Peterson Misleading Again

[_harmony]

I do attack his ideas. I call them lies because they're lies.

You think they are lies; he does not. Point out why his ideas are lies. Keep in mind just because the ideas may be lies, that doesn't make him a liar. That may make him only wrong. Being wrong is not the same as being a liar. Being a liar implies intent; being simply wrong does not.

Who are YOU to judge ME??? Huh???

You bring it on yourself. Don't blame me for pointing out that your communication style distracts from your message.

Give me a break, Harmony.

Why? Are you finally going to show some maturity and change your communication style to one that reflects substance and some minimal critical thinking (as opposed to simply being critical)?

We all judge each other, all the time. Everyone judges everyone else. It's the way things are. I have every right to call a con man a con man, just as you have every right to call me whatever you think you need to call me.

Indeed. And I havr every right to expect you to back up your accusations with facts and examples. Joseph may have been a con man; that doesn't mean Daniel is one, just because he believes Joseph.

I judge him because he's judgemental. I judge him because he's a deceiver.

You make bald statements with little or no foundation and get PO'd when someone points that out. And somehow that's supposed to be okay? If he's a deceiver, prove it. Jus stating it over and over isn't proving your point.

He judges me because that's what he does.

So he's doing exactly what you're doing. And that makes what you're doing okay? Sounds very junior high to me. Entertaining on a basic level, but it adds nothing to the conversation. I've been known to call Daniel on it, when he's doing it too. Why should you be exempt?

I'm not sure why your panties are in a bind, but get over yourself.

Not my underwear of choice.

If Mr. Peterson were truly interested in genuine dicourse he wouldn't frequent the Telestial forum. He comes here to pick fights, condescend, and generally entertain himself. Mission accomplished.

This isn't the Telestial forum. Take your comments there, if that's what you're arguing. Here, he obeys the same rules as anyone else. And yes, I know he's not exactly a model of the best Mormon behavior, but then again, neither are you... or I (occasionally). He gives as good as he gets, and often he's one against several. Those who wish to actually engage the man's mind, instead of just his hyperbole, don't attack him, but rather seek to find ways to communicate that don't include words like "vile" and "liar" and "deceiver". He's a guest in Shades' house, the same as you and I are. On this thread, he's behaved more circumspectly than you. How sad that is. Surely you can do better.

The same can be said of many other Mormon, non-Mormon, and ex-Mormon posters. Look in the mirror, honey.

Don't model yourself after the worst. Model yourself after the best. Anything less is less than you (and we) deserve.

And you have no idea why I come here. My history is one you are obviously not privy to.

[_Trevor]

For what it's worth, I have had (and continue to have) good, substantive discussions about Mormonism with non-believers and former believers.

I don't believe that such discussions are impossible. I know, in fact, that they are not.

But I'm not sure that they're possible here, and I don't think that they're possible with all non-believers and former believers. (I can't imagine a civil, substantive conversation with antishock8, for instance, or with Infymus, or with any of several others of that type.)

I have heard that from good, reliable folk like Ray A. And I agree that you are not likely to be able to engage in that kind of discussion here.

[_beastie]

For what it's worth, I have had (and continue to have) good, substantive discussions about Mormonism with non-believers and former believers.

I don't believe that such discussions are impossible. I know, in fact, that they are not.

But I'm not sure that they're possible here, and I don't think that they're possible with all non-believers and former believers. (I can't imagine a civil, substantive conversation with antishock8, for instance, or with Infymus, or with any of several others of that type.)

I've had good, substantive discussions as well. But I believe, as I stated, they are the exception that proves the rule.

How about you, DCP? Are those substantive discussions the exception or the rule? Were they the exception or the rule on ZLMB, where moderating was deliberately unbiased and even-handed?

[_harmony]

Harmony:

I don't want to gross you out, but I appreciate the stance you took in your exchange with antishock8, above.

-dcp

I've often defended you here, Daniel. There's nothing new in that.

[_harmony]

--snip--

No matter how many words you use, the problem would go away, if you'd just produce the letter, Daniel. Were I to ask the Tanners to produce the 1st letter, they'd either produce it or be subjected to the same scrutiny as you currently are. I don't differentiate between claims. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic.

I have a messy office. Legendarily messy, in fact. Yet I can put my hand on virtually any particular piece of paper in it, when I need to. And if I can't, I clean it until I find it. Sorry, but I don't buy the messy office excuse. You can say that Dr Hamblin sees no need to produce the letter, and I'll believe you. That doesn't mean the problem goes away though. That just means he (and you by extension) have done the church another disservice, which probably doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but still... it's not living your religion nor does it help lead people to Christ. Every member a missionary, and all that.

Until someone produces letter #2, there is no reason to believe letter #2 exists or that it says what you say it says. Just as the IRS doesn't have to believe that I really did pay my property taxes in the amount I claimed on my 1040 until I produce the receipt (perhaps you've never been audited? Not a pleasant experience.), there is no reason to believe that letter #2 exists or says what you say it says.

You don't take my word for anything; as a matter of fact, you doubt my every word, yet you expect me (and the rest of us here) to take your word that letter #2 exists and says what you say it says? Please. Don't condescend to me; don't pat me on the head. I'm not a fool and I'm not one of your students. Produce the letter. It's really that simple. Or continue to make excuses and reap the reward of that. It really makes little difference to anyone except those who value truth and the church.

[_GoodK]

No matter how many words you use, the problem would go away, if you'd just produce the letter, Daniel. Were I to ask the Tanners to produce the 1st letter, they'd either produce it or be subjected to the same scrutiny as you currently are. I don't differentiate between claims. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic.

Well said.

On the one hand, I very much doubt that the 2nd letter was forged. I also doubt that DCP would lie about something like this. On the other hand, if this were the Tanners, or Brodie -- well, just look at No Ma'm That's Not History.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No matter how many words you use

I didn't merely produce a lot of "words." I offered a reasonable analysis and commentary on the situation.

the problem would go away, if you'd just produce the letter, Daniel. . . . Produce the letter. It's really that simple. Or continue to make excuses and reap the reward of that. It really makes little difference to anyone except those who value truth and the church.[

I can't produce the letter. Professor Hamblin mislaid it.

And there's absolutely nothing I can do about that.

Were I to ask the Tanners to produce the 1st letter, they'd either produce it or be subjected to the same scrutiny as you currently are.

But nobody has even suggested that they have to or that they ought to. (Actually, there's only one Tanner left. Jerald died some time ago.)

And I certainly don't. Despite our fundamental disagreements, I have no reason to suspect them of forging or falsifying Watson letter #1. I don't believe them to be (or to have been) that kind of people.

Moreover, if they were to say that they had mislaid the original, I would be strongly inclined to credit that.

I don't differentiate between claims. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic.

Not entirely. You don't genuinely seem to entertain the possibility that the Tanners could have forged Watson letter #1 -- something that, as I've pointed out, wouldn't have been very hard to do. Yet you think that possibility very real in our case.

I have a messy office. Legendarily messy, in fact. Yet I can put my hand on virtually any particular piece of paper in it, when I need to. And if I can't, I clean it until I find it. Sorry, but I don't buy the messy office excuse.

Whatever.

It's Professor Hamblin's office. (Actually, it's about his third or fourth office since early 1993, in at least his second building. And that doesn't count the office he once had in his house, and which he now has in his condo.) He says the letter is missing. He's shown no particular inclination to search for it -- probably because he thinks it's simply gone, but perhaps also because the unreasonable insinuations of a small handful of very hostile critics on one obscure message board don't motivate him much. It's not my office. I can't simply march in to search it, and I'm not inclined to do so.

You can say that Dr Hamblin sees no need to produce the letter, and I'll believe you. That doesn't mean the problem goes away though. That just means he (and you by extension) have done the church another disservice, which probably doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but still... it's not living your religion nor does it help lead people to Christ. Every member a missionary, and all that.

It's a bit much -- but, I'm afraid, it's typically Harmony-judgmental -- to publicy accuse two named people of doing the Church a disservice, failing to lead people to Christ, and not living their religion simply because one of them mislaid a short letter written more than fifteen years ago. Really, it's quite a bit much.

Until someone produces letter #2, there is no reason to believe letter #2 exists or that it says what you say it says. . . . there is no reason to believe that letter #2 exists or says what you say it says.

Of course there's reason to believe that the letter existed and said what we said it said. As I pointed out among the many "words" that I wrote above (and which, it appears, you haven't read or followed), unless one is really prepared to believe that we are so depraved and reckless that we would conspire together to forge and publish a bogus letter from the Office of the First Presidency, or that we're so unspeakably incompetent that Dr. Hamblin and Dr. Ricks and the source checker and I (working together) couldn't quote two sentences accurately enough to transmit their actual meaning, the reasonable response to seeing the quotation from Watson letter #2 in Professor Hamblin's edited and source-checked article is to assume that it's an accurate reproduction of a genuine letter.

[_Daniel Peterson]

On the one hand, I very much doubt that the 2nd letter was forged. I also doubt that DCP would lie about something like this.

That's the reasonable reaction, one that doesn't assume me and my supposed co-conspirators to be monumentally dishonest and wildly reckless.

On the other hand, if this were the Tanners, or Brodie -- well, just look at No Ma'm That's Not History.

If Professor Nibley accused Mrs. Brodie of actually forging or inventing primary source documents, I must have missed it.

And I don't remember any serious response to the Tanners that has ever accused them of deliberately creating bogus evidence. If you can think of an example of such an accusation, I would appreciate seeing it.

I don't regard either the Tanners or Fawn Brodie as a deliberate liar or forger.

[_antishock8]

Don't model yourself after the worst. Model yourself after the best. Anything less is less than you (and we) deserve.

And you have no idea why I come here. My history is one you are obviously not privy to.

Harmony,

I don't care if I don't live up to your standard of "model behavior". I think most peoples' notions of "model behavior" are self-deception, at best. I'm going to be the way I am, and if you don't like it... Oh well. Don't care. If you have a problem with my having a problem with liars and con men who peddle an obvious fraud like Mormonism, then I just don't think we're going to be buddies. Shucks.

Reference why you come here. I don't care. Never did. Never will. There are only a few posters that register on my radar, and you're not one of them. Regardless, we're here because this topic and the people that are/were involved with it still holds our interest. That's it.

That being said, someone told me yesterday that the 12th Iman is due for his fantastic reappearance. I told him he was full of crap. You would be amazed how similar a Shiite and a Mormon react to their religion and their prophet not being venerated. It's all BS. That's that. Grow up. Stop pandering to these people. They don't deserve it.

[_GoodK]

If Professor Nibley accused Mrs. Brodie of actually forging or inventing primary source documents, I must have missed it.

Despite inserting the qualifier, "actually forging or inventing primary source documents" - I think you missed it. He accuses her of dishonesty, among other things, all throughout his essay :

"While a large book could (and probably should) be devoted to this remarkable monument of biographical mendacity,"

"Her manipulating and tangling of evidence, which we once compared to a nest of garter snakes, "

And I don't remember any serious response to the Tanners that has ever accused them of deliberately creating bogus evidence. If you can think of an example of such an accusation, I would appreciate seeing it.

I'll have to read up a little first. I'm sure it won't be hard to find you an example.

I don't regard either the Tanners or Fawn Brodie as a deliberate liar or forger.

Do you consider them accidental liars? Incidental liars?