Daniel in Denial's Den...?

[Guest]

But I also realized that the Book of Mormon cautions us powerfully against racism and undue ethnic pride.
(Peterson - Mormon Times article 23rd June 2011)

21And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
2nd Nephi 5: Cautioning us powerfully against racism?

Have a young man read it.
“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally...''
Current Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3 - Cautioning young men powerfully against racism?

Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.
Official Declaration From 1978 - Did the Prophets before 1978 miss the powerful cautioning against racism in the Book of Mormon?

[_badseed]

Did the Prophets before 1978 miss the powerful cautioning against racism in the Book of Mormon?

Sure. Isn't that what a lot of apologetic arguments suggest or even say outright— that the Brethren missed it or were wrong?

I don't really get though why the membership would ever think they should listen to apologists (zero stewardship over them) over the prophets of God.

[_DrW]

Now and then I find myself feeling some empathy for DCP. One such time was last week when he said that he was sad that his reconciliation thread ("My Experiences with Daniel Peterson") had run off the rails.

Last week I also felt that I had been a bit hard on him for his quote that I had used for a signature line for over a year, so I took the quote down because he was getting so much flak over it.

Then I read something like his June 23 Mormon Times article, and realize that he deserves all of the criticism he gets for his apologetic nonsense.

I know that he is just doing his job. He must find it embarrassing to have to write the crap he writes.

I feel sorry for him.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Then I read something like his June 23 Mormon Times article, and realize that he deserves all of the criticism for his apologetic nonsense he gets.

I know that he is just doing his job.

It's not my job.

He must find it embarrassing to have to write the crap he writes.

I don't "have to write" it, I don't find it embarrassing, and I have so little respect for your reading and reasoning abilities that your opinion of what I write carries no weight with me whatever. (Sorry.)

I feel sorry for him.

To be condescended to by so legendarily humble a fellow as yourself is quite an experience!

[_RayAgostini]

...so I took the quote down because he was getting so much flak over it.

The truth is that both Tarski and DCP clearly showed how simple logic failed you on this occasion. As for taking it down because he was "getting so much flak over it"; if you were so convinced about the rightness and logic of it, why didn't you leave it? You really expect me to believe that "compassion" overwhelmed your "logic"? LOL.

[Guest]

...so I took the quote down because he was getting so much flak over it.

The truth is that both Tarski and DCP clearly showed how simple logic failed you on this occasion. As for taking it down because he was "getting so much flak over it"; if you were so convinced about the rightness and logic of it, why didn't you leave it? You really expect me to believe that "compassion" overwhelmed your "logic"? LOL.

No, I don't, actually. It appears that many of the faithful on this board simply refuse to believe anything that those of us who have escaped say which might be at odds with their beliefs.

If you will re-read the "My Experience with DCP thread", I think you will see I pretty much conceded that there was no internal inconsistency in DCP's quip (Tarski was right in that). However, since implicit assumption in the quip (that Mormons are not failing to prove their truth claims) was patently ridiculous, I maintain that his quip was a great example of apologetic obfuscation and nonsense (my opening position in the discussion) and have left the quip as my signature line on the other board.

Let me ask you three questions.

- Internal logic or lack thereof notwithstanding, do you think that the June 23 article by DCP was helpful as a piece of apologetic writing?

- Do you believe that the great "insight" that DCP shared with the faithful in that article was valid and that he had actually glimpsed some "special knowledge" hidden in plain sight in the Book of Mormon to be "revealed" only to those special few (like DCP) who were willing to read the passage as many times as it took to "see it" (convince themselves that the text of the Book of Mormon is not actually as silly as it appears)?

- Can you see how someone who is skeptical of LDS truth claims regarding the Book of Mormon would have that view strongly reinforced by DCP's Mormon Times article?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

...so I took the quote down because he was getting so much flak over it.

The truth is that both Tarski and DCP clearly showed how simple logic failed you on this occasion. As for taking it down because he was "getting so much flak over it"; if you were so convinced about the rightness and logic of it, why didn't you leave it? You really expect me to believe that "compassion" overwhelmed your "logic"? LOL.

Hello Mr. Ray,

Uh. No.

In fact, the more you argue the point the more it appears your IQ wouldn't make a respectable earthquake. Good day sir.

V/R
Dr. Cameron "Still can't believe those two are arguing their point." NC for Me

[_RayAgostini]

Let me ask you three questions.

- Internal logic or lack thereof notwithstanding, do you think that the June 23 article by DCP was helpful as a piece of apologetic writing?

- Do you believe that the great "insight" that DCP shared with the faithful in that article was valid and that he had actually glimpsed some "special knowledge" hidden in plain sight in the Book of Mormon to be "revealed" only to those special few (like DCP) who were willing to read the passage as many times as it took to "see it" (convince themselves that the text of the Book of Mormon is not actually as silly as it appears)?

- Can you see how someone who is skeptical of LDS truth claims regarding the Book of Mormon would have that view strongly reinforced by DCP's Mormon Times article?

I'll take the quote in context as it is in the Book of Mormon, because you seem to have missed something vitally important:

"And he said unto them: Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart; and behold he hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice hangeth over this people; and four hundred years pass not away save the sword of justice falleth upon this people.

"Yea, heavy destruction awaiteth this people, and it surely cometh unto this people, and nothing can save this people save it be repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, who surely shall come into the world, and shall suffer many things and shall be slain for his people."

The "his" (my bold above) is distinct from the preceding "this". So why would the author suddenly change "this" (used six times) to "his" (used once), and only in the last verse? Perhaps Dr. Peterson didn't point this out clearly enough in his article. Quite possible, but the distinction between "this" and "his" is very noticeable. Maybe a fraud would have been consistent and written "this" all the way through, and not included the last and almost subtle differentiate, "his".

[_DrW]

Let me ask you three questions.

- Internal logic or lack thereof notwithstanding, do you think that the June 23 article by DCP was helpful as a piece of apologetic writing?

- Do you believe that the great "insight" that DCP shared with the faithful in that article was valid and that he had actually glimpsed some "special knowledge" hidden in plain sight in the Book of Mormon to be "revealed" only to those special few (like DCP) who were willing to read the passage as many times as it took to "see it" (convince themselves that the text of the Book of Mormon is not actually as silly as it appears)?

- Can you see how someone who is skeptical of LDS truth claims regarding the Book of Mormon would have that view strongly reinforced by DCP's Mormon Times article?

I'll take the quote in context as it is in the Book of Mormon, because you seem to have missed something vitally important:

"And he said unto them: Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart; and behold he hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice hangeth over this people; and four hundred years pass not away save the sword of justice falleth upon this people.

"Yea, heavy destruction awaiteth this people, and it surely cometh unto this people, and nothing can save this people save it be repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, who surely shall come into the world, and shall suffer many things and shall be slain for his people."

The "his" (my bold above) is distinct from the preceding "this". So why would the author suddenly change "this" (used six times) to "his" (used once), and only in the last verse? Perhaps Dr. Peterson didn't point this out clearly enough in his article. Quite possible, but the distinction between "this" and "his" is very noticeable. Maybe a fraud would have been consistent and written "this" all the way through, and not included the last and almost subtle differentiate, "his".

So I take it that you believe that the great "insight" that DCP shared with the faithful in that article was valid and that he had actually glimpsed some "special knowledge" hidden in plain sight in the Book of Mormon to be "revealed" only to those special few (like DCP) who were willing to read the passage as many times as it took to "see it" (convince themselves that the text of the Book of Mormon is not actually as silly as it appears)?
Thank you for a straight answer.

[_DrW]

Let me ask you three questions.

- Internal logic or lack thereof notwithstanding, do you think that the June 23 article by DCP was helpful as a piece of apologetic writing?

- Do you believe that the great "insight" that DCP shared with the faithful in that article was valid and that he had actually glimpsed some "special knowledge" hidden in plain sight in the Book of Mormon to be "revealed" only to those special few (like DCP) who were willing to read the passage as many times as it took to "see it" (convince themselves that the text of the Book of Mormon is not actually as silly as it appears)?

- Can you see how someone who is skeptical of LDS truth claims regarding the Book of Mormon would have that view strongly reinforced by DCP's Mormon Times article?

I'll take the quote in context as it is in the Book of Mormon, because you seem to have missed something vitally important:

"And he said unto them: Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart; and behold he hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice hangeth over this people; and four hundred years pass not away save the sword of justice falleth upon this people.

"Yea, heavy destruction awaiteth this people, and it surely cometh unto this people, and nothing can save this people save it be repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, who surely shall come into the world, and shall suffer many things and shall be slain for his people."

The "his" (my bold above) is distinct from the preceding "this". So why would the author suddenly change "this" (used six times) to "his" (used once), and only in the last verse? Perhaps Dr. Peterson didn't point this out clearly enough in his article. Quite possible, but the distinction between "this" and "his" is very noticeable. Maybe a fraud would have been consistent and written "this" all the way through, and not included the last and almost subtle differentiate, "his".

Thank you for a straight answer, which I will take as an affirmative response to my second questions above.