Fox News on Warren Jeffs Trial

[_Themis]

I write what I want when I want to write it. I don't take dictation.

No one said you couldn't, only that I couldn't see any real reason for you not to when asked to back up your assertion I was wrong. You made the assertion, and it is reasonable that anyone can ask one to back up those assertions, especially the one who you are claiming is wrong. So far it's I don't want to right now.

[_Buffalo]

Dr. Peterson:

As a scholar of the Middle East and its people and cultures, may I ask your professional opinion?

Is there anywhere in Utah you can recommend for good falafel?

Do you think it is fair to refer to falafel as "Arabian hush puppies"? Why or why not?

What's with this unreasonable demand for information? Dr. Peterson will provide restaurant recommendations on HIS time table, not yours!

[_Daniel Peterson]

What's with this unreasonable demand for information? Dr. Peterson will provide restaurant recommendations on HIS time table, not yours!

By contrast, ask Chip anything.

If he hasn't provided a fully satisfactory personalized answer within thirty minutes of the posing of your question, he will send you fifty dollars in cash!

You can't lose!

[_Buffalo]

What's with this unreasonable demand for information? Dr. Peterson will provide restaurant recommendations on HIS time table, not yours!

By contrast, ask Chip anything.

If he hasn't provided a fully satisfactory personalized answer within thirty minutes of the posing of your question, he will send you fifty dollars in cash!

You can't lose!

While Dr. Peterson is very tight-lipped about providing factual support for his claims, he is very free with his adolescent potty humor!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson is very tight-lipped about providing factual support for his claims

My reticence to argue for my positions has expressed itself, thus far, in 158 articles for the Maxwell Institute alone, not to mention several relevant books, a handful of edited books, scores of newspaper and on-line columns, innumerable public lectures, six or eight videos, at least three or four public debates, at least ten or fifteen radio appearances, roughly thirty-five issues of the FARMS Review, probably ten or fifteen panel discussions, quite a few academic presentations and responses, a number of other articles and reviews, various interviews in newspapers and magazines, a recent multi-hour podcast interview, and half a dozen lectures on CD.

It's virtually impossible to get anything out of me. I just clam up.

[_Buffalo]

Dr. Peterson is very tight-lipped about providing factual support for his claims

My reticence to argue for my positions has expressed itself, thus far, in 158 articles for the Maxwell Institute alone, not to mention several relevant books, a handful of edited books, scores of newspaper and on-line columns, innumerable public lectures, six or eight videos, at least three or four public debates, at least ten or fifteen radio appearances, roughly thirty-five issues of the FARMS Review, probably ten or fifteen panel discussions, quite a few academic presentations and responses, a number of other articles and reviews, various interviews in newspapers and magazines, a recent multi-hour podcast interview, and half a dozen lectures on CD.

It's virtually impossible to get anything out of me. I just clam up.

In a fully open public forum where your claims can be challenged in real time? Yes, you do.

[_kamenraider]

Hi Bro. Peterson,

I'm interested in reading what your thoughts are about Mormon fundamentalism. I hope you don't make the mistake, which Brian Hales and others usually tend to do, of lumping Mormon fundamentalists together when discussing their beliefs. An example of this can be found in this entence from Max Anderson's article "Fundamentalists" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: "Fundamentalists claim to believe in the four LDS standard works, the early history of the Church, and the prophets of the restoration up to, and including, John Taylor." I won't get into details, but this statement is NOT representative of the beliefs of fundamentalists in general, and could be very misleading for those who are unfamiliar with the subject.

Also, since it's relevant to Mormon fundamentalism, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about the topic of this thread:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19443

Bro. Peterson seems to have overlooked this post, or maybe feels it is not worth a reply. I'm quite curious what his opinion would be about each of the points I make in the thread I linked to. Here they are:


1. The Lord, in this revelation, refers to plural marriage (much the same way as He does in D&C 132) as "my law" and as a law of the priesthood that is required to be lived in order to be worthy of holding the priesthood and being in a presiding position in it.

2. This revelation was voted on by the Twelve, the Seventies, Stake Presidents, etc., and accepted as the word of the Lord. It was added to certain editions of the Doctrine and Covenants as Section 137 and can therefore be considered authentically canonical and scriptural.

3. In this revelation, the Lord urges certain priesthood leaders to break the law of the land by taking plural wives, and this is 20 years after the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, three years after it was declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Reynolds v. United States decision in 1879, and only a few months after the Edmunds Act, which increased punishments for convicted polygamists. The Lord seems to have rejected and disregarded the Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of the laws against plural marriage, to the point of requiring his priesthood leaders to break them, thus following the principle He set forth in D&C 98:6-7 that any law that is not constitutional cometh of evil.

4. This raises the question of whether this revelation is still canonical/scriptural and whether the principles taught in it still apply to priesthood holders today.

I'm not trying to derail -- I'd be happy to have him respond on the original thread. I'd also be interested in responses from any TBM's such as BC Space, Simon Belmont, etc. (others are quite welcome to respond too, but I'm more interested in understanding how true believers might regard the revelation in question and the issues it raises relevant to canonization/decanonization, priesthood laws, and so forth).

[_Joey]

Apparently Jeffs, now acting as his own attorney and prophet, pulled a classic Mormon defense card today: the "persecution"'objection. According to reports he went on a 50 minute tirade over having the word of God trampled on and not accepted by man.

Deja vu!

[_Joey]

This guy is sounding more and more like BY and others in the Mormon church back then! I think even Provo would have to agree here:

Jeffs' persecution rants in court-

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... n-polygamy

[_Corpsegrinder]

The basic reason is aesthetic.

I have in mind a fairly lengthy article making my case. To give only part of my case would be unfulfilling to me and wouldn't do my argument justice, and I'm not willing to give this place the amount of time and effort that would be required to lay out my full case.

It's all or nothing for me on this matter, and I choose nothing.

That's it. Like it or not.

Dan,

Why does your argument require such a lengthy response? One would think the differences between the Brighamite faction and the LDSF faction would be clear and self-evident. A brief, elegantly written article should suffice; there should be no need for mincing of words, inflated diction, or absurdly complex shades of meaning. Otherwise people will think you’re being dishonest, wouldn’t you agree?