“My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Marcus
God
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by Marcus »

Marcus wrote:
He said a study was conducted on other ancient Egyptian texts, and found that text is only associated with its adjacent picture 53 percent of the time. Thus, it is likely that Joseph Smith was not translating the text next to the picture after all, and his translation cannot be disproven.
Ok. I’d need to see the actual documentation for this because in my reading, KM has a problem with adequately documenting statements like this. He tends to play fast and loose with actual meaning.
:roll: How predictable is Muhlestein’s in his propensity to exaggerate other’s works to support his lds assumptions. It turns out way back in 2015, this statement of his was debunked. Here.
_No_Hidden_Agenda wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:53 pm
An enterprising enquirer over at Reddit reached out to one of the scholars referenced in the Church's Book of Abraham essay to inquire whether her work was being properly used by the church. Does not go well for the church:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ed_in_the/
While reading the Church's Book of Abraham essay, I noticed a number of footnotes, some of which did not provide links to the documents they referenced, and some of the documents are in languages other than English (how convenient!...).

Reference 30 comes at the end of this paragraph:



The reference is to a piece written by Valérie Angenot. With some sleuthing, I was able to find an email address for Valérie and wrote her the following email:

Hi there,

First, I apologize for such a random email. Second, I apologize for beginning with an apology.
I had a question about an academic work you published some time ago, Discordance entre texte et image. Deux exemples de l’Ancien et du Nouvel Empires.

Now, I have not read it. I've tried to find an online version, but I cannot. I am curious because it was cited in an essay I recently read.

The LDS (Mormon) Church has recently written an essay in which they attempt to explain the origins of their canonized Book of Abraham. Most of the world of Egyptology, as I understand, has debunked the book thoroughly. But, in this essay, they cite your article as a defense of the fact that the various vignettes (which they insist are depictions of Abraham) have nothing to do with the surrounding text of the papyrus.

Do you feel that they are accurately representing the viewpoint of your published piece? Does your piece lend any legitimacy to their argument, in your opinion?

Again, I'm sorry for such a random email, but I am quite curious about your thoughts on the matter.

The article can be found here: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation- ... m?lang=eng

You are listed in reference 30.

Sincerely,
randomapologist

After some time, I received the following reply:

Hello,
I have to apologize, in my turn, for my lateness in getting back to you.

Your question is delicate to answer because I have very dear Mormon friends doing Egyptology. However, not being a Mormon myself, I cannot totally share their beliefs and analysis of the Book of Abraham.

What I can do is confirm that the reference to my article somewhat matches the statement "it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary", although I'd say the process is most often used for connecting walls between them in a tomb or temple (as a microcosm) rather than used in papyrus (but this is still possible, I have not deepened the question).

The other thing I can do is attach my article for you to make your own idea of the arguments I defend in it. You may find it online as well on academia.edu

Hoping this will help.
All the best,
Valérie Angenot

The article can be viewed here.

I don't speak French, so I'm hoping some of you French-speaking RMs can help give some insight, but based on the movie poster examples given on the final page of the doc, I doubt this lends credibility to the idea that generic, ancient funeral docs might be randomly injected with stories about Abraham. Enjoy.
consiglieri
Regional Representative
Posts: 647
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:48 am

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by consiglieri »

Marcus wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 3:37 am
I don’t think I’ve ever read an uglier humble-brag.

This too, was ridiculously offensive.
… We also visited the famous Hofbräuhaus, probably the most renowned beer tavern in the world…. Given my paternal family’s history and my own enjoyment of cold beverages (particularly spring water and chocolate milk), who knows what would have happened if I weren’t a Latter-day Saint? I might have spent much of my life under a bridge, relaxing with a bottle in a brown paper bag.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... tones.html
It never ceases to amaze me all the terrible things mormons suppose they might have done with their lives, if they hadn’t been lds. Good thing the vast majority of the world isn’t filled with such weak-minded and morally deficient natural character that seems to plague these Mormons. :roll:
Why do I feel like Daniel Peterson has done the roughly Mormon equivalent of spending his life under a bridge with a bottle?
drumdude
God
Posts: 2231
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by drumdude »

I get the impression Dan enjoys very much the idea that he will be in the highest level of VIP heaven looking down on all you bridge dwelling drunks.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:48 pm
Is there any way to fact check his claim he was the student body President? He’s lied so much and so often throughout his ‘career’ I wouldn’t be surprised if this is just another whopper. Plus, Dan Peterson winning a HS popularity contest? Mmmmm, color me skeptical.

- Doc
I'm willing to take him at his word on this one. If he was as much of a pretentious jerk and a bully back in high school as he is now, then I can easily imagine a bunch of young and naive high schoolers glomming onto him. I mean, he came from a privileged and prosperous family--his dad was a successful business owner. And he was a smart aleck back then, as evidenced by his behavior on that infamous trip to Israel. Moreover, I can't help but think of all those John Hughes movies from the 1980s, where pretty much every villain is some a-hole, hyper-popular person. So he more or less fits into that stereotype.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Moksha wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 7:02 am
Dr. Peterson wrote:Truth be told, to some degree at least the sight of him crying ruined my evening. It blunted my pleasure in my own victory to know that it had caused pain to someone — and, particularly, to someone whom I actually rather liked. He wasn’t a bad guy.
This shows Dr. Peterson is not a monster. He knows he is supposed to show empathy in this situation. His memory shows his election was more significant to him than he is letting on. Nothing wrong with that. It has not made him as obstreperous as Dr. Midgley.
I agree that he's not as openly vicious as Midgley. But he has tried, over the years, to build up this mythology of himself where he barely lifts a finger and totally crushes his opponent(s). Then he feigns this shock when the other person is "devastated" by his accidental display of "power." It's like, "Oh, you poor baby! I didn't realize my own strength!"
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 4903
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 4:55 pm
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:48 pm
Is there any way to fact check his claim he was the student body President? He’s lied so much and so often throughout his ‘career’ I wouldn’t be surprised if this is just another whopper. Plus, Dan Peterson winning a HS popularity contest? Mmmmm, color me skeptical.

- Doc
I'm willing to take him at his word on this one. If he was as much of a pretentious jerk and a bully back in high school as he is now, then I can easily imagine a bunch of young and naive high schoolers glomming onto him. I mean, he came from a privileged and prosperous family--his dad was a successful business owner. And he was a smart aleck back then, as evidenced by his behavior on that infamous trip to Israel. Moreover, I can't help but think of all those John Hughes movies from the 1980s, where pretty much every villain is some a-hole, hyper-popular person. So he more or less fits into that stereotype.
Well, I’m on a small device right now so I can’t read the yearbook, but if you’d like to take a look here you go:

https://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Sa ... 640?page=1

- Doc
Last edited by Doctor CamNC4Me on Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
1. Speech is aggression.
2. Every utterance has a winner or a loser.
3. Curiosity is feigned.
4. Lying is performative.
5. Stupidity is power.
IHAQ
Savior (resurrected state)
Posts: 977
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by IHAQ »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 4:27 am
Look: I think there are myriad ways that Dr. Peterson could demonstrate his sincerity and show that he really does feel badly about hurting others, and that this anecdote about the sobbing class president runner-up isn’t just a “power play.” For starters, he could apologize to Everybody Wang Chung for abusing his Church connections in an effort to doxx Everybody Wang Chung. Daniel could just admit that he was frustrated and angry over Everybody Wang Chung’s criticism and that, in a moment of weakness, he lashed out in the hopes of exposing and “humiliating” (his descriptor, mind you) a troublesome critic.

I think that would be a really positive step in the right direction.
If Peterson was being truthful about the class president experience, and had indeed “grown up”, he wouldn’t have related the experience to others. Not once. He’d have respected the feelings of the other person and said nothing. That he retells the experience, painting himself the way he does, gives you a glimpse of the narcissism within him.
User avatar
DrStakhanovite
Deacon
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by DrStakhanovite »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Tue Jun 07, 2022 3:05 am
Make no mistake: the Mopologists enjoy seeing others in pain, and they especially like it if it makes them seem “superior” in some way. If DCP had legitimately cared about his opponent’s plight, he could have conceded—but no; instead he’s mined it repeatedly for his blog.
The slave morality that Nietzsche describes in his ‘Geneaology of Moral’ fits Mopologetics like a satin glove (p.29):
Nietzsche wrote:It seems to me that Dante made a gross error when, with awe-inspiring naïvety he placed the inscription over the gateway to his hell: ‘Eternal love created me as well’: [38] – at any rate, this inscription would have a better claim to stand over the gateway to Christian Paradise and its ‘eternal bliss’: ‘Eternal hate created me as well’ – assuming that a true statement can be placed above the gateway to a lie! For what is the bliss of this Paradise? . . . We might have guessed already; but it is better to be expressly shown it by no less an authority in such matters than Thomas Aquinas, the great teacher and saint. ‘Beati in regno coelesti’, he says as meekly as a lamb, ‘videbunt poenas damnatorum, ut beatitudo illis magis complaceat.’[39].

[38] Dante, Inferno III. 5–6.

[39] The blessed in the heavenly kingdom will see the torment of the damned so that they may even more thoroughly enjoy their blessedness. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Supplement to the Third Part, question XCVII, article i, ‘conclusio’. Some modern editions do not contain this ‘conclusio’.
He even gives a lengthy quote from Tertullian:
Tertullian wrote:But there are yet other spectacles: that final and everlasting day of judgement, that day that was not expected and was even laughed at by the nations, when the whole old world and all it gave birth to are consumed in one fire. What an ample breadth of sights there will be then! At which one shall I gaze in wonder? At which shall I laugh? At which rejoice? At which exult, when I see so many great kings who were proclaimed to have been taken up into heaven, groaning in the deepest darkness together with those who claimed to have witnessed their apotheosis and with Jove himself. And when I see those governors, persecutors of the Lord’s name, melting in flames more savage than those with which they insolently raged against Christians! When I see those wise philosophers who persuaded their disciples that nothing was of any concern to God and who affirmed to them either that we have no souls or that our souls will not return to their original bodies! Now they are ashamed before those disciples, as they are burned together with them. Also the poets trembling before the tribunal not of Minos or of Radamanthus, but of the unexpected Christ! Then the tragic actors will be easier to hear because they will be in better voice in their own tragedy. Then the actors of pantomime will be easy to recognize, being much more nimble than usual because of the fire. Then the charioteer will be on view, all red in a wheel of flame and the athletes, thrown not in the gymnasia but into the fire.
I can't imagine Mopologists relish anything more than seeing their opponents writhe.
Image
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 2148
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by Gadianton »

I can't help but wonder if he recycled this story after reading the feedback regarding his accent post perfect German speaking.

Here's a question for all of you Mopologist scholars out there. In what volume of forthcoming 7-volume A Reasonable Leap into the Light will the story of the unwanted Senior Class President story appear?
Marcus
God
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: “My nonchalant awesomeness hurt you?? Bummer.”: A Mopologetic Myth Deepens

Post by Marcus »

His track record on these types of stories is not solid. I recall on the previous board a thread noting that DCP used to tell an old story about meeting Gloria Steinem and, of course, something like stumping her with an amazing question that put him in a good light. :roll: He recycled this story a couple of times in 2015, until a poster on the old board looked into it and produced evidence that showed it to be… less than credible. He hasn’t reposted it since. Unlike virtually every other piece of writing he reposts repeatedly.
Post Reply