The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,238 Articles Spanning 204 Topics
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".
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
Total Articles:
38
Daniel C. Peterson is a Mopologist (Mormon Apologist). He is paid indirectly by the Mormon Church to publish articles and reviews on the Brigham Young University Website called "FARMS" (now known as the NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE). Daniel is a professor at the Mormon owned Brigham Young University. He spends countless hours writing apologetic material for the LDS Corporation and posting on the apologetic FAIR/MAAD boards.
Daniel C. Peterson is also an admitted "Agent" for the Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC). The SCMC is a secret organization within the LDS Church whose mission is to keep tabs on Mormons who are disobedient.
He is not to be trusted under any circumstances as he will zealously defend Mormonism by any means.
|
|
Daniel C. Peterson is a Mopologist (Mormon Apologist). He is paid indirectly by the Mormon Church to publish articles and reviews on the Brigham Young University Website called "FARMS". Daniel is a professor at the Mormon owned Brigham Young University. He spends countless hours writing apologetic material for the LDS Corporation and posting on the apologetic FAIR boards.
Daniel C. Peterson's job as a Mopologist (Mormon Apologist) is to contradict, counteract, suppress, withhold and dismiss any claims made by persons outside the LDS Church (read: Anti-Mormon). Daniel does this by discrediting authors, creating answers to Mormon questions (such as horses in the Book of Mormon were really tapirs) and dismissing any Anti-Mormon claims in any way he can. He uses his "professor" status and his knowledge of the English language to write works that impress and convince Mormons that his answers are all that is required.
Experience shows that there is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Mormon past or present, in its history, or in its culture that Dr. Peterson and his associates will not excuse, rationalize, downplay, explain away, dismiss, or ignore, as a means to support pre-determined conclusions that the Mormon Church is the ONLY "true and living church" (common Mormon phraseology) on the earth. This includes, among other things, Joseph Smiths' lying and philandering, murder of innocents, Gordon Hinkley's repudiation of long-held "divine" teachings, racism, sexism, homophobia, anachronisms and blatant errors in divine texts, wholesale plagiarism in divine texts, uncharitable practices and statements of "divinely inspired" men, personality cults, etc., etc. In short, many, many things that decent and moral people (including Mormons in other contexts) find objectionable.
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.
| 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"
Article Archived: Sep 1, 2005, at 09:49 AM
Stored Under Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Anonymous |  | |
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...
| | | Dan Peterson Loves To Hear His Own Words, But Misses The Point Entirely.
Article Archived: Sep 1, 2005, at 01:00 PM
Stored Under Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Anonymous | | |
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"
Article Archived: Sep 7, 2005, at 12:12 PM
Stored Under Topic: DANIEL C. PETERSON
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Anonymous | | |
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, naοve, 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. 18488) 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 youre 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 youre 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 dont 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.
Im not sure what the timetable for your investigation is. Ill be in Washington DC this next week, on business relating to the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. (Anyway, thats my story, and Im sticking by it.) And then, the week before Thanksgiving, Ill be in Philadelphia, at an academic conference there relating to Near Eastern studies. (Or perhaps Ill be somewhere else entirely, lying about Mormonism. Pending the outcome of your work, nobody will know for certain.) I probably wont pay much attention to my e-mail during those trips, but Ill be on pins and needles until youre 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 Im employed by Brigham Young University is scarcely classified information: Im listed in University catalogues, in the Universitys telephone directory, and on the Universitys website (among other places). Im 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. Im sure that youre 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:
"Im aware of the common assumption among a certain class of critics of the Church that Im a mendacious mercenary hack who cares nothing for the truth. Im 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 is really having a difficult time being convincing over at the FAIR board today.
He is now resorting to, for all those who disagree with him, the various degrees in whatever studies he has completed. It is worth the laughter to review his desparate attempts at being convincing.
With all the business ventures I have been involved with, the first sign to not "partner up with someone" is when they have to list their degrees as opposed to their peer recognized accomplishments.
But that is why, after all his studies, he is still but an "associate professor" in some obscure department at BYU. What the hell does one do with his degree? Why does one go into it in the first place unless they know what they have really been asked to do for their paycheck is post all day at an lds message board!
His total today (so far): 14 posts. (is BYU in session or what?)
As the time tested example has demonstrated: "Those who can do, those who can't teach".
Editor Note: This is typical behavior of Daniel C. Peterson. If anyone of you watch the show on ABC called "Boston Legal", William Shatner plays a big-wig attorney named "Denny Crane". Daniel C. Peterson totally reminds me of this character. Denny Crane walks around saying his own name to everyone. Daniel is the same way. He is constantly listing his achievements as if anything he posts is validated by doing such. The unfortunate part for Daniel is that his credibility goes as far as the ficticious Denny Crane. Nobody outside of Mormonism is listening to the bald professor of BYU.
Personally I've found the easiest way to get rid of Danny boy is to tell him to F*&k off.
| |
