Dan Peterson is Just Flat Out LYING Now

[_Philo Sofee]

DanielPeterson Mod Zeke • 5 hours ago • edited
Zeke: "Oh my, the hypocrisy of a Church that supported polygamy arguing that same-sex marriage violates traditional definitions of marriage…"

Peterson
It's not hypocritical at all.

The Church has always consistently taught that marriage is a special relationship joining a man and a woman.

It taught that during the nineteenth century. It continues to teach that in the twenty-first century. And it was never about "tradition."

Framing the topic disingenuously enables disingenuous criticism, it's true, but disingenuous criticism simply looks disingenuous.

Good Lord what a blatant disregard for actual LDS history. This is worse than "Disingenuous criticism" this is LYING for the Church of today. He threw the CELESTIAL LAW OF MARRIAGE under the bus. It was taught, practiced, lived, and yes he says the church has always said marriage between a man and A WOMAN? Pure unadulterated BS and Dan knows this. Gawd damn man..... and I don't hate Dan Peterson, I hate his lying for a lying church so deliberately. His argument is pure BS, and has no justifiable evidence that the church has been consistent. It simply has not been in any manner.

[_Shulem]

The Church has always consistently taught that marriage is a special relationship joining a man and a woman.

Philo, technically, his terminology in describing how the Church describes marriage is correct:

Marriage is a special relationship joining a man and a woman:

1 man and 1 woman

BUT WAIT! Let's do it again!

Marriage is a special relationship joining a man and a woman:

Now you have 1 man and 2 women!



Peterbaby sure knows how to stroke it! Ooh yeah!

[_Dr Moore]

I don't think he's lying, Philo. The statement is truthful, if incomplete. The church has consistently taught that marriage -- the event of getting married and living within the marriage covenant -- was a special relationship joining a man and a woman.

None of the women in a plural marriage were or are married to each other. Each wife is sealed to the man, and not to one another. Therefore, a separate marriage for each "special relationship" between the husband and his wife(ves).

I think you would have preferred to see Dr. Peterson elaborate a bit more, avoiding the obvious over-simplification.

Perhaps something like this?:

The Church has always consistently taught that marriage is a special relationship joining a man and a woman.
The Church has always consistently taught that marriage is a special relationship joining a man and b woman.
The Church has always consistently taught that marriage is a special relationship joining a man and c woman.
...
The Church has always consistently taught that marriage is a special relationship joining a man and n woman.

Where n = the number of plural wives given to the man through revelation.

[_Philo Sofee]

He's LYING, since the leaders have also said that withholding information, vital information, is a form of lying. It s blatantly a lie of omission. ANYTIME I would propose when discussing the historic aspects of marriage in Mormonism, polygamy MUST be mentioned because it was paramount and THE doctrine for at least 3 prophet's careers. Yes, he s deliberately simplifying which with Mormonism is a lie. He mentioned previous centuries concerning marriage in Mormonism, leaving out polygamy. It has not, according to his implication been between a man and a woman in those centuries, hence the lie. It's a historic doctrine Mormons are stuck with. And almost 15 year olds are NOT women. In Mormonism it was between a man and a girl, if not several of them. THAT IS FACT, as per the churches own essay.

[_Gadianton]

since the leaders have also said that withholding information, vital information, is a form of lying. It s blatantly a lie of omission

the man has a point. I can't tell you how many times I heard the lecture about "sins of omission" in Priest's quorum.

[_Philo Sofee]

since the leaders have also said that withholding information, vital information, is a form of lying. It s blatantly a lie of omission

the man has a point. I can't tell you how many times I heard the lecture about "sins of omission" in Priest's quorum.

Thank you, me also! Now if we can get one more, we have 3 witnesses, and can make a stellar, super keen movie about it!!!

[_moksha]

Dr. Peterson's caveat is when he says it is not about tradition. Sure they violated the western marriage tradition of a man and wife by introducing a harem. People at that time referred to Mormon marriage as barbaric.

But take tradition out of the picture and you have a picture with enough blur and graininess that an apologist can work his wizardry. Yeah see, we are man and wifers see, not some nonsense homophobes! Cloud of white smoke (vanishes into a green booth with a curtain).

[_Shulem]

I don't think that Peterson is denying or attempting to convince readers that the Church never practiced polygamy on an official level. Peterson is a school teacher so he's well read and generally knows how to write on many levels. That's been my observation and he skillfully chooses his words and phrases them very carefully in order to protect his own interest. Peterson likes to play word games. He likes to manipulate his readers and I'm sure he gets quite a kick out of it.

If he's seen this thread he is laughing his head off.

[_candygal]

Will there ever come a time that the church may want to completely silence Dr. Petersen? Is there a pasture where old apologists can go? He does nothing for the church when he lies so blatantly.

[_kairos]

Did you know that BY had a terrible problem with insomnia? he prayed and was told by God/angel to count wives instead of sheep! Brother B reported he never had to count past 19 before he was fast asleep.

Little known history of the church fact reported by a BYU historian who discovered this along with the additional accounts of the FV in the mid-60's!

just reportin with a wink!
k