DiscussMormonism.com

Dr. Peterson is once again spouting off at the mouth on the comments section - this time on the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katie-haw ... 59298.html

For a guy who claimed he is trying to cut back on Internet posting, he sure is going to town again. Glad to see that tithing dollars funneled into BYU are going straight into this man's pockets - indirectly, of course. I wonder if he sits in his office at BYU while yammering away about Mormonism on these kinds of forums.

Pointing everyone at MST cracks me up Dan.

He gets called on the carpet:

STOP using the bogus assertion that having large numbers of people who agree with you makes your claims valid.

And responds:

I've made no such argument and hold no such position.

But the next response to him nails it:

"roughly three hundred affirmatio­ns of their faith..."
Translatio­n: I am justified in my belief because there are more people who believe exactly as I do.

"And the collection continues to grow steadily."
Translatio­n: There is safety in numbers

Peterson: Mormonism is true, DNA evidence is false because a bunch of people with degrees on MST say so. Don't let the fact that all of them are biased Mormons get in the way.

I've read some of those testimonies of educated people.

Interestingly some of them say things that would probably have gotten them disciplined had they stood up and said them in a Fast & Testimony meeting.

Like the one which talks about Heavenly Mother and Feminism...

Wouldn't it be great for Dan to get an official endorsement from the Church Leadership. Sadly he won't though, because they do not want to be officially associated with it.

John Gee "Egyptology is nothing without the Church"

I wonder what Egyptologists (generally) think about this evaluation of their life's work...

The more Daniel posts, the quieter his 'voice' becomes...

Funny comment:

Question: How can you tell just how NOT normal a person/gro­up is?

Answer: They constantly and repeatedly attempt to convince you how normal they are by telling you they are normal.

Although I don't necessarily agree with it. If surveys have shown that people have a skewed view of the Church based on misinformation, there's nothing wrong with trying to correct those views.

Is that Eric commentator one of 'Danny's' stalker friends? Or is he just a hyper-active anti-Mormon troll? Both?

Man, some of yas will dig up anything he says. I wonder if anything he writes to anyone anywhere will get sniffed up by some of you guys. Its amazing. On top of that, no matter what he says you guys will have something to comment on, something to mock, something to complain about. Its an adorable show.

stemelbow wrote:Man, some of yas will dig up anything he says. I wonder if anything he writes to anyone anywhere will get sniffed up by some of you guys. Its amazing. On top of that, no matter what he says you guys will have something to comment on, something to mock, something to complain about. Its an adorable show.

Stem, you're starting to sound a bit whiny. I say that with all the love in the world.

Buffalo wrote:Stem, you're starting to sound a bit whiny. I say that with all the love in the world.

Then I fit in well here. Whining about Dan at every turn is what this place is about. I just choose to whine about the whining. It fits nicely.

stemelbow wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Stem, you're starting to sound a bit whiny. I say that with all the love in the world.

Then I fit in well here. Whining about Dan at every turn is what this place is about. I just choose to whine about the whining. It fits nicely.

I suppose we can always use the words criticizing and whining interchangeably if we want to, but the OP, unlike your response, doesn't have the tone of whining.

Stem, you need to stop running around the board trying to throw yourself in front of the bullets aimed at Dan so you can say that nobody likes you. Everybody likes you.

Dan's a big boy who puts himself up as an expert and an authority on Mormon apologetics. He publishes stuff. Nobody forces him to do that. I don't really think he needs an internet bodyguard to protect him from critics, at least not one as genial and unopinionated and 'grey' as you are.

He also likes the critical comments, in fact he needs the critical comments, to help him feel self worth. He craves attention. The worst thing we could do to Dan is ignore him. That'd be hurtful.

Buffalo wrote:I suppose we can always use the words criticizing and whining interchangeably if we want to, but the OP, unlike your response, doesn't have the tone of whining.

Well of course your mind paints it that way, Buffalo. I mean no offense, but its quite obvious you'll see things the way you choose. I get that.