DiscussMormonism.com

Wow. He's really outdoing himself.

...looking this morning at the latest developments on the Facebook page of the group calling itself “Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods.”

I saw a nighttime image, first, of the pristine area in which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proposes to building the Cody Wyoming Temple on land that was donated to it for that purpose. That land, the critics say, should be left just as God created it — and God evidently created it zoned residential, with a dry gulch to the south, houses to the east and west, and, on the north, such natural features as a Hampton Inn and Suites, a Walmart Super Center, a Tractor Supply Company, Cassie’s Steakhouse, and Bubba’s Bar-B-Que. (See https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/ ... le/aerial/.)

And this:

Now, are there potentially legitimate issues to be worked out? Can plans for lighting be modified, for example? Might the steeple be lowered? Certainly. And such compromises have been effected with regard to numerous temples in the past.

However, the Sixth Fleet of the United States Navy used to deliberately sail through the claimed territorial waters of Libya in order to demonstrate its right and its capacity to do so. (Libya claimed sovereignty over coastal waters extending two hundred miles into the Mediterranean — a claim that no other nation accepted.) It’s not a precise parallel, but there is something to it: To acquiesce in an illegitimate claim is to grant it a kind of legitimacy, which will only grow with more cases of acquiescence and the passage of time. To cave in before opposition is to embolden and encourage opposition. Where there are legitimate issues, we should seek accommodation. Where the issues aren’t legitimate — where, for instance, they involve implicit or explicit religious bigotry (as some, at least, of the arguments against the Cody Wyoming Temple plainly do) — we should not, we cannot, surrender.

Seriously? The LDS church is asking for significant exceptions to the zoning code and to the Master plan of this town.
He likens this to refusing to "acquiesce in an illegitimate claim." I really doubt Peterson is helping the LDS position with his increasingly unhinged posts.

I really think it's mostly because the Facebook group blocked Peterson from posting there, and his ego can't take it, but the damage he is doing is significant. He should be careful, his posts might end up in a court case detailing the inappropriate threats and undue pressure proponents of the LDS church used to try to influence a zoning decision. His example about 'illegitimate claims' and encouraging that 'deliberate' actions should be taken to attempt to intimidate the 'opposition' is really a bad look.

The proprietors of the “Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods” group, who have apparently blocked me from posting on it, wisely want to frame the dispute there as being entirely about the height of the temple spire (on which compromise is, I think, certainly possible), the brightness of its lighting (on which a compromise has already been offered), its vast size (which, at under 10,000 square feet, may well be smaller than some of the homes that will surround it and which will make it perhaps the second smallest temple that we’ve ever built), and its sheer location.

But a subset of the participants at “Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods” are disinclined to follow the preferences of the owners of the site when commenting there.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... emple.html

And guess who Peterson wants to comment about? And mock? And deride?

Peterson gives himself away with this post.

There is certainly a lot of strange commentary coming from "SeN" at the moment, and that Libya example is telling. I guess he sees the LDS Church as being akin to a "superpower" that will use its superior military might in order to bully the "rogue" citizens of Cody, WY into shutting up? It makes sense: bullying has always been a central aspect of Mopologetics.

But he really seems to be getting sloppy:

Sic et Non wrote:Yesterday, Saturday, I received an important communication from one “Jack Anderson” — perhaps it’s his real name, perhaps it’s not — that reads as follows:

The Brighamite Mormon church was founded by a sexual predator and is infested with sexual predators.

It is perfectly reasonable for the good people of Cody to do whatever possible to drive the groomers out of their town and back to Utah.

And here is Dr. Peterson's next comment--I kid you not, this is actually what he wrote:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I’m actually pleased that Jack A. isn’t trying to hide behind pretexts like zoning issues, “light pollution,” and the height of the temple spire. His forthright call for for a crusade to strip the Latter-day Saints of their First Amendment religious freedom and their human rights and to expel them from Wyoming is refreshing for its candor.

Not a very good juxtaposition is it? Does Dr. Peterson really equate "groomers" and "sexual predators" with "the Latter-day Saints....First Amendment religious freedom"? Because writing it this way certainly makes it sound that way.

Still, there is an interesting question at the heart of all of this--namely, what does "religious freedom" mean to the Mopologists? To my mind, "religious freedom" means that you are permitted to practice your religious beliefs without interference from the government--provided that said religious practices aren't causing harm. A classic example of a case where government *was* infringing on religious practices would be, e.g., the case of Native American religious use of peyote. Is that really the case here, though? Is someone getting sent to prison because they're sending their kids to early morning seminary? Are the feds cracking down and saying that the temple ceremony can no longer be done in secret?

At the end of the day, I think that DCP's Libya comparison gets to the heart of the Mopologists' beliefs about "religious freedom": it means the "freedom" to impose your beliefs on others and to bully them out of the way. Consider if the situations were reversed and, say, the Church of Scientology wanted to build an enormous edifice right adjacent to Temple Square. Would he be okay with that? He would probably laugh because he knows that there is no way in a thousand years that such a thing would happen, because the Church would tap into its many billions of dollars to litigate the issue into oblivion.

I thought this comment was interesting and it generated a stream of comments on exmormon reddit:

Some critics — so far as I can tell, mostly if not all of the disaffected former Latter-day Saint type — have been pointing to the opponents of the Cody Wyoming Temple as an illustration of the fact that Latter-day Saints are not widely liked. The inference made from this is that we and/or our church are objectively unlikeable, that we behave in unlikeable ways, and that, accordingly, we have brought the hostility upon ourselves. We are disdained by a broad swath of the American public (and, I’m confident, well beyond the borders of the United States).

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 29, 2023 8:35 pm

He would probably laugh because he knows that there is no way in a thousand years that such a thing would happen, because the Church would tap into its many billions of dollars to litigate the issue into oblivion.

I think he knows the Church will be using its litigating might against Cody. When the Church wants a multiprong approach, why not call out its premier attack person? Even if Dr. Peterson is banned from the Cody site, there is still the SeN crew. Imagine their intimidation when Louis Midgley threatens to open a dossier on all Cody residents!!!

The Church should remind those Codyites that they've got the NSA capabilities in Bluffdale to listen in on all their phone calls and text messages.

Some critics — so far as I can tell, mostly if not all of the disaffected former Latter-day Saint type — have been pointing to the opponents of the Cody Wyoming Temple as an illustration of the fact that Latter-day Saints are not widely liked. The inference made from this is that we and/or our church are objectively unlikeable, that we behave in unlikeable ways, and that, accordingly, we have brought the hostility upon ourselves. We are disdained by a broad swath of the American public (and, I’m confident, well beyond the borders of the United States).

Well gee, if only there were a Holy Ghost who could guide them into learning how to make friends and love their neighbors for who they are instead of disdaining them until they become Mormon...

It’s not a precise parallel

Right, an international conflict to illustrate a small town zoning issue. Not precisely but close enough. yeah.

First they came for the 100 foot spire zoning exemption and I said nothing

drumdude wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:07 am

First they came for the 100 foot spire zoning exemption and I said nothing

Next, the SEC came after the Church's Ensign Peak fund for filing years and years of false disclosures and hiding assets, and I said nothing.

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:16 am

drumdude wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:07 am

First they came for the 100 foot spire zoning exemption and I said nothing

Next, the SEC came after the Church's Ensign Peak fund for filing years and years of false disclosures and hiding assets, and I said nothing.

This is basically the Mormon equivalent to the Holocaust. Oh the humanity!