The Purpose of DiscussMormonism

[Salvete]

He is the Church's chief apologist and the lightning rod for their truth claims.

I don’t agree with that assessment. I don’t see it. He’s more like the Glenn Beck of Mormonism. He does his own thing and nobody—except Discuss Mormonism—really cares.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

… and nobody—except Discuss Mormonism—really cares

Lol when “Lurkin” Dan reads that. Anyway, why do you say that?

- Doc

[malkie]

In a discussion about WWII, Hideki Tojo deserves some mention. Overall, it would not become the Hideki Tojo discussion.

Some mention, yes. But emperor Tojo was a major player in the war—one of the main characters, in fact. Even so, there are so many interesting things to discuss about World War II other than Tojo.

Dan is just some guy who taught Arabic at BYU and enjoys writing about Mormonism. I truly do not understand the obsession with him; but, as they say, I will defend this boards‘ right to have such an obsession as long as it remains harmless.

Should I assume that you don't regard my questions as worth responding to?

[Salvete]

Should I assume that you don't regard my questions as worth responding to?

No, I just missed it.

It would be very interesting to see the results of the basic data analysis you suggest. Someone with database access should run some queries against it, or even connect it to a data analysis tool like Tableau.

I don’t have such access, of course, and you know that. I think your question was a bit disingenuous.

[Salvete]

… and nobody—except Discuss Mormonism—really cares

Lol when “Lurkin” Dan reads that. Anyway, why do you say that?

- Doc

Why should anyone really care what Dan writes about unless they’re in Dan’s circle of friends and family? I just don’t see the celebrity you all apparently see.

[drumdude]

Lol when “Lurkin” Dan reads that. Anyway, why do you say that?

- Doc

Why should anyone really care what Dan writes about unless they’re in Dan’s circle of friends and family? I just don’t see the celebrity you all apparently see.

He’s one of the few Mormon apologists that actually puts their name behind their apologetics, and then engages with criticism.

The LDS.org essays were all anonymous.

The FAIRMormon apologetic essays are all anonymous.

Dan actually owns his bad apologetic arguments, and sometimes tries to defend them when critics point out how bad they are. That’s essentially what is unique about DCP.

Every other Mormon apologist either stays anonymous or doesn’t engage at all with critics.

[honorentheos]

When I began questioning the church around 2004-05 I happened onto belief.net where the Mormon discussion forums became my first experience with online LDS discussions. I arrived there via a survey that used ones answers to suggest which religions best aligned with ones beliefs. Moksha was there, not sure if anyone else was who posts here. From there I was invited to participate on a very niche forum called grokutah.com. If there were more than a dozen posters active on that board at any time I'd be surprised. The gent who started the board and ran it was, as I recall, a former Mormon turned born-again Christian. It was on that board where I first encountered Dr. Peterson. In those days he apparently proactively sought to engage with critics and struggling members, and came to that tiny board after someone made him aware of it's existence. He sent me an invitation to discuss my concerns with him via email directly, which I believe he did fairly regularly at the time. The result was paradigm shifting. It provided clarity, assisting in my eventual leaving the church. I feel some degree of gratitude to Dr. Peterson if he may not agree what I took from our few discussions was the intended message.

I next encountered him around 2007-08 on the FAIR and then MAD boards where he actively engaged in discussions and apparently moderated. He was active here (well, MDB) when I joined in 2010 as well.

My impression is our little board here was always one side of a dialog with the old apologetic outlets such as FARM and FAIR, and with the Interpreter today as much as there is a conversation to be had with the drooling maw that is the Interpreter. And Dr. Peterson was intertwined with both FARM and The Interpreter to such a degree, coupled with his previous proactive engagement with critics in farflung corners of the web at various times, it is difficult to imagine Dr. Peterson and this board ever being truly independent of one another. From the Cassius mirror of another institution of higher learning to various flavorful bits of board culture that flippantly parody the apologists of those particular vehicles, there are ties that aren't merely cosmetic but provide the core identity of the board. That the board seems obsessed with Dr. Peterson is, in my opinion, due to the good Dr. being not so much the brightest as much as the only faint light still attempting to shine from that era on the apologetic side. When a marginally engaging article comes out in the Interpreter, the board engaged it. But where once FARM, FAIR, and their runty offspring provided many topics and authors with which to engage, today we are left with the reenactment of the final battle among the Jaredites.

[hauslern]

I have been trying to nail Dan on the interpretation of the facsimiles. I had correspondence with Royal Skousen over interpretations of the facsimiles. Royal no longer believes they have any value and accepts a catalyst view of the Book of Abraham. This site serves as a site where information gathered by the various participants can be shared. Shulem has given us great information as well as the Backyard Professor. It does not matter in my opinion what Gee said in his review he will never be able to find any support for Smith's interpretations. Catalyst theory is all that is left.

Here is the collection of hypocephalus in the British Museum. So many are the same as Facsimile 2:

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 5hzRooFkQA

Here is another hypocephalus at Turin museum:

https://www.academia.edu/39038016/_Deal ... 2019_49_73

[Kishkumen]

I guess I just feel like DM has a much more interesting and humorous tradition of parody that is somewhat tarnished by direct insult. Personally, I always viewed parody as a warmer and more affectionate way of ribbing one’s opponent. Teasing, as I think of it.

I know that some of the parody here cuts pretty brutally, and I worry about that. Implying, for example, that someone is an anti-Semite is going too far. We live with the awful reality of a horrific burgeoning of real anti-Semitism, and it is true that LDS history is blemished by some of the same—J. Reuben Clark, ahem—but LDS people have a real affection for Judaism. I recall knowing the Old Testament better than the New Testament, and I think I came by that honestly.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Lol when “Lurkin” Dan reads that. Anyway, why do you say that?

- Doc

Why should anyone really care what Dan writes about unless they’re in Dan’s circle of friends and family? I just don’t see the celebrity you all apparently see.

You know how there are sometimes old folks who’ll meet at McDonalds or a pancake house and then socialize? Sometimes they bring a list of topics to discuss, not so much because they’re obsessed with the topics themselves, but rather what’s born out of topical discussions. DCP is just a foil, and fodder for conversation. He posts ridiculous nonsense which allows for forum kibbitzing. Long form discussion on the Internet is fairly rare these days, so having a ‘topic generator’ like dowsin’ Dan is kind of nice. And, often times the conversation morphs into philosophy, or physics, or historical this or that. Which is interesting.

- Doc