Peterson Misleading Again

[_beastie]

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).

When did I ever deny it could be very unpleasant to be a believer on this board?

Beastie said:

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.

DCP replied:

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

Condescending to whom? My former, naïve self? Maybe. The aggressive believers who treated me like a villain for no reason other than I was a vocal apostate? Maybe. Perhaps you should imagine a believer saying something similar to understand my point. Perhaps, even, you could imagine yourself saying something not unlike this.

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.

You’re being unduly distracted by their vulgarity, I suspect. Once you focus more on the substance than style, you’ll find believers easily as offensive and prone to demonizing.

How come you ignored the examples I provided on the linked thread of your own leaders literally demonizing apostates?

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).

I’m sure you have no idea how offensive you are right in this very paragraph.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What position were they trying to bolster? The truth or the facts?

They were trying to bolster their position, which I'm sure they believed to be truthful and factual, just as Professor Hamblin was trying to bolster his position, which he believes to be true and factual.

And they did not cite a supposed letter, they provided a photocopy of for the reader to make their own conclusion.

Professor Hamblin didn't cite a supposed letter, either. He provided the entire text of the letter, complete and unedited, so that readers can draw their own conclusions.

All we have from you/Hamblin is heresay.

You have a direct quotation from the letter that covers the entire body of the letter, omitting only the date, the salutation, and the signature. That's not hearsay. Or, if it is, just about every quotation in virtually every published book is "hearsay."

Difficult to know if Hamblin or you interpreted the letter (if one existed) you received (and now can't find) correctly.

There was no "interpretation." Professor Hamblin quotes the entire text of the letter, verbatim.

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

Letter #1 was a letter written by the individual named Michael Watson, writing in his capacity as secretary to the First Presidency on stationery of the Office of the First Presidency, to an individual identified as "Bishop Brooks."

Letter #2 was a letter written by the individual named Michael Watson, writing in his capacity as secretary to the First Presidency on stationery of the Office of the First Presidency, to an individual generally known as Professor William J. Hamblin.

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

Please support this claim with more than hearsay.

It's not "hearsay." I saw it with my own beady little eyes. So did Professor Hamblin. So did our production editor, Dr. Shirley Ricks. So did our source checker. So, probably, did a few others.

If you believe that we forged it, please contact the First Presidency and see to it that we get our just reward.

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."

Well, it came on official stationery of the Office of the First Presidency, in an envelope marked "The Office of the First Presidency."

I presume that that's precisely the manner in which the letter from Michael Watson to Bishop Brooks arrived.

How is it, exactly, that we're being "deceptive"?

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.

So either Watson or the Office of the First Presidency lacks integrity . . . which means that Watson letter #1 must be received as authoritative while Watson letter #2 must be rejected as without value.

I hope this makes sense to somebody else, because it makes not a bit of sense to me.

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.

They may have regarded you as a hostile crank.

Can't imagine why.

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['s secretary, Michael Watson] to Brooks is quite simple and clear to understand. While you may need Clark's assistance in comprehension, I do not.

What part of the concept of "anthology of official First Presidency statements" is it that you don't understand?

Clark's collection isn't a commentary on First Presidency statements. It's a collection of First Presidency statements. If there's an official First Presidency position on the location of the Cumorah of the final Nephite battle, you should be able to do better to establish that than merely locating a letter from a secretary to a bishop. There should be something on the order of an official First Presidency statement to that effect, publicly issued to the Church at large. Professor Clark's collection of First Presidency statements is probably the best place to begin looking for such a statement.

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,

And I countered with a statement of precisely the same form -- a letter written by the same secretary, Michael Watson, on the same stationery, from the same Office of the First Presidency.

Again, I really question your ability to read and comprehend.

I don't think that the irony can possibly get any thicker.

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.

Have you ever actually even looked at the article by Professor Hamblin? Scratch apparently hasn't bothered; he thinks it's in the FARMS Review. And you think that the relevant quotation from Michael Watson is in a footnote.

It's not in a footnote. It's in the main body of the text of the article. And it isn't "hearsay." It's a direct quotation. It's a complete quotation. Nothing left out. No ellipses. No interpretation.

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.

Oh good grief. Professor Hamblin wrote to Michael Watson because Michael Watson was the author of the letter to Bishop Brooks. This is a nitpicking distinction of utterly no relevance. Michael Watson authored both letters.

But you are free to provide a copy of this supposed second letter if I am wrong.

Its entire text appears in the article by Professor Hamblin. You're free to read it.

[_antishock8]

Oh, well praise be to Jesus. Dan is fighting the good fight here on this board. Lord knows He needs people like Dan to post on this forum, meanwhile a girl is getting her arms hacked off and raped in front of her family in Darfur. But then again, the Lord has His priorities. Jesus Christ.

Got news for ya, buddy. This isn't ME being vulgar. This is reality. The truth of the matter is you're getting paid to be an apologist. You think you're doing something speshul here on some obscure Internet forum, fighting away for your god. Meanwhile, your god really doesn't give a crap about that girl getting raped and mutilated. It's her "trial" in this life... And yours, apparently, is to post incessantly on Mormon forums, never really discussing topics with any sort of substance, but rather endlessly bitching about the vulgarity of certain posters here and there... And then stomping off in disgust. As if you didn't come here in the first place to get off on being a jackass.

Screw you, you hack.

If you really gave a crap about "your cause" you'd be camping out in the Celestial forum going over the topics that have been covered umpteen times with people who want to play your silly little reindeer games. Me? No. I know what you're about. You're about getting paid. You're about passing off your behavior as something respectable. It's not. It's BS. You don't DO anything of substance. You just yammer on about things that don't matter. You don't DO anything. You just get paid to push a lie that there's a "plan", and if you just stick to it things will be wonderful AFTER you're dead.

Dan. There's no god. Mormonism is a lie. Joseph Smith was clearly a charlatan. And YOU keep abetting this vile lie for a paycheck. SHAME on you. Shame on you, Mr. Peterson. You're an adult that should know better than to be this way. You have no moral compass. You're a paid hack and a shill that can string a few words together; enough so that impresses the tithe-paying masses so that they may continue the revenue stream for your employer. You lack the courage to pursue your career in a legitimate manner, but instead focus on pandering to a smallish group that needs someone like you to keep lulling them back to sleep. Shame on you.

Be courageous. Strike out, and pursue your area of expertise that can elevate the mass of humanity to a better understand of our own history, and existence. Stop being a liar. It's cheap. You're cheap. You're a sell out. Be better than what you've been.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I’m sure you have no idea how offensive you are right in this very paragraph.

You're right. I don't.

Surely you don't expect me to say that nobody ever leaves the Church because of sin, nor even that it's rare. Do you?

Because that simply doesn't accord with my experience.

That people can and do reject Mormonism for more or less purely intellectual reasons seems obvious to me. I know people who claim to have done so, and I have no powerful reason to reject their claims.

But I simply cannot go as far as you evidently want me to go. If the truth offends you, I can't help it.

[_beastie]

You're right. I don't.

Surely you don't expect me to say that nobody ever leaves the Church because of sin, nor even that it's rare. Do you?

Because that simply doesn't accord with my experience.

That people can and do reject Mormonism for more or less purely intellectual reasons seems obvious to me. I know people who claim to have done so, and I have no powerful reason to reject their claims.

But I simply cannot go as far as you evidently want me to go. If the truth offends you, I can't help it.

Boy, you are certainly fond of strawmen arguments. Where did I ever state or even imply I wanted you to say nobody ever or rarely leaves due to sin? You stated the “truth” as you perceive it, which is that MOST of the people you know who left the church did so due to sin, even if they claimed otherwise.

The fact that you apparently really cannot recognize what is offensive about that speaks directly the what I now view as the unbridgeable gap between Mormon and exmormon.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh, well praise be to Jesus. Dan is fighting the good fight here on this board. Lord knows He needs people like Dan to post on this forum, meanwhile a girl is getting her arms hacked off and raped in front of her family in Darfur. But then again, the Lord has His priorities. Jesus Christ.

What are you doing to help her, you miserable and pretentious little hypocrite?

Meanwhile, your god really doesn't give a s*** about that girl getting raped and mutilated. It's her "trial" in this life...

Weird doctrine.

f*** you, you hack.

A heroic blow for the girl in Darfur!

If you really gave a s*** about "your cause" you'd be camping out in the Celestial forum going over the topics that have been covered umpteen times with people who want to play your silly little reindeer games.

Somehow, I don't think that the real test of my devotion to my "cause" is whether or not I'm posting on the Celestial forum of this message board.

Me? No. I know what you're about. You're about getting paid.

Scratch has a worthy disciple in you.

Dan. There's no god.

Coming from a deep thinker like you, that settles it. The question is closed.

Mormonism is a lie. Joseph Smith was clearly a charlatan. And YOU keep abetting this vile lie for a paycheck. SHAME on you. Shame on you, Mr. Peterson.

Ah, but it's such an enormous paycheck!

You're a paid hack and a shill that can string a few words together; enough so that impresses the tithe-paying masses so that they may continue the revenue stream for your employer.

Wow. This may be the finest social analysis since Thorstein Veblen. Or maybe Max Weber.

You lack the courage to pursue your career in a legitimate manner, but instead focus on pandering to a smallish group that needs someone like you to keep lulling them back to sleep. Shame on you.

Be courageous. Strike out, and pursue your area of expertise that can elevate the mass of humanity to a better understand of our own history, and existence. Stop being a liar. It's cheap. You're cheap. You're a sell out. Be better than what you've been.

You're even more of a gasbag than Guy Sajer.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You stated the “truth” as you perceive it, which is that MOST of the people you know who left the church did so due to sin, even if they claimed otherwise.

They absolutely did. Most of the people I know who've left Mormonism don't even claim any historical or doctrinal reasons. Why should I pretend that they do? They like sleeping with their girlfriends and/or cheating on their husbands and/or doing drugs and/or keeping an extra 10% of their income for themselves (not a sin in your book, of course, but a sin or, at least, an obviously non-intellectual reason in mine) and/or golfing on Sundays (ditto), and the like. Ideas aren't the major factors in their lives.

Certainly this can't be controversial. Are you under the impression that the majority of ordinary people are primarily moved by philosophical and historical reflection?

In the two cases to which I referred where the individuals loudly proclaimed that, despite what the Mormons would surely claim, sin had nothing to do with their leaving the Church, each, as it turned out, had been involved in a long-standing adulterous affair. I had actually been inclined to believe them, but learned that the reality was earthier than their protestations suggested.

I don't for a moment deny the possibility and the reality of purely intellectual apostasy. I know people where I presume that that's exactly what happened. But I've learned not to credit every claim that self-interest, the flesh, or whatever was wholly uninvolved.

The fact that you apparently really cannot recognize what is offensive about that speaks directly the what I now view as the unbridgeable gap between Mormon and exmormon.

You seem to want me to affirm a falsehood.

I won't.

[_Dr. Shades]

Oh, well praise be to Jesus. Dan is fighting the good fight here on this board. Lord knows He needs people like Dan to post on this forum, . . . You think you're doing something speshul here on some obscure Internet forum, fighting away for your god. Meanwhile, your god really doesn't give a s*** about that girl getting raped and mutilated. It's her "trial" in this life... And yours, apparently, is to post incessantly on Mormon forums, . . . [SNIP!]

antishock8:

Please keep in mind that Daniel Peterson is just as welcome on this message board as anyone else.

[_asbestosman]

Please keep in mind that Daniel Peterson is just as welcome on this message board as anyone else.

MDB--the board where even Satan is welcome. Uh, not that Daniel Peterson is anything like Satan.

[_Ray A]

Surely you don't expect me to say that nobody ever leaves the Church because of sin, nor even that it's rare. Do you?

Because that simply doesn't accord with my experience.

That people can and do reject Mormonism for more or less purely intellectual reasons seems obvious to me. I know people who claim to have done so, and I have no powerful reason to reject their claims.

But I simply cannot go as far as you evidently want me to go. If the truth offends you, I can't help it.

I'd say this is true to a large extent, but I can see how it would be offensive to those who didn't leave the Church "to sin". Trevor made a good point that many who sin still stay in the Church, and I don't think that's rare, either. I have no problem with this "leaving to sin" being applied to me, because sinning is more fun than sainthood. For now anyway. LOL.

But the reality is that, regardless of this factor, and whether I sinned or not - it wouldn't make the Church true or false. From my POV, there are too many things I can't believe, and whether I'm a sinner or a Saint, nothing will change that. If I turn back Saint, the same "intellectual" problems would be there, and confront me again, eventually. I know this, because I tried it five times in 11 years. No matter how hard you try, 2 + 2 does not equal 5. That's my opinion anyway. If I'm correct, Dan, you have said several times that the evidence for Book of Mormon historicity is about 50-50? I think this could be a valid reason for someone to not believe it. If you boarded a plane, and the pilot told you there's a 50-50 chance we're going to land in Australia, would you fly with him?