I had been taken to dinner by some Japanese investors in on of the downtown Tokyo business districts. The door to the restaurant was non-descript. In fact, this dining hall had no sign of any kind, and was known only to those who had received an invitation to be there. My host was a gentleman who had patented processes for certain valuable chemical reactions. He lived in Las Vegas, but had taken 2 companies public on the Japanese stock exchange. I was there to meet an investor and a gentleman who had connections in the Abe government in the ministry that governs the Japanese environment. The dining room was large, with perfectly arranged tables in an open hall. My host spent over $1000 on dinner for 4 people.

As we sat around the table talking mostly on a very personal level, I didn't know that my venture would earn a commitment $500K in angel money by the end of the dinner, nor did I realize that I would not accept this bid as the money was too expensive.

I was asked why I was so fluent in Japanese, and discussed my mormon mission and former faith. The main investor sitting directly across from me wanted to question the reason I stopped being mormon. He simply said, "religion isn't about facts, right? It's an exercise of faith." This was the most awkward moment for me. He was right. I wasn't quite flustered by the question, but also wasn't prepared with an eloquent answer as I was for other questions. I was even prepared for "why did you leave the church," but not for, "why do you think facts can supplant faith?"

My answer was simply that Mormonism requires a lot of time and energy, and without the benefit of truth it was exhausting without real reward. "Shinko shukyou" in Japanese means a religion that requires the active exercise of faith, and Mormonism falls into that category, along with the seventh day Adventists, Jehovah's witnesses and Moonies. Fortunately, the investor accepted my honest answer and we moved on.

So, what does this have to do with Daniel Peterson, great defender of Mormon pseudo-science?

I've watched Dan via Facebook and the internet for some years now. His method is to ignore everything that actually matters and latch on to tangential ideas that support the conclusion he's already formed in his mind. Just go through his last 200 or so facebook posts, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. He complains about non-believers, addresses science that doesn't impact lds truth claims, and carefully avoids any discussion of evidence that challenges lds doctrine.

Sometimes, without context, he posts a scientific article which dangles by a thread in cyberspace like a hanging chad. He attaches his own statement to the article-a statement meant to insult an idea that challenges mormon truth claims. His statements always include disparagement to anyone who has reached a conclusion other than the one he's reached.

Unfortunately, Daniel never discloses his own position. He never describes his faith. He dances around it like a man walking over hot coals. Years ago I corresponded with one of Dan's apologist friends, and was told that the apologist approach isn't to prove that anything is right, but simply to poke enough holes in the counter-argument to leave the possibility open that Mormonism might not be wrong. Dan thinks poking holes equates to bursting a bubble, when in fact these punctures heal through the process of additional research and create a stronger argument in the long run.

So, like the question I was asked during my meeting in Japan, I wonder if Dan isn't actually the least faithful person I've ever heard of. Methinks he doth protest too much. His is not an exercise in faith, but instead a fight against faith of any kind. To poke holes in "anti-faith" positions is surely counter to everything that might be important about religion.

Indeed, many people here have said that Dan's statements and style were the final catalyst that pushed them away from Mormonism. That's legit.

I believe defenders of the faith would do well to simply say, "Mormonism is about a way of living that works for me, and I take it on faith."

Whether you are religious, agnostic or atheist, you have to live by some type of faith that your choices are the right ones for you and for the way you wish to conduct your life. If you are Daniel Peterson (Denial Peterson), your faith is about grasping at straws and desperately trying to poke holes in someone's non-belief. It's bizarre, and a strange exercise in faithlessness.

So, here's to Daniel Peterson, least faithful man on earth.

Good study in human weakness.

I knew a woman from the last ward I attended that said being a Mormon for her had become cultural over religious. She didn't know what else to be, after having lived it her lifetime.

She felt that whatever incongruities there are between her faith, and actual post-mortem events in the hereafter, will be reconciled when she goes to heaven.

I didn't buy her argument per se. Though I respected her opinion.

People who attack others beliefs in lieu of their own, demonstrate an insecurity in their own world views - because they lack an ability to respect the diversity of faith beliefs.

I appreciate what the Japanese investor had to say when he asked, "Religion isn't about facts. It's an exercise of faith." He is spot on about that.

and religion has consistently persecuted and hated those who discovered or pointed at facts which disputed their myth-based explanations of how the world works.

In previous eras the religious authorities didn't bother with explanations of how they knew a person was a witch, etc, it was just "because we said so."

The LDS church has moved from the bonfire level of thought (Danites) to offering word-salad explanations which should suffice for anyone not distracted by facts.

After all, the members have enough to worry about with their own salvations, always being anxiously engaged, all their church jobs, their genealogy, their volunteer janitorial work plus always being a member missionary.

Facts, smacts-- just ignore them if they interfere with the"Lord's" work....



Kathleen Waters

Awe, you guessed.

D-E-N-I-A-L...

Okay folks, turn your head while I change bullchip filters and give this article a once-over...

SLC
Doing the "guest host routine" for Don Bagley until he gets a new computer...
Honest Don, I would've given you one of my old Mac Towers...

How is Don doing? Any word on an update?

I've heard (from his brother) that he's slowly getting better. Having a new computer (or even a used one) isn't the problem. I believe he's not ready to be online yet.

From the OP: "...Shinko shukyou" in Japanese means a religion that requires the active exercise of faith..."

Yup. When I think mormonism, I think "shuk you."

"He simply said, "religion isn't about facts, right? It's an exercise of faith."

COMMENT: In my opinion, such a statement is fundamentally misguided, and dangerous. Religion is about faith IN "FACTS." There is no such thing as a religion that is divorced from truth claims, even if such claims are taken on faith. Moreover, the truth claims dictate a life style, which encompasses a personal commitment and consistent actions and conduct.

The problem, of course, is that when one embraces a religion "on faith," they are embracing "facts" on faith. Some such facts are innocuous, and can innocently support an individual life style; for example personal ritual. However, other facts are not innocent, and extend over into others and society at large, sometimes becoming harmful. As an example, it is one thing for Mormons to engage in baptism and other sacraments of faith, but quite another to define "family" for society at large, while claiming that their "prophets" speak for God. Similarly, it is one thing for Joe Biden to state, as he did on The Late Show, that the rituals of his faith offer personal comfort (in some vague way), but quite another to directly or indirectly support the Catholic dogma of papal inerrancy or superiority, and the social ramifications of such views, which his faith implies. In short, you cannot have institutional "faith" without institutional dogma. And, if you are going to accept the "faith" part, then you bear some responsibility for the effects of the dogma.

Ive heard from people who know him and probably know that Danny doesn't actually believe any of it he's just in it for money status and power

What else could he do to make a living? His entire career has been an embarrassment and is so specific to mormonism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2015 06:09PM by Devoted Exmo.

There's some truth in that, but it was far more true of Nibley.

Peterson actually has a real career, knows Arabic, and publishes on non-Mormon topics. That's what makes his apologetic activities so tragic, wasteful, and inexplicable.

I'd phrase it this way: the emotional rewards that Peterson derives from his apologetic activities are embarrassingly self-aggrandizing and specific to Mormonism.

Would suck to wake up every day hating yourself.

Besides, there is no money or power in what he does.

I guess waking up every day clueless is somewhat satisfying, or he would do something else.

(To all trolls: when did you stop beating your wife?)

"Would suck to wake up every day hating yourself."

I think it would be even worse to wake up every day knowing that you're married to Daniel Peterson. :-)

"Besides, there is no money or power in what he does."

He makes a living off of Mormonism, and his position as a high-profile apologist in his chosen social circle feeds his ego. The notoriety he has among his fawning acolytes gives him his power.

That's one of the best descriptions of Tapir Dan I've seen. And I suspect it's quite accurate.

As for the question asked of you, I've been asked similar questions (and a couple of times in Japan, even!). I had an answer ready:

"Because facts work so much better than faith, that I gave up faith and went with facts."

Well the admins and some of the senior posters here remember his pathetic attempts here on RfM.

As if anyone here would be fooled by anything he's capable of producing.

To call him a troll is to demean the reputation of competent trolls everywhere.

Wait, he posted here before?

bullshit !

You just love your strawman.

After having read many thousands of words written by Dan Peterson and his friends over the past three decades, I believe I can fairly assert that there is very, very little in those writings which conveys the spirit of peaceful, strong Christian faith. There is no understanding of, or empathy for, those who struggle with doubt, as is common to see amongst most evangelical Christians. There is surprisingly little focus on the mission and teachings of Christ. There is NO spirit there of impartial, earnest quest for truth, wherever that quest might lead. Rather, there is only a cold, often belligerent, attempt to do just as you say, through a sort of literary shouting and stomping and ape-like scat-throwing: create enough fuss and chaos that they can keep themselves in a state where they cannot completely rule out the possibility that they have devoted their lives to a stupid fraud. It's kind of like generating enough energy to keep the semi-hypnotized state they live in protected from facts and logic. For them, it has worked, evidently. For many, many others, the auto-hypnotizing tactics look pretty much like what they are.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

"a sort of literary shouting and stomping and ape-like scat-throwing: create enough fuss and chaos that they can keep themselves in a state where they cannot completely rule out the possibility that they have devoted their lives to a stupid fraud. It's kind of like generating enough energy to keep the semi-hypnotized state they live in protected from facts and logic. For them, it has worked, evidently".

_______________________________________________________
Mr. Bachman:

You have managed to craft in one paragraph a phenomena I have seen for decades but couldn't quite put my finger on.

*** Massive busywork for the intellect and spirit as well as the body perhaps?***

Well done, thank you.

Right.

So, if the defining role of your life is poking holes in someone's disbelief, you that makes you kinda sucky.

That's Dan, kinda sucky.

How about this as a response to the question, "Faith isn't about facts, right?"
No, but how else do you decide where to place your faith? You place it in people you trust, right? Once I discovered the leaders of my faith were lying, the truth started to matter far more than the faith I happened to inherit. I believe in evidence based truth, which is something i can defend.

For many, if not most, raised in Mormonism, faith is a default position. Any departure from that position will displease their parents. Conditional love and promises of inheritance evaporate like Californian reservoirs in a drought.

Mormonism desiccates family.

I didn't know just how bad it was. But over the past few months, and after reading this description, I started reading some of the stuff he writes.

It all seems like a terrible waste of a reasonably high IQ. He calls himself a scholar, and then fails to do anything scholarly. It's no wonder he got fired as an apologist. He's just a jerk.

I wish he had the gonads to show up here again.