DiscussMormonism.com

In his blog Petersen references and article in Politico where a Mormon from Utah has been trying to deal with the issue of anger between members of the both parties.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... s-00078409
I think there are legitimate reasons for people to get angry . Fox repeating lies (witness the Dominion case vs Murdoch) . Fixing the electoral system making it harder to vote, redistricting, kicking people off rolls, people not able to get off work to vote.

Can one debate religion issues without some rancor? I understand some folks at BYU did not like Dan's style. Gemili has ceased interacting on Dan's blog.
Gemli needs us more than we need him. His absence has been a breath of fresh air.
DCP "It has, I freely admit, saved me considerable time"
Hoggan "I consider gemli harmless. He's honest about who he is and bears us no unique malice. He's just a new atheist fanboy who considers us amusing and misguided."

Bart Ehrman sets a good example on how to debate with ones opponents.

The guy who was best friends with the “Metcalfe is Butthead” bozo, Billy Hamblin?

No, I don’t think it’s within Dan to engage in the kind of respectful debate process that comes so easily to more reasonable people like Dr. Ehrman.

The Maxwell Institute is so much better off without the old school Mormon apologist clown show. Some of the MI scholars would likely do very well in a debate.

hauslern wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:31 pm

Can one debate religion issues without some rancor?

It is difficult for a believer to not get defensive and emotional if the other debater makes any points against the religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are a matter of emotions, not logic. When logic starts forcing the believer into a corner, the natural reaction is...another emotion, defensiveness. If you are going to debate someone's religious beliefs with that believer, know and understand before engaging that he or she will react emotionally to your logic.

I think the response used to ones doubts involving reason and logic is that Satan is somehow involved in ones doubts, They are insulting you by not acknowledging you arrived at you conclusions using research and reason.

So, Noel, I like this post. And yet, I do think there are reasons to be very angry with people and not give them a pass. Should we be upset with people for being LDS? No way! I wish them the best. That said, accepting them as LDS does not mean accepting dishonesty in apologetics. A lack of integrity is not a mere difference of opinion. I don’t think we should give people a pass when they act in bad faith. I think Mopologetics inspires some people to act in bad faith. We’ve seen it too many times now.

noel: "Maybe seeing Dan triggers my worse responses."

There is, sadly, no known cure for Peterson Derangement Syndrome. (See DSM-6-TR, forthcoming.)

However, PDS appears to be transmitted via social media, so it might be prudent -- or, from another angle, charitable -- on your part to reduce your online engagements (if, indeed, you can't eliminate them altogether).

Peterson Derangement Syndrome. ? Is there such a thing. Is this an example of gaslighting? "gas lighters have MOTIVE. They are narcissistic people who are trying to gain control over their victim by making them think they’re going crazy or are unstable and can’t live without the gaslighter"

WIth respect to DCP, I think he's not been very charitable to you or gemli. Given your age, I am very impressed at your command of the Internet. I think sometimes DCP doesn't realize that his online saavy is greater than yours (and mine), and uses that to score cheap points against you.

He's been doing this online trolling thing for a very long time. He's honed his skills. I don't recommend getting too sucked in. Trolls enjoy the attention, which is why when he hasn't gotten enough of a bite for a few days he posts something intentionally provocative.

Colby Townsend advised me once earlier not to get involved in with an exchange with Petersen. Should have listened. He is an apologist for his faith. . The arguments against the Book of Abraham are in my opinion slam dunk. The argument presented now is going in the catalyst direction. Skousen and Givens have already arrived.

Skousen's view of the facsimiles
https://humanities.BYU.edu/wp-content/u ... -J2019.pdf
See page 39.

Givens view

"Terryl Givens <terryl.givens@gmail.com>
Tue, May 31, 6:35 AM

to me

"Hi Noel
My views are pretty clearly laid out in my book, The Pearl of Greatest Price. In brief, leading LDS authorities and scholars all acknowledged as early as 1912 that JSs explanation of the facsimiles was not consistent with Egyptian scholarship. What came to be called the catalyst theory was put forward more than a century ago-- Joseph Smith produced something that was inspired, but it was likely not a straightforward translation of the papyri he was working with.

As for the future of the facsimiles, I cannot see the church moving away from their position, since the facsimiles and their "explanation" are part of canonized scripture.

Warm regards
Terryl"

I am not really sure of what Peterson's position is now.

Here is Dan Petersen's email exchange with Skousen which appeared in the bottom of an email I received from Skousen.

"Daniel Peterson <danielcarlpeterson@gmail.com>
Tue, Apr 19, 11:26 AM (5 days ago)

to <royalskousen45@gmail.com>, me, Debbie, John_gee

Royal:

[Noel has misrepresented what I said. And I’ve said very, very little (and, even then, only a while ago and only in response to a specific question from him) about your view. I don’t presume to speak for you and would never do so.

A former member of the Church in Australia, Noel constantly writes to scholars in and out of the Church trying to get them to say things critical of Joseph Smith and the Restoration. He’s been at it for many years.

Dan"

If I misrepresented his view i apologize. If so it was sloppy reading on my part.

hauslern:

Please post links to the websites from which you harvest your quotes. And while you're at it, please use the quote feature, too.

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:01 pm

hauslern wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:31 pm

Can one debate religion issues without some rancor?

It is difficult for a believer to not get defensive and emotional if the other debater makes any points against the religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are a matter of emotions, not logic. When logic starts forcing the believer into a corner, the natural reaction is...another emotion, defensiveness. If you are going to debate someone's religious beliefs with that believer, know and understand before engaging that he or she will react emotionally to your logic.

You are right about emotional responses. I have shared gospel accounts of the resurrection asked if they found them contradictory. Bart Ehrman has and debates with evangelicals online. They are generally good humored. Bart Ehrman likes to laugh.