MAD thread: Daniel Peterson Agrees That Church Presents...

[_beastie]

Oh, and speaking of the Tanners, it's been noted on this thread that all the articles that apologists point to that talk about controversial issues are dated AFTER the late seventies.

Which leads me to wonder, hmmm, when did the Tanners first start publishing their material? I wonder if it was in the seventies. Anyone know?

edit: Surprise, surprise. The first edition of "Mormonism, shadow or reality" was 1963. That timing is about right. The Tanners start publishing anti Mormon literature that includes photocopies of their sources, and about a decade later the church apologists start talking about the same material.

[_beastie]

Dr. Peterson,

Would you be so kind as to answer the question about the latest horse research I posed here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=2694

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason Bourne: "I am amazed Peterson claims that nobody tell people to avoid anti and critical material."

I guess it won't matter to anybody here that I never actually said that?

If I misread you I apologize. So simply asked Do you think it is uncommon that member here direction from various leaders to avoid reading information that is negative and critical about the Church?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you think it is uncommon that member here direction from various leaders to avoid reading information that is negative and critical about the Church?

It has never happened in my experience. Not a single time.

That suggests that it may not be as all-pervasive and unrelenting as certain people insist.

Or else I'm just weirdly unlucky in my sampling.

Incidentally, inspired by the great Guy Sajer, I began doodling up a list of the countries I've visited. Quite interesting. (I've never done it before.) Thus far, forty-six countries. So the great Guy Sajer's fifty has me beaten by many light years. Of course, I'm still thinking. There may be a few that haven't come to mind yet. That won't threaten his ineffable superiority, of course, but it might help me in my struggle to cope with my feelings of gross personal inadequacy.

[_Runtu]

It has never happened in my experience. Not a single time.

I'll take your word for it. It's happened to me and, apparently, to a lot of people around here.

That suggests that it may not be as all-pervasive and unrelenting as certain people insist.

Or else I'm just weirdly unlucky in my sampling.

Could be. ;-)

Incidentally, inspired by the great Guy Sajer, I began doodling up a list of the countries I've visited. Quite interesting. (I've never done it before.) Thus far, forty-six countries. So the great Guy Sajer's fifty has me beaten by many light years. Of course, I'm still thinking. There may be a few that haven't come to mind yet. That won't threaten his ineffable superiority, of course, but it might help me in my struggle to cope with my feelings of gross personal inadequacy.

I'm feeling rather small in my experience. I can count the countries I've visited on one hand: Mexico, Belize, Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia. But don't worry, I can still feel superior to some people.

[_beastie]

Dr. Peterson -

I don't mean to speak for Jason, but I interpreted his question to refer to whether or not it is common or uncommon for members in general - not you, who is known to be an actual apologist - to hear cautions to avoid anti-mormon literature.

[_silentkid]

Or else I'm just weirdly unlucky in my sampling.

Yes.

[_beastie]

Or else I'm just weirdly unlucky in my sampling.

I think it's far more likely that Dr. Peterson is known as an LDS scholar, and bishops and stake presidents would never dream of admonishing him the way they may admonish other members. It's part of his apologetic responsibilities to read anti Mormon literature, for one thing.

[_beastie]

Another interesting comment from Scott Lloyd:

What can I say? RfM contributors hardly have a reputation for sterling credibility.

Of course, RFMers are well known as rampant liars.

In fairness, it must be said that the people spreading this reputation are defenders of the faith, who have been taught to believe that apostates are of poor moral character, want to sin, tend to lie, etc. So without solid proof that RFM is full of liars, this "reputation" should be regarded with skepticism.

[_Tarski]

Do you think it is uncommon that member here direction from various leaders to avoid reading information that is negative and critical about the Church?

It has never happened in my experience. Not a single time.

That suggests that it may not be as all-pervasive and unrelenting as certain people insist.

Or else I'm just weirdly unlucky in my sampling.
.

Or weirdly selective in memory. :)

Didn't we just have an Ensign article along these lines?