Dan Peterson's Letter To Editor Re: MMM

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What do you know about missionary conversion rates? I believe this is a non-issue outside of Utah. This will have no effect at all on conversions, because it is the Spirit of the Lord that converts not some second rate historians or has been actor of a well funded anti-Mormon propaganda film. If it is arrogant to contradict apostate anti-Mormon defamation then I shall be arrogant. I applaud Br. Peterson's comments and I endorse them 100% all this movie is about is trying to defame the Church and to libel a Prophet of God. The sensationalizing of this massacre by using the irony of the September 11th date was a stroke of genius on the part of Lucifer and his servants so as to subtly connect the religious fanatics of the 2001 terrorists attacks with the 19th century Mormons. Those who conspired to kill those immigrants were vile murderers, but they did not kill for religious reasons or because a Prophet of God told told them to, they killed out of revenge and fear, then I believe they possibly turned it into a "secret combination" to try to keep the facts hidden not only from the world but from the Church. Trying to implicate the Church and Brigham Young is the same old anti-Mormon crap, they will say anything to undermine the truth and to fight against God and His Church.

Very, very well said. I would like to add one more thought here. What is the diffrence between this movie and a bucket of crap? THe bucket.

[Oracle]

This has been added to the so-called list.

So-called

[Pahoran]

This has been added to the so-called list.

So-called

In a typically cynical bit of polemical misrepresentation.

But I wouldn't want to suggest that you remove only this one from the list. The entire list, as well as its premise, is bogus.

As you of course know, Dan in no way intended to either trivialise or deny the reality of the MMM. Rather, he simply used "so-called" in a cautionary way.

Anti-Mormons invariably impute dishonesty where it does not exist.

Regards,

Pahoran

[John Williams]

In a typically cynical bit of polemical misrepresentation.

But I wouldn't want to suggest that you remove only this one from the list. The entire list, as well as its premise, is bogus.

As you of course know, Dan in no way intended to either trivialise or deny the reality of the MMM. Rather, he simply used "so-called" in a cautionary way.

Anti-Mormons invariably impute dishonesty where it does not exist.

Regards,

Pahoran

Apparently, some people impute cynicism where it does not exist.

I don't think Dan intended it to be as dismissive as it came across, but, wow, what a poor choice of words.

[Avatar4321]

You are wrong! I don't want Church appear to be guilty, I have no interest in seeing Church look bad.

Frankly some of you guys are doing great job on that.

Dude, let me tell you this again;

The people who perpetuated this crime were members of the Church, they were leaders in their Community. Isn't it fair that to see there's at least retribution From Salt Lake regarding this crime?

When your sons, grandsons commit a crime are you going to shrug it off and get on with your life?

This exactly what happened last century. You ignore it, it is blown way out of proportion.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

The Church is not guilty of anything. It has absolutely no need to apologize. Why on earth do you want this apologize so badly? Why do you want to hold people guilty who had nothing to do with the event?

[Zakuska]

In a typically cynical bit of polemical misrepresentation.

But I wouldn't want to suggest that you remove only this one from the list. The entire list, as well as its premise, is bogus.

As you of course know, Dan in no way intended to either trivialise or deny the reality of the MMM. Rather, he simply used "so-called" in a cautionary way.

Anti-Mormons invariably impute dishonesty where it does not exist.

Regards,

Pahoran

I think we all should pull out our collections of Anti-Mormon tracts and see how many times we find...

Joseph Smith's "so-called"/"supposed" first vision.

The Book of Mormon "so-called"/"supposed" word of God.

Two can play at this game.

[LifeOnaPlate]

So-called is a bad phrase, or?

[Oracle]

I think we all should pull out our collections of Anti-Mormon tracts and see how many times we find...

Joseph Smith's "so-called"/"supposed" first vision.

The Book of Mormon "so-called"/"supposed" word of God.

Two can play at this game.

Go for it. I did not add DCP's comment to this list. It is not a list I compiled. I just noticed it had been added.

[jwhitlock]

So-called is a bad phrase, or?

It's not a bad phrase, necessarily. It's not meant to trivialize, either.

It can be used one of two ways; see the dictionary definition at dictionary.com.

Since DCP is obviously aware that the MMM did happen, the first definition must apply.

Of course, those who prefer to define things using their own colloquial assumptions / understandings rather than the dictionary, will take their own liberties in defining what DCP meant.

[jwhitlock]

Go for it. I did not add DCP's comment to this list. It is not a list I compiled. I just noticed it had been added.

The listing is a fluff list, meant to take a variety of selected quotes out of context and link them together to create a false impression.

It's an effective, but misleading, method of swaying the non-critical reader.

[John Williams]

It's not a bad phrase, necessarily. It's not meant to trivialize, either.

It can be used one of two ways; see the dictionary definition at dictionary.com.

Since DCP is obviously aware that the MMM did happen, the first definition must apply.

Of course, those who prefer to define things using their own colloquial assumptions / understandings rather than the dictionary, will take their own liberties in defining what DCP meant.

So, it's fine when exmormons refer to the LDS church as "the so-called church"?

[Zakuska]

Well then... thanks for drawing our attention to it Oracle.

http://www.google.com/search?q=so-called+L...lient=firefox-a

Intresting... it seems like its a phrase that we have picked up from our critics.

[jwhitlock]

So, it's fine when exmormons refer to the LDS church as "the so-called church"?

It depends on the context and definition of how it's being used.

And, might I add, that I do not find that such critics usually use the phrase in the same context and meaning as DCP meant it.

[Zakuska]

Of course maybe it came from the scriptures:

"Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God (Gk. theos - θεος), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord (kyrios), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (NRSV)

[John Williams]

It depends on the context and definition of how it's being used.

And, might I add, that I do not find that such critics usually use the phrase in the same context and meaning as DCP meant it.

How do you what DCP meant when he said it? As I've said, knowing Dan, I don't think he meant it that way, but it was a poor choice of words.

[jwhitlock]

How do you what DCP meant when he said it? As I've said, knowing Dan, I don't think he meant it that way, but it was a poor choice of words.

Take a look at my post #34 again; there's my rationale for what DCP meant.

As for being a poor choice of words or not, please let me know how the first definition in the dictionary (see dictionary.com) makes it a poor choice of words.

[John Williams]

Take a look at my post #34 again; there's my rationale for what DCP meant.

As for being a poor choice of words or not, please let me know how the first definition in the dictionary (see dictionary.com) makes it a poor choice of words.

It was a poor choice of words because that's not the only definition, and anyone could have predicted that readers would interpret it as dismissive. I guess as a writer I am careful about not using ambiguous words or words with negative connotations, especially in an emotionally charged setting. One would expect that in a letter regarding a horrible tragedy, Dan would have been doubly careful.

[jwhitlock]

It was a poor choice of words because that's not the only definition, and anyone could have predicted that readers would interpret it as dismissive. I guess as a writer I am careful about not using ambiguous words or words with negative connotations, especially in an emotionally charged setting. One would expect that in a letter regarding a horrible tragedy, Dan would have been doubly careful.

Perhaps so. That's the problem faced by those who understand the English language in writing to an audience more versed in colloquial usage. Perhaps DCP chose the phrase carefully because he understood the context and true meaning, and likes to see what crawls out of the woodwork to attack. Or maybe not; I don't know for sure.

While one can argue, as you have, that perhaps a better choice of words should have been used, that was not the point here. The point was that we understood what DCP meant, but there were those who chose to willfully misinterpret it (even when corrected) for their own ends to criticize both DCP and the Church.

I have little patience with such tactics.

[John Williams]

Perhaps so. That's the problem faced by those who understand the English language in writing to an audience more versed in colloquial usage. Perhaps DCP chose the phrase carefully because he understood the context and true meaning, and likes to see what crawls out of the woodwork to attack. Or maybe not; I don't know for sure.

While one can argue, as you have, that perhaps a better choice of words should have been used, that was not the point here. The point was that we understood what DCP meant, but there were those who chose to willfully misinterpret it (even when corrected) for their own ends to criticize both DCP and the Church.

I have little patience with such tactics.

I guess that's the difference. Because Dan himself has not "corrected" anything, it can't be said that anyone "willfully" misinterpreted his words. Apparently, if they are critics and read it (quite reasonably, I have to say) as dismissive, they are just people who want another angle to attack. I guess it's this inability to see any sincerity in critics that I find troubling. Oh, well. Go ahead and think the worst of us.

[jwhitlock]

I guess that's the difference. Because Dan himself has not "corrected" anything, it can't be said that anyone "willfully" misinterpreted his words. Apparently, if they are critics and read it (quite reasonably, I have to say) as dismissive, they are just people who want another angle to attack. I guess it's this inability to see any sincerity in critics that I find troubling. Oh, well. Go ahead and think the worst of us.

Sincerity in critics is not only subjective, but it varies from person to person. Whether it's reasonable or not depends on what perspective you're coming from.

There was at least one critic on this thread whose "sincerity" was very much in question, who sarcastically jumped to the worst conclusion possible right away, and who refused to take any correction on the subject. That was willful misinterpretation of DCP's comments; the conjecture that DCP is being dismissive of the MMM is an extraordinary claim on the face of it; however, when someone takes it as a given and then proceeds to trash him, I do not find that particularly reasonable. Then again, I tend to be a somewhat critical thinker, looking deeper into the presentation and motives of the speaker most (not all) of the time. I understand that most people read in a more casual manner and jump to some unwarranted conclusions.

You are wrong in claiming my inability to see any sincerity in critics; if I did not see you as at least somewhat sincere in your responses, I would not be responding to you in the fashion I am.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How do you what DCP meant when he said it? As I've said, knowing Dan, I don't think he meant it that way, but it was a poor choice of words.

Well since Dan frequents this board lets just ask him.

[John Williams]

Sincerity in critics is not only subjective, but it varies from person to person. Whether it's reasonable or not depends on what perspective you're coming from.

There was at least one critic on this thread whose "sincerity" was very much in question, who sarcastically jumped to the worst conclusion possible right away, and who refused to take any correction on the subject. That was willful misinterpretation of DCP's comments; the conjecture that DCP is being dismissive of the MMM is an extraordinary claim on the face of it; however, when someone takes it as a given and then proceeds to trash him, I do not find that particularly reasonable. Then again, I tend to be a somewhat critical thinker, looking deeper into the presentation and motives of the speaker most (not all) of the time. I understand that most people read in a more casual manner and jump to some unwarranted conclusions.

You are wrong in claiming my inability to see any sincerity in critics; if I did not see you as at least somewhat sincere in your responses, I would not be responding to you in the fashion I am.

Well, I guess I should be grateful for that. I got the impression that you thought I was bashing Dr. Peterson. I was not. I think I know what he was getting at (but then I'll have to ask him), but in my judgment it was a very poor choice of words, if nothing else for allowing people to pick it up as a source of offense.

[poulsenll]

Well since Dan frequents this board lets just ask him.

Dan is off the net until after Oct 4. He is on vacation out of the country.

And we miss him.

Larry P

[Beowulf]

A working vacation, you mean. (I thought it was a scholarly trip...)

Anyway, he is not here to defend himself from the bashing he is getting (which he will surely be SHOCKED to discover when he gets back... ).

Beowulf

[John Williams]

A working vacation, you mean. (I thought it was a scholarly trip...)

Anyway, he is not here to defend himself from the bashing he is getting (which he will surely be SHOCKED to discover when he gets back... ).

Beowulf

Who's bashing him?