DiscussMormonism.com

"I’ve always felt comfortable in water, more so than out of it." -- The Afore


Folks, you just can't make this stuff up. Over at the largely plagiarized blog, where the Afore holds court with his small claque of crazies, we get a classic lesson of what not to do when attempting a river rescue and we get to see the consequences of completely disregarding common sense and every singe rule of river safety.

While allegedly swimming in a Guatemalan river the Afore allegedly noticed a man who seemed to be caught in a current. Immediately, the Afore allegedly jumped into action, grabbed the distressed swimmer and tried to swim for the shore. After giving up with exhaustion, the Afore then allegedly tried to swim for the other shore, barely making it before a boat picked them up.

In reality, the Afore nearly committed negligent homicide by putting the poor Guatemalan's life at risk. A fundamental rule of river survival is never try to swim out of a strong current. Instead, the advice is to "go with the flow," feet first, and exit yourself towards shore when the current inevitably weakens/disperses. The aim is to conserve energy, relax and avoid obstacles until the current is gone and you can exit the shore safely.

By not understanding the basics of river safety or recognizing the futility of fighting the current and immediately shifting to a "go with the flow" strategy, seeking the nearest safe exit downstream, the Afore almost died and almost committed negligent homicide. I for one am grateful the Afore survived and finally learned the basics of river safety. That day the world was almost deprived of such classics as Witnesses, Six Days In August and Text and Context.

I’m also glad Dan made it out. The power of water should never be underestimated, as we’ve seen with the recent tragedy in Texas.

Anyone who grew up as a Chapel Mormon knows that Satan has power over the water, and that's why missionaries aren't allowed to swim.

https://www.ldsliving.com/where-the-say ... ng/s/84882

Perhaps over time, they have morphed this restriction into a general "no fun" and safety rule, but it's obvious ldsliving, in the article linked, is trying to save the Church from looking superstitious. True Mormons also don't trifle with face cards. Try breaking out a deck of cards in front of your mission president even on p-day. If you're a true Mormon, the priesthood isn't a matter of superstition and neither is Satan's counterfeit powers.

Brother Phelps, in open vision by daylight, saw the destroyer in his most horrible power, ride upon the face of the waters

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm not the one who revealed that Satan has dominion over the water. And I'm not the one accusing a prominent Mormon apologist of feeling more comfortable in the water than outside of it.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 28, 2025 1:11 pm

Anyone who grew up as a Chapel Mormon knows that Satan has power over the water, and that's why missionaries aren't allowed to swim.

https://www.ldsliving.com/where-the-say ... ng/s/84882

Perhaps over time, they have morphed this restriction into a general "no fun" and safety rule, but it's obvious ldsliving, in the article linked, is trying to save the Church from looking superstitious. True Mormons also don't trifle with face cards. Try breaking out a deck of cards in front of your mission president even on p-day. If you're a true Mormon, the priesthood isn't a matter of superstition and neither is Satan's counterfeit powers.

Brother Phelps, in open vision by daylight, saw the destroyer in his most horrible power, ride upon the face of the waters

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm not the one who revealed that Satan has dominion over the water. And I'm not the one accusing a prominent Mormon apologist of feeling more comfortable in the water than outside of it.

“The Lord has warned us in the Doctrine and Covenants that there are dangers upon the waters, and that the destroyer rides upon their face. This, I believe, is the reason the brethren have said that missionaries should not swim.”

Smith, Joseph Fielding. Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith. Vol. 1, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, Bookcraft, 1954, pp. 280–281.

What if Dr. Peterson likes the buoyancy of the water and realizes the Mormon thought that Satan rules the water is just mindless superstition and diminishes anyone who believes such crap?

Soon, some of the folks onshore brought one of our boats across and picked us up from the riverbank.

So, he had a boat available to him, but decided to swim to the center of the large river to rescue someone who was caught in a “jolt” of a current; a man who was doggy paddling? He ends up realizing the man was “dead weight”, but opts for possibly drowning because the man’s father was watching? And he did all this because he didn’t know how far away the falls were?



This is BS. This story is BS.

- Doc

Yes: this story is fascinating in all sorts of ways. First--yes: you are absolutely right. Everyone knows that Satan has dominion over the waters. Duh. That is LDS doctrine 101. Why is it that the apostates always seem to have a better grasp of Church doctrine than the apologists? But the passage that caught my eye was this one:

A few weeks after our return from Guatemala, a number of us were at an outdoor public event where someone who had not been there, but who had heard of the episode, much too loudly (and in a very inappropriate way) alluded to my involvement and wondered whether the parents of the young man had rewarded me in any way. They were very wealthy, and they were standing nearby. I wanted to sink into the pavement. I was mortified. To this day, I don’t know whether they heard his comment or not. The idea of a “reward” had never entered my mind. Rather, at the moment of decision, I had feared their sadness, pain, and disappointment had I not acted. I suppose you could even say that I acted out of cowardice

Huh?? Why "cowardice"? And the tidbit about him rescuing this "scion" of "very wealthy" people also seems telling. (Did they later make a large donation to FARMS, I wonder?) It's like the story is inadvertently revealing that he is merely a "tool" of the wealthy and powerful: he goes out of his way to rescue this dopey kid and in the end winds up feeling "mortified" as a result. Can we read this as being analogous to his role as an apologist vis-a-vis the Church?

But I also found it interesting that he was down there as a representative of FARMS (" The old Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) was helping to support it in specific ways, and we were leaders of FARMS.") His recent comments about not being all that "attached" to the LGT would seem to be undermined by this latest story.

Maybe the boats that were readily available were somehow unavailable at that precise moment. Maybe the lad’s father who stood on the bank watching, hadn’t learned to swim, or had an ear condition or…(I don’t know any father that would stand on the bank watching when one of their children was in distress). Maybe the lad really did need saving despite not yelling for assistance “I could tell that he was becoming worried, so I went after him.” How could you tell if he wasn’t yelling for assistance?

The anecdote would have come across much better had Peterson not been the one blowing his own trumpet. The humble-bragging “oh I only really did it out of cowardice…” that runs throughout the anecdote is the hallmark of an exceptionally conceited man.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:13 pm

But I also found it interesting that he was down there as a representative of FARMS (" The old Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) was helping to support it in specific ways, and we were leaders of FARMS.") His recent comments about not being all that "attached" to the LGT would seem to be undermined by this latest story.

It also undermines his insistence that he hasn’t been remunerated for his apologetics. Unless he left his young family at home and paid his own way out of his own pocket?

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:13 pm

Rather, at the moment of decision, I had feared their sadness, pain, and disappointment had I not acted. I suppose you could even say that I acted out of cowardice

Huh?? Why "cowardice"?

I can’t speak for Dan, but I’m imagining that he’s trying to express that he would later feel a deep regret if he had not allegedly jumped in. The ‘cowardice’ would be acknowledging that he didn’t want to face that feeling. I’m notoriously bad at mind-reading though, so take this conclusion with a very large grain of salt.

As far as the Devil having dominion over the water … at over 70% of the planet’s surface being covered in the stuff, this setup seems to be a bit of bad planning on the part of The Almighty.