Why People Dislike Mormons

[_why me]

The point is, Dan doesn't debate, because he doesn't engage in battles he knows he cannot win. He will tell me over and over and over he refuses to engage me on a number of slam dunk arguments I have against his claims. But then, whenever I misspeak or say something in error, Dan will gladly and expeditiously "engage" me by starting a new thread to highlight my error, because by doing so, he knows it is an easy win for him. So he only wants to engage me when he thinks he can score quick and easy points.

So no, Dan isn't disinterested in polemics. He lives for it. He is the only scholar I know who has published more on unrelated apologetics than to anything relating to his professional career (Islamicist). His problem is that he tries to defend too many positions which he knows are logically untenable.

Oh and Dan, if you could resurrect that hyperlink from signaturebooks, I would appreciate it.

And why has this thread become about Dan? He is actually right about the board fetish toward him. Dan experiences the same problems as Joseph Smith or BY. Every word he says or writes is saved in the critic memory bank to be brought up when it suits the critic. It is a terrible burden to bear: to know whatever you say is recorded for posterity to be brought up a hundred years later with the stress on the negative.

How often have I read the same old worn quotes by BY and Joseph Smith or some general authority brought up by a critic? Quite often. And yet, no critic dares bring up a quotation that has a positive connotation by the same individuals. Poor dan is now in such a leaque with BY and Joseph Smith. I think that he should feel honored to be in such company.

[_jon]

The point is, Dan doesn't debate, because he doesn't engage in battles he knows he cannot win. He will tell me over and over and over he refuses to engage me on a number of slam dunk arguments I have against his claims. But then, whenever I misspeak or say something in error, Dan will gladly and expeditiously "engage" me by starting a new thread to highlight my error, because by doing so, he knows it is an easy win for him. So he only wants to engage me when he thinks he can score quick and easy points.

So no, Dan isn't disinterested in polemics. He lives for it. He is the only scholar I know who has published more on unrelated apologetics than to anything relating to his professional career (Islamicist). His problem is that he tries to defend too many positions which he knows are logically untenable.

Oh and Dan, if you could resurrect that hyperlink from signaturebooks, I would appreciate it.

And why has this thread become about Dan? He is actually right about the board fetish toward him. Dan experiences the same problems as Joseph Smith or BY. Every word he says or writes is saved in the critic memory bank to be brought up when it suits the critic. It is a terrible burden to bear: to know whatever you say is recorded for posterity to be brought up a hundred years later with the stress on the negative.

How often have I read the same old worn quotes by BY and Joseph Smith or some general authority brought up by a critic? Quite often. And yet, no critic dares bring up a quotation that has a positive connotation by the same individuals. Poor dan is now in such a leaque with BY and Joseph Smith. I think that he should feel honored to be in such company.

I think the difference between Joseph Smith/BY and DCP is the fact that DCP has the opportunity to set the record straight. To explain himself. To answer the questions. To discuss and debate. He doesn't.
(the other obvious difference is that Joseph Smith and BY were told what to say by God)

He has placed himself in the spotlight, nobody has forced him to publish items for public consumption. Nobody made him start a website. Nobody held him at gun point. He is an apologist by choice. He makes his apologetic positions public. He sets himself up as an authority.

He likes the attention, he doesn't like the accountability.

[_stemelbow]

Your hand-waving dismissal doesn't even begin to address the evidence in support of the thesis I submitted. In fact, your response is exactly what we'd expect from an apologist who is incapable of self-reflection or acknowledging any fundamental flaws in the LDS system.

You are such a bone-head. I did indeed acknowledge flaws in the LDS system. But I also acknowledge that the LDS are not the only ones with the mentioned flaws. This is called easy convenient criticism. While I acknowledge there are problems among LDS, and in LDS culture, if you will, the problems addressed here are problems inherent in many groups of people and the problems are not among all LDS. Acknowledging this on your part would do well to show you aren't the one projecting when you incessantly whine about me.

But that is fine, as you're essentially illustrating why the Church will never be able to overcome this problem. Their image will always be this way, and ever increasing, precisely because it and its members refuse to acknowledge flaws in God's perfect system. I mean, the Church is run by God, right? And God is perfect. This is why Mormons love to say what the Church tells them to say: "the Church is perfect, not the people." However, this is incoherent since the people run the Church. The Church's instructions on how to interact with non-Members was designed by Church hired psychologists and marketers, not by God. The same group of professionals who are hired to design commercial ads that lure people into buying products, are the same people who produce and direct Church videos/commercials/films. So many businessmen become GA's because they are experts in trying to figure out how to maximize profit and productivity. They use every man-made persuasion technique because they know they need to. But if it were all a matter of God sending down his spirit to convert the masses to the truthfulness of Mormonism (as the apologists love to insist) then the Church wouldn't need to engage in the same cheap tactics used by those who try to sell cereal to children, using just the right colors, just the right music, just the right cartoon character, etc.

Let's just say that I disagree with the black and white approach you use to describe how it all happens. Its a bit of a mix which runs into grey areas.

Edit: Stem would love to dismiss this as another anti-Mormon gripe, but the fact is this was important enough to be talked about at a FAIR conference. It is a real and serious issue in the Church that many Mormons have tried to grapple with. Apparently, Stem is one of those who thinks he can dismiss serious issues by downgrading them to anti-Mormon "whine" or what not. Oh well, it is his loss. The more people in the church act this way, the more obvious the problem will be. It is, after all, their problem, not ours. Their denial about the matter doesn't affect us one way or the other. It is their Church that is losing credibility in the eyes of the public.

Ehhh...stop whining about me. I acknowledged and continue to acknowledge that there are problems in the church. That there are general attitudes that I dislike among LDS. But these attitudes are hardly unique to LDS. But these problems are hardly unique to LDS. That is my point.

[_Dan Vogel]

Kevin,

I think you give Dan too much credit and I think you're reading more into his comment than what he intended. He thinks you're a sloppy scholar. Your books are long on wind but short on substance. I recall him specifically saying they were "not very good." I have seen him critique the quality of your scholarship on several occasions, essentially implying that you were not a good scholar. Your citation above refers to an "impressive publication record," but I could say the same about Kerry Shirt's publication record (video publications). However, this comment speaks to quantity, not quality.

I’m not claiming he considers me a great scholar, but he was responding to Uncle Dale’s attempt to diminish my scholarship because I don’t have a PhD. But I acknowledge you might be right in your interpretation, and I might just be biased in my favor.

And if what you say is true about his limited time, then how does one explain his thousands upon thousands of posts on several forums over the years? He spends far more time on these forums than most critics do and instead of engaging us in debate, he'll run back to FARMS and publish some article criticizing us because he knows that there will be no one to challenge his arguments. And when we try to do so online, he suddenly has a professional obligation he needs to tend to. It is the same song and dance I've witnessed from him since 2003. Dan wants to do what he does best, and that is lecture. He is rarely ever interested in open discussion. Never debate.

Possibly, but I’m reluctant to put a sinister spin on such behavior. I try to stay focused on evidence and arguments.

I also recall an incident on ZLMB back in 2004 when Brent Metcalfe made a comment about how he wished critics and apologists would do a better job of getting along. Dan Peterson agreed with him and spoke to him as if they were friends. But then shortly afterward Brent made a comment that I, even as an apologist, thought was rather innocuous. I think it had to do with the title of his presentation at the Galileo event. Anyway, Dan wrote indignantly towards Brent saying something along the lines that he guesses Brent wasn't serious at trying to build bridges, or whatever. He seems to have written of Brent ever since then.

I don’t expect apologists to like me. What I have to say about the origin of their religion isn’t the way to go about making friends. So if they get angry at me or don’t like me, I can live with it.

And by challenging his authority, I simply mean anyone who challenges any of his apologetic claims. His authority, as the king apologist and doctrinal guru of the Church is taken for granted, and he knows it. I tried to offer a rather mild critique of his Asherah-Nephi theory way back in 2004, and he and Hamblin had a conniption fit. My response was very thorough and evidence-based, and of course Dan disappeared for a week before returning to dismiss my argument as "hostility" towards him. I have a lot of these older "debates" saved digitally, and plan to organize and post them online at some point.

The important thing is not to take the bait. You can’t control their responses. You don’t want to be reactionary, because they will jump on that. That’s exactly what Dan does here. He loves it when a critic tries to get personal. He’s fond of self deprecating humor.

The point is, Dan doesn't debate, because he doesn't engage in battles he knows he cannot win. He will tell me over and over and over he refuses to engage me on a number of slam dunk arguments I have against his claims. But then, whenever I misspeak or say something in error, Dan will gladly and expeditiously "engage" me by starting a new thread to highlight my error, because by doing so, he knows it is an easy win for him. So he only wants to engage me when he thinks he can score quick and easy points.

Why do you insist that he engage you? Make your point anyway. If you challenge him and he doesn’t respond that’s even better for you. If he highlights an error, and you agree that it is, then admit it and, if possible, restate it in another form.

So no, Dan isn't disinterested in polemics. He lives for it. He is the only scholar I know who has published more on unrelated apologetics than to anything relating to his professional career (Islamicist). His problem is that he tries to defend too many positions which he knows are logically untenable.

Again, I don’t care what his mental state may or may not be. I only care about his evidence and arguments. It’s always best to assume your opponent is sincere, because you have to respond to it as if it were. If you don’t respond in that fashion, you are bound to be committing ad hominem. Sincerity or insincerity has nothing to do with the validity of an argument.

Oh and Dan, if you could resurrect that hyperlink from signaturebooks, I would appreciate it.

I’ve been assured that it will be restored. They reformatted their site and have been restoring lots of things. By the way, I plan to write more responses and link them to several of my publications. One of the first will be a response to Richard Anderson and Stephen Harper on the Book of Mormon witnesses. I will alert Dan Peterson and his cronies to this on this and another site when it happens. It should be fun.

I should add that I find your posts interesting, informative, and often entertaining.

[_Dan Vogel]

Kevin,

I just want to add that when I post responses to the apologists that you will participate and that I’m looking forward to reading your comments.

The link is back up at the Signature site, but the text needs some cleaning up.

http://signaturebooks.com/2011/09/seeing-through-the-hedges-a-response-to-andrew-h-and-dawson-w-hedges/

[_Kevin Graham]

I’m not claiming he considers me a great scholar, but he was responding to Uncle Dale’s attempt to diminish my scholarship because I don’t have a PhD. But I acknowledge you might be right in your interpretation, and I might just be biased in my favor.

Thanks for the context. I'm not trying to make you feel bad by diminishing whatever compliment you inferred from his remarks, but I think Dan really has no choice but to take this position (that PhD's don't matter) since he has been instrumental in publishing several no-name amateurs for FARMS.

Possibly, but I’m reluctant to put a sinister spin on such behavior. I try to stay focused on evidence and arguments.

I don't think it is sinister I just think that is what the evidence strongly suggests. If Dan's excuses held water, then he'd ignore me completely, not just when he cannot respond to valid arguments.

The important thing is not to take the bait. You can’t control their responses. You don’t want to be reactionary, because they will jump on that. That’s exactly what Dan does here. He loves it when a critic tries to get personal. He’s fond of self deprecating humor.

I agree with you, except I'm not trying to get personal.

Why do you insist that he engage you?

I don't. In fact, Dan was the one who decided to engage me on numerous occasions. He'd ask me for a reference to support my argument, and then when I provided, he'd leave and go over to MAD to attack me, knowing perfectly well I would not be able to defend myself there.

Make your point anyway. If you challenge him and he doesn’t respond that’s even better for you. If he highlights an error, and you agree that it is, then admit it and, if possible, restate it in another form.

Yes, I do this all the time with him.

Again, I don’t care what his mental state may or may not be. I only care about his evidence and arguments. It’s always best to assume your opponent is sincere, because you have to respond to it as if it were. If you don’t respond in that fashion, you are bound to be committing ad hominem. Sincerity or insincerity has nothing to do with the validity of an argument.

Good advice. Though, I have to admit it is very difficult at times, especially with people like Dan Peterson who I've seen do the same thing repeatedly over the course of a decade now. This is the guy who posts thousands of times on various forums, uses fake identities on ex-Mormon forums, refuses to engage any of the critics on a serious level, and then runs back to FARMS and/or MAD, to publish an attack based on his "experiences" with the internet critics.

I should add that I find your posts interesting, informative, and often entertaining.

That means a lot coming from you.

I just want to add that when I post responses to the apologists that you will participate and that I’m looking forward to reading your comments.
The link is back up at the Signature site, but the text needs some cleaning up.

Thanks. Although I think I had a different article in mind. Wasn't there a formal response to FARMS, written by the folks at Signature Books? I thought I remembered something about that, having to do with possible lawsuits and such.