Stem wrote:he seems to be trying to say that the suppression of the 1832 account has nothing to do with his 740 word article--giving himself a pass because he was restricted to so few words. Sadly he directly contradicted that in his own essay.
You've nailed him on this point for sure. I'm sure he'll slyly hope the whole issue goes away.
OMG! Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Stem.
I had no idea "David B" was taking Dan out to the woodshed so expertly.
And chiming in on the Daniel Peterson bandwagon in the comments section is also our own Loran Blood (a.k.a. Droopy) and Russell McGregor (a.k.a. kiwi57).
Looks like David B can take all three of them handily!
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Daniel B. . . . Whatever the case, Dan, RadioFreeMormon summarily debunked your brief essay. You would do well to address that episode directly rather than passively/dismissively.
DanielPeterson Mod > David B • a day ago
I haven't "addressed that episode" at ALL, DB. I haven't even listened to it.
I'm on the road, busy with family and other things, and listening to attacks on my character isn't at the top of my to-do list.
I'll listen when I feel like listening, and I'll respond as and when I choose.
Finally, I don't share your assumption that the First Vision was merely a "dream."
David B > DanielPeterson • a day ago
Merely a dream? "I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision." A vision is a dream according to this.
Sorry, I thought this was in response to the RFM podcast.
You had said the critics have said, "the LDS Church has sought to hide these differing accounts." I think any critic's point in that regard is in reference to the 1832 account having been hidden by the Church, in a safe, after having been torn out. So we know the Church did try to hide at least one account, no? It wasn't "essentially lost and forgotten until the 1960s, when historians working for the Church rediscovered them". It was hidden, until others got wind of it and the Church had to come out with it--the ripped out pages were put back in. The hand was forced, no?
Additionally, did you write the anonymous essay on this topic found in the gospel topics essay? Here is a line from it: "he two unpublished accounts, recorded in Joseph Smith’s earliest autobiography and a later journal, were generally forgotten until historians working for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rediscovered and published them in the 1960s" Sounds just like your line. Did you have to get your article correlated?
DanielPeterson Mod > David B • 20 hours ago
DB: "Sorry, I thought this was in response to the RFM podcast."
You thought wrong.
David B > DanielPeterson • 7 hours ago
Curious on your thoughts regarding the questions I asked you?
DanielPeterson Mod > David B • 7 hours ago
No, I didn't have to get my article correlated.
And whether "the hand was forced" -- something that can and will be discussed when I respond to RFM's attack on me -- has no particular relevance to the point of my less-than-740--word article. (For purposes of comparison, your comment above weighs in at 215 words.)
David B > DanielPeterson • 6 hours ago
Thanks, Sir. If you had more than 740 words to write the article would you have chosen to rephrase the essays line about church historians employed by the Church in the 1960s rediscovered the other versions (which included the 1832 version) which was not discovered by historians employed by the Church in the 60s but was known about by the historian of the Church for decades previous but was hidden?
Kiwi57 > David B • a day ago
DB: "Merely a dream? 'I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision.' A vision is a dream according to this."
That's not correct. Lehi is saying that a dream can qualify as a vision, not that every vision is a dream. His pillar of fire vision was not a dream, as he was wide awake and walking around when it happened.
And Joseph's First Vision wasn't a dream, either.
Smuggling one's assumptions into the discussion and treating them as if they were universally accepted is not going to work. Sorry.
Yes, I'm aware that the 1832 account was removed from the letter book and placed in a safe. A "safe" is called that because it is a safe place to keep something valuable. A unique, early autographic document of that nature is valuable, and worthy of protection. The assumption that it was being "hidden" is exactly that - an assumption, and betrays the almost pathological hostility of the speaker towards the Church.
Yes, I know I said "almost." I'm prone to understatement sometimes.
David B > Kiwi57 • 7 hours ago
One defense I heard was that Smith was trying to protect his family by hiding the 1832 account. It was a "strange" account and he didn't want his family to be drug through the mud more. I thought it was a silly defense too.
But plain saying it was never hidden when it was, seems less like a defense and more like a delusion. If that suits ya...I'm cool with that. I think your attempted spin is silly though, just know.
All the best.
Kiwi57 > David B • a day ago
David, perhaps you'd like to answer this question: why is it that the new wave of those who summarily reject the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, and obsessively attack it at every opportunity, seem to like to claim the title of "Mormon" for themselves?
Isn't it a fact that the so-called "RadioFreeMormon" outfit, for which you are such an enthusiastic shill, is actually an atheist operation?
David B > Kiwi57 • a day ago
Hey Kiwi. I don't know RFM guy's personal faith position, exactly. But he has a few episodes discussing it in some detail, if you are wont to know. Give him a listen. I've really enjoyed his contributions to this point. I'd agree with him in that the article put out by Dr. Peterson is a pretty bad one. If you start with his latest episode (which is in response to Dr. Peterson's Desnews article under discussion), get ready. It's not an easy listen if you are one prone to defensiveness, as I realize you quite often are.
As per your first question? I imagine it has to do with people who self-identify as Mormon in some sense, since it is their people and cultural heritage. They aren't willing to give up who they are. But then again I don't know if I've seen anyone who obsessively attacks at every opportunity...nor have I've seen anyone summarily reject the truth claims of the Church unless of course those truth claims consist of the magical stuff, I guess.
DanielPeterson Mod > David B • 20 hours ago
DB: "I'd agree with him in that the article put out by Dr. Peterson is a pretty bad one."
Hmmm. I haven't listened to his analysis yet, but I'm betting that I'm going to disagree.
Kiwi57 > David B • a day ago
Actually I don't know if malignant narcissism qualifies as a faith position exactly, but I suppose it has some elements of worship in it.
I don't have a lot of time to listen to people talk. I prefer to read transcripts. And to anticipate: no, it's not because I'm "afraid," or something, of what I might hear. I don't even listen to the Interpreter podcasts that Dan frequently announces, so I'm an equal opportunity podcast ignorer.
But apart from that, if "RFM guy" thinks his arguments are so brilliant, then they ought to be able to withstand the scrutiny that cold print facilitates rather better than an audio monologue does.
DB: "I'd agree with him in that the article put out by Dr. Peterson is a pretty bad one."
So what are his arguments against it? Is there anything other than sniping about details that Dan didn't have space to include in an article with a 740-word limit?
"Mormons" are a faith community. Those who attack the faith are attacking the community. Those people are "Mormons" even less than Quisling was a Norwegian.
And people who are serious about discussing the faith of others don't sneer about miraculous events by calling it "the magical stuff." Just so you know.
Avatar
David B > Kiwi57 • 7 hours ago
"So what are his arguments against it? Is there anything other than sniping about details that Dan didn't have space to include in an article with a 740-word limit?"
Maybe I have piqued your interest enough to go listen? I mean it doesn't matter, in my mind the points he raised ought to be addressed by Dr Peterson. But, go ahead give it a listen. I'd be interested in your thoughts too.
"And people who are serious about discussing the faith of others don't sneer about miraculous events by calling it "the magical stuff." Just so you know."
You're wrong. I do, did and all of that. So at least one person beats out your assumption. of course, I don't know characterizing my words as sneering is appropriate, but I suppose it doesn't matter how upset you get.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
And now Bill Reel is getting into the act in the comments section.
He just posted this at about 1:15 p.m. Pacific Time.
___________________
Bill Reel • 26 minutes ago
Daniel,
Your credibility is in question because people can sense your deflection and dismissal and deceptiveness when shielding people from grasping the full and often problematic narrative.
For example you say “There’s been no scandal, no suppression, and the often exaggerated if not altogether invented discrepancies between them have been thoroughly examined. “
Then Radio Free Mormon does an episode detailing your obfuscation in the Deseret News May 31st article including claiming you lied when you said “no suppression”
His point is you know the history of the 1832 account being cut out. You know that Joseph Fielding Smith spoke to other GA's (Stan Larsen's article in dialogue). Yet you seemingly come across very uncomfortable letting the reader know the history and your absolutely foolish expressing certainty (No suppression” when the data makes suppression look like an absolutely valid conclusion/
Then when called on it, you finish your recent “revisit” with
“By the way, even if it’s true that Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t want to make the 1832 account public, that ended in the 1960s, which was over half a century ago! That’s ancient history”
strange thing is to refute the argument that your a liar – you would need to claim ignorance of Larsen's artcile and the data in it or show evidence proving the suppression is an invalid conclusion. Instead you acknowledge that the suppression may have actually occurred which makes your certainty there wasn't a suppression..... well........ a lie. Meant to help your reader feel safe but which is deceptive and dishonest regarding the data and the valid conclusions that could be drawn.
Sad that you would be dishonest in order to build a false faith in others and to keep people comfortable when these issues deserve forthrightness and encouragement for people to grasp that such is messy and hence we should be careful when judging those who have serious doubts over such things.
In fact Daniel, even starting this article with the quote "I haven’t been paying much attention to the responses, which apparently include at least one (and possibly two) podcasts. When and if I do pay serious attention, I’ll probably respond in some fashion or other." is deceptive seeing as you participated in the social media thread that discussed this episode being available. You often know way more than you want your reader to think you know.... and such is dishonest when giving some data that lends credence to one conclusion while intentionally holding back full transparency knowing the rest of the data hurts the conclusion your pushing.
I would call for you to be more honest. Your better than that!
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
I think it may have been when that puppet dragon visited Brigham Young's outhouse. Not many such podcasts go on location. Talk about creating an authentic atmosphere for the viewers!
Oh yeah, here is the top podcast video. You will note that Consiglieri's studio location does not have any wind sound giving it superior acoustics.