My Experience With Daniel Peterson

[Guest]

I am thoroughly convinced that if Daniel’s critics really knew him, he would have no critics.

I am absolutely certain that Dan will be one of the precious few exalted beings who will voluntarily leave the highest degree of the Celestial Sphere, on his own time and at his own expense, to visit us down in the Telestial Sewers. He will bring us cookies, which he baked himself, and maybe even smuggle us a few bottles of the sacramental wine, if he can get away with it. He'll bandage our wounds and gently take the razors from our hands. He'll listen patiently as we scream and kick and writhe, then he'll wipe the tears from our eyes and the sneers from our faces. None of this will score him any points among his Higher Colleagues, in fact, it may even cost him a few planets. Nevertheless, he will come.

I just know he will.

[_why me]

Ego addiction is still an addiction - just ask a certain member of congress from Queens!!

As I've predicted before, Peterson will retire more times from this board than Jordan and Farve have ever combined times tenfold!!

Dan has been gracing the Celestial threads for quite some time. But he has returned to the terrestial threads. My hunch is because there are so many threads about him here. Quite difficult to leave alone threads that are about himself and at times quite hostile about him, if one takes into account what some posters are saying about him, I am sure that he feels obligated to respond.

[Guest]

In the same statement, you admit that Mormonism has not proven their [sic] claims, and then reject the assertion that it has failed to prove its claims. Think about it.

I did. Now you do so.

It isn't reasonable use of the language to speak of someone's "failure" to do something that she had no intention of doing, wasn't attempting, and/or didn't think could be done.

It would be silly to announce that I've "failed" to achieve checkmate for fully the past twenty four hours. I haven't been playing chess.

It would be fatuous to reveal that Abraham Lincoln "failed" to sign the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't possible for him to have done so, and, presumably, he never made the attempt.

My Ford hasn't "failed" to become a Chevrolet. My tortoise hasn't "failed" to become a cheetah. My house hasn't "failed" to turn into a sailing yacht. My computer hasn't "failed" to transform itself into an Elizabethan sonnet. Kant didn't "fail" to turn his metaphysical theories into organic chemistry.

With all due respect, just as the average Mormon would probably see nothing ironic in the quote in my post above from the Church member regarding the "Book of Mormon" musical, you apparently do not appreciate the internal contradiction in your statement. If you still can't see the problem, try reading your quote aloud or ask any non-Mormon colleague to help you out.

There is no contradiction.

Here are two formally analogous statements, with the terms changed so as, if at all possible, to help you to grasp the point, and with a suitable prologue sentence added, comparable to the one that sparked my initial comment, in order to make the context clear:

X. "Joe Montana failed to hit a single home run over his entire professional career."
Y. "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Joe Montana never hit a home run in a professional game. He wasn't supposed to do so, either, and, accordingly, I reject your claim that he failed to do so."

X. "Professor Langweil failed to prove beyond any possible doubt or challenge that King Lear is a better play than Othello."
Y. "I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Professor Langweil never proved King Lear a better play than Othello in a manner that would forever silence any possible dissenters. That's not the way literary criticism works -- it's not Euclidian geometry, after all -- and he never so much as hinted that he was attempting such a "proof." Accordingly, I reject your claim that he failed to provide irrefutable and irresistible demonstration that King Lear is better than Othello."

Philosophical or metaphysical claims, claims about the moral purpose of the universe or the lack thereof, claims about the truth or falsity of theism, and the like, can be argued for and against, made more or less plausible, etc., but there are very few who believe that they can be decisively proven or disproven, let alone that they already have been proven or disproven, in such a way as to silence all dissent.

Dr. Peterson,

So let me get this straight. You are saying that there is no contradiction in your quoted statement wherein you reject the assertion that Mormonism has not proven its truth claims because Mormonism and Mormons have not attempted to do so?

Really? Is that what you are saying? As a leading Mormon apologist, sworn to uphold and defend the truth claims of the LDS Church, this is your response?

To your next point, we are not talking about philosophy or metaphysics when it comes to the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church. One is talking about falsifiable (and mainly falsified) truth claims. Here are a few examples of foundational LDS truth claims.

- Depending on which version of the story is being considered, Joseph Smith was visited by one or more supernatural physical beings of flesh and blood who could travel at speeds in excess of the speed of light, glowed in the dark, and could levitate.

- Joseph Smith was shown, and provided with, a set of golden plates inscribed in Reformed Egyptian by a supernatural being, who later conveniently took said plates back to heaven (Kolob?).

- Reformed Egyptian was a principal written language in the New World prior to about 600 AD.

- Semites, including the Nephites (whose eventual population in the New world was numbered in the millions) were the principal ancestors of native American populations.

- Joseph Smith was commanded to engage in polyandry (which he did with the wives of his friends no fewer than ten times) by an angel with a flaming sword who threatened to use it on poor Joseph if he did not comply, even though such compliance had been expressly forbidden in Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon - the most correct book on Earth.

- The Book of Abraham is the accurate translation of a common Egyptian funerary text.

- Jaredites came from the area around Jerusalem to the New World in a fleet of unpowered wooden semi-submersibles about 2,500 BC.

Above are just a few of the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church. You admit that they have not been proven. I agree. These are not questions of philosophy or metaphysics. Either the claims are true or they are false. One can determine whether they are true or false (especially in the aggregate) by weighing the physical evidence for and against.

Here is where probability becomes important (as opposed to the apologist's best friend; possibility).

Given the documentation that the originator of most LDS truth claims, one Joseph Smith Jr., was a liar, adulterer, fornicator, and perpetrated glass looking, banking and finance fraud, and other scams on his friends and other Church members, and given the overwhelming physical evidence against the validity of these and other LDS Church truth claims, and considering the lack of physical evidence for the truth claims, the probability that they are true must be deemed so vanishingly as to not warrant further consideration.

Yet your position is that, even though these claims have not been proven true (and can be shown to be false), their validity is a matter of personal philosophy and that it is perfectly reasonable to consider such claims to be "true" based not on the evidence, but on faith.

Is that about right?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Dr. W,

You raise an interesting point about the Mormon's ability to live within absurdity or contradiction and think nothing of it. Let's take your signature line, for example:

I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims.

Here the Mormon admits that Mormonism has made claims, and that it has not proven the claims it has made. This is problematic for most rational people. Generally if someone makes a claim people want to see proof of the claim, or it's dismissed.

I don't think it's supposed to do so, either,

Oddly, the Mormon simultaneously holds the belief that the Mormon church isn't supposed to prove the claims it makes. In other words, the Mormon church is exempt from a reasonable expectation that it provide evidence for whatever claim it's making.

and, accordingly, I reject your claim that it has failed to do so.

Now, with the most stunning twist in logic I've seen in quite a while the Mormon rejects your claim that the Mormon church hasn't proven its claims all the while believing that it hasn't proven its claims and it isn't supposed to prove its claims. In other words, the Mormon church hasn't proved anything, isn't supposed to prove anything, but has proved something.

I would think the Mormon, instead of arguing this notion to death would simply see its absurdity and state he misspoke. Rather, we get a breathy retort that is somehow supposed to impugn your logic. Wow.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Simon Belmont]

Faithful LDS have no idea, none whatsoever, as to how silly their truth claims sound when they are recounted to rational, critical thinking individuals.

Because there's no such thing as a rational, critical thinking member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, right DrW?

[Guest]

Faithful LDS have no idea, none whatsoever, as to how silly their truth claims sound when they are recounted to rational, critical thinking individuals.

Because there's no such thing as a rational, critical thinking member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, right DrW?

You make it too easy, Simon.

Any rational, educated and individual who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church (including those I listed earlier in this thread) is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.

Such a person cannot realistically claim to be a critical thinker in the sense that they understand or have skills in the application of basic logic, probability, or the proper use of evidence in evaluating truth claims.

And I say this as the father of six TBM children, each of whom I love and respect very much. Among them are two scientists and a physician.

Like many BIC Mormons, my children are relatively high functioning adults. One would never know the depth of their personal delusions and staggeringly inconsistent and myth based worldview until one begins to talk with them about the very truth claims that I mentioned above. Then they start to sound like our friend Dr. Peterson.

They somehow manage to keep this inner conflict and inconsistency compartmentalized as I was able to for 30 years or so. I now sense that they are about ready to leave the nonsense behind and grow up, as I did, and as many other members on this board have done.

Someday you may grow up as well, Simon. I hope you do.

[_Simon Belmont]

You make it too easy, Simon.

Any rational, educated and individual who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church (including those I listed earlier in this thread) is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.

Such a person cannot realistically claim to be a critical thinker in the sense that they understand or have skills in the application of basic logic, probability, or the proper use of evidence in evaluating truth claims.

Damn... better inform all these people that they're idiots.

[_DrW]

You make it too easy, Simon.

Any rational, educated and individual who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church (including those I listed earlier in this thread) is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.

Such a person cannot realistically claim to be a critical thinker in the sense that they understand or have skills in the application of basic logic, probability, or the proper use of evidence in evaluating truth claims.

Damn... better inform all these people that they're idiots.

No need, Simon.

Read the rest of my post.

Many of them, if not most of them, will eventually figure it out for themselves.

This is not to say that they will have the courage to admit to others that they have figured it out, or let their families and friends know, or leave the Church when they do. But most of them will figure it out, just as I would bet from reading his apologetics that the Good Doctor has figured it out.

[_Simon Belmont]

No need, Simon.

Read the rest of my post.

Many, if not most of them, will eventually figure it out for themselves.

This is not to say that they will have the courage to admit to others that they have figured it out, or let their families and friends know, or leave the Church when they do. But most of them will figure it out, just as I would bet from reading his apologetics that the Good Doctor has figured it out.

I'll be honest with you. For a Doctor and one who claims to be a critical thinker, it is pretty naïve to state that:

Any rational, educated and individual who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church (including those I listed earlier in this thread) is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.

I mean, do you see the blaring errors in your reasoning here?

No true Scotsman would do such a thing.

It is like if I have stated (and I have before, but I am not a Dr.) that "all apostates never really understood the Church, or they wouldn't have left."

[_lostindc]

DrW,

Your anger makes it very hard for you to communicate the message you wish to communicate.

It appears you subscribe to the idea that talking louder wins the argument. It does not.