Peterson Misleading Again

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:Hey, I was more than happy to post on the Board Formerly Known as FAIR until you saw fit to get me booted off.

I'm aware that your enforced departure from the board formerly known as FAIR is a persisting source of irritation to you, and that you blame me for it. In fact, I suspect that it's a major inspiration for your neverending animus towards me.

Nonetheless, your banning was a decision of the moderators. They didn't ask me about it, and I didn't request it.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

And isn't it precisely a failure of the board that "apologists," to the extent that they think of it, tend to loathe it? It's an uncongenial place -- and I mean a profoundly uncongenial place -- for anybody who affirms Mormonism. My personal experience of MDB, by a considerable distance, is as a hate site. And, in my case, the hatred and hostility are pretty personally focused. The ratio of (often astoundingly spiteful) noise to signal is far, far too high for me, at least, to be able to recommend it to anybody else. In fact, I would recommend that anybody I know and like avoid the place. And that's exactly what I've recommended on the two or three occasions when people have asked.


If this site is a "hate site", then MAD is, as well, except they hate critics. In fact, using your logic, it would be even more accurate to refer to MAD as a hate site then it is to refer to this one as a hate site, due to the fact that the hatred and hostility often manifested towards critics is usually ignored or even encouraged by the moderators. The moderators also deliberately keep the "critic cheering section" abnormally low due to their repetitive bannings. There are no moderators here encouraging or turning a blind eye to behavior manifested by one side, only to criticize and censor it when it occurs in the other side. There is no deliberate administrator effort to keep the number of believing cheerleaders low.

As I've said many times, unless and until the LDS church stops teaching that apostates are lazy, prideful, sinful, or (fill in the pejorative blank), then this acrimony will continue nonstop. It is a vicious cycle. Apostates know that their faithful family or friends are hearing the same malicious statements about apostates that they heard when they were in the church, so they immediately want to defend and justify their apostasy. Believers take this defense and justification as a personal attack, and react accordingly. And critics react in kind. "Why can't they leave the church alone?" they ask, ignoring the fact that the church's leaders continue to malign apostates which, in essence, doesn't leave apostates alone. They seem determined to make sure the faithful view apostates in the worst possible light. Of course apostates are going to want to defend and justify their loss of faith.

Make no mistake, there is plenty of blame on both sides, but the origin of the contention is church teachings, in my opinion.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

beastie wrote:As I've said many times, unless and until the LDS church stops teaching that apostates are lazy, prideful, sinful, or (fill in the pejorative blank), then this acrimony will continue nonstop. It is a vicious cycle.


I love this place. I love it. I love it when folks like you explode all over me, like the time you posted a bunch of personal information about me -- material I had never disclosed -- about my children -- and made a vulgar reference to sex with my sainted wife. Or when I am reported to the state bar for making pretty uncontroversial comments in defense of my faith and friends. Or when posters here post my cell phone number (i.e., link to it on my ward web site) and it gets filled with vulgar phone mail messages.

I really wonder who "owns" the hate here.

But I still like you and think you're on the higher side of smart. You're not outside the pale of redemption, my friend.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Daniel Peterson wrote:And isn't it precisely a failure of the board that "apologists," to the extent that they think of it, tend to loathe it?


There is a Celestial Kingdom section that at least theoretically should rise above the usual arrows of the other two kingdoms. And, to be fair to the people who participate here, I do not see Ray A, beastie, Jason Bourne, harmony, CaliforniaKid, rcrocket, The Nehor, The Dude, moksha, richardMDBorn, and many others as "haters." I think that when it comes to you there is actually more than the usual unkindness. And this may have something to do with the fact that you have become a lightning rod for resentment. Actually, I have repeatedly advocated that people lay off of you because I find the incessant discussion of you really boring.

And what I also find interesting is that here one is likely to find profound disagreement between people who are often viewed as being part of the anti-Morg, to coin a term (it may not work, perhaps a Borg of antis?). I have had heated disagreements with Kevin Graham, Mr. Scratch, guy sajer, and others, and on a couple of occasions the point of disagreement was over how much attention you should receive. As I noted, I advocated you receiving much less.

Trevor wrote:However, to be strictly accurate, there isn't much of a pro-Mormon "cheering section" here.


And I never suggested there was one. What I was saying was that one finds a cheering section for the LDS position at MA&D, while one tends to find more of an anti-Mo cheering section here. The two hardly interact, with some exceptions.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

beastie wrote:If this site is a "hate site", then MAD is, as well, except they hate critics.

Although there is some excess there, I honestly don't see the kind of hatred toward non-Mormons and even many critics over on the board formerly known as FAIR that I see directed against the few believing Latter-day Saints who post here.

beastie wrote:In fact, using your logic, it would be even more accurate to refer to MAD as a hate site then it is to refer to this one as a hate site, due to the fact that the hatred and hostility often manifested towards critics is usually ignored or even encouraged by the moderators.

I've seen a number of overzealous or uncivil believers suspended or even banned there.

beastie wrote:Make no mistake, there is plenty of blame on both sides, but the origin of the contention is church teachings, in my opinion.

I don't hear the supposedly constant drumbeat that those who leave the Church are lazy, prideful, sinful, etc. I know of cases where they are, but I also know of cases where it doesn't appear to be so. I don't teach such a thing, and I wouldn't permit it being taught in any class or unit for which I had responsibility.

That members sometimes, even often, say such things is undoubtedly true. I don't see it as a teaching of the Church, as such, though.

And, frankly, there is the corresponding ex-Mormon claim that believers are mindless sheeple, dupes, fools, insane, programmed robots, dishonest, etc.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Trevor wrote:I have repeatedly advocated that people lay off of you because I find the incessant discussion of you really boring.

So do I, actually.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Although there is some excess there, I honestly don't see the kind of hatred toward non-Mormons and even many critics over on the board formerly known as FAIR that I see directed against the few believing Latter-day Saints who post here.


Of course you don’t see it. People universally have difficulty recognizing bad behavior of their own tribe, while noticing it immediately in the “other” tribe. I’m telling you it’s there – many of us have experienced it first hand, including myself. The very first time I posted on Z, I was immediately treated by Pahoran as an evil villain – and this was back when I still believed it was possible to bridge the divide between Mormon and exmormon and have genuine communication. Back when what I really wanted was to help Mormons move beyond the prejudicial ideas taught in the church about why people lose faith. Back before I had that naïve idea verbally beaten out of me. And then history repeated itself when, on one of the first threads I participated on at FAIR, Juliann repeatedly called me a liar and a plagiarist, without the slightest justification for either. And how can I forget finally breaking down and complaining about her repetitive behavior and then being banned myself – again without the slightest justification.

I've seen a number of overzealous or uncivil believers suspended or even banned there.


Sure, but their behavior has to be extreme, and the banning is usually temporary.

Have you happened to notice the periodic “purgings” moderators engage in over there, where large numbers of critics are summarily banned at the same time without explanation? Probably not, because those people just stop posting, and unless you hear from them on another board, like this one, you never know why. You never know they were banned.

I don't hear the supposedly constant drumbeat that those who leave the Church are lazy, prideful, sinful, etc. I know of cases where they are, but I also know of cases where it doesn't appear to be so. I don't teach such a thing, and I wouldn't permit it being taught in any class or unit for which I had responsibility.

That members sometimes, even often, say such things is undoubtedly true. I don't see it as a teaching of the Church, as such, though.

And, frankly, there is the corresponding ex-Mormon claim that believers are mindless sheeple, dupes, fools, insane, programmed robots, dishonest, etc.


I don’t know what you count as a “constant drumbeat”, but your highest leaders are teaching this across the pulpit. Perhaps you are as inattentive to this as you seem to be to believer rude behavior on MAD. I collected just a few samples here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1426

Yes, of course there is bad behavior on both sides. My point is that the vicious cycle starts in church teachings regarding personal apostasy. These teachings ensure that apostates will feel the need to defend and justify their loss of faith in the first place. And it’s why you usually only see this sort of acrimony between member and exmember in faiths that teach some variation of “one true” religion, because those are the same ones that teach that people who lose faith do so due to personal flaws and weaknesses, if not outright sin.

Here’s something for you to pay attention to at MAD – often the topic of whether or not apostates left due to sin often comes up over there. There are two things to notice in this repeated topic – one is that it comes up so often for a reason. The second is how inevitably several believers claim to know, first hand, that every single apostate that they know in real life did really leave due to sin.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

beastie wrote:Of course you don’t see it. People universally have difficulty recognizing bad behavior of their own tribe, while noticing it immediately in the “other” tribe.

I'm aware of that, and tried to view things as objectively as I could.

And, of course, I could easily turn the tables on you, and say that you don't notice how unpleasant it is to be a believing Latter-day Saint on this board (or how unpleasant it is, in particular, to be me here) because you're not a believing Latter-day Saint (and you most definitely aren't me).

beastie wrote:Back when what I really wanted was to help Mormons move beyond the prejudicial ideas taught in the church about why people lose faith. Back before I had that naïve idea verbally beaten out of me.

You're aware, I trust, that that sentence can come across as rather condescending?

beastie wrote:Yes, of course there is bad behavior on both sides.

Quite.

beastie wrote:My point is that the vicious cycle starts in church teachings regarding personal apostasy.

I'm not sure that I buy your claim.

There's certainly no believing Mormon board where the other side is demonized with such wild glee as routinely happens in the other direction on, say, RfM, and I can't really think of a Latter-day Saint poster equivalent to, oh, Infymus or antishock8.

beastie wrote:Here’s something for you to pay attention to at MAD – often the topic of whether or not apostates left due to sin often comes up over there. There are two things to notice in this repeated topic – one is that it comes up so often for a reason. The second is how inevitably several believers claim to know, first hand, that every single apostate that they know in real life did really leave due to sin.

I can't make that claim, and would never support it. However, most of the people I know who've dropped out of the Church have done so in connection with sins of one kind or another -- it's not always clear what's cause and what's effect, but I'm confident that sin often is a principal cause -- and that includes several cases where the apostate at first claimed to be leaving for purely intellectual reasons (and then, as in at least two instances that I know very well, proved to have been having an extramarital affair).
_Joey
_Emeritus
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:34 am

Post by _Joey »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Joey wrote:What point were the Tanners trying to make? Truth, honesty, or just facts?

They were trying to bolster their position by citing Watson letter #1, just as Professor Hamblin sought to bolster his position by citing Watson letter #2.


What position were they trying to bolster? The truth or the facts? And they did not cite a supposed letter, they provided a photocopy of for the reader to make their own conclusion. All we have from you/Hamblin is heresay. Difficult to know if Hamblin or you interpreted the letter (if one existed) you received (and now can't find) correctly.


Joey wrote: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

I've never for a single moment denied that the first letter was from the Office of the First Presidency to Bishop Brooks.


Not true again. You have claimed it was a personal letter from Watson to Brooks. It was not.

Analogously, the second letter was from the Office of the First Presidency to Professor Hamblin.


Please support this claim with more than hearsay. I can only imagine if the Tanners made the same claim for which they could provide no support. It would be your finest hour.

Joey wrote: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.

We make no pretense of speaking for the First Presidency. We simply quote F. Michael Watson, the secretary to the First Presidency. Do you believe that it's wrong or illegitimate to cite a letter from F. Michael Watson in support of one's position?


I believe it is very deceiving to use a personal opinion of Watson as if it were being issued on "behalf of the Office of the First Presidency. Until you can show evidence, I have no choice but to either conclude either Watson or the Office of the First Presidency have no integrity in providing conflicting positions. by the way, I sent a certified letter to the First Presidency's office a couple of years ago with a signed receipt in return. I included your claims (copies of your posts) along with a copy of the letter to Brooks asking for clarification as to whether they have changed their position since the letter to Brooks was issued. I know it was received, no answer to date.

James R. Clark's Messages of the First Presidency is an anthology of official First Presidency statements, from the nineteenth century on down. Not letters from secretaries to bishops somewhere, not Professor Clark's ruminations on this and that, but official First Presidency statements.


The statement from the First Presidency to Brooks is quite simple and clear to understand. While you may need Clark's assistance in comprehension, I do not.


Joey wrote: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?

You open with a letter written by a secretary in the Office of the First Presidency. I counter with a letter written by the very same secretary in the Office of the First Presidency.


Wrong again, what I opened with was a statement from the Office of the First Presidency, Again, I really question your ability to read and comprehend. You have never "countered" with anything more than heresay and a footnote from a publication which cannot speak for the Office of the First Presidency.

And as Hamblin admitted on the FAIR boards, he specifically sought an answer from Watson. The letter from Bro. Sparks, as it appears quite obvious, directed his inquiry to the Office of the First Presidency as Watson acknowledges. Therein lies the difference between a response from the "Office" and one from an individual. But you are free to provide a copy of this supposed second letter if I am wrong.

I confess that I simply cannot fathom how Watson letter #1 represents an official statement of the First Presidency and decisive evidence, while Watson letter #2 is apparently nothing at all and has absolutely zero value as evidence. Can you please explain your reasoning?


See above.
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Daniel Peterson wrote:However, most of the people I know who've dropped out of the Church have done so in connection with sins of one kind or another -- it's not always clear what's cause and what's effect, but I'm confident that sin often is a principal cause -- and that includes several cases where the apostate at first claimed to be leaving for purely intellectual reasons (and then, as in at least two instances that I know very well, proved to have been having an extramarital affair).


Most people who are active in the LDS Church do so in connection with sins of one kind or other. In other words, from a Christian and even LDS Christian perspective, sin permeates humanity. The particular association of it with apostasy would therefore be problematic. I recall that a friend (bishopric member) in my former ward once told me that half of the men active in the ward had committed a major sexual sin. These were the guys who were active in the ward, not the inactives and excommunicants. With percentages like those, it does not surprise me that some of those who leave have committed serious sexual sins, but I would also guess that many more who stay have done likewise.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Post Reply