Brethren, in this age of "facts" and "reasoning," I for one would like to thank our Mormon Apologist friends who undergo an intense diet and fitness regimen for years, in order to masterfully perform spiritual and mental gymnastics at an Olympic level.

Please join me in professing my adoration for those who are willing to man up, and take a stand against their own intuition and intellectual honesty for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth, and the establishment of Zion, Zion, zion, zion, zion...

http://www.truebelievingmormons.com/mormon-apologetics/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2011 02:30PM by spencerljensen.

I probably didn't register the copyright on that one, but I came up with it here early in my "Exmormon Journey." No biggie, and I've since come up with stuff I'm even more proud of (like the story on BYU electroshock).

Of course we know Danny is aware of that one ("Denial C. Peterson isn't bad, but what is it I'm in denial of?"), and lately he's been identifying himself as "Dan."

Anyway, for the newer sorts, Peterson is the one who labeled former RFM regular Tal Bachman as a "terrorist" because Tal said that if a mission president had ordered him to be a suicide bomber back when he was a TBM, he would've...

And Peterson can be particulary nasty with genuine intellectuals who can easily best him. Simon Southerton is repeatedly characterized as a "plant geneticist," and he's called Will Bagley a "lying, venomous gasbag." So far I've stayed below his radar, but then that's probably because there are at least half a dozen apostate cabbies in Utah...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2011 02:57PM by SL Cabbie.

Make that "only a plant geneticist" for Simon Southerton. I've read that supposed criticism from them and heard it on at least one apologist video.

Still, that gives Simon more education and experience to discuss DNA issues than some of the FAIR/FARMS guys who have attempted it, those whose major degrees are in linguistics, for instance.

Was it DCP who came up with that label for Tal? I didn't know that. My impression was more that it was someone on the FAIR/MAD board but not him. I can't say a name as I'm not sure. I noted at the time that it was one of their premier ways of shutting down a 'critic', slapping a label on someone to ridicule or shame them and ultimately either shutting them up or rendering their opinion invalid. After that, any time someone mentioned Tal's name, the label 'terrorist' came up which stifled rational discussion and mocked Tal simultaneously. Then nobody had to actually address his points.

They came up with another nickname for Tal, worse than 'terrorist' if you can believe that. That might have been DCP but, again, I can't quite remember. He's clever with wordplay but not always accurate, as in this case.

How to misinterpret someone's comment, on purpose. That is a very good example of that apologist technique.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2011 04:35PM by Nightingale.

Who coined the "Taliban" Bachmann shot. One certainty is that he passed it on (and also used something to the effect of "obscure Canadian musician"). NG is also correct with her analyis that the term "mere planet geneticist" was used perjoratively to describe Simon. They also like to insist training in "population genetics" is required to understand the DNA, and Simon's shot back is he's a plant genticist with no training in "forest genetics," but most of the work he does is in that area these days. "Population genetics" is a nonsensical apologetics buzz phrase.

Peterson is pissive-aggressive on steroids on this stuff (of course many academics are, even wannabes like him, and yeah, I can swing that bat with almost anyone), but as we know, the old MA&D board was eliminated, effectively purging much of his material...

Sill wondering what elements of the "distinctiveness of 19th century Mormonism" Denial C. "glories in." Is it polygamy, blood atonement, or what?

Hello Cabbie,
Being absolutely out of the Mormon or ex-Mormon loops I have no idea who this Petersen fellow is; perhaps he is below many of us and perhaps his vituperation is because of that, that the rest of us wonder who in hell he is... But enough. That he calls Dr Bagley a "gasbag", Dr Sutherton merely a "plant geneticist," and Mr Bachman a "terrorist" proves to the world - if not the Mormon faithful - that he is "an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" as the Bard would have described him (hey, Cabbie, you were an English major, you know the rest goes and who says it, wink). Why would you or anyone give such an ignorant,unfathomable tub of dried bullshit any attention or credit at all? He is the type who would never be unemployed as he could hire out to farmers who need their fields fertilized, and the bullshit could fall as our cells sometimes do around us...Just observing.

Peterson, alas, is the face of Mormon apologetics in Utah... And he disses Will for having only a bachelor's degree, but I gather he came out second best jousting on the internet and was whining about Bagley's "whopping insults" (they must've been really good). Same with that lawyer to the south of you, "Crock" Crockett, who quickly vanished from a site I mentioned to Will who then decided to drop in. Similarly, he made a foolish claim in a local newspaper, and I wound up giving him a short history lesson and never received a word of thanks...

Here's Peterson as seen through the lens of RFM regular and Salamander Society proprietor, "Cricket":

http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/danielcpeterson/

And here's a bit about Crockett with a short video that includes Will as well as a bit from "September Dawn," which, one hopes, is not the last movie made about MMM because it might well have been the worst (there were just some really awful parts that could've been edited out, IMHO).

http://1857massacre.com/MMM/review01.htm

What can I say? How stupid can these people be? How uninformed, how joyfully uninformed? As to Crocket (whom you refer to) now there's a winner. Geez. Why in hell do these people delight in living in absolutely uninformed ignorance, disconnected from the real world at so many levels, whether civil, religious, cultural, you name it? It is hard to believe that that can be so in modern America, or can it?

I guess what bothers me about him is he is so smug and should know better. I think he is smarter than the average mopologist.

It is like he knows it is probably all a fraud but has deliberately decided to be on the side of the believers.

I can't stand to listen to more than about a minute of him and then I'm done.

He risks losing his job, his notariaty, his social standing and his social network. IN other words, despite the overwhelming evidence that the church is a fraud, he along with other apologists will never cave. It's social suicide really.

My own opinion, is he deep down inside, does not believe this load of tath either....but it's obvious that he loves the ass kissing by the likes of the "Back woods apologist", and the wannabe's who hang out on the apologist boards who think he is the greatest scholar who ever lived. (Behind Hugh Fibley that is)

Simone Stigmata Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess what bothers me about him is he is so smug
> and should know better. I think he is smarter than
> the average mopologist.

The smugness is 90% of the effectiveness. If you are a Mormon apologist you have to act like there are no problems with the Mormon position at all and just a few evil people spreading lies. Part of the "defense" is pointing out how evil they are and then being very smug (after all, you have the REAL TRUTH!) in the process.

In other words, he sees his job as being something like that of a lawyer always trying to make the best argument possible to put his client in a good light. The other side of this coin is that he is not interested in the truth for the truth's sake. He is only interested in whether the truth makes his client look good or bad. If any sliver of truth makes ChurchCo look good, he will of course be a big champion of that very limited fragment of truth. But if any quantity of truth makes ChurchCo look bad, he will go into "full spin" mode--with every tool of obfuscation, semantics, creative speculation, pseudo-scholarship and the like.

It's like some old lawyers say: If the facts are on your side, emphasize the facts. If the law is on your side, emphasize the law. If neither are on your side, pound on the table with your fist.

While being essentially the same kind of partisan advocacy approach as that used by lawyers, Mopologists such as DCP simply PRETEND that the facts and logic are on their side, using a smoke screen of obscure terminology and convoluted chains of dubious premises in the hopes of bamboozling the jury...and then they pound on the table and unilaterally declare victory.

Most of the GAs take the same approach. They are fully aware of many of the factual and logical problems. But they see their positions as that of protectors of the image of ChurchCo, rather than promoting universal awareness of the truth. Accordingly, they always come across as corporate/political types who can never give a straight answer.

haha- that was goooood! Spiritual and mental gymnastics at the Olympic Level- I mean you are right on with that one~!!! Made my day.

He HAS to know it is all a fraud! You cannot study that much and not know. NO WAY! Good try, DCP!

They see him lyin', they hatin'.

That pretty much nails it.

Back when I was still hoping that there would be something, anything at all, that would be real evidence, I spent the time to watch Daniels “evidences of the Book of Mormon” youtube video series. I was unbelievably disappointed.

I dare you to watch. In fact I double dare you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ4fpPPcW5U&NR=1

He told a story about the head in the hat method (something that he would never teach in Sacrament meeting lest the children hear BTW) in a fallacious and faith promoting manner. Not one shred of evidence was provided in over two hours of obfuscation. The way he pumped up Skousen was shameful. Funny how Skousen is not published with his supposed BOM expertise OUTSIDE of mormonism. I figure it’s because the REAL world cares not about personal religious hobbies. As long as personal religious hobbies are kept inside the clubhouse play area you get a “don’t ask, don’t tell” pass.

Every fallacy in the book rolls off Daniels lips. It is pathetic really. Daniel was supposed to be the top of the line for getting the real scoop for mormon history and its issues. If I, as an average guy, who reads the real history from credible sources (most of those LDS) can see right through the façade of mormon apologetics with just a little bit of critical thinking skills and some personal honesty when assessing the data, surely there are many others.

IMO mormon apologists have championed the plight of doubting mormons that just want the bare naked truth in showing those doubters that the church and its apologists have no evidence and nothing to fill the void it leaves except faithful bullshit.

I’m sorry mormon scholars and apologists. Faithful bullshit coupled with tearful testimony does not real civilizations make. It’s just not funny anymore.

I don't hate Daniel but his apologetic gyrations make me angry. He lies and I know it, and I believe that he knows it too.

I emailed 'sir Daniel' regarding the Change of the WITNESS STMNT <8 witnesses> found in the 1st edition of the BoM... it was changed 'author' to 'translator'...

Mr. Peterson (tried to) change the subject to the 'author & proprietor' wording found on the title page.

I had previously written to ChurchCo

I asked: 'When was the witness stmnt changed?' (it was different in the 2nd edition)

response: (non) 'answer': "We don't know"

I asked: Did ALL the 8 witnesses O.K. the change?

response: (non) 'answer': "We don't know"

IOW, ChurchCo CHANGES THINGS TO SUIT THEM; REASONS DON'T MATTER!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2011 02:19AM by guynoirprivateeye.

It's one thing for the title page to be changed. But tampering with any word of a previously published statement purportedly made and jointly signed by eight witnesses is a form of fraud, unless the change is itself jointly authorized by the same witnesses.

In any case, it reveals just how unreliable those witness statements are for any purpose. Mormons try to build them up as being some kind of ironclad proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. They are nothing of the kind. But Mormons have so little else in their arsenal of evidence that they have to pretend that the Witless statements are something really big.

To me, they have no more persuasive value than a testimonial signed by the members of the board of directors of a shady multi-level marketing company. Plus, with the BoM Witless statements, we don't even get real signatures on the testimonials.

I would like to write a novel featuring such a character. His convoluted defenses of the indefensible are often entertaining. His smug unilateral declarations of victory in arguments in which he has clearly failed in terms of facts and logic are true monuments to chutzpah.

He seems to apply double standards in all of his contests with critics of Mormonism and generally wherever and whenever a double standard is more convenient than taking a principled approach.

His shtick seems to focus primarily on preaching to the choir, which is why his arguments seem so bafflingly lame to anyone who has no vested interest in believing that the LDS Church is what it claims to be.

His target audience consists of devout Mormons who need to suck on a quasi-scholarly pacifier from tim to time to get them past those "dark" moments when their brain is trying to tell them that any reasonable examination of the available evidence indicates strongly that they are structuring their lives around a crude religious hoax--but they dare not go there due to social pressure and the fear of the emotional anguish that will surely follow any realization that they have wasted much of their life on a hoax.

They practically demand that Mopologists like DCP create massive volumes of obscure jargon, footnotes, references to ancient languages and the like, followed by simple conclusions that confirm that faith in Mormonism is faith well placed. The target audience wants the material preceding the simple conclusion to be as dense, obscure, complex and voluminous as possible, so that they can easily excuse themselves for not taking the time and making the effort to think through it all themselves. "Heavens, it would take a person a lifetime of specialized study to comprehend all this scholarly argument. I'll just read the conclusion and be happy that there are faithful scholars to do this work for me."

There's no point in hating someone like DCP. Everyone has flaws. A lot of people do jobs that in one way or another support systems that are in one way or another of dubious value to society. DCP is a professional shill for a cult. For someone without a conscience, it's probably quite a fun job. If he has a conscience, his conscience must be giving him hell quite a bit of the time.

Yeah! What you said!
I have come to the conclusion based on my experience with members that this is in fact the case:

"Heavens, it would take a person a lifetime of specialized study to comprehend all this scholarly argument. I'll just read the conclusion and be happy that there are faithful scholars to do this work for me."

Bingo!

It's that "Smarter people than me have already debunked all those pesky anti-mormon critics" attitude of the justification of continued ignorance. Not wanting to know is just too damned easy and comfortable.