message board with which, in any event, many in the audience were already familiar. In the instance of the specific poster to whom I alluded, I chose to identify neither him nor the list upon which I encountered him because I have no intention of embarrassing him, drawing attention to him, picking a fight with him, or even talking about him individually, except in the sense that, to me, he illustrates a particularly clear illustration of a larger and rather sad phenomenon.
You're right that there are things in which I have no interest: I have no interest, for example, in defending my sense of humor, my personality, or my writing style. Those are matters of taste. At least two or three people, even beyond my family, seem to like me. It's to be expected, though, that others won't. And, so long as their dislike of me doesn't rest on unethical acts or indisputably poor behavior on my part, I'm prepared to live with that.
I regret that you learned nothing from and appreciated nothing in my presentation. Others (including some for whose judgment and writing ability I have great respect) have claimed different experiences with it. There is, as the saying goes, no disputing about taste.
I'm not inclined to view myself as the defendant and you as the (clearly rather hostile) judge, jury, and executioner in a trial of my literary output. And, anyway, I'm aware of no reason why I should regard you as representive of the "casual reader." Still, for what it's worth, I suppose I'll mention a few of my personal favorite Mormon-related pieces. After all, as an author, I like people to read what I've written, and this is an opportunity to advertise a few of them:
Many years ago, I wrote a little LDS-oriented book about the Near East, Islam, and the Arabs, entitled Abraham Divided. Some readers claim to have been able to tolerate it, though I believe it's now out of print.
There is also a book called Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints. It is also probably out of print.
I edit, and frequently write for, a twice-yearly journal called the FARMS Review.
But I'm probably most fond, relatively recently, of a quartet of articles:
“On the Motif of the Weeping God in Moses 7.” In Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 285-317.
“What the Manuscripts and the Eyewitnesses Tell Us about the Translation of the Book of Mormon.” In Uncovering the Original Text of the Book of Mormon: History and Findings of the Critical Text Project, edited by M. Gerald Bradford and Alison V. P. Coutts (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 67-71.
“‘Ye are Gods’: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind.” In Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, eds., The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson (Provo: FARMS, 2000), 471-594.
“Nephi and His Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8-23.” In Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, edited by Davis Bitton (Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998), 191-243.
Feel free to read any of these, or none of them.
Incidentally, Kurt, I used your first name because you used it, and didn't use your last name because you didn't.
- -
http://www.millennialstar.org/index.p...
| I just read the author's essay and have some observations.
First, I can't tell what the point of his essay was. There were many interesting facts, especially about secularism in Europe and the ascendancy of the fast reproducting Muslims who are taking over that continent. Also, the interesting references to Mormons in overseas travel brochures, plus the fact that he browses the postings on this board.
Second, I think Mr. Peterson uses too many words to say what he means. It makes it hard to follow his theme through such a long essay. Is he verbose because he is egotistical or is he not using peer review on his writing? Or is his writing very good and artful and I am just in a bad mood tonight.
Third, he feels that certain issues brought up by "anti-Mormons" have been answered in the past and it bores him to have them brought up again and again, because they have been resolved already. I felt the same way when I was a blind obedience follower. I am still TBM but I don't feel that some of these issues have been settled like I used to.
Fourth: He suggests that the wild west atmosphere of the posts on this board are evidence of the crude, barbaric behavior that one devolves into once one leaves the Church. I think that is an unwarrented generalization. There are so many people posting and reading on this board, that one has to assume the posters come from wildly different backgrounds and reasons for coming here. As a TBM, I enjoy coming here to get "the rest of the story" that you can never get from the "Church News", "Deseret News", or KSL-TV.
And I also think many of the people here are so down to earth, funny, and pleasant to post with. It's not like I can start a support group for mildly rebellious middle aged Mormon men here in my small town without biting the bullet. So I come here.
| I actually read the whole DP article and found it a painful read, but I figure that was the least I could do for someone with enough energy to dedicate to something they find intensely boring. Here are just a few of the notes I made on the margins:
1. He insists that all the major criticisms have been refuted. Like a former president was fond of saying to anyone who asked an annoying question to which there was an inadequate answer, "I've already answered that." Well, just because the apologists have answered doesn't mean that they have answered sufficiently and to throw the word "refuted" out there is an overstatement IMHO. Perhaps in his mind Mormonism is an open, closed and shut case.
2. He talks about how DNA also refutes the widely held conservative Protestant understandings of Genesis; well perhaps then, the widely held conservative view of Genesis is in need of modification for all who hold a literal view. To the best of my knowledge, modern prophets hold a literal view of the Garden, the Tree, the serpent, the fruit, the casting out of the garden. Perhaps DNA science can help some saints understand the B of M differently and more accurately.
3. He does some impressive name calling and exaggerating -- Angry Apostates (Neal would be proud of that piece of alliteration), greatest intellectual pretensions, incapable of accurately summarizing LDS positions and arguments, vulgar, and duplicitous crank. The persons he refers to, certainly don't speak for me or for many others. I hope he found it cathartic to get his frustrations out; I don't take it personally and these are apparent exaggerations. We all need to vent at times.
4. I think he makes a good observation and describes it pretty well when it comes to some of the unsightly stuff that runs through some boards. There are some posts that are gratuitous cheap shots that often reflect the anger and frustration that many truly have, and do experience with the church. We all need to vent at times. I'd be a little slower to generalize from this small sample to the broader population of "folks who may see things differently."
5. I notice him failing to give proper credit to the original source of "the great and spacious building" which is, of course, Joseph Sr.'s own dream that Nephi also "miraculously" experienced over a thousand years earlier. Regardless of the source, this is a beautiful metaphor that can teach a great truth and enduring principles.
6. He seems to have a sincere concern for those "nice people" who are so fragile and easy prey to the cynicism found on "even relatively benign boards". He then goes on to attribute deviation from the path as a personality problem; so now something is constitutionally wrong with you and out of whack should you see things differently or honestly arrive at a different conclusion.
7. DP is then enamored with the European Secular Elite and seems to view them as far more worthy intellectual opponents who are now worth his time, compared to the cognitive riff-raff on the boards. He appears to find their repugnant ideas quite invigorating and these seem to get his intellectual juices flowing. His topic then broadens beyond Mormonism to include Christianity and religion in general as it pertains to the way they are all held in disdain by the elite. He expresses his concern again about the fragility of Eurotestimonies in the face of these secular forces and the lack of an adequate response by the believers.
It occurred to me that an adequate response would have to confront the elite on thier own lawn which would require strong intellectual argument based on scholarship, elitism, common sense and style. Well, this is definitely going to be a tough row to hoe when your big guns are "the spirit", warm feelings, questionable gold plates, and a maximumprophet in SLC.
7. He seems surprised when the media, inspite of their liberal leanings, come away with the impression that TSCC is socially retrograde, politically conservative and heirarchically corporate. How on earth does anyone in their right mind come away with such an impression?
8. He spends some time reporting some glowing population health stats for observant church members. The saints do not have a corner on the health and wellness market. He very quickly passes through the stat of Utah's suicide rate being higher than the national average; he then reframes this pesky number by essentially saying that "Utah is the best among the worst". He gets credit for acknowledging that religous people in general tend to be physically and mentally better off than non-religious counterparts. So why is Mormonism preferred over these other faiths? Is Mormonism offering any more than any other faiths when it comes to physical and mental health?
9. He mentions the "if any man lack relative plausibility" doctrine. I'd love to see this term become part of the missionary discussions and inserted into Moroni's promise; asking in sincere faith believing in relative plausibility.
10. Then there is a lengthy section on morals and ethical behavior only being able to occur in a spiritual, religous, context of belief in God. Well, there is very good evolutionary, sociobiological data (not good, warm feelings) that moral and ethical behavior is in our evolutionary interest in spite of the occasional free-loaders.
11. He mentions the allegation made by church critics that the church supposedly manipulates its history. It is a hard sell to suggest that the church doesn't and hasn't manipulated its history; the question is in what way has it manipulated its history and why? as well as what have been the effects of these manipulations?
Of course the church, has, does and will continue to manipulate its history. That's nothing to get excited about; it's the follow up questions I mentioned that are more critical.
12. Here's a cute one. He writes of "possibly imperfect leaders". I'd like to meet one church leader that will stand up and claim an absence of imperfection. Of course they are imperfect and make mistakes regularly like the rest of us; the question for me has to do with "harm" and suffering generated as a result of the mistakes and most importantly the humility to own those errors. "Mistakes were made", doesn't cut it.
Lastly, DP is clearly a very bright guy and likely a rather sincere bloke. In fact, he is most likely a smarter and better man than I am, however that doesn't make him right.
| This article from Peterson back in 1992 ("Secret Combinations" Revisited, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992. Pp. 184–88) attempts to show that, once again, anti-Mormons might be wrong about one accusation, SO THERE!
The far more interesting question is whether discussing an accusation of plariarism that is supported by dozens of other examples (clearly Joe stole stuff from other people) is just Dannyboy's way of deflecting the real accusations of conspiracy to commit murder leveled against the church for its own "secret combinations" practiced in the Mormon temples. The website http://www.ldsendowment.org/ shows a chronology of the changes made to the temple endowment (Chronology).
Rarely has a nationally recognized organization conspired to kill with so many people as the church did. Clearly, as those of us know about the endowment ceremony, Mormon initiates had this oath "sprung" upon them without prior knowledge. Clearly, the other throat-, chest- and belly-slashing oaths protected the act of conspiracy.
The church refuses to discuss how a supposedly "revealed" and "innocent" temple ceremony could/would include an "oath of vengeance"1 as it did prior to 1920. It hides behind the "sacred, not secret" canard even though the change in the temple ceremony should eliminate its sacredness and allow public discussion about its murderous designs. They threw it out! It couldn't have been sacred!
The day Dan Peterson lives the WoW is the day I'll believe he's an honest man in search of the truth about the crutch.And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint. (D&C; 89:20) C'mon, Dan. Double-time it around the block for us. Dan "the Doughnut" Peterson
1 "You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."
| Daniel and I have been arguing over whether the Church can be called a "totalitarian" organization. Also note that I'm called BYU Alter Ego on Jeff Lindsay's blog...it's a long story.
I'd love to get your feedback on this.
Here is the exchange:
BYU Alter Ego: "I should have caught that. I meant to say 'has parallels with other totalitarian societies such as Mormonism.'
"Feel better?"
Daniel Peterson: "Not even slightly. Mormonism isn't a society at all. It's a doctrine. And, while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a society, it isn't a 'totalitarian society.'"
I guess I asked for it debating with an editor, but here it goes.
Instead of Mormonism, I should have said "Mormon society." I will be more diligent I promise... :)
BYU Alter Ego: "Has any Apostle of the Church ever sanctioned violence for any reason other than self defense?"
Daniel Peterson: "An irrelevant red herring. Even if an apostle had done so, it would not make the Church a totalitarian state."
Wow, you yourself have repeatedly used the violent component as an argument why the Church isn't totalitarian in nature.
How can you call that issue a "red herring?"
As for examples, Danites count, Blood Atonement counts, Mountain Meadow Massacre counts.
On the definition of "Totalitarianism:"
Daniel Peterson: "Well, let's see: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neither a "government" nor a "state," and it claims and exercises no “political authority.” Moreover, since, as a voluntary association, it lacks the genuine coercive power..."
The Church does indeed govern. By your own statement you acknowledge that governments don't have to be democratic to be governments.
The Church does also meddle in politics. Locally, they're horrendous(the alcohol crap is so stupid), on a state/Nation/worldwide level, they do it, but admittedly not as often as they used to. Brigham had a de facto nation state.
BYU Alter Ego: "Has the Church in an official capacity, ever assigned material consequence to intellectual dissent?"
Daniel Peterson: "Not to the best of my knowledge.
Has the Church sometimes withdrawn fellowship from those whose ideas, in its judgment, contravened fundamental doctrines? Yes."
What you mentioned is very much material consequence.
Excommunication, especially when it becomes public, has potential for a great deal of material consequence. BYU Professors and CES teachers forfeit employment. Reputations are tarnished, families are disrupted.
The act of excommunicating, admittedly completely doctrinal, [is]unnecessary in my opinion.
Every Deseret book published by a GA comes with huge disclaimers, why not ask dissenters to do the same?
That could have avoided the whole "September Six" circus.
Daniel Peterson: "If you're suggesting that the Church maintains some sort of intelligence-gathering operation (of the kind that the poor folks at the “Recovery” board like to imagine is spying upon them), then the answer, so far as I can determine (and that's fairly far), is No."
Does, "Strengthening Church Members Committee" ring any bells?
The Church has publically admitted to it's existence and purpose.
Here is a nice Wikipedia article on LDS history. There is a subsection title, "The Strengthening Church Members Committee: keeping files on the public statements of potential dissidents" Here is a Link
A quote from the article, "The Church explained that the Committee 'provides local church leadership with information designed to help them counsel with members who, however well-meaning, may hinder the progress of the church through public criticism.' ("Secret Files," New York Times, Aug. 22, 1992)"
BYU Alter Ego: "Does the Church in an official capacity take an interest and apply consequence for dissent regarding the minute details of it's members, ie; dress, grooming habits, language, reading material, dating habits, hobbies etc...?"
Daniel Peterson: "A bit. Not much. Certainly to nothing like the extent that, say, an Orthodox rabbi or an Amish minister pays attention to such matters within his community."
On beards:
Amish: Wait till you're married.
Jewish: Just don't use a blade.
Mormons: Shave it baby!
On Marriage:
Amish: don't intermarry
Jewish: don't intermarry
Mormons: don't intermarry
On dress:
Amish: One or two suspenders? How many pleats in a bonnet? Funny enough it matters.
Jewish: You'd better wear a hat!
Mormons: White shirt or no sacrament passing you heathen deacon!
If you dissent:
Amish: Shame, kicked out of community.
Jewish: Shame, kicked out of community.
Mormon: Shame, excommunicated.
How is it that we're better again?
BYU Alter Ego: "Had the Church in an official capacity ever suppressed cultural diversity in it's members?"
Daniel Peterson: "Much too vague a question. What do you mean by "suppress"? In any event, though, the only kind of "suppression" that would come close to making the Church a totalitarian institution would be the kind delivered at gunpoint or under bayonets. And that kind I can categorically deny."
I apologize for the vague question. Let me illustrate with a Quinn "Heirarchy" example:
"7 Oct.[ 1984], Ronald E. Poelman gives general conference talk stressing need of central headquarters to adapt its programs to cultural diversity of international church, rather than require diverse peoples to conform to Utah Mormon culture. He is required to return to empty Salt Lake Tabernacle to re-deliver censored version of his general conference talk for videotaping which includes pre-recorded track of audience coughs but deletes his endorsement of cultural diversity and decentralization. He is not allowed to speak in general conference again for more than four years. [Although I have to observe that a member of the Seventy might not get his number called for several years anyway, even with the smaller number of general authorities back then."
That help?
(note that Daniel is the one who started using Gestapo again...I'm still the same guy, just to avoid confusion)
BYU Gestapo: "Has the Church in an official capacity ever taught that the individual should be subordinate to the Church?"
Daniel Peterson: "The Church has taught that individuals should subordinate their wills to the will of God. Those who did not wish to do so were and are free not to do so."
Can I just offer as a soon to be former member that choosing to leave is not nearly as simple as you describe it?
Members, often are born into the religion and therefore have deep family connections. Converts generally soon cultivate through marriage and conversion of non-member family the same type of connections.
If I had chosen to leave while attending BYU I would have seriously jeapardized my education and degree.
Many, especially intellectual Mormons, receive employment from the Church and would have to face serious financial risk.
Contrary to what you've argued, the only thing required to create totalitarian environment is a form of control.
That, the Church has in abundance.
| Daniel Peterson recently wrote to me concerning the section on him found here. He told me that the LDS Corporation does not pay him one thin dime for his work as an apologetic. While we could trace the money backwards from FARMS to BYU to the LDS Corporation, I told him that I'd look into his statement and get back with him. In response, Daniel wrote the following:
"I will be tensely awaiting the results of your research, whatever that will involve. Here are a pair of suggestions: I have no idea where you live, but, if you’re in Utah, I invite you to come by 3087 JFSB, where you will be able to see my actual name on an actual office name plate in the same area where other actual members of the actual faculty of the actual Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages have their offices. If you’re lucky, I myself (or, on your apparent theory, perhaps a deceptively similar “LDS Corporation” clone) will actually be in the office, pretending to be a professor of Arabic. Alternatively, even if you don’t live in the state, you can order one of the books produced by the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative (either through the Brigham Young University bookstore or through the University of Chicago Press, which distributes them). Inside, you will find my actual name, as actual editor-in-chief of all four subsidiary series. This could win you the Pulitzer Prize.
I’m not sure what the timetable for your investigation is. I’ll be in Washington DC this next week, on business relating to the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. (Anyway, that’s my story, and I’m sticking by it.) And then, the week before Thanksgiving, I’ll be in Philadelphia, at an academic conference there relating to Near Eastern studies. (Or perhaps I’ll be somewhere else entirely, lying about Mormonism. Pending the outcome of your work, nobody will know for certain.) I probably won’t pay much attention to my e-mail during those trips, but I’ll be on pins and needles until you’re able to inform me what my salary is for. Please do hurry. "
No wonder people accuse Daniel of "tooting his own horn".
His initial message to me was concerning the topic header (for which I wrote) under his topic. I responded to him that the topic header is mine, of course, however, the articles posted under the topic (that being Daniel's name) are culled from the Ex-Mormon world. I was curious as to Daniel's statement that the LDS Church did not pay his salary to be an apologist. I wrote "I will look into your claims that the LDS Corporation does not directly pay your salary to be an apologist. If we traced the money backwards through BYU, the source would ultimately lead to the LDS Corporation and into the pocket of unsuspecting tithed members."
He responded:
"There is no secret about the fact that Brigham Young University is funded by the “LDS Corporation,” as you choose to call it, and the fact that the “LDS Corporation” is supported by the tithes of its members is also widely known (particularly among tithe payers). Likewise, the fact that I’m employed by Brigham Young University is scarcely classified information: I’m listed in University catalogues, in the University’s telephone directory, and on the University’s website (among other places). I’m not precisely sure, therefore, why you imagine that tithe payers would be “unsuspecting,” or what it is that you propose to “look into,” but I certainly wish you well in your investigations. Courage!"
He also stated:
“I trust that you will correct your misstatement soon. I’m sure that you’re committed to truth and accuracy.”
Ah, just as you are committed to the “truth” as well. Thanks for making me laugh this morning. He responded:
"I’m aware of the common assumption among a certain class of critics of the Church that I’m a mendacious mercenary hack who cares nothing for the truth. I’m not surprised that you share it. The notion is pure hostile fantasy, of course, and there is no real evidence to support it, but it reveals much about those who hold it."
A fellow Ex-Mormon sent me the following concerning FARMS and Daniel Peterson:
"Established as a private research organization in 1979, FARMS became part
of BYU in 1997. At the time, Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and chairman of the BYU Board of Trustees,
observed that, "FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated
scholars. I wish to express my strong congratulations and appreciation for
those who started this effort and who have shepherded it to this point." He
concluded by noting that he sees, "a bright future for this effort now
through the university.""
I could be mistaken, but it sure sounds like FARMS is funded by BYU which in
turn is funded by the Church.
Moreover, as he says, he was director of CPART. Well, CPART is the
overarching group on top of FARMS, so yes, he most certainly was being paid for his
involvement in apologetics.
"In 2001, Brigham Young University consolidated FARMS with a number of
related academic concerns to form the Institute for the Study and
Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, now known as the Center for the
Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundati...
He may be correct in saying that he is not paid *directly* by the Church
for his apologetic undertakings, but that doesn't mean that the Church
doesn't smile on him using his time for such.
Moreover, he most certainly does receive some funding from apologetics.
Wasn't he paid for example for editing "Echoes and Evidences of the Book
of Mormon" for FARMS? Or did he just edit it out of love?
Unfortunately, he may be telling the truth about his activities for
accounting purposes, but that doesn't make it honest.
After careful consideration, I feel that Daniel is "baiting" me into a long winded debate about the items posted above. Daniel continues to use his $10 dollar words and is quite proud of himself.
Of course, I simply told Daniel that I wasn't biting and ended the conversation. The topic header as it stands, will stay up.
| For those who didn't read it, an RFM poster going by "Edelman" made a comment a couple of days ago about Richard Bushman being a "credible non-Morgbot authority". I don't know whether "Edelman" wasn't aware that Bushman is a lifelong Mormon, or whether he was being satirical, since he hasn't made any further responses. But two other posters quickly set the record straight by writing that Bushman is indeed a Mormon.
Personally, I've known for years that Bushman is a Mormon, because I've owned his book "Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism" for years, and cited it in some of my posts dealing with historical issues over the years.
Anyhoo, FARMSbot Daniel Peterson ridiculed Edelman's line about Bushman in a post on the FAIR boards, which was commented on here on RFM. Peterson's obvious motive was to use Edelman's line as an example to his FAIR fellows of what he believes to be a general ignorance of the facts and/or a tendency towards wacko conspiracy theories amongst RFM posters.
Peterson's remark was, of course, a strawman. There are dozens of posts here on RFM every single day in which accurate, solid facts are provided on a number of issues. But Peterson chose not to address those posts, and instead ridiculed a single post which contained wrong information, as though Edelman's post was typical of RFM posts in general. In other words, in true strawman fashion, he attacked one of the weakest posts he could find in order to attack RFM in general.
The reason I'm writing this post is to simply state that having debated Mormon cyber-apologists for about eight years, primarily on the alt.religion.mormon newsgroup, I could cite hundreds of posts from dozens of them which contain information which is every bit as incorrect or worse, and propose conspiracy theories which are just as wacky, as did "Edelman's" post about Bushman.
But, as opposed to the posts on RFM in general, the posts from TBM cyber-apologists to which I refer were not written by sort-term posters who "hit-and-ran", and were ridiculed, refuted, and run off. Rather, it was many of the "shining lights" amongst the pro-Mormons who often wrote the silliest, most outlandish, most easily refutable nonsense.
I'm talking about people like Kerry Shirts, the former "director of research" for FAIR; Russell McGregor, a New Zealander who has also written for FAIR; Woody Brison, who boasted of having been a "seminary principal"; Guy Briggs, a long-time gospel doctrine class teacher; and other assorted TBMs, such as Charles Dowis.
Unfortunately, when I provided exhaustive credible documentation which refuted those TBMs on dozens of issues, they would simply go into denial and refuse to accept the facts. A few other former TBMs, such as Steve Lowther and "runtu", who are currently posting here on RFM, eventually "saw the light" and accepted the obvious fact that the church is bogus. In fact, Steve coined the term "Mormon Denial Mechanism" to describe those TBMs' response to information which upset their cherished beliefs.
Just to cite one of dozens of examples was a statement by TBM Russell McGregor that Missouri Governor Boggs' 1838 "Extermination Order" was an attempt to wreak "genocide" among the Mormons. Russell is far from alone in his thinking; I daresay that a majority of TBMs believe pretty much the same thing. The allegation, of course, is ridiculous; not a single Mormon lost their life due to Boggs' order. It is simply a fable that has been repeated over and over in Mormon circles to feed the "Mormon persecution complex", and therefore most Mormons believe it's true.
Another such fable says that the Nauvoo-period Mormons believed that the Illinois anti-bigamy laws were unconstitutional because it violated their religious freedom to practice "plural marriage." LDS radio talk show host Van Hale repeated that myth during his program with Richard Packham a couple of weeks ago. I e-mailed Hale and informed him that contrary to his belief that Joseph Smith and other Nauvoo Mormons protested the Illinois laws by pleading "religious freedom," Smith and other Mormons in fact DENIED that they practiced polygamy, and NEVER challenged the laws. The Mormons actually continued to deny that they practiced polygamy until 1852, five years after they had emigrated to isolated Utah Territory. I sent Hale a link where he could read dozens of those denials from church leaders and official publications.
Hale did not respond to my e-mail, but on his next week's show (October 6), he repeated his false assertion that the Nauvoo Mormons challenged the Illinois laws, and he falsely claimed that the anti-bigamy laws did not apply to the Mormons' practice of "plural marriage." (If the laws didn't apply, then Joseph Smith could not have been indicted for violating those laws in May 1844, and would not have needed to vehemently deny being a polygamist in his speech of May 25.)
Meaning, even a Mormon like Van Hale, who alleges to be well-versed in Mormon history for decades, continues to repeat the same false myths EVEN AFTER BEING CORRECTED ON THEM AND GIVEN THE DOCUMENTATION WHICH SHOWS HE IS WRONG.
My overall point here being that while a newbie ignorant RFM poster might occasionally write incorrect statements (which are usually quickly corrected by more knowledgeable posters), some of the supposedly most "knowledgeable" TBMs DO THE SAME THING AND WORSE ON A REGULAR BASIS.
Meaning, Peterson would do well to clear up the massive amounts of misconceptions and misinformation which is being spread by his fellow saints, rather than spending his valuable time picking out a single incorrect statement from one RFM poster and using that to trash RFM in general. Motes and beams and all that stuff.
|  | Daniel C. Peterson's Signature Line - A Quote From Simon G. Southerton's Book : What Was Simon Really Saying
Monday, Feb 13, 2006, at 12:23 PM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | Daniel C. Peterson has been using the following quote in his signature on all of his FAIR posts lately. The quote comes from Simon G. Southerton's book, "Answers to Apologetic Claims about DNA and the Book of Mormon".
"In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today."
What Daniel C. Peterson does not show is the rest of the statement from Simon's book. The actual quote continued:
In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years. The Book of Mormon records that soon after their arrival in the Americas, the descendants of Lehi “multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land” (Jarom 1:8). By about 46 BC, after which time they had joined with the Mulekites, they had multiplied until they “covered the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east (Hel. 3:8). By the time of the final conflagrations around 400 AD, the Israelite populations numbered in the many hundreds of thousands if not millions. There is not a single mention in the text of groups of people living in ancient America, other than the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites. All three population groups had very large populations. It is hardly surprising then that Joseph Smith and all other church leaders have regarded Native Americans to be the descendants of the Lamanites. The God speaking to Joseph Smith in 1830-31 referred to the “borders of the Lamanites” when talking about missionaries being sent to teach Native Americans who had been relocated to Missouri (D&C; 28: 9; 54: 8)
Again, this is another example of the tactics of Daniel C. Peterson.
"The flood won't be a problem. Free from the constraints of facts or logic, anything can become anything. One can become two, two can become three, three can become seventeen, "black" can become "grey", and then "grey" can become "white", the literal can become the metaphorical, "no" can become "maybe", and "maybe" can become "yes", horses can become tapirs, the concrete can become the mysterious, the previously known can become the unknowable. Anything can become anything. And FARMS writers can't understand why their Ph.D's alone don't induce everyone to believe their turgid nonsense." - Tal Bachman.
| From the FAIR boards:
"You want to see someone who can't write in smaller than 10,000 word chunks? There's an apostate Canadian lawyer on a certain virulently ex-Mormon board. I think it reasonably certain that no living human being has ever successfully read one of his posts completely to the end -- except, perhaps, for some of the prison guards at Abu Ghraib (where, I'm told, these posts are sometimes read aloud to hardened insurgents, in order to break their wills and get them to talk)."
I have read dozens of Bob's articles Daniel and I have read dozens of yours as well. Bob was instrumental in my road to recovery. You were not. Bob spends his time discussing the social and psychological problems within Mormonism. You spend your time trying to convince us that horses were tapirs and that the hill Cumorah was actually somewhere else. Bob tells us truth. You fabricate and twist history to fit Mormonism in your attempts to try and convince us that Mormonism is true. Bob explains to us why we feel the way we do as we find out that Mormonism is a fraud. You spend your time blasting authors and anyone who would dare state that Mormonism may not be what it claims. Bob brings us facts, figures and scientific approaches. You play the Mormon trump card that scientific evidence, facts and figures are worthless and that the only way we can understand Mormonism is by having feelings under our nipples.
I would rather read a thousand pages of Bob McCue than ever read one more piece of drivel from you, Daniel C. Peterson.
From Bob McCue:
"I am flattered to have attracted the gaze of one so wise and holy as Dr. Peterson, but disappointed that the best he could muster was a criticism based on length. I am sure he can do better than that but has only so much time to spare from his full time job as Defender of God's Kingdom.
I read an entertaining piece in Sports Illustrated last night - a summary of a recent roast of the fight promoter Don King. He was described in terms that put me in mind of Peterson and his ilk. For King, it was said, the simplest truth is no less than a three rail bank shot."
| There have been a lot of threads over the past two months which showcase, refer to, highlight and even track Daniel Peterson and his comments.
Some of these threads get closed by admin on this board and others are let to go their own course.
Frankly, I'd like to make two comments with respect to threads on Mr. Peterson.
First of all, while I find very little new and/or convincing from the man himself, particularly when it comes to BOM Historicity and the whole DNA topic, I really don't see the need to bring up anything about his personal appearance. I don't think it does this board and those seeking information from this board on their way out of mormonism any real good. In fact, I believe it discounts the credibiity of this board and many of the intelligent posters here. No different than Peterson's behavior at FAIR, from time to time, really hurts the impact of that board for TBMs.
On the other hand, I think keeping his actions, illogical statements, criticism of this board and its posters, bantering rhetoric, and fairly logical evidence that he is, in fact, paid by the LDS Church to spend a good deal of his time posting at FAIR (in excess of 4000 posts now), in the eyes of those seeking help in leaving the lds church or recovery from it, is quite appropriate for this board.
I think much of what he says and claims needs to be exposed for what it really is and FAIR would never really allow posters to challenge his comments in a manner that they should be. Let's face it, FAIR is a board that many who struggle with mormonism will be directed to by either their ecclesiastical leaders or by "google" in search of answers. Daniel Peterson, with the support of FAIR and the LDS Church has taken it upon himself to become their (FAIR) and the Church's "ordained spokesperson". He then makes himself "fair game" to be challenged and a forum such as this, in some respects, has an obligation to serve its participants seeking real answers and recovery "the other side of the story". I don't see this any different than exposing much of what past prophets have said regarding the likes of polygamy, racism and BOM geography.
When we talk about Joseph Smith, much of the evidence against him goes to his "personal character and/or integrity". If Peterson wants to designate himself as the "unofficial mantel" for FAIR and the Lds Church, those coming to this board in search of their way out of the church should have the same opportunity to see all of arguments exposed and how they are impacted by his character and integrity. For those struggling with mormonism who were led to FAIR by leaders and google, will also be led here by friends and google.
Peterson has personally elevated himself (as well as FARMS) to the level of peer review and criticism. As we all know, FAIR will not allow for such in their isolated and protected environment for him. But I think this forum should allow it for those who will undoubtedly be led to his pontification as "church provided answers" that the lds church will never officially stand behind.
I just don't think it does any good to lower the arguments or criticisms to "what he looks like". On that point (and this ones for you Daniel), I would support Mr. Petersons criticisms of various posts here. I would also support the exposure of "the other side" of his claims and arguments, especially the bias and lack of academic integrity that he and FARMS promote. A "paid hack" should be exposed as being one for those who may be otherwise misled by his oratory!
| | | One More Thread About Daniel C. Peterson - Because I Have To. Mea Culpa
Wednesday, Mar 8, 2006, at 07:39 AM
Original Author(s): Nightingale
Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | I messed up.
Last week I was reading a post at FAIR (a rare activity for me) about the JoD. Daniel Peterson mentioned an RfM poster (Sigorney) who said she had just seen the original JoD in the British Museum. Here’s what he said:
DCP:
"I don't believe that I've ever heard a claim, before, that the Journal of Discourses has been altered. I'm curious to see evidence for that.
Over on the so-called "Recovery" board, Sigorney is boasting about having gone to the British Museum in London and seen the "original" Journal of Discourses "for herself."
I've been to the British Museum myself, more times than I can count. But I saw nothing more than the Elgin Marbles, the Rosetta Stone, and a few things of that sort. I never realized that so rare a treasure as an original copy of the Journal of Discourses existed in the British Museum.
Pretty weird."
I then posted this to Sigorney’s thread about her visit to the British Museum:
NG:
"I notice that DCP of FAIR doesn't believe that you saw the JoD in England
Date: Mar 07 10:29
Can you confirm that you saw "the original" in the British Museum? You mention brushing off "old dust". I realize you may be kidding - or did you actually get to touch it or be near it? It was the original, not a copy? Was there any commentary with it from the museum as to history, reason they have it, etc?
Here, in part, is what DCP says on FAIR about your post.
(Could he have been to the museum and failed to realize or discover that an exhibit that would be of such interest to him was housed there? How did you know it was there?):…"
[I included the DCP excerpt above]
Today after Sigorney’s update, in which she corrected herself and said she saw the original JoD in the British Library (not the Museum as previously stated) I went back to check out the FAIR thread again. I saw that Daniel Peterson used my post here to illustrate the "stunningly consistent incapacity" of RfMers to restate another’s positions correctly.
DCP in a FAIR thread says, in part:
"On a certain obnoxious other board, where they seem never, ever, to be able to restate the positions of their targets accurately, "Nightingale" illustrates that stunningly consistent incapacity yet again:
QUOTE (DCP quoting DCP on FAIR last week):
..."Over on the so-called "Recovery" board, Sigorney is boasting about having gone to the British Museum in London and seen the "original" Journal of Discourses "for herself."
I've been to the British Museum myself, more times than I can count. But I saw nothing more than the Elgin Marbles, the Rosetta Stone, and a few things of that sort. I never realized that so rare a treasure as an original copy of the Journal of Discourses existed in the British Museum."
I did not, of course, deny that poor Sigorney saw a copy of the Journal of Discourses in the British Museum (or, as she has now corrected herself to say, in the British Library). She probably did. And it was probably an original printing. Everything else is there; why not a copy of the Journal of Discourses? After all, the Journal of Discourses was aimed at an English audience and was first published there in England.
The funny part, though, is the assumption that one would need to travel to London, to either the British Museum or the British Library, in order to see an "unaltered" copy of the Journal of Discourses, as if such a thing were a rarity on the order of the Elgin Marbles or the Rosetta Stone or a Gutenberg Bible…”
So I just used my lunch hour to check the whole thing out again. There is no way around this but to say that I have done what he says, which is to read into his words a meaning that is not stated there. For that I apologize to him and to everyone actually. Because the last thing I want is to play dirty by deliberately misstating someone’s position. It’s ironic that I should inadvertently have done this because I’m usually the one saying wait a minute, we need to communicate well, we need to be fair, where does s/he say that precisely etc. So in this case, and yes it is humbling, I did exactly what I always try so hard not to do. And that is to misunderstand someone’s point and then misstate it during repetition.
I hope this lapse of mine is not used to "prove" how careless exmos are with truth or something because I have not found that to be the case. This was an error of mine due to not taking the time to process the message accurately. I read into his words something he did not explicitly state.
I believe part of the reason for that was that I had read quite a few of his other posts there and the tone he uses can come across as mocking and superior and that conveys disbelief. So, I read "I don’t believe what she said" into his message. Looking at it today in less haste I see that obviously his actual words did not state what I said they did. And yes, "tone" is very subjective. But it is a big part of communication and demonstrably influences the way in which a reader or listener perceives your message.
I hope that it is obvious from this post of mine to Sigorney that DCP quotes that I was actually asking for more information, trying to make sure I was getting the correct understanding, from both sides. Ironically, as I said, it was me that was careless about ensuring accuracy, in this instance.
I know that looking at a person’s actual words is the most objective way to assess what they said. However, tone of voice (even in writing) and other elements do lend an important layer to the communication and can convey a writer’s true meaning despite their words, although that, of course, is very subjective.
Out of interest, I'd like to point out, apart from my error and apology, a few things (although they do not excuse my mistake). DCP characterizes Sigorney as "bragging" that she saw the JoD in the British Museum (later corrected to be the British Library). That lays a negative connotation on her and her words right there and he doesn’t have to directly state _anything_. What he characterizes as "bragging" in her post I interpreted as a woman who was excited about her experience, especially as it had been a longtime goal of hers to do this. See what a different picture your mind can draw based on your own preconceptions? And how you can subtly influence your readers by your choice of language and inflection?
In his subsequent post of today, referenced above, DCP says "poor Sigorney". Why would he use that modifier? What is "poor" about Sigorney (except maybe her wallet after a trip overseas)? (Is there an unwritten second modifier there? "Poor *misguided*" Sigorney?) That would further influence a reader’s perception of Sigorney. Of course, we don’t know that he intended that so we cannot say he did or he didn’t.
He then goes on to say:
"The funny part is the assumption that one would need to travel to London, to either the British Museum or the British Library, in order to see an "unaltered" copy of the Journal of Discourses"…
Sigorney didn’t say you _need_ to travel to London to see the JoD, she said she wanted to see the original and that is where it is and she happened to be there. Again, it comes across as a subtle put-down of her. Again, whether that is intended or not no-one except Daniel Peterson can say.
So yes, the general negative tone I perceive in many of his posts about ex-members and/or RfM posters did influence my interpretation of what he said about Sigorney’s JoD adventure. For that, again, I do apologize. It was entirely unintentional.
I query whether there is a bit of confusion about the different discussion tracks - one is Sigorney talking about viewing the "original" JoD and one is an entirely different topic about whether the JoD is "altered" or not. Is someone using the terms interchangeably to mean "original" as in "unaltered"? That can get confusing. But I wasn't involved in that part of the discussion (which is on FAIR).
I hope my careless lapse will now be removed from the mountain of "proof" about the "incapacity" of RfMers to restate someone’s opinion accurately. I think it is fairly easy to misunderstand someone, given the nature of these two boards in particular, the strong opinions on both sides, the number of posts and how fast they move. I believe that when/if it happens we can clear it up. I really hope we can discuss the issues with honour on both sides. It’s hard to imagine any serious poster who is interested in the issues at hand who would purposely use underhanded tactics to try and gain an advantage. It would be so easy to disprove their position in any case, just as DCP could do in this instance with my error.
If we believe that our position is correct, the facts will speak for themselves. No tactics will be needed.
So, again, mea culpa for this. I actually do appreciate having it pointed out. I will try to be a lot less hasty in reading and interpreting posts from now on, despite time constraints, because haste so easily leads to errors.
I'd like to emphasize though that in the final analysis, it is the source material that can determine truth. And that stands, in spite of errors by any one of us. We can have fruitful discussions if we focus on it.
I think.
| His effort to twist and conceal the significance of Packer's "Mantle" speech is a classical wormtonguesque display.
DCP on Packer's Mantle speech: "When one doesn't tell all one knows, is one necessarily lying? Has any competent teacher ever taught all he knows? Has any historian or biographer ever included in a book everything he knows? If not, is the teacher or historian or biographer necessarily lying?"
There is a difference between not overwhelming students with information by attempting to convey "all one knows" and intentionally omitting significant and relevant information because it does not support the perspective that you wish to inculcate in the minds of your students.
The points made by DCP are misleading and irrelevant in the context of discussing Packer's speech. (And I'm sure that DCP knows this.)
Packer's speech: (1) advocates aggressive subjectivity in filling the heads of the uninformed with propaganda designed to show ONLY that the Church and its leaders are inspired and guided by god at all times; and (2) advocates the omission/concealment of contrary information, regardless of how relevant or significant it may be to the subject matter being taught--a wilful omission that necessarily and intentionally creates a false understanding of reality/factual situations.
Packer advocates that teachers employed by the Church must essentially act as lawyers for the Church in conveying only facts that support doctored versions of events that always make the Church look good and provide a carefully limited perspective to students.
In Packer's (and apparently DCP's) view, if the Church, as the driver of a car, in a drunken stupor after a bout of heavy drinking, careened through a red light and ran over a child's pet dog--after swerving at the last minute to avoid hitting the child and several other children, it would be entirely appropriate, when describing the event to others, to characterize the last minute swerving as evidence that the Holy Ghost was protecting the Church and the children, and that the Church's quick reflexes and worthiness to receive such protection are evidence of its wonderfulness, AND it would also be entirely appropriate to completely omit any reference to the 3 empty whiskey bottles that were in the car and to also omit any reference to the convictions for drunk driving and other crimes that the Church received shortly after the accident.
Yes, in the context of Packer's speech, this type of agressive deception by omission is logically what DCP is referring to when he asks, "When one doesn't tell all one knows, is one necessarily lying?"
The answer is yes, one is lying.
Of course, we know, and DCP knows, that, when taken out of this context, DCP's comments about competent teachers not teaching everything they know are irrelevant to the type of lying by omission that is advocated by Packer when he calls for teachers to present only information that promotes faith, i.e., the "objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now".
Packer also informs us that: "In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good"; and "Some things that are true are not very useful."
DCP, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your sophistry is transparent both here and on the other side of the veil--and I suspect it is obvious to yourself as well. The only people who are persuaded by it are the people who have been wilfully misinformed and under-informed by your colleagues in the employment of the Church.
| | | DCP, DCP's Friend, An Unscrupulous SP, And The Smear Campaign Against D. Michael Quinn
Wednesday, Apr 12, 2006, at 01:54 AM
Original Author(s): Doctor Scratch
Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | Just as he claimed a shadowy, Danite-like informant "reliably" disproved / cast doubt upon Steve Benson's conversation with Dallin [H]Oaks, DCP now claims that a "friend of the SP" of D. Michael Quinn was spreading rumors about Quinn's sexual orientation!
Check out this little nugget:
"Mike Quinn's sexual orientation was well known by the time of his excommunication -- everybody in my circles had known about it for a long time (although, vicious thugs that we are, we never mentioned it in print or any other comparable venue) -- and, I have reasonably solid reason to believe, was known to his stake president."
Well, Krispy Kreme Boy, doesn't this mean that:
A) Quinn's sexual orientation figured into his getting ex'ed; AND---
B) That you, your friend, and Quinn's SP are all a bunch of rumor-mongering a-holes?
More effluvium and fog from everybody's fave Mopologist!
| | | Big Mormon Apologist Says Mormonism "Good Lens" To View Other Religions
Thursday, Apr 13, 2006, at 08:58 AM
Original Author(s): Deconstructor
Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."
- Proverbs 26:11
A perfect example from Daniel Peterson...
From the Deseret News article on the 2004 FAIR conference :
"[Daniel Peterson] said it is possible to make any religious faith look stupid, and he offered three principles for fairly dealing with other religions: 1) Don't go to a faith's enemies for information. Go to its adherents. 2) Don't compare the best in your faith with the worst in the one you are criticizing. Keep a level playing field. 3) Always leave room for holy envy – what is it that this faith really does well? By following these principles, which Peterson adopted but did not invent, you can study other religions and really learn something beneficial, he said. He's also convinced that LDS religion is a good lens through which to view other religions."
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595082665,00.html
So Peterson is "convinced" that the LDS religion is a good lens through which to view other religions.
Is this the LDS lens he is referring to?
1 Nephi 14:10-11:
"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
2 Nephi 10:16:
"Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God."
"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270
"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."
- The Prophet Joseph Smith , The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60
What a wondrous and marvelous LDS lens Daniel Petersen has to gaze through.
| I just found out I'm banned from FAIR for mocking their "hero" (which is good, really. How long can you hang out in an asylum without going nuts yourself?) I was able to get Dan Peterson to rant on for four pages over the definition of a word. What's funny about that is that he was arguing against sited definitions from dictionary entries *that he, himself, was providing!* And in the end, all he could tell me was that I was wrong. That was his final rebuttal.
It was so fun to watch this little insecure boy of a man stomping his feet to prove that he was right and the dictionaries are wrong, or, as he put it, we should only acknowledge "good dictionaries." (I admit, I took sadistic pleasure in watching this guy suffer, mostly because of his condescending and hypocritical treatment of others). It strikes me as a hilarious case study in denial, watching someone writhe in the face of clear evidence against their own cherished belief. Good times! He's a mopologist, alright.
The only point I wanted to make was that if this is what the church relies on for their defenders of the faith, that's enough to send any rational person running for the hills, as far away from the church as possible.
I thought others here might be entertained as well.
As a footnote, I just found out my last post was mostly deleted with the note "Insults deleted." That's odd, considering I repeated back to Dan what he said to me (that he was wrong - not sure how that's an insult). I wonder why his "insults" weren't removed. I suppose FAIR doesn't think Dan can win a debate by himself. I know I don't think he can either.
And mormons don't want to think they're mind controlled.
Hahahahaha!!
The word was "reactionary."
I cited the following definition from Merriam-Webster:
"relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics"
He would only acknowledge the part about "ultraconservative in politics" and that it was improper to use it to mean "reactive", despite the fact that "relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction" makes it seem pretty clear Merriam-Webster thinks it's OK. Dan thinks he knows better than the dictionary, apparently.
| I'm not one for verbose posts... so here goes nuttin'. I was reading a FAIR-LDS thread (linked from here a week or so ago) where Juliann was getting her ass handed to her by some atheist chick (her handle escapes me at the moment). I mean... she was reeeeeally getting the virtual crap kicked out of her. Loved it. Anyway, after perusing the 20+ pages of that thread I started to peruse other threads out of idle curiosity, and I came across a Hill Cumorah thread. I noticed that DCP posted on the thread in defense of the historicity of the BOM, and said this seemingly innocuous thing:
"In my judgment, it is official doctrine that the Book of Mormon... recounts stories from two or three ancient migrations from the Old World and something of their subsequent history in the New World, and that these groups were ancestral to American Indians.
Affirming those ideas, my standing with Church and University is entirely secure. Denying them would put that standing in some question. By contrast, holding to a Mesoamerican scene for the final Nephite battle, as I and others are strongly inclined to do, seems to have had no impact whatsoever on our standing with either the University or the Church."
Is it me, or did that cat just admit that he affirms the BOM's historicity because doing so creates job security? I mean. He just said. It's right there. It's like... I mean... it's right there. There it is. He said it. I dunno. I mean... that's gotta weigh on your mind if you know the BOM is full of shizzle, but you have to lie about it in order to secure your well-paying job. Damn. Woulda look at that.
| I thought that subject line might grab some attention. :-)
Here's what I mean by it: Among other wacky things, Daniel Peterson believes that a man who lived in ancient America, who had been dead for 1400 years, magically came back to life and chatted up young Joseph Smith. People who have been dead for 1400 years do not come back to life. Therefore, because Peterson believes that, all of his other arguments in favor of Mormonism fall on deaf ears here in the real world.
It's sorta like if you were having a conversation with someone you thought was normal and rational, but somewhere in the conversation, they let on that they're a card-carrying member of the Flat Earth Society, or opine that Adolph Hitler was a mighty fine feller, or tell you that they can't wait to be taken up into the Mother Ship. After they've revealed that much about their inner selves, you know to view everything else they have to say on any subject with heavy skepticism, and try to distance yourself a little further from them. It's hard to take Peterson, or any other Mopologist seriously on any subject when keeping in mind what they actually believe.
I also find it amusing how Peterson still apparently lurks on this BB, reading comments and posting excerpts from them on other fora. Like, he's one of the HNIC's at FARMS, a BYU professor, etc., but he seems to be almost obsessed with reading what people who have rejected Mormonism have to say.
Imagine, for instance, if DNC chairman Howard Dean spent many hours every week surfing on some conservative internet chat board, reading posts and forwarding them to his pals. Wouldn't you find that a little odd? Does Peterson seriously have nothing better to do with his free time?
I also find it fascinating that Peterson apparently views RfM as the biggest threat on the planet to his employer and belief system, since he spends so much time here. I wonder if he lurks on Catholic boards, Baptist boards, Saints Alive, Utah Missions, science discussion fora, etc., as well, seeing as how those are also threats to Mormonism? Do other influential Mormons constantly visit and fret over RfM as well? Does Boyd K. Packer check in with RfM before saying his prayers at night?
I just find it fascinating and a little disturbing how Peterson, whose efforts are backed and funded by a billion-plus-dollar multinational corporation, is so obsessed over a teensy-weensie website and BB which is founded and run by a lil' ol' paper mill engineer from Tennessee. It's sorta like an elephant freaking out over seeing a mosquito.
The only reason I can speculate as to why Peterson worries so much about RfM is that he has access to data which shows that lots and lots of Mormons are leaving the church because of what they read and experience here. And I don't know what Peterson can do to reverse that, seeing as how we see a steady stream of posters here who tell us that reading FARMS' ridiculous apologetics factored in them leaving the church. That being the case, one would think that Peterson would just shut up, rather than continuing to post illogical, irrational, ridiculous stuff that makes Mormons leave the church.
| | | Daniel C. Peterson - It's Not A Job I Could Do And Keep A Clean Conscience, I Don't Know How Peterson Lives With His
Thursday, Jun 29, 2006, at 08:03 AM
Original Author(s): Bornunderpunches
Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | I truly believe that DCP is intellectually corrupt. He was a *MAJOR* catalyst for my wife and I to study our way out of the church. He relies on bloviating with large words in an attempt to obfuscate the subject matter at hand and when called on it he takes his ball and runs home.
We took note that he'd address critic's concerns with statements such as "This has been addressed numerous times and resolved" etc. Yet the resolution was always a new theory from FARMS because the previous theory did not hold up, yet hard scientific data, affidavits, and the previous president's teachings never changed. When that failed he'd belittle the short-comings he percieved his critics to have.
Truly a class act online.
He's done this several times on Zion's LightHouse Message Board. Now that I'm no longer struggling with the church and putting any credence into his statements I find it rather pathetic.
He very well could be the nicest man in the world offline, but when it comes to acting as an apologist he's downright insufferable.
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the red arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copythe "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2013
Compiled With: Caligra 1.121
HOSTED BY
 |
| |
AvoBase is a light-weight robust point of sale software tool.
If you sell Avon, Stampin-Up, Scentsy, Mary-Kay? AvoBase is for you.
AvoBase can sell from any of them - and even sell from ALL of them at the same time.
And not just Avon, AvoBase can sell nearly ANYTHING.
Sell your product, track your customers and your taxes - all in one easy to use application.
Download FREE today at AvoBase.com.
|
|
|
