My Experience With Daniel Peterson

[_Hades]

But of course, a story about angels, a gold Bible and such are as ridiculous as are claims of the resurrection or ax heads floating on water.

Wow, I never thought I would agree with you.

[_Milesius]

Thank you for taking the time to "google" me. I appreciate your kindness.

So I take it you are standing by your claims of having the background you announced? I still call BS because your lack of command of the english language and ability to build an argument, unless english is your second language.

I've seen nothing so egregious that would lead me to believe DrW is lying. Speaking for myself (naturally), I won't ask him for "his papers." :-D

[_Milesius]

So now you are calling both Doctor Scratch and me liars - on no basis whatsoever, and in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I said I took your word for it, though your poor critical thinking skills are evidence to the contrary, and I don't see it as relevant at all (other than to brag). I still take your word for it.

Hoo-boy, if this ain't the pot reproaching the kettle, then I don't know what is.

[_Quasimodo]

I've seen nothing so egregious that would lead me to believe DrW is lying. Speaking for myself (naturally), I won't ask him for "his papers." :-D

I agree. There are many on this board that have exceptional CV's. I see no reason to take Dr.W's word as other than factual.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It could be that DCP views the the Mormon experience of others as lesser to his own.

It could be.

I might well be one of the most arrogant and insensitive people around, absolutely indifferent to the lives, thoughts, and feelings of others. It is possible that I pay no attention to anybody's experiences or reflections but my own, and that I see no value in anything offered by anyone else.

That could be.

[_Tchild]

It could be that DCP views the the Mormon experience of others as lesser to his own.

It is possible that I pay no attention to anybody's experiences or reflections but my own, and that I see no value in anything offered by anyone else.

That could be.

Or it could be that you agree with someone's differing experience of Mormonism, but just have never had the time to actually express it in dialog on the internet? You know, time constraints and all.

[_rich kelsey]

Daniel Peterson wrote:

It could be.

I might well be one of the most arrogant and insensitive people around, absolutely indifferent to the lives, thoughts, and feelings of others. It is possible that I pay no attention to anybody's experiences or reflections but my own, and that I see no value in anything offered by anyone else.

That could be.

I am not sure if this is humor or not? I am not going to take on the role of the Holy Ghost and judge your sincerity. Yet, I will share my perspective on your writing style in a manner which is slightly humorous; because I am not trying to offend you:

This is from post of mine today in a thread entitled: “Can we have a writer’s room please:”

Link: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18740&start=42

Ok, I have a sample for analysis; perhaps we can start with this:

"I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims. I don't think it's supposed to do so, either..." (Daniel C. Peterson)

Obviously this statement is pure genius! As an apologist, I am convinced that me claiming, “I don’t think” as further proof of my position on any given matter would hinder people’s faith in my reasoning capabilities.

Yet, if I was dealing with a position which most thinking people would have a hard time believing, then, mentioning that “I don’t think” may provide an answer as to why I hold the position in question.

Also, by spelling out, "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that [subject in question] has not proven its claims.”

To me, the author is painting a picture of a person with a big grin on his face admitting to something somewhat embarrassing, because there is no other way to maintain the position.

So, this first entry may not be about the structure of the text in question, but rather the skill of the author at disarming his readers to believe in something people may not put trust in if they keep their thinking-cap on.

Again, pure genius! It takes a great writer to use the words “I don’t think” as a means to bolster his or her arguments!

One more thing I will add here:

Joseph Smith went about trying to prove Mormonism true by gathering witnesses, having them heft the plates, claiming that bones found were of “Zelph” a white lamanite warrior, etc. Smith certainly did try to use evidence to prove Mormonism.

Therefore, to me, it does not appear that you are holding a position which is consistent with past Mormon leaders.

You make statements which sound a lot like a man running loose with the truth. This is my ‘take.’ Perhaps if you did pay “attention to [some]body's experiences or reflections” it might help you to relate better to your readers?

Rich Kelsey

[_marg]

Pahoron do apologists argue for claims or do they encourage belief based on faith only? Do apologists argue for church claims such as that Nephites truly lived, that the Book of Mormon is historically true?

If you agree that apologists don't limit their role to only encouraging belief based on faith but rather present arguments to warrant belief that Nephites existed as per the Book of Mormon and that the Book of Mormon is true history...then I say those arguments that I've seen have failed to meet a burden of proof to warrant those claims. I'm pleased that you support DCP's cheerful admittance of this.

And this is the point you are resolutely ignoring. They don't "fail" to meet the burden you arbitrarily attempt to impose, because they never tried.

I'm not arbitrarily imposing a burden to proof. The church's publications and those representing the church claim the Book of Mormon is historically true. A burden of proof to warrant those claims and other hasn't been met.

Furthermore, Mormon apologists are not the Church. Whatever you think Mormon apologists are trying to do, they are not acting as servants or agents of the Church.

Those who present claims or make argument have a burden of proof for rational acceptance. The church organization makes claims and arguments via its publications, apologist argue for those claims as do church representative and even the Book of Mormon makes claims and presents arguments for those claims.

Mormon apologetics is mostly a defensive, rather than an affirmative, undertaking. A Latter-day Saint "apologist" is mostly engaged in defending his or her own religious beliefs against attack.

Not true but as I said even the Book of Mormon argues for its claims.

On the (relatively rare) occasions when LDS apologists put forward an affirmative argument of some kind, I for one have never heard them say anything to the effect that chiasmus, or Asherah references, or if-and constructions, or First Temple theology, or ancient Mesoamerican lineage history in the Book of Mormon compel belief, or "conclusively prove" anything.

And I'm not arguing they ever claim conclusive proof.

Rather, however privately excited they may be about such discoveries, their arguments tend to hold no more than that this or that feature is consistent with the Book's claimed origins, and perhaps more so than with alternative theories of those origins.

Right and so they make arguments intended to support a claim that the Book of Mormon is historically true..and that burden to prove has not been met..and I don't mean in it conclusive sense.

That is it, and that is all of it.

So, not only are you collapsing the distinction between "evidence" and "proof," you are also collapsing the distinction between the Church and individual members acting without Church direction.

I haven't collapsed evidence and proof, instead I don't think when one argues a claim hasn't been proved it necessitates a restricted conclusive proof in fact most people don't mean conclusive proof. I haven't collapsed the distinction between the Church and individual members acting without Church..I've talked about individuals arguing or making claim..not a church.

I realise, of course, that in the bigoted little minds of scum, I mean some,

Yes of course those who argue against the church are scum

the Church is some kind of gigantic conspiracy, and no Church member ever does anything at all unless someone from Salt Lake City orders him to do so.

Going off on tangents Pahoran?

In the real world, however, Latter-day Saints are dedicated believers who care very much about their religion, and who prefer not to see it attacked, or allow such attacks to go unanswered.

And your point?

But despite all that, the Church has exactly zero responsibility to "prove" its claims. It has never tried to prove them.

That is simply not true. I've just been reading about Smith sending Harris to Prof Anthon to authenticate the scripts..what are the testimonies doing in the Book of Mormon if not to provide evidence/make an argument?

It is not supposed to prove them.

People can make all sorts of claims ..it's a matter of whether or not they want those claims accepted as true. If they don't care whether others are convinced or not and they appreciate they are offering no reasoning to support their claim..then why as you say should they "prefer not to see it attacked". In your mind it appears that saying to you the claims haven't met a burden of proof is an attack on your religious beliefs. Why care if you know, you aren't interested in establishing rationally the claims you support?

Therefore it is simply untrue -- and rather obviously dishonest -- to assert that it has "failed" to do so.

Whether a claim has failed because no argument has been presented or has failed because a poor unjustified argument has been presented..still means a claim has failed..and saying so is not dishonest.

As Hugh W. Nibley once pointed out, using the DrWertlos approach, we could say that God has "failed" to provide the earth with two moons or give humans gold teeth. Does any rational person not see a problem with the word "failed" in that sentence?

I don't see a problem with the word "failed" I see a problem with the entire claim..from the assumption of God..to claiming something which isn't observed. I suppose this is to tie into a point Tarski made, but I didn't give Tarski's point much thought, because I didn't think logic was the primary issue, I thought use of words was.

I probably won't respond to your next post if you reply..loosing interest.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The church's publications and those representing the church claim the Book of Mormon is historically true. A burden of proof to warrant those claims and other hasn't been met. . . . they make arguments intended to support a claim that the Book of Mormon is historically true..and that burden to prove has not been met.

I'm very, very slightly curious to know what you've read that qualifies you to issue so magisterial a dismissal.

Can you list a dozen or so of the "apologetic" books you've read, and perhaps twenty substantial "apologetic" articles?

And, incidentally, have you actually read the entire Book of Mormon through yet?

Thanks in advance!

[_marg]

I'm very, very slightly curious to know what you've read that qualifies you to issue so magisterial a dismissal.

I thought you cheerfully admit and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims when you were talking to a critic such as myself who says a burden of proof hasn't been met. In that case what I've read is irrelevant. It you have no interest in warranting church claims...I don't need to have read anything.

Can you list a dozen or so of the "apologetic" books you've read, and perhaps twenty substantial "apologetic" articles?

Why? Do they present arguments in an effort to meet a burden of proof to warrant claims?

And, incidentally, have you actually read the entire Book of Mormon through yet?

Dan, since we are not going to carry on conversations why should it matter? I've answered directly already in a post one of two posts away from your posted question in the last 6 months. I don't care what you think with regards to the answer, since I don't discuss with you. I say this sincerely, it doesn't matter what my answer is, whether I read it or not makes no difference it's what I understand that matters.