That Lovely Morning

[_Doctor Scratch]

Excellent OP, Reverend. I would say that I'm surprised that Dr. Peterson is (apparently) engaged in dishonest behavior, but, of course, I'm not. It really is kind of an inside joke at this point, isn't it? We point out he's dishonest; he makes some quip about how critics just automatically accuse him of dishonesty, and ho! ho! ho! it's all just so funny! Except for the fact that the key audience for this dissembling is going to wind up accepting it. In other words, DCP *knows* he is being dishonest but writes it off on the grounds that the Chapel Mormon "rubes" are too stupid to know better.

Thank you for the compliment, Doctor. I agree that DCP's target audience is already primed to assume that his critics hate him for no good reason, and so their criticism has no merit. That is what being a partisan is all about for many people--listening only to your own side's point of view, and never even bothering to examine the criticisms and counter-arguments.

Since DCP is a proponent and defender of Mormonism, the one true faith, and his critics are also critics of Mormonism, then he must be right and his critics must be wrong. Right? It is tribal thinking at its best, or, rather, worst.

Gee, I sure hate being right:

Elsewhere, responses were occasionally stronger, much more harsh. My posting of the quotation, according to several posters at one particularly dark place, proves my mendacity. (Of course, that’s a site where, if it were reported that I’d drawn breath upon waking up in the morning, that would demonstrate my dishonesty.)

In the following little playlet, “The Deceiver” represents me, while “Veritas” represents all those who recognize my depraved indifference to Truth and Goodness. Here’s how the routine goes:


The Deceiver: “Here’s a late reminiscence worth noting, particularly in the light of Claim X.”

Veritas: “The Deceiver is claiming that this account refutes Claim X! What a liar!”

The Deceiver: “I never actually said that this account refutes Claim X. I said ‘Here’s a late reminiscence worth noting, particularly in the light of Claim X.'”

Veritas: “Hah! See? The Deceiver is backing away from his claim that this account refutes Claim X! What a liar!”

You sort of start to wonder about the extent to which he even *wants* to be taken seriously. It's obvious he wants attention, but I guess he doesn't want any serious scrutiny of his ideas?

[_Kishkumen]

You sort of start to wonder about the extent to which he even *wants* to be taken seriously. It's obvious he wants attention, but I guess he doesn't want any serious scrutiny of his ideas?

I think he is taken seriously by the caliber of mind that thinks pro wrestling is earnest competition and by those who find that manipulative power useful.

[_Kishkumen]

This one is particularly interesting to me. Stevenson was really struck by the comparison of Smith and the ancient apostle Paul. He mentioned Paul in the 1894 account as well. It is interesting that here there are no bodily personages, at least in the part of the text you cite. There is the Father's voice introducing "His Only Begotten Son." I am reminded of the significance of the voice in Paul's "vision." We may have to add the New Testament to the sources of contamination here.

Here is a link to the full 1886 article: https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/c ... r/id/28172 (p. 341).

Thanks, Tom!

Sadly, there is a full missing page. The pagination skips and there is an obvious lacuna.

[_grindael]

Yeah, the "dark place" is the one with free and open ideas being exchanged, while in his world, what there is, is suppression, and heavy moderation of anything they don't like (the Deseret News is notorious for that).

[_sunstoned]

Actually, in the spirit of being counter-intuitive, I'm going to defend old Peterson here. He has at least (1) engaged with criticism of his opinion-journalism on the First Vision by producing something other than self-pity or polemic, and (2) pulled out a source which seems to be genuinely new to most people here.

While this is true as far as it goes, the problem I have is that Professor Peterson is fiddling around with this marginally probative reminiscence instead of addressing the claim I made against him that he lied in his recent Deseret News article when he wrote there has been "no suppression" of early First Vision accounts.

Professor Peterson has time to post voluminously on Bill Reel's Facebook page where Bill was holding his feet to the fire, adamantly denying he was lying but saying he would not address why it was he wasn't lying until he was darn good and ready.

Professor Peterson has time to post a non-response response in a recent Sic et Non blog.

Professor Peterson now has time to post about this reminiscence from sixty-years after the fact.

But what Professor Peterson does not have the time to do is explain how he wasn't lying in his Deseret News article.

You, Bill and John Delian's podcast with Sandra Tanner totally dropped the hammer on DCP and his ridiculous first vision misinformation in the DN. He knows this, so I wouldn't expect him to be responding anytime soon. I bet he wishes the whole thing would go away.

[_Kishkumen]

Yeah, the "dark place" is the one with free and open ideas being exchanged, while in his world, what there is, is suppression, and heavy moderation of anything they don't like (the Deseret News is notorious for that).

People in power know that information is dangerous to their power. They set up an echo chamber where the right messages—those that protect and reinforce their power—sound and resound. DCP is one of those voices in the echo chamber, protecting powerful interests. There is a lot of wealth and power at stake here. Billlions of dollars and some powerful people who are not going to take a challenge to their beliefs and power sitting down. Remember the real estate mogul who paid big money to deny D. Michael Quinn employment? These are the kinds of people who handed lots of money to FARMS.

The internet has provided us the tools to escape the echo chamber. From the outside it no longer appears the same. I like the fresh air and sunshine. Others prefer the comfort of hearing a reassuring message, and they would sooner attack their would-be liberators than follow them out of the chamber. It’s really quite like that cave in Plato’s Republic.

[_Tom]

Here is a link to the full 1886 article: https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/c ... r/id/28172 (p. 341).

Thanks, Tom!

Sadly, there is a full missing page. The pagination skips and there is an obvious lacuna.

I think if you click the white box on the upper right hand corner of page 341, you can view the missing page.

[_Tom]

I note that a commenter at sic et non has quoted from another account from Stevenson, this one published in 1885:

Edward Stevenson, "Gibraltar, Letter XII: Missionary Experience,"Juvenile Instructor 20 (August 1, 1885): 229 (relating a conversation with a "Mr. Smith" he met in Gibraltar in 1853; Smith had known Stevenson's father years earlier as then-fellow members of a Methodist congregation in Gilbratar): “'At the age of thirteen, I heard Joseph Smith, the Prophet, preach by the power of the Holy Ghost. He related the heavenly vision with which he was favored; I had a witness of the truth that he had told, although I was not baptized until some time later.'”

As Stevenson tells the story, Mr. Smith rejected Stevenson's gospel message. Stevenson writes: "I told him the consequences of his rejecting the light that he had already acknowledged, and for turning me--a servant of God, from his door, and that the hand of the Lord would speedily follow him to his sorrow."

Stevenson notes that Mr. Smith's wife had been reading the Book of Mormon, and that she and some of her children became believers. Things took an unfortunate turn for the worse for Mr. Smith, however. Stevenson writes: "It was but a short time before Father Smith was stricken and was confined not only to his house, but to his bed. . . . He was not expected to live. Soon after he desired to see me and said if the Lord would only spare his life, he would serve Him better than he ever had done. I told him that the Lord brought down and raised up; that if he desired to recover and serve Him faithfully, he should get well and the Lord would raise him up to better health."

Stevenson was invited to eat and pray with the family a few days later. Mr. Smith was feeling better. However, Smith subsequently turned against Stevenson once again, burning church literature and refusing Stevenson entry into his house. "I of course left my testimony," Stevenson relates, "telling him the consequences of his actions. I told him it would now be worse than ever with him. The poor man was very soon again confined to his bed, but not long this time, for he died. His family decided to go to England, where they said they intended to obey the gospel."

Here is a link to the faith-promoting account: https://archive.org/details/juvenileinstruct2015geor.

[_Lemmie]

You sort of start to wonder about the extent to which he even *wants* to be taken seriously. It's obvious he wants attention, but I guess he doesn't want any serious scrutiny of his ideas?

I think he is taken seriously by the caliber of mind that thinks pro wrestling is earnest competition and by those who find that manipulative power useful.

I've been trying to understand why he does this, but doing it for the attention didn't seem to cover all the bases until i read this, from you. I think you have discovered the true "caliber of mind" that it would take to imagine that all this negative publicity is actually a good thing.

[_Uther]

You sort of start to wonder about the extent to which he even *wants* to be taken seriously. It's obvious he wants attention, but I guess he doesn't want any serious scrutiny of his ideas?

DCP is a salesman, using the narrative that he is fighing the good fight against the apostate hordes, as a pitch to draw cash from well meaning LDS supporters. His articles and facwbook activity are designed just to do do.

His supporters are on average TBM's members with a leaning towards agressive action. And DCP feeds into that. He thinks he is justified because he is defending his faith. Hiding behind the skirts of cowboy Jesus.

It is appaling to see how ethically depraved religious zealots can behave, as their moral compass is bent by imaginary consepts.

DCP thinks he is justified because he has good intentions. He seems not to realize that all but a few inhabitants of this planet has "good intentions".

DCP is lost in a quagmire of results of previous actions, and the only corse available seems to be to keep defending his employer (LDS inc) at all (moral) costs.