Peterson bears his testimony...

[Kishkumen]

I disagree, he starts out with his typical being a victim...which is expected, he then moves on to bolstering his belief, along with his "tribe," ironically speaking only for himself, yet for others at the same time.

He goes on to counter the argument of critics, I believe like Sandra Tanner stating, "they lost" (she stated "we won") ...by more or less stating the apologetics do not matter because he, and by default those that he is not speaking for, walk by faith. He the quotes 2 Nephi as a proof text for that thought. Then secular evidence before stating..."There is enough secular evidence for the claims of the Restoration to justify commitment to its principles and to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teaches them and which offers the requisite ordinances."

In closing he speaks of the HG being a key in keeping this faith by having a burning [in the bosom] ...which we all know is a standard tag line in a testimony.

..."But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. ..."

He then goes onto state how it is all possible (apologetics/interpreter) is possible because they believe.

Again, to me, this all read like a surrender that they failed, and falls back to it doesn't matter because they have faith. I see in sorts, a white flag in all this, and a testimony that the gospel is true, because of his faith, not because of any apologetics.

I also believe, and I mean this, that Sandra's stating "we won" in huge, and should be at the top of Scratch's list this year. With all the pod casts, Mormon Stories, Reel, Radio Free Mormon, and even pro podcasts like Mormonism with the Murph...they are buried alive, and their voice can't penetrate through the truths coming out, and the Tanners were paramount in all this.

Remember the early days when we were arguing King James Only, Adieu, quakers on the moon...etc.? It has come a long way, so much so that the church is countering what the monologists used to champion. And the Interpreter is slowly falling in line, having to admit things like the stone in the hat and money digging...which in the early days they denied like the plague.

Read his article again in this light.

I mean, he is DCP, right? It looks to me that you just want to stick to the script and so you land on the message you want to find in this. DCP does DCP, which means apologetics loses. Look, he says that, "There is enough secular evidence for the claims of the Restoration to justify commitment to its principles and to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teaches them and which offers the requisite ordinances." You don't like the fact that he has maintained this position along with his emphasis on faith, so you quote it without acknowledging that it means something to him. Nothing has changed here. I see no white flags.

[Moksha]

We can witness all the secular evidence at the Nephite Museum with our own spiritual eyes just like Dr. Peterson. Just think of those Nephite pottery shards that helped win the great Jenkins-Hamblin debate.


Oculus Apolegectis

[MG 2.0]

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems to me Dan has had his testimony rocked recently. Maybe he didn't realize it, but it is an adult scholarly way of saying..." I love my mommy and daddy, I know the church is true, and that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, and the Book of Mormon Interpreter is true ..."

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... from-here/

Yeah, I think you are reading this wrong.

Me too.

A very well written article. There is absolutely nothing in it that I would take issue with.

He is calling it as he sees it. And I think he has 20/20 vision.

I find it infinitely amazing that we can look at the same thing and come to such different perspectives/observations.

Opposition in all things, I guess. Reasonable choices/conclusions can be made either way.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems to me Dan has had his testimony rocked recently. Maybe he didn't realize it, but it is an adult scholarly way of saying..." I love my mommy and daddy, I know the church is true, and that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, and the Book of Mormon Interpreter is true ..."

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... from-here/

Well, not quite. Awesome that you can put words into his mouth…

Apparently I got more out of it than you did.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

In closing he speaks of the HG being a key in keeping this faith by having a burning [in the bosom] ...which we all know is a standard tag line in a testimony.

If I’m not mistaken you are Christian, right?

Have you never felt a witness in your soul that Jesus is the Son of God?

If not, why make light of someone that has?

Regards,
MG

[TwoCumorahFraud]

In closing he speaks of the HG being a key in keeping this faith by having a burning [in the bosom] ...which we all know is a standard tag line in a testimony.

If I’m not mistaken you are Christian, right?

Have you never felt a witness in your soul that Jesus is the Son of God?

If not, why make light of someone that has?

Regards,
MG

Because DCP’s “personal revelations” mean nothing. He’s doesn’t receive revelation for the Church.

He receives personal revelations for his Non-Profit 501(c)(3) called Interpreter Foundation. Make a donation to it and you can likely deduct it from taxes you owe, while he receives your donation completely tax-free.

And the things he teaches were proven false long ago, such as “The Two Cumorah Mesoamerican geography theory,” and “Stone in a Hat,” translation of the Gold Plates, which are the core beliefs taught by his 501(c)(3).

If you need DCP to teach you truth, I feel sorry for you.

[Doctor Scratch]

I agree with the Reverend: I don't see signs of DCP's testimony having been "rocked," but this is in some ways vintage DCP--reminiscent of his old-school, FARMS-style apologetics, although watered down considerably. What's actually sort of funny about this piece is that he *is* rather candidly bearing his testimony. I recall an old essay of his--perhaps it was "The Witchcraft Paradigm"--where he was very dismissive of critics who claimed that all apologists did was "bear their testimonies." His retort was something to the effect of, "Nuh-uh!! We use evidence and peer review!" He doesn't bother with that line of argument at all here.

For me the most interesting part was his characterization of critics and their claims, from the opening portion:

Every once in a while, I read hostile statements online about the mindset of Latter-day Saint apologists. Some critics claim, for instance, that we’re in it for the money, perhaps even drawing highly lucrative personal incomes for our apologetics from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That allegation is scarcely worthy of response, since it’s offered without so much as a nod in the direction of genuine supporting data and since it is, in fact, flatly contradicted by the evidence. My wife and I, for example, are (admittedly rather insignificant) donors to The Interpreter Foundation, and the leaders and authors for Interpreter, along with almost everybody else who makes the organization function, are unpaid volunteers.

What I’ll discuss here, though, is the assertion that the self-conceived task of Latter-day Saint apologists is to persuade members of the Church to hold on and, most importantly, to continue paying tithing, in the face of overwhelming proof that Joseph Smith’s prophetic ministry was transparently fraudulent. Our mission, as we ourselves supposedly view it when we’re being candid, is to convince gullible followers a slight chance may still exist that, despite all the evidence, the claims of the Restoration might nevertheless possibly, perhaps, maybe not be false.

As usual, he doesn't provide a link, nor any verbatim text to back up what he claims that critics are saying. Who has ever said that apologists were "getting rich" off of doing Mopologetics? *I* have said many times--and it is factually true--that apologists have been paid for their apologetic work. The proof is in the FARMS tax forms from 1998 and 1999, and they show that Peterson was paid over $20,000 to serve as Chair of FARMS. No: I don't think he nor any other Mopologist is "in it for the money," though I don't think it bothers them if they wind up profiting as a "side effect" of what they're doing.

As for the second paragraph: sure--I do think there are critics who make that claim. I would suggest that Mopologists are more driven by the desire to exact revenge on critics and conduct smear campaigns and that sort of thing, but, again, Peterson doesn't address that assertion here.

What's interesting, though, is the way he casts himself as speaking for "the group." He's careful to explain early on that they're not a "hive mind" (though that is debatable), but he does repeatedly depict himself as a kind of "ring leader" or "impresario" who is knowledgable and authoritative enough to express the group's mission and values:

I’ll speak in the first-person singular, representing my own opinion. But I will regard myself as speaking for most if not all of us, as a group.

That's very important, I think, especially insofar as it has a bearing on the conduct of people like Parker and Boylan.

[MG 2.0]

What's interesting, though, is the way he casts himself as speaking for "the group." He's careful to explain early on that they're not a "hive mind"…

I think he’s speaking for the group within the contextual framework of ‘testimony’. That is, that the Interpreter folks have a common belief in the core fundamentals of the restoration and core fundamentals of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

Apparently I got more out of it than you did.

Regards,
MG

What about the part about shunning deviled eggs for bearing the mark of paprika?

[Kishkumen]

I think it is fair to say that, as far as it concerns critics, DCP never met a straw man he would not stoop to use.