The DCP 'Outreach' Thread

[_Molok]

Actually no. The church started it. If the church had never existed, the critics would have nothing to criticize.

Wrong. Churches are allowed to exist.

Are you suggesting critics aren't allowed to exist?

[_Simon Belmont]

Are you suggesting critics aren't allowed to exist?

No. I am suggesting that critics are allowed to exist, and that they created the need for apologetics and apologists (like Dr. Peterson). So, Eric created the very thing he hates so much.

[_Ray A]

No. I am suggesting that critics are allowed to exist, and that they created the need for apologetics and apologists (like Dr. Peterson). So, Eric created the very thing he hates so much.

Great logic, Simon. By my rough calculation, Eric would have been about five years old when DCP began active apologetics with RBBM in 1989.

[_Simon Belmont]

No. I am suggesting that critics are allowed to exist, and that they created the need for apologetics and apologists (like Dr. Peterson). So, Eric created the very thing he hates so much.

Great logic, Simon. By my rough calculation, Eric would have been about five years old when DCP began active apologetics with RBBM in 1989.

Let me rephrase: people like Eric created the need for people like Dr. Peterson. They only have themselves to blame.

[_Ray A]

Let me rephrase: people like Eric created the need for people like Dr. Peterson. They only have themselves to blame.

Eric didn't ask to be born into a Mormon environment. He didn't want to live in a Mormon environment. My eldest son told me the other day what a happy childhood he had - Mormon free. I would never have forgiven myself if I'd hauled him off to a "Mormon reformation camp" at the age of 15 because he wasn't living my ideals. No, Simon, people like Eric didn't create people like Peterson; people like Peterson created what people like Eric oppose today - which includes the denial of their agency. Even when I was an occasionally active Mormon I respected my son's right to stay home on Sundays (when he was ten to fifteen years old), because he didn't like the "Church environment". I never forced him to do anything he didn't want to do, which some TBMs may consider "slack". And today, a hard-working business-owner at the age of 32, he tells me about his "happy childhood". How can anyone in Eric's position have had a "happy childhood"?

You have your cart before the horse, which isn't unusual.

[_Simon Belmont]

Eric didn't ask to be born into a Mormon environment.

No one has a choice concerning where they are born. Some children didn't ask to be born to abusive parents. Some children didn't ask to be born in disease and poverty stricken regions of the world. So what?

He didn't want to live in a Mormon environment.

Okay?

My eldest son told me the other day what a happy childhood he had - Mormon free.

I had an exceptionally happy childhood in the LDS Church. It was wonderfully happy! Your point?

I would never have forgiven myself if I'd hauled him off to a "Mormon reformation camp" at the age of 15 because he wasn't living my ideals.

I do not know what you are referring to. There is no such thing as a "Mormon reformation camp."

No, Simon, people like Eric didn't create people like Peterson; people like Peterson created what people like Eric oppose today - which includes the denial of their agency.

How do people like Dr. Peterson create denial of agency?

How can anyone in Eric's position have had a "happy childhood"?

I am unaware of Eric's backstory, did Dr. Peterson molest him? Did Dr. Peterson kill a family member? Did Dr. Peterson rob Eric or his family out of house and home? Tell me, what horrible thing did Dr. Peterson do to poor, innocent Eric.

[_Ray A]

No one has a choice concerning where they are born. Some children didn't ask to be born to abusive parents. Some children didn't ask to be born in disease and poverty stricken regions of the world. So what?

I’ll try to be patient with you (for a time) since you are ignorance personified.

I had an exceptionally happy childhood in the LDS Church. It was wonderfully happy! Your point?

My point is you are not Eric. You seriously think that because you had a happy Mormon childhood, everyone else should, could, or would? I suppose if you owned a McDonalds franchise you’d insist that only chocolate thick shakes be sold because you can’t possibly understand why someone would prefer strawberry? Or, heaven forbid, have a choice?

I do not know what you are referring to. There is no such thing as a "Mormon reformation camp."

Because like I said, you are ignorance personified, topped up with denial of anything that criticises your faith.

How do people like Dr. Peterson create denial of agency?

By suggesting that anyone who disagrees with their brand of faith belongs to “trailer parks”, and are basically low-life scum. By aiding and abetting a Mormon who believes it’s perfectly a-okay to send his/her child to an institution which forces him to read the Book of Mormon or “face the wall”.

I am unaware of Eric's backstory…

Let me finish where I started – you are ignorance personified. And my patience with you on this board is growing thinner, and thinner.

[_emilysmith]

Simon, I find some of your points a little odd. I won't address where you have gone wrong (I think that might be a waste of time, and everyone else seems eager enough for the chance), but I am very curious to know about the need for you to defend Dr. Peterson.

If your point is that Eric is a hypocrite, then you to are a hypocrite for launching such a persistent attack to show everyone that someone else is a hypocrite. Basically, all people are hypocrites, some just hide it better than others.

I like to keep an eye on what goes on in this little corner of geekdom (the world of Mormon Apologetics), and I will say that a lot of the criticism Dr. Peterson gets is well deserved. You can even see in his title and how he talks, that his first strategy is to discredit what people say about his nature by making light of the fact that he is very often pretty horrible to people.

And I don't mean people who have been entrenched in debate for years. He has ridiculed and callously and publicly dismissed a wide variety of people who were sincere and polite in their words and intentions.

For someone who is Mormon and trying to be like Christ, his attitude is often the exact opposite of what should be expected of people who represent the LDS church to a large number of non-mormons. Do you think it would be appropriate for a missionary to act the way Dr. Peterson does? Of course not.

He lacks common courtesy and engages in a great number of dishonest debate tactics. I have definitely learned a little from some of his stuff, but I think, like myself, the world at large would draw very different conclusions from some of his better tidbits.

But ultimately, a lot of that is beside the point.

When you expose your identity on the internet, you had better be prepared to face the consequences. Whether you are a great person who does no wrong, or someone who is constantly screwing up, an online persona is subject to a great deal of scrutiny. There is little defense against large groups of anonymous people who have lots of time on their hands.

Most of the people in the world consider the Mormon religion to be a total joke. I don't say this to be mean, and I am not exaggerating. People laugh at the ridiculous things you believe in. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute... magic underwear? baptizing the dead? horses? Combine this with a very public persona who consistently attacks people and carries on the way Dr. Peterson does... you can only expect disaster.

The only thing that has saved him, so far, is the fact that nobody really cares about Mormon Apologetics. Most atheists don't even know what apologetics are.

Dr. Peterson cannot be taken seriously. Why? Because the FARMS review doesn't put evidence under the same scrutiny that other real scholarly reviews would. How do you think any of those works that they consider "credible evidence" would do if given to Science or Nature scholarly review?

They are all safe in their inner circle, patting themselves on the back and creating more and more proof by verbosity yet generating virtually nothing that is substantial. Sure, this is enough for TBM's who need a little material to work with, but it isn't doing much to increase mankind's understanding of the world at large, and that is what "scholars" should really be doing.

They shouldn't be employing every sophist trick in the book. They shouldn't be worried about belittling the points of views of others, or belittling people, themselves. The evidence should speak for itself. It shouldn't require all of the other extras that come with human weakness.

[_Ray A]

I like to keep an eye on what goes on in this little corner of geekdom (the world of Mormon Apologetics), and I will say that a lot of the criticism Dr. Peterson gets is well deserved. You can even see in his title and how he talks, that his first strategy is to discredit what people say about his nature by making light of the fact that he is very often pretty horrible to people.

And I don't mean people who have been entrenched in debate for years. He has ridiculed and callously and publicly dismissed a wide variety of people who were sincere and polite in their words and intentions.

For someone who is Mormon and trying to be like Christ, his attitude is often the exact opposite of what should be expected of people who represent the LDS church to a large number of non-Mormons. Do you think it would be appropriate for a missionary to act the way Dr. Peterson does? Of course not.

He lacks common courtesy and engages in a great number of dishonest debate tactics.....

They shouldn't be employing every sophist trick in the book. They shouldn't be worried about belittling the points of views of others, or belittling people, themselves. The evidence should speak for itself. It shouldn't require all of the other extras that come with human weakness.

(My emphasis)

The real problem with Daniel C. Peterson is that his insatiable EGO has not yet learned the lesson of 1st Corinthians 13. And until it does, he'd be better off cowering in the Celestial Forum rather than making a mess of it elsewhere. That he seems to have learned.

This is a man who has spent 20+years in so-called apologetics, yet if Christ himself came to his doorstep, he'd probably ask him if he'd read the latest edition of The Review, and would feel offended if Christ didn't address him as "Dr. Peterson".

[_Kishkumen]

I am aware. That, however, is off topic. I want Eric to explain to me how he justifies doing exactly what he criticizes Dr. Peterson for.

Did Eric contact Dr. Peterson's family to inform them what a jerk he is being online?

Eric, you of all people should know better.