Peterson Misleading Again

[_Daniel Peterson]

I bequeathe my part in this discussion to antishock8, who is entirely up to the job.

[Guest]

Reading Smolin and being unimpressed with your comments don't seem to me to be mutually incompatible.

Well, you have done little more than idly dismiss my comments in this thread, so why should I concern myself with why you are unimpressed?

I've offered precisely none.

Your list of impertinent questions is ample evidence of you engaging in pop-psych speculation, albeit sometimes masked in clever literary references.

Unlike you and Guy Sajer, I haven't suggested that you folks hold the views you do or find implausible the things you find implausible because of indoctrination, mental defect, tribal affiliation, emotional attachment, sin, upbringing, psychological incapacity, or any other extra-intellectual factor. I've paid you the respect, rather, of speaking of worldviews, presuppositions, and the like. Something which you evidently cannot bring yourself to reciprocate.

No, instead I happily hold myself up to the same standards that I hold you to. I assume that my views are affected by all kinds of social, cultural, and intellectual influences. That you find this to be some kind of terrible insult is little more than bemusing to me. Indeed, I would think that "worldviews, presuppositions, and the like" are precisely what we are talking about. Speaking for myself, I think that the forces I refer to above inform the latter. What I do not do, however, is assume that my questions and the answers to said questions will always perfectly reflect all of those influences. The fact that I have one worldview and you have another does not really explain why we don't have good answers to the very basic questions concerning Book of Mormon antiquity I have posed.

If all you can do when I raise these questions is respond with your "suspicion" that I would change my mind if I had a different worldview, then I see close to no basis for your assumption that you are in a position to cast aspersions on my intellect and training and that of others on this board. In reality, you are the one who is substituting insult for evidence and arguments, and I note that your participation in this thread has been lacking in both. I asked questions, and you never tried to answer them, nor did you take up the other examples I offered. You never even really explained why the questions themselves were unworthy of a substantive response from you.

In short, it appears to me that all you are doing here is avoiding the issues that I raised and are playing the role of the exasperated, superior mind. I am exasperated too, but I am exasperated that you have been unwilling to offer anything of substance in response to my questions, which continues to be my problem when it comes to LDS discussions concerning the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. You and many of your associates claim it is ancient and conduct research based on that assumption. I say that I have yet to be convinced that it is ancient, and that I have not received answers to some very reasonable technical questions that might settle that issue. What of it? Do you have answers to the questions, or do you not?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I see close to no basis for your assumption that you are in any position to cast aspersions on my intellect and training

I've cast no aspersions whatever on either your intellect or your training. None. I've very explicitly not done that.

You seem, though, to be fundamentally misunderstanding me.

And I don't know that the meager potential payoff justifies much continued effort on that score or in this thread.

and that of others on this board.

Sorry. If you want me to profess that I'm equally impressed with all of the posters here, I can't, with any kind of integrity, pretend to be.

[_Trevor]

I've cast no aspersions whatever on either your intellect or your training. None. I've very explicitly not done that.

In that case, you have, at the very least, made light of what are serious questions, and you seem to take the position that they are unworthy of your response. I don't see why very basic issues about the antiquity of the Book of Mormon aren't worthy of a response, but perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me on that.

I am interested in how it is I am misunderstanding you, and I regret that you do not think it worth your time to clarify this. Perhaps I can email you and take this out of what has become a very messy thread. I happen to take you seriously, although some of my comments may not be in line with that claim. The problem, in my opinion, is as much one of message boards as it is anything else. And although you seem to view it as a problem inherent in boards where critics seem to dominate, I would say that I am not seeing a whole lot of traction here or on MA&D.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In that case, you have, at the very least, made light of what are serious questions, and you seem to take the position that they are unworthy of your response.

No I haven't.

I don't see why very basic issues about the antiquity of the Book of Mormon aren't worthy of a response, but perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me on that.

I can't. I hold no such view.

I am interested in how it is I am misunderstanding you, and I regret that you do not think it worth of your time to clarify this.

I regret it, too.

Perhaps I can email you and take this out of what has become a very messy thread. I happen to take you seriously, although some of my comments may not be in line with that claim. The problem, in my opinion, is as much one of message boards as it is anything else. And although you seem to view it as a problem inherent in boards where critics seem to dominate, I would say that I am not seeing a whole lot of traction here or on MA&D.

I have to say, frankly, that I'm losing interest in this board again. I'm not quite sure why I came back.

If you want to write to me privately, that would be fine. I can't guarantee that I'll be able to respond at the level of intensity that seems to be expected of me here, though. I've wasted far too much time here, and I've got several serious writing and editing deadlines hanging over my head.

I'm genuinely interested, though, in seeing what your real objections are. At a minimum, they would give me ideas for future Mormon-related writing. (I mean that seriously.)

[_Trevor]

No I haven't.

Then what would you call what you have been doing? It seems like any attempt at a definition that I reach for is meeting with your flat denial.

I can't. I hold no such view.

Then it is puzzling to me why you did not respond to my questions, but instead made reference to your suspicions about my "worldview."

I regret it, too.

OK?

If you want to write to me privately, that would be fine. I can't guarantee that I'll be able to respond at the level of intensity that seems to be expected of me here, though. I've wasted far too much time here, and I've got several serious writing and editing deadlines hanging over my head.

Well, I don't want to interrupt your busy work schedule. It is puzzling, though, why you make the choice to answer every oddball accusation and implication Scratch makes, no matter how silly, and yet you immediately hit me with "I don't really have time for this" as soon as I suggest I might write to you to discuss what I take to be serious questions (no conspiracy accusations involved). It leads me to suspect that you really don't think my questions are substantive or worthwhile. They don't even warrant the attention you would give to Scratch.

I'm genuinely interested, though, in seeing what your real objections are. At a minimum, they would give me ideas for future Mormon-related writing. (I mean that seriously.)

I have given you the questions. If all you would take my email for is an opportunity to hone your apologetic skills, then I'll pass. Maybe when you are less busy and are willing to take me seriously as something other than a "research project" as you referred to many of us in your piece on Secular Anti-Mormonism, I'll contact you. As it stands, I suspect you have stuck me into a category that will largely dictate how you deal with me, and we won't get anywhere. And believe me, I understand this goes both ways.

[_Yong Xi]

I have to say, frankly, that I'm losing interest in this board again. I'm not quite sure why I came back.

Vintage DCP. At least you're predictable.

[_Joey]

Nothing, except that they took that letter from the secretary to the First Presidency written to "Bishop Brooks" and reproduced it in order to score a point.

What point were the Tanners trying to make? Truth, honesty, or just facts?

While you make every effort to characterize the letter as something else, the Letter was from the Office of the First Presidency to Brooks as instructed and stated the "longstanding position OF THE CHURCH". While your and the self serving interests of FARMS need it to be re- characterized as something else, there is no indication that it was a personal opinion, just the opposite. It is also supported by, as it clearly stated, the statements of past leaders and general authorities of the church.

If the Church has an official Book of Mormon geography, you should be able to find a primary official source in which that official geography is authoritatively set forth.

The issue here is the Church's "longstanding" position on the location of Hill Cumorah as mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The letter from the First Presidency to Brooks makes it very clear what this "longstanding" postion has been. IF such position becomes troubling for those apologists who want Book of Mormon geography to be as fluid as jello, take it up with the First Presidency. But just don't continue your deceiving ways in trying to speak on behalf of the First Presidency, you have no basis and diminishing credibility.

You shouldn't be reduced to triumphantly jumping up and down while pointing to the reproduction in a publication of Utah Lighthouse Ministry of a letter from the secretary in the Office of the First Presidency to some "Bishop Brooks" somewhere.

The Tanners, Brooks and the fact that a letter was "reproduced" have nothing to do with the stated longstanding position of the LDS Church, as issued in the statement from the First Presidency, on the location of Hill Cumorah as mentioned in the Book of Mormon. But I recognize your desperation here. Continue in your attempts to obfuscate, we may have some new readers from Provo this afternoon.

(I suggest a careful search through James R. Clark's multivolume Messages of the First Presidency as a good place to start.)

Why? He, just like FARMS, can not speak officially on behalf of the Office of the First Presidency on this issue. His opinions, perhaps just as yours, may differ from the position held in the Office of the First Presidency with respect to the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah and the site in NY being one in the same. What is your point!!!!!!?

Anyway, will you ever provide evidence that the Office of the First Presidency has formally changed their position as to the location of Hill Cumorah, as mentioned in the Book of Mormon, being in NY?

[_antishock8]

I have to say, frankly, that I'm losing interest in this board again. I'm not quite sure why I came back.

Mr. Peterson is an idiot. All he does is come here and s*** talk. He never offers anything of substance, passively insults all the "lesser lights", gets his little thrill from the argument that he's not allowed to do in real life with anyone with whom he associates, and then stomps off when it gets to be a little too much.

If he were actually interested in debate he would stick to the Celestial forum, and do his best to frame his ideology in a respectful manner. But no, he comes here and participates in the Schryverian circle jerk, and unfortunately is the last one to fire off his pathos. His little sycophants read his barbs and run around in circles on the other board telling him how amazing he is, and how completely 'x-y-z' people here are.

Don't expect anything better from him. Don't expect anything better from Mormons, period. And certainly don't expect anything better from Mormonism, ever. It's just the way it is.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Vintage DCP. At least you're predictable.

Well, seriously. Really.

What is there of real interest here? Defending my integrity? It does no good.

Much of what I get here is personal attacks. They're not interesting.

Well, I don't want to interrupt your busy work schedule. It is puzzling, though, why you make the choice to answer every oddball accusation and implication Scratch makes, no matter how silly, and yet you immediately hit me with "I don't really have time for this" as soon as I suggest I might write to you to discuss what I take to be serious questions (no conspiracy accusations involved). It leads me to suspect that you really don't think my questions are substantive or worthwhile. They don't even warrant the attention you would give to Scratch.

I'm sorry you choose to read my response that way.

I said I was open to personal correspondence. But surely it's not fair to fault me because I say that I can't afford to spend many days at the level of posting intensity that today has been, here.

If all you would take my email for is an opportunity to hone your apologetic skills, then I'll pass.

That wasn't at all what I said.

I assume that you're a reasonably decent fellow and a competent scholar in real life. These boards -- and, in my view, this one far more than many -- are poisonous.

Maybe when you are less busy and are willing to take me seriously as something other than a "research project" as you referred to many of us in your piece on Secular Anti-Mormonism, I'll contact you. As it stands, I suspect you have stuck me into a category that will largely dictate how you deal with me, and we won't get anywhere.

Just so you'll know: I'm not my caricature. And, contrary to Guy Sajer, message board posts don't exhaust my intellectual life.

And believe me, I understand this goes both ways.

If the problem is as deep-seated as you appear to believe it is, there probably wouldn't be much point in corresponding. That's too bad.