EAllusion wrote:Daniel C. Peterson, for what it is worth, claimed this stuff isn't misogynist. Great representative for Mormonism, that chap.
Is it possible that these guys don't recognize the misogyny because it is so ingrained in Mormon culture? Maybe it's just that they defend their own, no matter what.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
And then for my thoughts on why this is a serious issue see here:
MrStakhanovite wrote: This lack of substance should be troubling, and the reason why I included that passage from 1st Peter at the top of this entry, as it is the primary call for all believers to engage in reasoned defense (apologia) for their faith. The part of that passage that is often skipped is “Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts…” and this is a vital precondition before engaging in your reasoned defense. I can’t read Daniel’s heart, but if there is any truth to the LDS notion of judging based on fruits, I can tell you that I’m far from impressed.
Also unlike Chesterton, Daniel Peterson is a trained scholar and translator of Islamic texts. He knows the vital importance of context, the subtleties of philosophical and theological thought and how both need to be explained to any audience not steeped in the study of said text in question. Yet, Daniel did not do this when he bothered to invoke Camus to an audience at FAIR. Daniel stood up, in front a audience of Mormons looking for edification, and seriously misrepresented Camus to people who paid money to hear him speak. As a scholar, that should be a cardinal sin for Daniel, but he doesn’t seem to care and that is what bothers me the most about Mormon apologetics.
There is a level of just how bad the various examples I’ve provided are, The guys at the Church Office Building who edited that church manual were probably unaware just how religiously illiterate they are, merely products of Utah Mormon culture. Myers is at least dimly aware of how religiously illiterate he is, but he doesn’t want to interrupt the textual back rubs from his fans and the feel good vibes the drum circle at FreeThought blogs provides. Daniel is another order of magnitude above this, he is religiously literate, but misinforms his fellow Mormons for reasons that elude me to this day.
Let me just stress again, Dan stood up before a paying crowd of Mormons at a FAIR conference and systematically misinformed them. They paid money to be edified by a scholar who is a brother in the faith, and Dan had so little regard for them that he didn’t even bother to do basic research into a book he quoted from heavily. He simply doesn’t care that he pretty much insulted the intelligence of every person in that room, he simply doesn’t give a damn about it.
FAIR hosted Dan, have his talk up on Youtube and host a transcript of the talk. I’m pretty sure they are aware of what I’ve written, but will probably not bother to get around to even putting an asterisk next to anything, much less issue a retraction, because they share Dan’s attitude.
They don’t care about things they should.
This reflects on their faith and their moral principles.
They. Don’t. Care.
If you don’t care either, nor your mythical friends you are using as a hook to troll people with, then you’ve lost any pretense of honesty.
MrStakhanovite wrote:They don’t care about things they should.
This reflects on their faith and their moral principles.
They. Don’t. Care.
If you don’t care either, nor your mythical friends you are using as a hook to troll people with, then you’ve lost any pretense of honesty.
You talk as if intellectual dishonesty and indifference to morality and truth are bad things.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Bob Loblaw wrote:Is it possible that these guys don't recognize the misogyny because it is so ingrained in Mormon culture?
I don't think so. Yes, Mormon culture has issues with the way it treats the sexes, but not to the extent that the average Mormon would think nothing of William's behavior. That's why my thread was so devastating. Even die-hard defenders of patriarchy and opponents of feminism could see the problem with the way William was acting.
Bob Loblaw wrote:Maybe it's just that they defend their own, no matter what.
This.
The only times I have ever seen Dan Peterson speak out against a fellow apologist or an apologist fanboy was: (1) To reprimand Bob Crockett for his own remarks on William Schryver, and (2) When Papa said some stuff about Islam that he didn't like.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
MsJack wrote:The only times I have ever seen Dan Peterson speak out against a fellow apologist or an apologist fanboy was: (1) To reprimand Bob Crockett for his own remarks on William Schryver, and (2) When Papa said some stuff about Islam that he didn't like.
As long as you're on the same team, anything goes.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Darth J wrote:The OP in this thread is one of the more pathetic of Simon Belmont's attempts at trolling.
Wishing it so, does not make it so, but that's the story of your whole life.
Says the person who thinks that space aliens are visiting the Earth and that the Book of Mormon was produced by automatic writing. You also have no idea what the story of my whole life is.
And if there is a double standard between Paul and Mopologists, it is one that the Mopologists have invited. Paul does not claim to be a chosen generation and a royal priesthood.
MrStakhanovite wrote:Let me just stress again, Dan stood up before a paying crowd of Mormons at a FAIR conference and systematically misinformed them. They paid money to be edified by a scholar who is a brother in the faith, and Dan had so little regard for them that he didn’t even bother to do basic research into a book he quoted from heavily. He simply doesn’t care that he pretty much insulted the intelligence of every person in that room, he simply doesn’t give a damn about it.
FAIR hosted Dan, have his talk up on Youtube and host a transcript of the talk. I’m pretty sure they are aware of what I’ve written, but will probably not bother to get around to even putting an asterisk next to anything, much less issue a retraction, because they share Dan’s attitude.
They don’t care about things they should.
This reflects on their faith and their moral principles.
They. Don’t. Care.
If you don’t care either, nor your mythical friends you are using as a hook to troll people with, then you’ve lost any pretense of honesty.
There are two kinds of circumstances where I've seen DCP be openly critical of fellow Mormons. The first is when a Mormon is implicitly or explicitly critical of his apologetic circle. The second is when they make harsh, inapt criticisms of Islam or Muslims. That's it. Both of MsJack's examples qualify, but I've seen more than that. Otherwise, he obeys a strict rule of never calling out his fellow Mormons. This is especially hypocritical when you also realize that he's made a habit of praising his non-Mormon interlocutors for their intellectual honesty and courage when they vocally split with fellow critics.
That said, there is a difference between DCP's silence and his vocal defense. It's hard to know what he actually thinks when he's using silence to avoid criticism of members of his tribe. I'm 99% confident that Juliann's "postmodern" kick would've driven him up the wall privately, but he never spoke any meaningful criticism of it. It's Reagan's 11th commandment, only with Mormons. But when he openly defends something, then he probably is cool with it. I haven't known him to be disingenuous in that way. He might defend someone's character, but I think he keeps his opinions to himself if he actually disagrees.
I find this behavior appalling. Since I have a reputation for disagreeing with anyone if I think being reasonable is in the line, that probably is unsurprising. I've mentioned several times how Don Bradley's joy at being accepted by people like DCP as someone to be treated kindly as a friend creeps me out. That's because it suggests what matters to them is not truth or friendship based on personal character, but rather fellowship with the faith. That reads to me as vaguely cultish where loyalty rises above all. Doubtless those bonds will just as easily be severed should Don apostatize once more. What kind of friendliness is that? What kind of discourse can you have with that?
MsJack wrote:I don't think so. Yes, Mormon culture has issues with the way it treats the sexes, but not to the extent that the average Mormon would think nothing of William's behavior. That's why my thread was so devastating. Even die-hard defenders of patriarchy and opponents of feminism could see the problem with the way William was acting.
Yeah, Mormon culture has serious problems with gender, but it's more subtle than what Will was doing. That probably would read poorly to just about everyone, perhaps even especially to those who are sensitive to being (rightly) charged with more subtle forms of sexism. American society still has all sorts of problems with racism, but darn never everyone recognizes that derisively calling a black man "boy" is bad form. Will is closer to that. He projects the the sort of obvious sexism that those still in the clutches of more subtle forms use to tell themselves they aren't sexist.