Des News Reader Complains of DCP's "animosity"

[_Some Schmo]

"Defending the Faith" is a adversarial title. ... it doesn't add to the civility of discourse in our state.

After reading what Midvaleian said about DCP, I thought it was kinda funny to read this:

Keep up the good fight, Dan.

Anyone else see the humor in this?

I didn't go to the link (I assume that's where you got this), but I thought just what Scratch posted was funny for the same reason:

1) Midvaleian: I don't think we should be adversarial.
2) DCP: My article wasn't adversarial.
3) Lloyd: Why shouldn't DCP be adversarial? (basically admitting it was)

Ahhh, if only these guys could get their stories straight. Good times.

[_sock puppet]

Some, in this political season, have suggested that Latter-day Saints seek to establish a theocracy. They misunderstand us utterly.

Give us a little history, will ya, Dan? Council of Fifty, JSJr declaring martial law, Deseret territorial governance, etc. Silly gentiles for being suspicious of Mormons.

While the church maintains its right to speak out on what it considers moral questions (as other churches and people of faith have done, on issues such as slavery and civil rights), we'll never attempt to impose Mormonism by force.

Not unless Brigham Young gets resurrected, that is.

To do so would be to repudiate both our scriptures and our distinctive understanding of the very meaning and purpose of life.

That's right gentiles. The Mormon scripture is just full of instances of believers assembling an army and going to war against non-believers, but hey, that part is just for fun reading, to make sure members fear the wrath of god like in the Old Testament.

Years ago, I was invited to engage in a "Mormon-Muslim dialogue" at a public university in a nearby state. (The organizers, a campus Islamic group, had originally sought a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, but settled for me.)

Having already participated in — and enjoyed — several such events by then, I prepared a nice little opening statement about shared beliefs and common values. As I hope I've demonstrated over the past three decades or so, I have enormous respect for the Islamic tradition.

For various reasons, though, as the date for this particular gathering drew near, I began to grow suspicious. Something felt funny.

Dan had a stupor of thought.

And, sure enough, when I arrived at the university auditorium, I found a table heavily laden with anti-Mormon pamphlets.

A professional Muslim "evangelist" had been brought in from Toronto. He was obviously geared up for an adversarial confrontation, and I quietly scrapped my prepared statement.

Even worse, virtually no Latter-day Saints were there, because the local LDS institute of religion was sponsoring its annual dance that night.

Now, who would choose to go to a dance rather than attend Dan's eloguence on Islamic relations? Chapel Mormons, that's who.

The audience was composed almost equally of Muslims and Evangelicals.

Pretty soon, though, I realized that the approach chosen by my opponent — he was certainly no "dialogue partner" — was an attack on the deity of Christ, carefully constructed from the Bible itself.

I thought at first that this was a stroke of good fortune. True, I would have to improvise very quickly, mostly on my feet

And that's tough for Dan, given his neuropathy.

, to respond to a challenge for which I hadn't specifically prepared. But, I reasoned, the Evangelicals in the audience would instantly realize that, on this topic, I was defending their position too, and they would rally to my side for at least this one debate.

Wrong. To my surprise, virtually every audience comment during that very long evening was directed at me, and hostile.

'Never mind that anti-Jesus stuff from the Muslim, look there, Ethel, that there is a Mormon!'(Ethel shutters, then does eye darts at Dan the rest of the meeting.)

But that's another story.

Near the program's end, an audience member asked how things would change if Islam became the dominant American belief. My opponent replied that all false religions would be outlawed, leaving Islam as the only legal faith.

Asked to respond, I answered that I hardly knew what to say. His position seemed chilling and extreme to me, radically foreign to traditional Islam. The vast majority of American Muslims, I was (and remain) confident, would reject such coercion.

Angrily, he turned to me and snarled, as nearly as I can remember, "Don't lie! Don't pretend that, if you had the power, you wouldn't ban all non-Mormon religions!"

But that's precisely what I say. We would not.

That's right, kids. JSJr did not want them all to be Mormons, for who would the Mormon's Council of Fifty be lord and master over if that was the case?

Not only does the 11th of our 13 canonized Articles of Faith declare that "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may," but our unique scriptural texts teach that a kind of battle was actually waged in a grand council, before the creation of the world, over the question of human agency.

Ooh, goody. We're to the woo-woo stuff in the PoGP. Good call, Dan. Did you get into the King Follett Sermon with them, tell them one day you will be a god but they won't?

All premortal humans attended; we participated in the arguments. Lucifer, or Satan, sought to compel human obedience rather than permit free decisions that would allow the possibility of sin. His plan was rejected; he rebelled, and, accordingly, was cast out of heaven. (See Moses 4:1-3; Abraham 3:22-28.)

I'm unaware of any other sacred texts, in any religious tradition, in which the commitment to human freedom is so explicit, so fundamental.

That's cuz JSJr was murdered before he could get around to making up more, possibly for yet new religions.

In other words, Latter-day Saints don't regard freedom of choice as merely a temporary practical compromise required by a fallen, ungodly, but passing world order. It's an eternal principle, basic to our theology. Coerced "conversion" is no conversion at all (see 2 Nephi 2:11), and contributes nothing to salvation or a saving faith.

Point out, Dan, how there never were any instances of forced religion in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc. Please!

Incidentally, in the parking lot afterwards, the leader of that Muslim student group apologized for the "ambush." He had delegated the planning of the event to someone he didn't know well, and he regretted it.

Probably left the planning up to someone who is a descendant from 1830s Missourians. Ambush, and all.

My experiences in interfaith dialogue with Muslims since that time have been, without any significant exception that I can recall, pleasant and rewarding

Even this ambush that you just told us about? Since then? When was that, pre-9/11?

and I continue to reject the idea that warfare between Christians and Muslims, whether hot or cold, is inevitable.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It seems that a tiny smidgen of self-doubt is creeping in:

Incidentally, I'm curious whether anybody here, reading that column, seriously thinks it "adversarial," uncivil, or filled with animosity. I ask because a few of my more rabid and determined critics, posting elsewhere, are writing as if it really is nasty and hostile toward non-Mormons.

Kind of dumb and self-serving to go and ask people who won't ever, ever criticize you, don't you think? Plus, this seems to miss the point entirely. By painting his opponents as hostile anti-Mormons, Dan is crafting yet another narrative that just encourages ongoing animosity and hatred. He's just tossing fuel onto the fire. He needs to just totally retire from writing about Mormonism, because all he ever does is pick fights.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm with Scott Lloyd on this one. Let Daniel Peterson be as adversarial as he wants to be. The LDS Church will tell him to stop if they don't like it. Otherwise, we can probably assume that they do, given the time they have had to observe his writings, and they make the rules, so....

[_sock puppet]

I'm with Scott Lloyd on this one. Let Daniel Peterson be as adversarial as he wants to be. The LDS Church will tell him to stop if they don't like it. Otherwise, we can probably assume that they do, given the time they have had to observe his writings, and they make the rules, so....

I think the Brethren like DCP throwing punches. When he lands one, good boy Dan. When he misses, plausible deniability. It is so corporate of the Brethren.

[Guest]

I'm with Scott Lloyd on this one. Let Daniel Peterson be as adversarial as he wants to be. The LDS Church will tell him to stop if they don't like it. Otherwise, we can probably assume that they do, given the time they have had to observe his writings, and they make the rules, so....

I think the Brethren like DCP throwing punches. When he lands one, good boy Dan. When he misses, plausible deniability. It is so corporate of the Brethren.

Has DCP thrown a punch recently?

I think he may be on Dallin's apologetic reform 'To Do' list, but a bit lower priority than one or two others at the Maxwell Ineptitute.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm with Scott Lloyd on this one. Let Daniel Peterson be as adversarial as he wants to be. The LDS Church will tell him to stop if they don't like it. Otherwise, we can probably assume that they do, given the time they have had to observe his writings, and they make the rules, so....

I think the Brethren like DCP throwing punches. When he lands one, good boy Dan. When he misses, plausible deniability. It is so corporate of the Brethren.

Yeah, I don't really know. Could be. Maybe not. My guess is that Daniel Peterson is so insignificant a figure that "The Brethren" don't really pay him any mind. They have much bigger fish to fry. They are probably happy to know that someone out there is defending the Gospel, and, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, they are happy enough with the results. I am sure that Daniel et al. have emails in large number to show how many testimonies they have saved. Those who can't be saved probably couldn't have been saved anyway. Some people are just too far gone for apologetic assistance. The Brethren are probably aware of this. I am sure they are happy to have others fielding these emails in their stead. These days the GAs have too many problems on their plate to trouble over the member who begins to doubt that Nephi was a real person, etc. If the GAs address this kind of problem, they do it in Holland style during General Conference. And that in itself is a rare happening.

[_mentalgymnast]

As if it weren't bad enough that Dr. Peterson contributed to the downfall of The Cafeteria, it seems that he's also been sowing discord among readers of the Deseret News:

I read the article. The theme throughout was:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Sound familiar?

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor Scratch]

I read the article. The theme throughout was:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Sound familiar?

Regards,
MG

What seemed "familiar" to me was the set-up: we get a description of an LDS representative who's all set to Get Out There and "Engage" with Other Folks of Faith. Then, what do you know? It turns out to be a trap! Gee, this innocent Latter-day Saint had been set up by these conniving fellow religionists!

In effect, the article is setting up a combative situation.

[_mentalgymnast]

What seemed "familiar" to me was the set-up: we get a description of an LDS representative who's all set to Get Out There and "Engage" with Other Folks of Faith. Then, what do you know? It turns out to be a trap! Gee, this innocent Latter-day Saint had been set up by these conniving fellow religionists!

In effect, the article is setting up a combative situation.

I didn't see it that way at all. My take away was that DCP found himself in a potentially combative situation, dealt with it by effectively by turning down the heat, then left and went home. And then wrote an article that effectively taught the principle found in the article of faith.

You sure like to get worked up about things that are of little, if any, consequence.

Regards,
MG