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

[_Daniel Peterson]

You base your conclusion on a highly biased and shallow observations

While you, who don't know me, have literally no idea whatsoever about who I know, talk with, read, etc., and clearly misunderstand much of what you quote from me, base your conclusion on . . . nothing at all.

Ok, then clarify it again.

Look it up.

You'll find them in, what's the word, oh yeah, peer-reviewed journals--you know, the things you've appear to have avoided like the plague.

I got another acceptance from Oxford University Press yesterday.

But then, you already knew that. Right?

[_moksha]

Honestly, the idea that we weren't told to avoid critical literature puzzles me, as I've heard that all my life. My wife refused to read "A History of Joseph Smith by His Mother" because once she had read a little of it, she said it read like "anti-Mormon" literature and told me we shouldn't have it in the house. Never mind that I had bought it as curriculum material for a religion course at BYU.

Here is a problem. Even if the Church wished to supply more complete information, they would have to compete with some of the more strident members insisting to give them that "Old time Legend, that 's good enough for Thee". I imagine that Dr. Peterson and FARMS will be in the vanguard of supplying this new Mormon history once they are given the go ahead from headquarters.

[_beastie]

I said that I've never heard that advice from any bishop or stake president. I meant to say that. I said it rather clearly, I think. I'm quite pleased at the successfully clear way in which I expressed it. I don't know how to improve on what I said for saying what I intended to say.

I suppose I've just been dealing with people who like to play semantic games too long. Your claim to have never heard such counsel is so stunning, given the experience of so many, that I'm trying to figure out if you were playing word games.

Anyway, you may be interested in the article citations mentioned in this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... hlight=era

[_Daniel Peterson]

I suppose I've just been dealing with people who like to play semantic games too long. Your claim to have never heard such counsel is so stunning, given the experience of so many, that I'm trying to figure out if you were playing word games.

For those who devoutly believe me to be an unprincipled deceiver, there is -- literally -- nothing I could possibly say that would convince them otherwise.

The two Scratches are not the only members of that sect here.

[_marg]

DCP: It seems to me far preferable that Latter-day Saints hear about potentially difficult issues from fellow believers who have accommodated the facts into their faith than that they be confronted by such issues at the hands of people who seek to use new information to surprise them, undermine their confidence in the church and its leaders, and destroy their religious beliefs.

Well Dan critics are not making up this damaging information. It is not "new" information as you describe it. It is only "new" to those who have not been fully informed. And of course it's understandable why any individual or any organization would not want to fully inform, if there is something they want to hide. Most of the time information doesn't hurt people and so most of the time honest people have no reason to hide information. There are occasions when truth can be detrimental and those times one might want to hide information only to protect the well being of others.

You make it sound as if the critics are the bads guys simply because they are aware of information which might be damaging to the church and might use this in argumentation with a Mormon. Who is the bad guy really? Is it the one who is aware of the damaging information of the one is has attempted to conceal it?

So you want to innoculate Mormons do you? So that they can be impervious to damaging information? No doubt this works as long as the information is given in small doses, and not overwhelming. Another analogy which is appropriate here, is the one regarding frogs. A frog who is put into hot water will jump out. A frog who is put into cold water which is gradually heated up to boiling will stay in the water and allow themselves to be cooked. By analogy, a Mormon who is exposed to a little dose of damaging material, controlled by the church or a church member such as yourself may not flee the church. A little bit of damaging information can be rationalized away, adjusted to.. And as little bits of more damaging information with controlled dosage and timing are added, members will become cooked. It is quite likely that in small doses of exposure to damaging material that they won't notice the information does reveal in actuality an unethical J. Smith, a bogus Book of Mormon and other fraudulent claims.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well Dan critics are not making up this damaging information.

Sometimes they are; sometimes they aren't.

I've already addressed this in the article that inspired the current thread.

It is not "new" information as you describe it. It is only "new" to those who have not been fully informed.

I'm aware of that.

And of course it's understandable why any individual or any organization would not want to fully inform, if there is something they want to hide.

That's a conditional sentence, incidentally. I don't accept the protasis.

You make it sound as if the critics are the bads guys simply because they are aware of information which might be damaging to the church and might use this in argumentation with a Mormon.

Some critics are bad guys; some aren't. Some don't rise to much of anything at all.

Who is the bad guy really? Is it the one who is aware of the damaging information of the one is has attempted to conceal it?

There must be somebody who holds the opinions that you seem to want to target, but it ain't me.

So you want to innoculate Mormons do you? So that they can be impervious to damaging information?

So that they can understand it in context and give it the proper weight.

You have to understand that I actually believe Mormonism to be true. That will account for much of what I do and say, in this regard as in others.

Another analogy which is appropriate here, is the one regarding frogs. A frog who is put into hot water will jump out. A frog who is put into cold water which is gradually heated up to boiling will stay in the water and allow themselves to be cooked.

Incidentally, somebody told me a while back that that notion about frogs isn't actually true. Can anybody here comment with any authority on the matter?

By analogy, a Mormon who is exposed to a little dose of damaging material, controlled by the church or a church member such as yourself may not flee the church. A little bit of damaging information can be rationalized away, adjusted to.. And as little bits of more damaging information with controlled dosage and timing are added, members will become cooked. It is quite likely that in small doses of exposure to damaging material that they won't notice the information does reveal in actuality an unethical J. Smith, a bogus Book of Mormon and other fraudulent claims.

It's striking that you close with your testimony.

[_Jersey Girl]

Frog Story isn't true according to wikipedia...find your own link:

"Veracity

The story's origins are rooted in nineteenth-century physiological literature. An article co-written by G. Stanley Hall from 1887 indicates that many experiments were performed on frogs in the 1870s and 1880s for the purposes of determining how reactive their nervous systems were to various types of stimuli, with temperature change being one of these.[7] One source from 1897 lists an experiment done in 1882 at Johns Hopkins as evidence that "a live frog can actually be boiled without a movement if the water is heated slowly enough; in one experiment the temperature was raised at a rate of 0.002º C. per second, and the frog was found dead at the end of 2½ hours without having moved."[8]

The story has been been challenged by one or more recent experiments.[9] However, in these experiments, the temperature was increased at a rate of 2º F. per minute (or 0.27º C. per second), which is more than 100 times faster than the rate of temperature increase in the 1882 experiments.

Professor Doug Melton, Harvard University Biology Department, says, "If you put a frog in boiling water, it won't jump out. It will die. If you put it in cold water, it will jump before it gets hot -- they don't sit still for you."

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's right Dan, nit pick at sentence structure and grammar, but ignore the content completely.

By the way, my comment was entirely focused on content, and had nothing to do with sentence structure, grammar, or even punctuation.

You missed the point by several thousand parsecs.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I hope it won't offend you when I say that you come across to me, in making such comments, as little better than a more civil and articulate version of Mercury and Some Schmo.

Mercury is young and brash and controversial, however, he's intelligent and I believe it would be wrong to label him inarticulate. Some Schmo is not only quite articulate, he's very sharp. It's a mistake to underestimate him and to be compared to him is a compliment.

KA

[_marg]

Frog Story isn't true according to wikipedia...find your own link:

"Veracity

The story's origins are rooted in nineteenth-century physiological literature. An article co-written by G. Stanley Hall from 1887 indicates that many experiments were performed on frogs in the 1870s and 1880s for the purposes of determining how reactive their nervous systems were to various types of stimuli, with temperature change being one of these.[7] One source from 1897 lists an experiment done in 1882 at Johns Hopkins as evidence that "a live frog can actually be boiled without a movement if the water is heated slowly enough; in one experiment the temperature was raised at a rate of 0.002º C. per second, and the frog was found dead at the end of 2½ hours without having moved."[8]

The story has been been challenged by one or more recent experiments.[9] However, in these experiments, the temperature was increased at a rate of 2º F. per minute (or 0.27º C. per second), which is more than 100 times faster than the rate of temperature increase in the 1882 experiments.

Professor Doug Melton, Harvard University Biology Department, says, "If you put a frog in boiling water, it won't jump out. It will die. If you put it in cold water, it will jump before it gets hot -- they don't sit still for you."

That's interesting. I wish Doug Melton didn't say "if you put a frog in boiling water" because the experiment claimed was not about ever doing that. And I wish a comparable recent experiment had been done of raising the water temp by .002 F./s as done in 1882 rather than 2 degree F./s. However, assuming it isn't true, it still is a conceptually useful parable, in that it helps to portray with few words the concept of human nature to be non appreciative of small gradual changes over time that if all those changes had been presented at once would be appreciated.