The Peterson/Schryver Inquisition

[_mercyngrace]

The real perversion of the gospel is looking at the life of Christ and believing that the mission of going out after the one includes the unwritten addendum to bring him back and roast him on a spit.

If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.

All the Best!

--Calveralieri

I am reminded today that it wasn't the zeal of the Maccabees that preserved Judaism but the dedication of the Pharisees, the most liberal Jewish sect, who focused on personal piety, personal dedication to the Torah, and who prized the treatment of fellow human beings over the keeping of the sometimes legalistic interpretations of the mitzvot. These were the "pious ones" who actually trusted God to police His own creation.

I suppose the upside, if you find yourself in the zealot camp, is that one day you might be remembered fondly in spite of slaughtering your own tribe and perhaps even given your own holiday.

[_Kishkumen]

I am reminded today that it wasn't the zeal of the Maccabees that preserved Judaism but the dedication of the Pharisees, the most liberal Jewish sect, who focused on personal piety, personal dedication to the Torah, and who prized the treatment of fellow human beings over the keeping of the sometimes legalistic interpretations of the mitzvot. These were the "pious ones" who actually trusted God to police His own creation.

I suppose the upside, if you find yourself in the zealot camp, is that one day you might be remembered fondly in spite of slaughtering your own tribe and perhaps even given your own holiday.

Ouch.

[_MCB]

More than twenty years ago, we had a dog that my ex got for hunting pheasant. He never used or trained her for that. When she would get loose and gallivant through the neighborhood, he would call her back. After a while, she would respond, but then he would hit her for getting loose. I tried to tell him that this was teaching her to not respond to her name, but he wouldn't listen.

But Mormons refuse to study Maccabees, for some strange reason.

[_Kishkumen]

I think these reader comments are useful:

ScottH
MEDFORD, MA

"Do we know, though, how to recognize their modern counterparts? And, please, don't doubt that they exist." If you know they exist, are you not doing everyone a grave dis-service by calling them out by name, rather than by innuendo? "We know that terrorists exists and are plotting to destroy us... I know who they are, I know them by name". It seems that a threat like you describe, with the information that you have, needs to be shared broadly - for the sake of the souls that you are so desperate to save.

MarkH
England, 00

So professor Peterson calls out the sins of the Nephites and then tosses it over the wall with his question "how to recognize their modern counterparts?" No hints, no analysis or rational indiction? Looks like now anyone who reads this can simply apply it to anyone who doesn't share his or her particular beliefs or view of the world. Political idealogies? Scientific community? social and cultural activists? people who drive jeeps and wear Tommy Bahama shirts? All are fair game. Sorry, professor, your article doesn't go far enough and amounts to a bunch of sunday school class pablum with big words.

[_Carton]

John Dehlin posted this to his Facebook page.

I just want to go on record as saying that 20th and 21st century LDS apologetics (FAIR, FARMS, Maxwell institute) will go down as destroying more testimonies than any other single Mormon influence. That's what happens when you blame the victim, or give very poor and evasive answers to credible issues.

In other words, I think that Daniel Peterson is talking actually writing about himself and his followers in this article.

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comment ... hites.html

Dehlin's comment makes me wonder if (as others have speculated on this thread) this is really all about a behind-the-scenes battle between Peterson and his followers vs. Dehlin and his followers. A year ago I never would have thought that Dehlin had a snowflake's chance in hell of getting the church leadership to listen to what he's saying. But recent events make it seem as though there really is a chance that church leadership will respond to the concerns that Dehlin has raised over the past several years. As a result, Peterson and the "old guard" of Mormon apologists are in panic mode. Not only do they have to establish their orthodox credentials, but they also have to paint the "Dehlinites" as modern day Korihors who pose a real and present danger to the progress of "The Kingdom".

It will be very interesting to see how this continues to unfold. I have heard, from a source that is likely to know the facts, that it was Elder Marlin K. Jensen who is Dehlin's GA supporter. If that is true, then Dehlin probably feels a sense of urgency to "make hay while the sun shines" since Jensen is going to be put out to pasture in October when Elder Stephen Snow takes over as the Church Historian.

[_MCB]

the "Dehlinites" as modern day Korihors who pose a real and present danger to the progress of "The Kingdom".

All they have to do is re-frame the Korihor story to make him into a martyr. i am sure that a religion as fluid as Mormonism can do that.

[_Carton]

I wish I could say I am surprised that Will took a lesson covering the complete conversion and born again experience of a wayward youth by the simple act of calling upon God for mercy and turn it into an internecine witchhunt for Mormons who don't measure up to Will's imaginary and procrustean standards.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yup. Not surprising at all. What is surprising is the way that Daniel apparently has no problem being implicated in the whole thing by his good ol' buddy Will.

Yes, no matter how I try to make sense of it, we keep coming back to this inexplicable part of the equation: Peterson's (and others) apparent fascination with Will Schryver. I mean, if the apologists are in panic mode about the rise of the "Dehlinites", I can see them banding together to combat their influence. But why does Schryver factor into this story so prominently? Again, there simply must be something we don't know. Something to explain why people like Royal Skousen and Dan Peterson would associate with Schryver. Or (assuming that it is true) why the "Big 15" would have permitted Schryver to have access to highly sensitive (at the time, at least) materials from the First Presidency vault.

By the way, an acquaintance of mine sent me these two photos side by side in response to seeing my "One of these things is not like the other" post from earlier today:


I don't think there is any question that Schryver fancies himself a modern day Porter Rockwell. That's scary, when you consider the kinds of things Rockwell was willing to do in terms of "cleansing" the church of apostates.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Dehlin's comment makes me wonder if (as others have speculated on this thread) this is really all about a behind-the-scenes battle between Peterson and his followers vs. Dehlin and his followers. A year ago I never would have thought that Dehlin had a snowflake's chance in hell of getting the church leadership to listen to what he's saying. But recent events make it seem as though there really is a chance that church leadership will respond to the concerns that Dehlin has raised over the past several years. As a result, Peterson and the "old guard" of Mormon apologists are in panic mode. Not only do they have to establish their orthodox credentials, but they also have to paint the "Dehlinites" as modern day Korihors who pose a real and present danger to the progress of "The Kingdom".

I've wondered the same thing. I think John Dehlin's influence is definitely growing, much to the chagrin of DCP, et al. The old guard apologists simply can't keep up with the information now available online for any inquisitive member. The days of their twisting embarrassing Church history into some plausible faith-promoting anecdote are over, in my opinion ... and I think they know it; ergo, the desperation we are seeing.

I have heard, from a source that is likely to know the facts, that it was Elder Marlin K. Jensen who is Dehlin's GA supporter. If that is true, then Dehlin probably feels a sense of urgency to "make hay while the sun shines" since Jensen is going to be put out to pasture in October when Elder Stephen Snow takes over as the Church Historian.

Elder Jensen is my personal favorite among GA's -- a breath of fresh air for the past 20-odd years. Too bad he's being retired -- he's always been on the fringe, and I don't think there is any current GA like him.

[_moksha]

Cinepro's reply to Schryver's post is a classic. Click here to read it.

I can see Cinepro's point of subverting best from the inside. Change then can be big or subtle. Sort of like Brigham Young adding many new major ideas. Or subtle like J. Reuben Clark being sold on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or John Birch thought being injected into the Church. Some ideas are so wacky that they fade away, some linger on the verge of being malignant.

[_Kevin Graham]

What's really stunning about this unholy union, is that you'd expect the the opposite to have transpired. Schryver is an uneducated radical who habors misogyny and bigotry and has shown himself to be the most disgusting character in modern Mormonism. He is an embarrassment to the church, and this should be self-evident based on the number of respectable LDS folks who have chosen to alienate themselves from him.

So what happens when this disturbed soul comes in contact with the Church's most popular scholar and apologist? Does the good Dcorto manage to temper Schryver's extremism with scholarly humility and a healthy dose of perspective?

No, what we see happening here is exactly the opposite. In the battle of the minds, it is Schryver who wins. Dan's mind is apparently more susceptible to flattery and more pliable that we had ever imagined. Schryver is convincing Dan that his WIlliam Law approach to apostates is really the best thing to do. This is especially disturbing given Dan's history as a self-professed advocate of building bridges with critics. He has been convinced by Schryver that this is an all out war, and in war there is no room for diplomacy or compromise as that shows weakness. They've convinced themselves that they're fighting for the Lord, and so it doesn't really matter what any of us say or how any of us feel. But more importantly what matters the least to them is what's actually true.

This is something Vogel posted on Dehlin's Facebook post:

Peterson quotes St. Augustine’s "Crede, ut intelligas"—"Believe, so that you may understand." In other words, enter my paradigm to understand reality from the perspective of my paradigm, which says nothing about the truth of the paradigm. It’s simply circular reasoning and gibberish. Why does he quote a book the historicity of which is at question? Apologists almost always win in fiction. But when they don’t, it’s explained away as sophistry.

“One of the recurring themes of the Book of Mormon in depicting prominent opponents of the prophets is their eloquence, their ability to influence and even manipulate others by the power of their language.” Translation: When apologists think they are winning a debate, it’s because God has given them power to confound their enemies. But when apologists are losing the debate, it’s because their enemies use sophistry and eloquence. There’s no winning with apologists, especially when they get to quote from their own playbook from within their own paradigm.

The irony here is that Peterson is most definitely a victim of sophistry and eloquence. And it is coming from his new friend. I don't know if Schryver's influence on Peterson means we've been underestimating William or overestimating Dan this whole time.