"I Hate This Board"

[_TAK]

DCP

And conspicuously absent from it is any declaration that the denizens of the so-called "Recovery" board exemplify "what a typical ex-Mormon is like," or even the slightest hint that secularizing anti-Mormon is a synonym for typical ex-Mormon.

Ahh .. So you don’t mine quotes for “typical ex-Mormon”? just typical “Anti Mormon”.. I see.. a semantic response worthy the LDS Spinmeister of myths himself.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP

And conspicuously absent from it is any declaration that the denizens of the so-called "Recovery" board exemplify "what a typical ex-Mormon is like," or even the slightest hint that secularizing anti-Mormon is a synonym for typical ex-Mormon.

Ahh .. So you don’t mine quotes for “typical ex-Mormon”? just typical “Anti Mormon”..

Nope. Wrong again. I didn't say that, either.

I see.. a semantic response worthy the LDS Spinmeister of myths himself.

Given your increasingly desperate attempts to foist your fictions off on me, it's ironic to see you writing about a "Spinmeister of myths."

Was the irony deliberate, or inadvertent?

[_silentkid]

Characteristic of much secularizing anti-Mormon participation on the Web is a corrosive cynicism that, in my experience, will erode anything with which it comes in contact.

Dr. Peterson:

1. What exactly does this corrosive cynicism erode?

2. Given all the time you have spent on Mormon related message boards, have you been eroded by this cynicism, or do you somehow resist erosion?

3. Do you equate criticism of Mormonism with cynicism?



*******************************************

[_moksha]

If I didn't read boards like this one, where would I be able to observe such high-quality discourse?

Or even two-sided discussion!

I can assure the audience here that rigorous thinking like this simply cannot be found in writers like Avicenna, Aristotle, or Plantinga.

We would need to go to the FARMS review for truly rigorous thought. It is beautifully edited, is it not?

[_TAK]

DCP

Nope. Wrong again. I didn't say that, either.

But that's clearly what you do as your FAIR piece demonstrates.

[_Daniel Peterson]

1. What exactly does this corrosive cynicism erode?

Personality and sensibility.

2. Given all the time you have spent on Mormon related message boards, have you been eroded by this cynicism, or do you somehow resist erosion?

On the whole, it leaves me unaffected.

It's the expression of cynicism that damages, not the beholding of it.

3. Do you equate criticism of Mormonism with cynicism?

No.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP

Nope. Wrong again. I didn't say that, either.

But that's clearly what you do as your FAIR piece demonstrates.

Since I actually said nothing whatsoever of the kind, though, I guess you have to read my article with spiritual eyes in order to see it.

Ever more desperate, poor fellow.

[_silentkid]

1. What exactly does this corrosive cynicism erode?

Personality and sensibility.

2. Given all the time you have spent on Mormon related message boards, have you been eroded by this cynicism, or do you somehow resist erosion?

On the whole, it leaves me unaffected.

It's the expression of cynicism that damages, not the beholding of it.

3. Do you equate criticism of Mormonism with cynicism?

No.

Thanks for the response. I'm trying to suss out your meaning to avoid misunderstanding. I think it's important to be critical without being cynical. I think it's a fine line, especially when dealing with beliefs or ideas that people hold sacred. When discussing Mormonism with my family, they often feel I'm being cynical when I feel I'm simply being critical. I'm not quite sure how to resolve this without avoiding sensitive issues entirely.

[Anonymous]

Having said that, I cannot think of a single instance in 9 years or so that I've known you online that I chose to make light of or mock any post of yours.

I'm sorry, Jersey Girl. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I just found your enthusiastic championing of this particular study and this particular thread a bit much.

Which parts of that thread do you consider "eccentric" and "implausible," and why?

Well, for starters, I find the whole Spaulding theory eccentric and implausible, not least because Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon didn't meet until after the Book of Mormon was published. I do admire the ingenuity of certain posters in matching Book of Mormon personalities and place names with various aspects of Spaulding's or Rigdon's biographies, but I consider it a rather pointless exercise.

Margaret Barker frequently offers ingenious readings of the evidence to advance her problematic theories about preexilic Israelite religion, but I nevertheless remain unconvinced--as do virtually all of her colleagues.

The Jockers et al. study reminds me somewhat of Walter F. Prince's (admittedly less methodologically rigorous) study, "Psychological Tests for the Authorship of the Book of Mormon," published in the American Journal of Psychology in 1917 (which was also peer-reviewed, I believe). Sample insight:

Among the names of the men arrested for [William] Morgan's abduction I found that of one Chesebro. This name resembles those of the above group in several particulars. The initial sound is that which most resembles the sibilant. The combination "ese" is the phonetic equivalent of "eez" and "ez." And, disregarding the "b," "ro" is found in two of the group, and in the other two in reversed order. Compare CHESEbRO and ZEEZROm.

Of course, the Prince study is almost universally ignored now, and I expect Jockers et al. will suffer the same fate.

[_Some Schmo]

people are fascinated by your egregious incivility and bad behavior

Yes, I suppose my egregious incivility and bad behavior must pain a sensitive soul like yours considerably.

LOL

You probably don't even see the irony in that statement, do ya?

I'm not sure why you'd be particularly fascinated by egregious incivility and bad behavior among "a significant proportion of apostates and anti-Mormons" unless you yourself are an apostate or anti-mormon.

That makes sense. Ornithologists must be birds. Coin collectors must surely be minted metallic tokens for exchange. No student of Chinese history is non-Chinese.

I love it when you act stupid like this (or is it really acting?)

Ahhh, the classic apologist trick of focusing on the tree instead of the forest, thinking nobody else sees the forest either. Funny how it only works on apologists themselves.