Peterson Misleading Again

[_harmony]

The 1st Watson letter exists, with proof that it exists were that to be required. Thus there is no credibility problem associated with the 1st letter or the possessers of that letter (who are the Tanners, if I'm reading this correctly).

It seems to me that the problem with the 2nd Watson letter is that there is no proof, outside the word of a few selected individuals with a vested interest in maintaining its existence, that the letter does indeed exist. Thus the credibility of the 2nd letter and the witnesses to the 2nd letter is suspect.

Solving this problem is simple: produce the 2nd letter. Not a copy, not the text... produce the letter itself and all these questions go away. Don't produce the letter itself, and the questions and disbelief will continue, and the credibility of the both the letter and the witnesses will continue to be called into question.

[_beastie]

I have tried to explain this many times to no avail, but will briefly try again. Maybe it will help to use a nonmormon example.

Let’s say “Joe” was raised an active Muslim. It just never made much sense to him, logically or spiritually. Then someone gave him a Book of Mormon, and he became convinced IT was true. So he stopped being an active Muslim and started eating pork. Why not? He no longer believed it was contrary to God’s will.

If Muslims act anything like Mormons, they will use his eating of pork as “proof” he left due to sin.

Or let’s say “Sally” was raised an active Muslim. Like Joe, it never made much sense to her, logically or spiritually. She tried to force herself to believe for quite a while for her family’s sake, but she didn’t really believe, so when she went away to school she stopped wearing a burqa and even swam at a pool in a bathing suit. When she returned home on breaks, she’d do what her parents wanted her to do, but she didn’t believe any of it. Eventually she got brave enough to ‘come out of the closet’ with her disbelief.

If Muslims act anything like Mormons, they will use her bathing suit as “proof” she left due to sin.

As also has been pointed out every time this conversation comes up, Mormons don’t need to leave the church to sin, they sin all the time while remaining believers. I am close to an LDS family in which almost all of the adult children are still active believers, and it didn’t come out until they were all adults that the father had molested his daughter from her infancy to her early teens. He was also having an affair during this period. He got ex’d for the affair, eventually, but continued to remain active the whole time he was ex’d until he was rebaptized. He’s a temple worker today.

For every story that DCP, or anyone else tells about how while they suppose it’s “possible” to leave solely for “intellectual” reasons, everyone THEY know left due to sin, as show in the example they provide, I, or someone else, can provide a story about an active member who NEVER left or lost faith who engaged in the same or equally problematic behavior.

DCP claims that the teaching that apostates lose faith due to personal weakness is one he’s never heard (and he’s ignored the thread I linked in which I provided several examples of GA teaching this very thing across the pulpit), and yet he repeats it perfectly. So I guess they don’t even have to be taught it. It just comes naturally.

When I first left the church I thought this was a unique LDS phenomenon, that members believed people lose faith due to sin or other personal weaknesses, and then I read a book by an ex-JW and learned the JWs do the exact same thing. LOL!

People don’t have to spend years studying church history to leave due to “intellectual” reasons, by the way. Or they don’t have to study church history AT ALL. My boyfriend started to lose his faith simply due to reading the scriptures. He hadn’t quite learned how to turn off the critical, analytical portion of his brain when he read scriptures, so would regularly stop and say ‘WHAT THE HECK”?????? Ironically, the more he read the scriptures, the less faith he had in the whole shebang. But he went “inactive” for years before actively deciding he wasn’t even going to try to force himself to believe again. Now, if a believing Mormon were to tell this story, it would become “being an active Mormon was too hard for him so he lost faith”.

See how it goes?

And Mormons complain constantly that critics won’t allow them to speak for themselves about what Mormons believe, and yet have ZERO qualms about proclaiming that people really did leave for sin, no matter what they may say about it themselves.

My case is somewhat unusual because I didn’t do ANYTHING that could constitute a clear Mormon “sin” for about two years after I left the church, at which time I began to socially drink alcohol. But before I gave up completely on the church, I spent several months only “semi active” – I no longer believed, but still attended now and then. I certainly no longer paid tithing. So even in my case, there would STILL be Mormons who claimed I left because I didn’t want to pay tithing or because I was too lazy to go to church.

This is why communication between the two sides is hopeless, in my opinion. Mormons don’t even recognize why this is offensive.

I’ll end with a quote from the thread I linked earlier, because I’m pretty confident DCP didn’t bother to click and read it:

The following are quotes from an approved church manual:
12 Preventing Personal Apostasy 35554, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 12: Preventing Personal Apostasy, 79

Apostasy is turning away from the Church and ultimately denying the faith.

What is that which turns people away from this Church? Very trifling affairs are generally the commencement of their divergence from the right path. If we follow a compass, the needle of which does not point correctly, a very slight deviation in the beginning will lead us, when we have traveled some distance, far to one side of the true point for which we are aiming (DBY, 83).

If the Saints neglect to pray, and violate the day that is set apart for the worship of God, they will lose his Spirit. If a man shall suffer himself to be overcome with anger, and curse and swear, taking the name of the Deity in vain, he cannot retain the Holy Spirit. In short, if a man shall do anything which he knows to be wrong, and repenteth not, he cannot enjoy the Holy Spirit, but will walk in darkness and ultimately deny the faith(DBY, 85).

It is most astonishing to every principle of intelligence that any man or woman will close their eyes upon eternal things after they have been made acquainted with them, and let the … things of this world, the lusts of the eye, and the lusts of the flesh, entangle their minds and draw them one hair’s breadth from the principles of life (DBY, 82).

It was said here this morning that no person ever apostatized, without actual transgression. Omission of duty leads to commission (DBY, 82).

Does teaching in actual church manuals, in lessons meant for every adult in the church to hear, that “no person ever apostatized without actual transgression” constitute a “drumbeat”? Would DCP “allow” the church manual to be used in his ward that contained these statements?

[_antishock8]

Oh, well praise be to Jesus. Dan is fighting the good fight here on this board. Lord knows He needs people like Dan to post on this forum, . . . You think you're doing something speshul here on some obscure Internet forum, fighting away for your god. Meanwhile, your god really doesn't give a s*** about that girl getting raped and mutilated. It's her "trial" in this life... And yours, apparently, is to post incessantly on Mormon forums, . . . [SNIP!]

antishock8:

Please keep in mind that Daniel Peterson is just as welcome on this message board as anyone else.

I would never insinuate otherwise. I'm just commenting on the utter waste of his time as a professor, and as a human being fighting some ridiculous fight for a lie just because he's comfortable. It's vile.

[_harmony]

I would never insinuate otherwise. I'm just commenting on the utter waste of his time as a professor, and as a human being fighting some ridiculous fight for a lie just because he's comfortable. It's vile.

It's his time, his life, his choice. I don't think that makes him or his choices vile. What makes you think you are qualified to judge what is vile or not vile, for anyone other than yourself?

[_antishock8]

It's his time, his life, his choice. I don't think that makes him or his choices vile. What makes you think you are qualified to judge what is vile or not vile, for anyone other than yourself?

Well, der. Adults have the ability to discern what is a lie, what isn't, what is vile, and what isn't. This isn't some sort of special power or ability one needs to possess in order to make a judgement call. Joseph Smith was clearly a con man. To defend this in the manner this man does is, indeed, a vile practice. He practices deceit, is paid to do it by his employer that has a vested interested in keeping people duped, and this man goes to sleep every night knowing what he is doing. He is a deceiver. That is not a good thing. He needs to stop being a deceiver, and actually do something that elevates humanity rather than enslave it. Yet another religious snow job isn't the answer to our ills, Harmony.

[_harmony]

Well, der. Adults have the ability to discern what is a lie, what isn't, what is vile, and what isn't. This isn't some sort of special power or ability one needs to possess in order to make a judgement call. Joseph Smith was clearly a con man. To defend this in the manner this man does is, indeed, a vile practice. He practices deceit, is paid to do it by his employer that has a vested interested in keeping people duped, and this man goes to sleep every night knowing what he is doing. He is a deceiver. That is not a good thing. He needs to stop being a deceiver, and actually do something that elevates humanity rather than enslave it. Yet another religious snow job isn't the answer to our ills, Harmony.

Who are you to decide what anyone needs? Someone made you king of the world and no one told me?

He does what he does; you do what you do. He shows more class than you do, simply because he doesn't descend to your level of discourse. Your rhetoric and style do your cause no good. Whether he is deceived or a deceiver is not for you to say; you aren't in charge of his life, nor are you in charge of the lives of anyone he comes in contact with (unless you're sending your children to BYU, of course, which seems hypocritical at best if indeed that is true). And his character has no bearing on his arguments.

Attack his ideas, not him. If you have to descend to name calling and character attacks, you've lost the argument.

[_antishock8]

Who are you to decide what anyone needs? Someone made you king of the world and no one told me?

He does what he does; you do what you do. He shows more class than you do, simply because he doesn't descend to your level of discourse. Your rhetoric and style do your cause no good. Whether he is deceived or a deceiver is not for you to say; you aren't in charge of his life, nor are you in charge of the lives of anyone he comes in contact with (unless you're sending your children to BYU, of course, which seems hypocritical at best if indeed that is true). And his character has no bearing on his arguments.

Attack his ideas, not him. If you have to descend to name calling and character attacks, you've lost the argument.

I do attack his ideas. I call them lies because they're lies. Who are YOU to judge ME??? Huh??? Give me a break, Harmony. We all judge each other, all the time. Everyone judges everyone else. It's the way things are. I have every right to call a con man a con man, just as you have every right to call me whatever you think you need to call me.

I judge him because he's judgemental. I judge him because he's a deceiver. He judges me because that's what he does. I'm not sure why your panties are in a bind, but get over yourself. If Mr. Peterson were truly interested in genuine dicourse he wouldn't frequent the Telestial forum. He comes here to pick fights, condescend, and generally entertain himself. Mission accomplished.

The same can be said of many other Mormon, non-Mormon, and ex-Mormon posters. Look in the mirror, honey.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The 1st Watson letter exists, with proof that it exists were that to be required. Thus there is no credibility problem associated with the 1st letter or the possessers of that letter (who are the Tanners, if I'm reading this correctly).

It seems to me that the problem with the 2nd Watson letter is that there is no proof, outside the word of a few selected individuals with a vested interest in maintaining its existence, that the letter does indeed exist. Thus the credibility of the 2nd letter and the witnesses to the 2nd letter is suspect.

Not really. Shirley Ricks and Bill Hamblin and I (to say nothing of our source checker at the time, whose name I, at least, no longer recall) all enjoy reputations, I would judge, as responsible people of integrity, whose word is generally accepted. We're regarded as shameless liars only in such places as this and the so-called "Recovery" board -- by people who don't know us, on the basis, very largely, of obvious hostility to our religious beliefs.

Unless one presumes us to be conscious deceivers who didn't scruple at forging a letter to support our ideological position and then falsely attributing it, publicly and in print (and, it must be said, at considerable potential risk to our employment at BYU and our membership in the Church), to the Office of the First Presidency -- or, alternatively, unless one views us as so staggeringly incompetent or partisan that, even pooling our efforts, we were unable or unwilling to quote a brief letter (two sentences long) without introducing changes that grossly distorted its intent -- the reasonable response to the appearance of the letter in Professor Hamblin's edited and source-checked article would be to assume that it was real and that it said what it was quoted as saying.

Solving this problem is simple: produce the 2nd letter. Not a copy, not the text... produce the letter itself and all these questions go away. Don't produce the letter itself, and the questions and disbelief will continue, and the credibility of the both the letter and the witnesses will continue to be called into question.

Not, I think, by reasonable people without an overmastering hostile agenda.

In the case of the first Watson letter, all you folks really have is a purported reproduction of it in a publication from the Tanners. If, however, the same hyperskepticism were directed toward the Tanners that is aimed at Dr. Ricks, Dr. Hamblin, and myself, it would be quickly realized that creating a reasonably convincing replica of First Presidency letterhead for reproduction in a publication produced in-house wouldn't really be much more difficult than simply forging the document's text. (I presume that nobody on this thread has actually physically examined the original of Watson letter #1 -- which itself wouldn't be all that difficult to create to a level that would fool all but trained forensic document examiners. Do we even know for a fact that the Tanners didn't throw it away or mislay it? I don't.) Yet you accept the first Watson letter without question.

It's striking, harmony, that, whereas you characterize Drs. Hamblin and Ricks and myself as "a few selected individuals with a vested interest in maintaining [Watson letter #2's] existence," there is not a whiff of a hint that the Tanners themselves were, in very much the same way, "a few selected individuals with a vested interest in maintaining [Watson letter #1's] existence." While Bill, Shirley, and I are very possibly dishonest partisans with a motive to lie and commit brazen fraud, the Tanners seem to have been simple disinterested pursuers of truth and their integrity is unquestioned. The double standard is embarrassingly blatant.

I think it's unfortunate that Professor Hamblin misplaced the second Watson letter. However, I'm not his office manager, and I had no control over it. Does a copy exist somewhere in the Maxwell Institute offices? Possibly, but I doubt it. After Dr. Ricks (our production editor) and our source checker were done assuring the accuracy of its transcription in Professor Hamblin's article, there would be no real reason for them to keep it on file.

In any event, literally the only place that I've ever been where it's been seriously alleged that Dr. Hamblin, Dr. Ricks, and/or myself forged the letter or, either through blithering incompetence or fanatical partisan zeal, so distorted its two-sentence text as to turn its meaning on its head, is here on this board, among perhaps half a dozen deeply hostile critics. Nobody else, to my knowledge, has insinuated this very serious accusation against us. Despite my deep disagreement with the Tanners, I have never made a corresponding charge against them, nor, to my knowledge, has anybody connected with the Maxwell Institute -- regarding this or any other issue. I'm entirely confident that Watson letter #1 exists, just as they say.

[_Daniel Peterson]

For every story that DCP, or anyone else tells about how while they suppose it’s “possible” to leave solely for “intellectual” reasons, everyone THEY know left due to sin, as show in the example they provide

I've expressly said, several times, on this thread, that I know people who claim to have left for purely intellectual reasons and that I have no reason to doubt their claim.

DCP claims that the teaching that apostates lose faith due to personal weakness is one he’s never heard

I haven't said that.

You seem to want to distort what I've said in order to fight with me about it.

I'm not interested.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Consider that the original reasons may have been intellectual or spiritual. Then, the process of recalibrating one's moral compass might get ugly and some wild oats are sown and mistakes made. Seems like human nature. Yet, the reasons were not sin and when the dust settles, the person may find a moral compass calibrated quite well and living a productive life that would be viewed as moral to most people.

I'm aware of that possibility, and have no doubt that it occurs.

I don't think that there's one single "apostasy model." There are several routes out of the Church just as there are various routes in.

I trust that you aren't tempted, in the Beastie manner, to try to assimilate me to some Platonic archetype of Offensive Mormon Attitudes toward Apostates without listening to what I actually say. I expect more from you than that.

I simply don't believe that most people are intellectuals.

One can have intellectual reasons without being an "intellectual". Many of the issues we hear about (polygamy etc) are easily understood and count as rational reasons even for those who aren't "intellectuals". Also, most people are capable of mustering basic incredulity concerning what they may come to see as excessively outlandish beliefs.

Besides intellectual reasons, there are reasons of the heart (the temple ceremony felt wrong etc.), or reasons of experience such as noticing some ineffectiveness of the "gospel" in their own lives.

I think you can grasp my point.

In my experience, most people really don't drop out of activity because of "ideas." They do so because they prefer waterskiing on Sunday, like a cool beer in the evening, get pregnant out of marriage and simply fade away, want to sleep in, etc. This seems to me so obvious as to be wholly uncontroversial. You can try to portray it as reasoned dissent from Mormon teachings, but it doesn't seem to me genuinely to rise to that level.