DiscussMormonism.com

1. P, on some level, understands that Mormonism is essentially false. The evidence is lacking or contradictory.
2. P needs to create a situation where Mormonism can be bolstered.
3. P seeks critics out, not to communicate ideas, but to passively aggressively prompt them to attack him personally. All posts by him must eventually become about him, and the more unsettled the critic the better. But P cannot initiate the hostilities, the critic must take the bait. Why?
4. The critic attacks P "unfairly, showing P that they have nothing to say worth hearing, that exmoism produces bitter people, that Mormonism must have something to it, otherwise why make it personal instead of talking issues?

If true we would expect:

1. P will especially seek out the most unbalanced critics to interact with.
2. P will avoid calm critics who only talk issues.
3. All interactions with P will either end in him going somewhere else and leaving the conversation, or the critic will attack him, whereupon P will reinvest MORE time encouraging more attacks. (This would be limited to interaction concerning Mormonism. Anyone can talk to him about politics, the Jazz, or the weather.)
4. P will find it very, very hard to stay away from disrespectful critics, and will be bored (disturbed?)by respectful ones.

How close am I?

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:On another thread I posted the following. Rather than derail that thread, I am making its own.

1. P, on some level, understands that Mormonism is essentially false.

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:So P, sees all the evidence, all the arguments, all of it, and on some level doesn't sense that there are no answers to the questions? Not buying that. Take a gander at his responses to Isaiah problems in the Book of Mormon. That reveals it all.

brade wrote:

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:So P, sees all the evidence, all the arguments, all of it, and on some level doesn't sense that there are no answers to the questions? Not buying that. Take a gander at his responses to Isaiah problems in the Book of Mormon. That reveals it all.

From my own discussions with Daniel Peterson it seems to me that he sees all the evidence, all the arguments, all of it, and believes that there are answers to most of the questions. In fact, he goes further than that. In a discussion I had with him around here not too long ago he claimed that the best available evidence (setting aside spiritual experience) weighs in favor of the Church's major claims. I'm willing to take him at his word, that he sincerely believes that.

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:Sure. Go ahead. I prefer to judge actions, reality, evidence, rather than "his word". I mean, it's not like lying would be in his interest.

Anyone else?

brade wrote: In a discussion I had with him around here not too long ago he claimed that the best available evidence (setting aside spiritual experience) weighs in favor of the Church's major claims. I'm willing to take him at his word, that he sincerely believes that.

brade wrote:I don't see what about his actions suggests that he doesn't believe most or all major Mormon claims. He claims to believe, and I'm willing to accept his word about his own mental states.

P seeks critics out, not to communicate ideas, but to passively aggressively prompt them to attack him personally.

stemelbow wrote:

P seeks critics out, not to communicate ideas, but to passively aggressively prompt them to attack him personally.

Stupid. The attacks that people throw at him are his fault. Its always someone else's fault I guess.

I cna't help myself. He prompted me to start up a thread about him on the site where people who hate him frequent to mock him and try to make him look bad.