The DCP 'Outreach' Thread

[_Kishkumen]

Unlikely. Someone would have to love him enough to have sex with him.

Really? The two don't necessarily go together, logically speaking.

In any case, I am certain someone did love him enough to do so: Sister Peterson.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Has anyone considered the possibility Simon might be Dan's son?

That would be a total mindcrew for me, and probably leave me a shattered person for some years to come.

[_Blixa]

Has anyone considered the possibility Simon might be Dan's son?

I thought nobody could make a better post on this thread than Emily Smith, but, damn! consiglieri did it!

[_harmony]

Oh, c'mon people! Y'all are showing your youth! Good grief!

He wasn't always in his late 50's, going bald, or sporting a bit of a middle age spread. He was once (I'm sure) a young handsome man with great potential. He fell in love with a (I'm sure) lovely young lady and they got married and had a family.

We should all respect that.

[_Simon Belmont]

Oh, c'mon people! Y'all are showing your youth! Good grief!

He wasn't always in his late 50's, going bald, or sporting a bit of a middle age spread. He was once (I'm sure) a young handsome man with great potential. He fell in love with a (I'm sure) lovely young lady and they got married and had a family.

We should all respect that.

You are absolutely right. For a fun look into the past, here is a reunion site for the BYU Jerusalem Winter Semester 1978.

http://jerusalem.nielsonpi.com/group.html

[_emilysmith]

Simon, you are so focused on minutiae, here, and replying line by line that you are missing the point. I really hate to respond in the fashion you do (line by line) but I'll try stooping to your level. But first:

1. Dr. Peterson doesn't need you to defend him.
2. You are, in fact, a hypocrite because your efforts to belittle people are riddled all over this board.
3. The world laughs at Mormonism. I didn't say Christianity (which many people still find ridiculous) and I didn't mention the Pope (who, of course, is NEVER subject to ridicule, right?). From mainstream Christianity, to fundamentalists with bomb shelters in Wyoming, even to the most oblivious of atheists, even to Hindus and Muslims... everyone is laughing at the Mormon church.
4. The internet is a place where people can criticize anonymously, and you can expect (be it right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent) people to take full advantage of that anonymity. People who use their real life names are at a disadvantage and had better be extra careful their words stand up under scrutiny.

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.

I do not necessarily need to defend anyone. I am calling out hypocrisy where I see it.

I called out hypocrisy where I saw it. Shall I comb through all of your posts to look for personal attacks? Will I find none at all?

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.

As a moral voice on this board, it is my duty to point out such things. My intention is not to "attack" Eric, but to ask for an explanation, which is all I have done.

Moral voice? If you say so. What ever happened to turn the other cheek? Humility? Not judging others? Isn't the real responsibility of moral authority to set a good example?

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.

How do you define "well deserved?" So the guy has a self-deprecating sense of humor, so what? I have never witness Dr. Peterson being "horrible" to people without first being the recipient of malevolence.

You know you can't defend Dr. Peterson's words, which is why you have already tried to shift away from discussing it in another post. He knows what he is and what he has done, and so he has adopted a strategy to counter the bad press he has caused himself. If you have not witnessed it, I can tell you that I have... more than once. For every post I write, I have read thousands. If you notice in the MADB quotes thread, I had quoted from cinepro back from 2004. Even though I haven't been around as long as most people here, it doesn't mean that I haven't been catching up. I will admit his behavior has gotten better over time, but a lot of his less mature responses are captured indefinitely on the web.

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.

Clearly you haven't met Dr. Peterson.

No, I have not. Are you saying faking being a nice person in real life excuses being rude and obnoxious on the internet? Is your God unaware of what happens online? Many people would suggest that the written word is the real insight into a person's psyche.

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.

I agree. Does that make it right? No.

Was that my argument? That it is good or right? I have a much more fatalistic view of the world than you do. Practicality and human nature win out over right and wrong everyday, even if you are Mormon.

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.

People don't laugh at Christian beliefs? I disagree wholeheartedly.

Simon, you have proven, without a doubt, that you have no idea about what is going on in the world around you. I recommend you go to 4chan's random board and start a thread saying that you are a Christian, and you want to know what they think of you.

Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute... magic underwear?

Oh, you mean like the Pope's liturgical vestments?

Yes.

baptizing the dead?

An early Christian practice.

So? People still find it weird and ridicule it.

horses?

What about them? I don't get it.

Yeah, we know. That is because you are Mormon.

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.

Critics created the need for apologetics, Emily. No critics = no apologetics.

Simon, are you pretending to be stupid, or are you really that dumb? Do you know where the word apologetics comes from? It comes from Apologia (from Greek απολογία, "speaking in defense"). It arises in any subject where one must defend their position. Are you suggesting that no one with a religious belief should ever have to defend their position? If so, there are some countries in the Middle East that may be more appropriate to your lifestyle.

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?

Now that's just a silly question. That is like asking if The Journal of Law and Society accepts credible evidence for law from The New England Journal of Medicine.

Are you suggesting that Nature has nothing to do with archeology? Are you suggesting that LDS claims like "the earth was made up of other planets, and that's why there are dinosaur bones" isn't relevant to Science? Ok. Would you feel better if I mentioned:

The American Journal for Archeology
Arion
Berkeley Archaeology
Journal of Field Archaeology
Journal of the Archaeological Society

Do you think they would assign the same credibility to FARMS research as FARMS does? If so, we can start submitting articles today.

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.

Oh, you mean all of the high-fiving that goes on here at MDB? Kinda like that?

Yes, the main difference being that 99% of the world agrees with the critics.

But, as you once asked...

Does that make it right?

Do you think it is more or less productive to stoop to your level?

[_Eric]

3. The world laughs at Mormonism. I didn't say Christianity (which many people still find ridiculous) and I didn't mention the Pope (who, of course, is NEVER subject to ridicule, right?). From mainstream Christianity, to fundamentalists with bomb shelters in Wyoming, even to the most oblivious of atheists, even to Hindus and Muslims... everyone is laughing at the Mormon church.

I think I just fell in love.

[_Manfred]

I recommend you go to 4chan's random board and start a thread saying that you are a Christian, and you want to know what they think of you.

Congratulations, Emily. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

[_emilysmith]

I recommend you go to 4chan's random board and start a thread saying that you are a Christian, and you want to know what they think of you.

Congratulations, Emily. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

Why is it dumb? Mr. Belmont doesn't believe that people regularly make fun of Christians. If there is a more godless place on the Internet, I am unaware of it. Making fun of Christianity is one of their pastimes over there, and there are many thousands of them.

Even better, go over there and tell them you are Mormon and want to know what their honest opinion is.

Do you agree with Simon? Do you believe that religion isn't a lightning rod for ridicule? Freedom of speech was envisioned with criticism of religion specifically in mind, and some people are quite clever in how they apply it.

[_Simon Belmont]

1. Dr. Peterson doesn't need you to defend him.

I realize that. I don't even know Dr. Peterson, other than his writings. I am only defending that which is in need of defending. If you began a character assassination thread, I would defend your victim, too.

2. You are, in fact, a hypocrite because your efforts to belittle people are riddled all over this board.

Once provoked, yes, I have engaged in such behavior.

3. The world laughs at Mormonism.

You have no idea what you are talking about. If you believe that "the world laughs at Mormonism" then surely you have some evidence, or you have polled each person in the world to see if the majority laugh at Mormonism... right? I mean, how else could you make such a sweeping generalization?

4. The internet is a place where people can criticize anonymously, and you can expect (be it right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent) people to take full advantage of that anonymity.

And critics can expect to be confronted by apologists. So what?

Moral voice? If you say so. What ever happened to turn the other cheek? Humility? Not judging others? Isn't the real responsibility of moral authority to set a good example?

Those are virtues which, unfortunately, are rare on the Internet, as you have pointed out.

You know you can't defend Dr. Peterson's words, which is why you have already tried to shift away from discussing it in another post.

What words? What are you talking about? What nasty thing has Dr. Peterson done?

He knows what he is and what he has done,

Apparently he is the only one who does.

[color=#4000BF]No, I have not. Are you saying faking being a nice person in real life excuses being rude and obnoxious on the internet?

Well, making a statement like that must mean you have evidence that Dr. Peterson "fakes" being a nice person in real life. Let's have it, emilysmith.

Is your God unaware of what happens online? Many people would suggest that the written word is the real insight into a person's psyche.

Is yours? Are individual moral compasses aware of what happens online? A person's psyche is so much more complex than what they may write on a message board on the Internet. How can you reduce it to such drivel?

Simon, you have proven, without a doubt, that you have no idea about what is going on in the world around you. I recommend you go to 4chan's random board and start a thread saying that you are a Christian, and you want to know what they think of you.

Um... do you hang out at 4Chan? That is very telling.

Yes.

What is your point? That you believe it is "funny" that clothing for religious purposes is used in many religions?

Simon, are you pretending to be stupid, or are you really that dumb? Do you know where the word apologetics comes from? It comes from Apologia (from Greek απολογία, "speaking in defense"). It arises in any subject where one must defend their position. Are you suggesting that no one with a religious belief should ever have to defend their position? If so, there are some countries in the Middle East that may be more appropriate to your lifestyle.

Emily: apologetics, as you have said is "speaking in defense." What would there be to defend if there was no criticism? Critics created apologists. What I am saying is, let there be criticism and let there be apologetics. What I find two-faced is how everyone here cries foul when apologists defend their faith (such as: everyone hating Dr. Peterson for defending his). If critics want to silence apologists, they must silence themselves.

Dr. Peterson cannot be taken seriously.

You will be allowed to make such claims when you have accomplished as much as Dr. Peterson has.

Why? Because the FARMS review doesn't put evidence under the same scrutiny that other real scholarly reviews would.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[color=#4000BF]Are you suggesting that Nature has nothing to do with archeology? Are you suggesting that LDS claims like "the earth was made up of other planets, and that's why there are dinosaur bones" isn't relevant to Science? Ok.

No, Emily. What I am saying is that comparing two academic publications from different disciplines is not the same as comparing two academic publications from the same discipline.

[color=#4000BF]Yes, the main difference being that 99% of the world agrees with the critics.

Emily, look... you can't go around making sweeping generalizations like this. If you wish to provide evidence that "99% of the world agrees with the critics" then you would have to survey each member of "the world" and determine a percentage.