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

[_asbestosman]

Since I doubt that the apologists are lying, I think it more likely that communication has broken down somewhere along the lines.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I'm so glad I'm not as crazy as everyone was making me out to be on MADB!! I knew my bishop and SP weren't the only ones saying this...

Oh course you're crazy....you're not going along with people who talk (and listen) to their digestive rumblings.....obviously you're two nuts short of a nice trail mix. ;)

PS: Welcome to the board Scottie....I've always loved the avatar (and your board contributions).

[_Runtu]

Since I doubt that the apologists are lying, I think it more likely that communication has broken down somewhere along the lines.

That's what I have to conclude. I guess what irks me is the response I've gotten, which is the same as Scottie's: we're nuts because we remember being taught such things.

[_guy sajer]

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.

If it'll help your problems with personal inadequacy, I'll knock a few off my list so that you come in first.

You seem to object to my speculation that you suffer from certain insecurities (which would give you something in common with 90+% of the rest of humanity), but you have no problem making accusations that I suffer from a superiority complex (at least with regards to you).

While you're getting all worked up about who's visited more countries, you've missed the larger point. I am doubtful that your visits to these countries that the rank and file Mormons have, in mass, taken you aside and shared their inner doubt and feelings with you, a stranger, a gringo, and probably in many cases a presumed authority figure. Add to the mix a culture that emphasizes outward demonstrations of belief (or knowledge) and which socially sanctions public pronouncements of doubt or uneasiness, I am not highly confident that you have a rat's ass idea of what is really going on in the lives of the rank and file. Your sample set may be broad, but it's kiddie pool shallow.

Statements that along the lines that you cannot think of a justifiable reason to lose one's belief, your insistence on placing the blame on the rank and file that they don't know as much about polyandry as you do demonstrate to me that you have not learned much from the oodles and oodles of people you claim to have met on your various sojourns. Your insight into the lives of the rank and file gives all appearance of being a mile wide and inches deep. I attribute this not to any lack of intelligence but to the suffocatingly narrow world view that you so doggedly defend against reason and decency.

[_Runtu]

Well I am glad to know that I am not crazy either because I also remember hearing church leaders teach this. You should post the statements here if you get a chance. It's just one more thing that makes apologists lose credibility. How can they deny what you found on the church's website? Looks like they were the ones sleeping in church.

Now I'll have to figure out what I did with them. I do remember a New Era article that called critical literature evil (but of course, it wasn't GAs saying that, just their correlated publication). I also recall a Russell Ballard talk wherein he equated critical literature with pornography. I'll have to wrack my brain to remember where I posted that.

[_Scottie]

Oh course you're crazy....you're not going along with people who talk (and listen) to their digestive rumblings.....obviously you're two nuts short of a nice trail mix. ;)

I certainly can't argue with that...

PS: Welcome to the board Scottie....I've always loved the avatar (and your board contributions).

Thanks, glad to be here! I hope I can be as completely irritating here as I am on MADB. (Or so I've been told...)

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am not highly confident that you have a rat's ass idea of what is really going on in the lives of the rank and file. Your sample set may be broad, but it's kiddie pool shallow.

From one sentence to the next, with only a little dot separating them, you surge from uncertainty-that-X to absolute-assurance-that-not-X.

Your skills at rapid data-gathering and analysis are simply stunning.

Statements that along the lines that you cannot think of a justifiable reason to lose one's belief

I've clearly explained what I meant when I said that, and what I did not mean.

Obviously, though, I can't prevent your misunderstanding and distorting it.

your insistence on placing the blame on the rank and file that they don't know as much about polyandry as you do

Another flagrant distortion. Are you this bad in your professional writing?

you have not learned much from the oodles and oodles of people you claim to have met on your various sojourns. Your insight into the lives of the rank and file gives all appearance of being a mile wide and inches deep.

I can hardly disagree with somebody who has known me as long and as well as you have.

the suffocatingly narrow world view that you so doggedly defend against reason and decency.

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.

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
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.


And, of course, I was born with this reputation.

Well, I consider this progress. It seems to me that you are implying agreement that the reason you are not being told, as an adult, to avoid anti-mormon literature is due to your reputation as an apologist.

As to whether or not, as a youth, you ever heard this admonishment is of less interest to me, due to the problems of memory.

Oh, yes, I forgot, the clarification - we understand that you have never been admonished by leadership to avoid anti Mormon literature. But are you saying that this is a extraordinarily uncommon phenomenon? Or woud you agree that it is actually not uncommon for the rank and file to be admonished to avoid anti Mormon literature?

[_guy sajer]

I am not highly confident that you have a rat's ass idea of what is really going on in the lives of the rank and file. Your sample set may be broad, but it's kiddie pool shallow.

From one sentence to the next, with only a little dot separating them, you surge from uncertainty-that-X to absolute-assurance-that-not-X.

Your skills at rapid data-gathering and analysis are simply stunning.

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

Your skills at obfuscation and dodging are simply stunning.

In fact, it's your data gathering and analysis that suck. You base your conclusion on a highly biased and shallow observations, while ignoring piles on contradictory evidence right in front of your face. All of it is anecdotal and not systematic by any means, but when one is confronted with substantial contradictory evidence, a competent data analyst will at least demonstrate some tentativeness in reaching definite conclusions or at least acknowledge contradictory evidence. This I've never seen you do. Cocksure to the end.

Statements that along the lines that you cannot think of a justifiable reason to lose one's belief

I've clearly explained what I meant when I said that, and what I did not mean.

Obviously, though, I can't prevent your misunderstanding and distorting it.

Ok, then clarify it again. What do you mean? (I don't read every single thread, and can go weeks without reading the board, so there's bound to be much I don't read. But one assumes you're perceptive enough to realize this.)

your insistence on placing the blame on the rank and file that they don't know as much about polyandry as you do

Another flagrant distortion. Are you this bad in your professional writing?[/quote]

I don't know Dan, why don't you read something I've written and decide for yourself? 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've read much of what you've had to say about this, and I don't see this as a blatant distortion. A bit of an overstatement for rhetorical effect, perhaps, but I think its reasonably accurate.

you have not learned much from the oodles and oodles of people you claim to have met on your various sojourns. Your insight into the lives of the rank and file gives all appearance of being a mile wide and inches deep.

I can hardly disagree with somebody who has known me as long and as well as you have.[/quote]

Dan, you have a very, very extensive record of on-line commentary, enough for one to get a pretty good read on how you view the world and to render reasonably informed judgment on this topic. I stand by my conclusion.

the suffocatingly narrow world view that you so doggedly defend against reason and decency.

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.[/quote]

I'm not so sure about Mercury (he's a bit over the top for my tastes), but I'll take it as a compliment to compare me with Schmo. I think he's quite spot on most of the time and pretty articulate to boot. He's certainly a more efficient commentator than you are in terms of word-to-thought ratio.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, I consider this progress. It seems to me that you are implying agreement that the reason you are not being told, as an adult, to avoid anti-mormon literature is due to your reputation as an apologist.

It may well seem so to you. It doesn't seem so to me. And I don't agree.

But others here, I suspect, will decide whether I really disagree and what I really think.

are you saying that this is a extraordinarily uncommon phenomenon?

I was responding, as I believe I said and as I believe I said I said and as I'm now reiterating that I have both said and said that I said, to the claim that it's an extraordinarily common, indeed, constant and universal phenomenon.

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.

Or woud you agree that it is actually not uncommon for the rank and file to be admonished to avoid anti Mormon literature?

Having never heard that advice, I couldn't say. I've encountered no scientific studies of this. I know of no data. There are other people who have said that they have never heard this advice. Perhaps they're liars like me. I don't know.