SeN: "the crazy woman school of anti-Mormonism"

[Tom]

Merriam-Webster (m-w.com) defines spate as:

1 : FRESHET, FLOOD
2 a : a large number or amount
b : a sudden or strong outburst : RUSH

I don’t recall a “very noticeable spate of very poor books, written by women, attacking the [sic] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” A “spate” indicates a flood or a large number of books. Five, ten, fifteen books?

Here’s a relevant article by Introvigne published during the approximate time period: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 01_165.pdf

I have my doubts that Introvigne made the exact comment claimed by Peterson. Introvigne very well may have referred to the “crazy school of anti-Mormonism.” But I don’t know that he referred to a “crazy woman school.”

Like others, I’d like to know the members of this alleged “crazy woman school.”

[I Have Questions]

As well as Peterson explaining which female authors he and Massimo considered to be “crazy”, I’m also interested in which books Massimo and Peterson consider “anti-Mormon”. Is it simply enough to write a book outlining factual, but awkward, events and decisions that are embarrassing to the Church of today?

As an example - much of what Sandra Tanner has written (who may be one example that Peterson and Massimo had in mind) has subsequently been confirmed as accurate. Can something be both factually accurate, and anti-Mormon? I’m hoping Peterson will answer that question, along with all the others stacking up against him in this thread.

[Doctor Scratch]

Back in the Good Ol' Days, someone--e.g., Kevin Graham--would have actually emailed Introvigne to ask him whether he'd made the remark. I agree with Dr. Robbers that, if he really *did* say that, it'd be in his interest to lie about it. But like others, I also have serious doubts as to whether he actually said it, and wonder if this is another case of Second Watson Letter Syndrome, where the Afore is actually mis-remembering what happened. Frankly, it's a lot easier to imagine that he, Hamblin, Midgley, and Introvigne were hanging out and Midgley or one of the other apologists said this, and Introvigne sort of nodded politely. This sort of comment would be totally in keeping with other remarks Midgley has made over the years.

[drumdude]

I finished The Texas Murders very, very, very early this morning, while at the hospital for the scheduled major surgery of a family member. (Sorry, Peterson Obsession Board. That’s all you’re going to get about it, so you’ll just have to free associate, with malice, as you usually do.).

Paranoid. Delusion. Grandeur. Hyperbole. Poison. Well.

[Marcus]

I finished The Texas Murders very, very, very early this morning, while at the hospital for the scheduled major surgery of a family member. (Sorry, Peterson Obsession Board. That’s all you’re going to get about it, so you’ll just have to free associate, with malice, as you usually do.).

Paranoid. Delusion. Grandeur. Hyperbole. Poison. Well.

Lol. So he's thrilled about a trashy novel he picked up. It's no surprise he apparently inherited it from the lost and found of a cruise, because every patterson piece of trash has a predictable plot, uses the same stereotypes, is full of idiot level writing and adds exactly nothing to the world of literature. Even Patterson himself has admitted his process is nothing more than a rote moneymaker. If I believed the Afore that he enjoys british mysteries I would recommend p.d. james, Elizabeth George, Ruth Rendell and even Martha Grimes before I would recommend any of the mass produced slop Patterson churns out. And of course there are the 88 some odd books written by the incomparable Dame Agatha Christie.

There is no need to free associate, it is an absolute fact that if he is reading Patterson before he has read anything from that inestimable list of all star British mystery authors, then his ability to recognize good literature is in serious doubt. And if he has read legitimate british mysteries before, then shame on him for promoting trash when he should know better.

[Marcus]

On another note, i find this odd

My wife and I often like to relax, just before bedtime, with a good, wholesome murder mystery (often, but not always, British).

DCP and his wife? Continuing...

I read relatively little fiction, but very occasionally I’ve been known to binge on mystery authors, and I concluded my most recent such binge just prior to the end of our stay for most of this past month in Alaska and British Columbia (on which, more immediately below). I would say that I like such mysteries late at night because they help me to switch my mind from more serious things that would otherwise hinder my going to sleep. And that would be true. But the fact is that I simply like them. They give me something fun to anticipate for the end of the day.

None of that explains how he and his wife enjoy these mysteries.

[I Have Questions]

It fascinates me that Peterson desires so strongly to complain about this board commenting on his blog articles, that he will stoop very low indeed in order to generate the attention that he wants to complain about getting. And he thinks the joke is on us.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

As well as Peterson explaining which female authors he and Massimo considered to be “crazy”, I’m also interested in which books Massimo and Peterson consider “anti-Mormon”.

Perhaps one of them was Sonia Johnson, Housewife to Heretic? She veered pretty hard into feminism coming to the conclusion that patriarchy has domination as its central political ethos and traditional institutions (church, state, marriage, and many corporations) reinforce one another’s power structures. I can see a yokel like Peterson reading such a thing and concluding it’s crazy.

[Physics Guy]

The Peterson's probably watch mysteries on TV.

I guess a lot of people would describe whodunnits as wholesome, but it’s weird if you think about it.

EDIT: AUTOCORRECT ADDS THE APOSTROPHE IN “The Peterson's”. This is autoincorrect.

[Gadianton]

This is a multibagger betrayal. While I realize most won't have sympathy for this angle, it's still important to cover for the sake of a full review of the incident. This is a betrayal of the guys. What's said in the company of other guys stays within the network of the guys, even if the guys don't know each other or even like each other. This is a bond as deep as the strong nuclear force. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just pointing to a reality. In the company of the guys, if an off-color or inappropriate humor takes place or if sins are admitted to -- short of participation in a serious crime and even then who knows-- in the natural order of things nobody is going to say anything to the wrong people. Like, let's say apologist B told an off-color joke in the presence of his fellow apologists. Perhaps apologist J, for instance, heard the joke and told it to his cousin and said, "yeah, I got that one from Hamblin," and the cousin shakes his head and laughs. He tells his buddies, one of them is a closet apostate and thinks the guy is a hypocrite but isn't going to say anything. It's highly unusual for a guy to rat out another dude with no pressures or real benefits on the table. Assuming the account is accurate, it's a major betrayal to the principles of male bonding. You have to be quite unwell mentally to say publicly in front of everyone including Bill's wife, "I have to tell you all this hilarious dirty joke Bill told me the other day." Or putting it on the Internet attributing it to Bill for everyone to see. This just doesn't happen within 2 standard deviations of normal psychology.