Radio Free Mormon: Daniel C. Peterson: The Artful Dodger

[_Lemmie]

A serious comment:

mogreybeard • an hour ago

Dan, I have a PhD in US history with an emphasis in Mormon studies. I still go to church. I am very aware of this scholarship. Why can’t you just say: “yes, Joseph F. Smith and other church leaders tried to suppress or hide or deemphasize what they thought were unhelpful parts of church history”? You seem to want to die on this hill or avoid the direct questions entirely.

This is not helping. These type of answers are the very thing that has the church bleeding members. The church has to be more honest about its history, more willing to admit it has been wrong, more willing to tell honest stories, or members, as soon as they have access to information, leave. I swear, I spend hours of my week talking to people who are questioning, leaving, or out and your patronizing answers only hurt my ability to help people understand that mistakes have been made, but that God is still in the work. It’s ok to say they were wrong, or that they were racist, or whatever. What I tell people is to let the Holy Ghost confirm truth to you and if it doesn’t confirm something, even if a prophet says it, it’s wrong. This prophet-worshipping no fault propaganda is only hurting the church.

[_Analytics]

This podcast is a seminal contribution to the study of mopologetics. This is because it is the first place where a new logical fallacy, invented by none other than Daniel C. Peterson himself, is scientifically described and given a proper Latin name. Understanding this will prove to be key to understanding mopologists, and I hope that the new name enters our lexicon.

Around 29:30, RFM describes and christens the fallacy thusly:

If somebody disagrees with him, or calls him out as I did for a misstatement on his part, he pretends that he is being victimized by being called horrible and atrocious names. And he takes those names and sets them forth as if that is what the other person called him. Here he says "the consensus that I'm a mendacious and toxic hack has never quite been unanimous." So this is kind of a reverse ad hominen argument. I am not calling him a name here (well except for liar which he manifestly is). I'm not calling him a mendacious and toxic hack. He is calling himself that and pretending that I called him that. So in a sense it is not only a reverse ad hominen, it is also a strawman argument. He is putting words in my mouth that I never called him. It's like a combination between an ad hominin and a strawman. It's an ad strawmanem.

[_Lemmie]

this comment is heart-breaking:

Matt Fullmer • 8 hours ago

The Church has betrayed me and the membership for years. Do you know why the internet is exploding with people angry over church history...because like me, so many members were told to "trust the bretheren" when it came to "anti-mormon" interpretations of church history. I was born into the covenant in 1977. In that time I heard rumors of joseph smith and money digging, polygamy, book of abraham, and multiple first vision accounts. As a youth preparing for my mission I was bombarded with questions. When I went to my leaders in my home ward, stake and even my mission president...that all of those things were anti-mormon lies. I wanted to be educated in church history so I could teach people on my mission effectively. I read many many "church approved" books and trusted those church approved authors. I took the side of faith and viewed opposing views as "anti-mormon". Fast forward 15 years later to the release of the church essays and we learn that those people who were called "anti-mormon" were actually the ones telling the truth. Those leaders I trusted and the books I trusted accused the "anti-mormons" of being liars. Well now we know who was telling the truth. We know the church only tells the truth about history when people like the Tanners, google, and other "anti-mormons" force them to tell the truth. When you are caught telling a lie and then come clean...that isn't honesty...it's getting caught. Frankly...I expect more straight talking honesty from the church's historians and apologists. I expect the apostles not to endorse clearly white washed history like the new Saints book. Sometimes it is hard to tell the truth...how many more thousands of truth seekers will leave the church because they are tired of apostles and historians telling a white washed version of the truth? I gave my faith and fidelity...and when I discovered the true history....I feel I was betrayed.

and DCP's response:

DanielPeterson Mod > Matt Fullmer • 8 hours ago

You weren't.

[_Shulem]

Professor Peterson deigns to make a comment on Bill Reel's Facebook page

He's busy, busy, busy!

Hi Dan!

Have you ever met anyone famous? Have you ever met a General Authority?

You're soooooo smart. What's the king's name in . . . .

What's your opinion on the jackal snout that was hacked . . . .



(That deserved two winks)

[_Dr. Shades]

In other words, believing Mormon scholars and leaders have known about, and have openly spoken and written about, the various First Vision accounts for at least 50 years. There’s been no scandal, no suppression, and the often exaggerated if not altogether invented discrepancies between them have been thoroughly examined.

Dr. Shades (Mr. English), are you there?

The first sentence says: "In other words, believing Mormon scholars and leaders have known about, and have openly spoken and written about, the various First Vision accounts for at least 50 years."

We know the 1832 account was made public and openly discussed for at least 50 years just as Peterson says above. But what about the second sentence? [i.e., "There’s been no scandal, no suppression, and the often exaggerated if not altogether invented discrepancies between them have been thoroughly examined."] When does the word "suppression" in the second sentence apply? Does the word suppression apply to the last 50 years or all years prior to that -- or all time?

The verbs "has been" and "have been" mean "up until now," but without a specific chronological indicator at the end of the sentence, it could mean beginning at any time until now. It could've course mean "ever since 50 years ago," but it could also mean "from the time the First Vision was received," or it could mean "from the time the suppression ended," or it could even mean "Over the past half hour."

[Guest]

The verbs "has been" and "have been" mean "up until now," but without a specific chronological indicator at the end of the sentence, it could mean beginning at any time until now. It could've course mean "ever since 50 years ago," but it could also mean "from the time the First Vision was received," or it could mean "from the time the suppression ended," or it could even mean "Over the past half hour."

Thanks.

My opinion has been altered somewhat in that Peterson is guilty as charged.

[_Doctor Scratch]

this comment is heart-breaking:

Matt Fullmer • 8 hours ago

The Church has betrayed me and the membership for years. Do you know why the internet is exploding with people angry over church history...because like me, so many members were told to "trust the bretheren" when it came to "anti-mormon" interpretations of church history. I was born into the covenant in 1977. In that time I heard rumors of joseph smith and money digging, polygamy, book of abraham, and multiple first vision accounts. As a youth preparing for my mission I was bombarded with questions. When I went to my leaders in my home ward, stake and even my mission president...that all of those things were anti-mormon lies. I wanted to be educated in church history so I could teach people on my mission effectively. I read many many "church approved" books and trusted those church approved authors. I took the side of faith and viewed opposing views as "anti-mormon". Fast forward 15 years later to the release of the church essays and we learn that those people who were called "anti-mormon" were actually the ones telling the truth. Those leaders I trusted and the books I trusted accused the "anti-mormons" of being liars. Well now we know who was telling the truth. We know the church only tells the truth about history when people like the Tanners, google, and other "anti-mormons" force them to tell the truth. When you are caught telling a lie and then come clean...that isn't honesty...it's getting caught. Frankly...I expect more straight talking honesty from the church's historians and apologists. I expect the apostles not to endorse clearly white washed history like the new Saints book. Sometimes it is hard to tell the truth...how many more thousands of truth seekers will leave the church because they are tired of apostles and historians telling a white washed version of the truth? I gave my faith and fidelity...and when I discovered the true history....I feel I was betrayed.

and DCP's response:

DanielPeterson Mod > Matt Fullmer • 8 hours ago

You weren't.

Yes: this is the raw, ugly, barely pulsating emotional heart of Mopologetics. It's not there to be generous; it's not there to "help." It's to wipe criticism of the Church off the map, and what you're seeing here is the "churn"--the ways in which Mopologetics has been legitimately damaging. There have been thousands--if not tens of thousands--of Matt Fullmers out there. These are the people--people who've encountered something troubling or "strange" about the Church--who the apologists claimed to be most interested in helping. (They have, for the time being, pretty much completely abandoned that claim. It was phony to begin with, but they were at least making it for a time.) But like I said: the desire to stamp out criticism completely always overrides whatever "noble" intentions they may have had.

So, yeah: here's DCP's cold, completely unsympathetic response to Matt Fullmer. Is it possible that Fullmer is a troll? Sure: of course it is. But what if he's not? If you are sincere about wanting to help wavering members, then you can't treat the person as if he's a troll, and presumably DCP knows this. Nonetheless, he's *still* curt and unsympathetic to what Fullmer says. Or, there is another possibility: DCP really *wants* to be sympathetic, but he's calculating that, if he does so, it will be "used against him" by his critics. (Peterson claims that he will be criticized no matter what he does. If he really believes that, then you think he would choose the path of open Christian kindness.) But no: he's calculating, and whatever malign math goes on in his head, he's decided that some kinds of criticism are okay and funny and easy to joke about, whereas others.... Well, he absolutely *cannot* slip up, because the critics will have a field day!

That, I guess, is why he forever seems incapable of being publicly kind towards people who've had doubts along these lines. At the end of the day, it's all about the game he's playing with Midgley, Hamblin, and the rest. The people who wind up getting hurt are just playthings to them. (He probably messaged Smoot privately to crack jokes about Fullmer, in fact. Maybe he even used the L-Skinny list for this purpose.)

[_Dr Exiled]

When I played Rugby against BYU teams back in the day, they were known for cheap shots. One had to watch for elbows and fists and knees to the thigh. Now that I remember, I believe DCP was at those games taking notes.

[_honorentheos]

That exchange reminds me of my own early interactions with Dan. He ended up on a small board I participated on for reasons that are a mystery to me. At the time I was still agnostic regarding Mormonism but self-identifying as Christian-Mormon. Like Matt, the apparent dishonesty of the church bothered me. But it was constrained by what I considered to be spiritual experiences that suggested whatever the problems were, it stilled seemed God might be found in the middle of it all. Dr. Peterson offered to converse with me via email regarding my concerns. And the long and short of it was he turned out to be a conceited prick who viewed the membership as too lazy or pedestrian for the real truth. This set up made it seem like he was offering entrance into a rare elite class of member who were able and willing to engage the truth and thereby prove to be elect, above the common rabble.

I found it offensive beyond belief and he was welcomed to keep his special groups membership where it stood. I do owe him in a sense, though. It certainly exposed the fact there were no better answers out there somewhere, or justified being supportive if skeptical. He was right. To stay active and supportive knowing what he knows requires having a dim view of the membership and believing oneself special and above the rifraff that is the common membership.

It's not a uniquely DCP thing, one runs into just about anywhere you get enough people together. But most people don't pretend to speak for Christ, either.

[_moksha]

Anybody can walk into the church historian office and cut pages out of Joseph Smith's journal.

Plus everyone knew the combination to Joseph F. Smith's safe in his locked office.