Honestly, the ways that these surveys are read/interpreted by Dr. Peterson comes across as either knuckle-draggingly stupid, or downright dishonest. Does he really not understand what he's reading? In his latest posting, he thanks John Perry for directing his attention to an article from a website called "WalletHub", authored by Adam McCann, who, per his author photo, looks like he's about 12 and who lists among his qualifications the facts that he "enjoys playing tabletop and video games with friends, consuming British and Japanese media, and finding the best places for pizza." Nice! Why should DCP bother going to an actual expert when he can just cite the undergrad who's a big fan of Doctor Who? Hey: if McCann says that Utah is the happiest state, that's got to be cause for rejoicing, no?
In any case, there are all kinds of problems with what he's doing, chief among them is that fact that these surveys are, at best, generalizations--something that he apparently doesn't understand. But the point should be obvious: if religiosity in general is so great, then why choose the one that was founded by a philanderer who practiced polygamy and which charges you 10% of your income for the privilege of being a member? Why not jump ship for the Community of Christ? Or Evangelicalism? Or Calvinism? Of course, DCP has had extraordinarily unkind words for these faith traditions--I believe he said that he found Calvinist beliefs "disgusting" or something to that effect. But if religious participation / belief / practices is so great for health, they why not go with another faith? How/why is Mormonism any better than the next one? Dr. Peterson is more than happy to toss out these silly generalizations, but where are his *specific* surveys that clearly show the benefits of LDS participation? As I recall, there was a survey fairly recently that showed that Mormonism is one of the most *unpopular* of all faiths in the US. Funny how that survey can be brushed away with a wave of the hand, but the survey posted by Mr. Adam McCann, the pizza connoisseur, is a great affirmation of his belief? Can it really get any stupider than this?
Meanwhile, the comments below are hilarious, with Ideeho, The Last Danite, and the rest of the sociopath/zealots erupting in rage over David Sanders's remarks.
Right: all of Joseph Smith's and BY's plural wives were sealed to them on the basis of *love*? Is that really TLD's understanding? As for the last point: one involves putting money *out there* into the stock market, whereas the other involves socking the money away (or hiding it) for a "rainy day," as it were. That's clear enough, isn't it?The Last Danite wrote:There is zero secular basis for objecting to plural marriage. None. Unless love is not love after all. Also, please explain in detail how investing is the same as hoarding.