Dan Peterson's Letter To Editor Re: MMM

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

And we miss him.

Larry P

Well I guess we can wait till the good Dr. comes back. He is a Phd right? lol.

[Scottie]

You have all got to be joking. You have taken apologetics to a new height with your phrase re-definitions.

I honestly don't know how you could read this and infer that "so-called" is now equated "aptly named".

You do realize you're just begging for the anti crowd to now use this against you, right? TSCC just because a completely moral and legitimate naming convention without any prejudice or ill-will at all. After all, they are just using "so-called" to mean "that's what it's called".

[jwhitlock]

You have all got to be joking. You have taken apologetics to a new height with your phrase re-definitions.

I honestly don't know how you could read this and infer that "so-called" is now equated "aptly named".

You do realize you're just begging for the anti crowd to now use this against you, right? TSCC just because a completely moral and legitimate naming convention without any prejudice or ill-will at all. After all, they are just using "so-called" to mean "that's what it's called".

What part of the dictionary definition did you disagree with?

[John Williams]

What part of the dictionary definition did you disagree with?

So you're cool with exmos calling the LDS church the "so-called church"?

[jwhitlock]

So you're cool with exmos calling the LDS church the "so-called church"?

What does that have to do with the question I asked?

[John Williams]

What does that have to do with the question I asked?

If the dictionary definition is "aptly named," I would imagine you are OK with calling the church "so-called."

[jwhitlock]

If the dictionary definition is "aptly named," I would imagine you are OK with calling the church "so-called."

Would that be the definition intended by exmos?

[John Williams]

Would that be the definition intended by exmos?

I dunno. Is that the definition intended by Dr. Peterson?

[auteur55]

This seems odd to quibble over.

Why not just wait for Dan to clarify then we can decide whether "so called" the way he was using it is horrible or not.

[jwhitlock]

I dunno. Is that the definition intended by Dr. Peterson?

Seems that you're having a difficult time trying to commit to a concrete answer. Unfortunate.

Let me help you out here. Using dictionary.com as a resource, if exmos, or anti-Mormons or whoever want to use so-called as "called or designated thus", then I don't have a problem with it.

If they want to use it as "incorrectly called or styled thus", then I do have a problem with it.

Now, was that so hard?

And do you really think that exmos or anti-Mormons really mean the first definition when they use the phrase "so-called" about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

We'll let DCP comment on his own intent; however, I suspect that I'm probably right in assuming that it wasn't his intent that the "so-called MMM" didn't really happen, or wasn't really a massacre.

[Pahoran]

I dunno. Is that the definition intended by Dr. Peterson?

I dunno. I do know that Dr. Peterson does not deny that the massacre took place. Nor has he ever attempted to play it down in any way.

I also know that he is not over-fond of glib phrases, so if that "so-called" means anything at all in this context beyond being a simple paraphrase for "the Mountain Meadows Massacre, as it is called," and I'm not even sure that it does, then it may be a very mild objection to the popular three-word formula as a short-cut for a more useful description.

Please recall that the only reason we are chasing this silly rabbit down the hole is because of the following offering by Solomarineris:

And a quote from Mr. DP's Letter to the Editor;

The so-called Mountain Meadows Massacre

It really didn't happen, it is a pigment of mass imagination by Mormon haters.

Which, to the extent that it purports to represent Dan's view of the event, is a very palpable and gratuitous falsehood. The extent to which any of you have any functioning consciences at all can be gauged by the urgency you put into your efforts to distance yourselves from this baseless libel.

Regards,

Pahoran

[alter idem]

I was one of those who was a bit taken aback by Dr. P's use of the term "so called". That's because I look at the term as a questioning one. Others turned to the dictionary, I looked in my Webster's dictionary and this is what I found for the definition:

1. commonly called

2. incorrectly or falsely called

Wow! two very different definitions for the same word--and a big difference in what they mean. For those of us most familiar with the second definition--we were justifiable in being disturbed by Dr. P using it.

Hence the controversy. These two definitions are very different, and how a person takes it, depends on which definition they are most used to. Personally, when I hear someone use "so-called", I immediately think of the second definition--because that is how I would use it. However, looking at Dr. P's letter, the first definition is how Dr. Peterson has used the term-- the "commonly called" Mountain Meadow Massacre.

Therefore, there was nothing wrong with his use of the term--the problem was that we're all not using the same definition of the term.

And once again, I learn something new from the MADB board.

[John Williams]

I dunno. I do know that Dr. Peterson does not deny that the massacre took place. Nor has he ever attempted to play it down in any way.

I also know that he is not over-fond of glib phrases, so if that "so-called" means anything at all in this context beyond being a simple paraphrase for "the Mountain Meadows Massacre, as it is called," and I'm not even sure that it does, then it may be a very mild objection to the popular three-word formula as a short-cut for a more useful description.

Please recall that the only reason we are chasing this silly rabbit down the hole is because of the following offering by Solomarineris:

It really didn't happen, it is a pigment of mass imagination by Mormon haters.

Which, to the extent that it purports to represent Dan's view of the event, is a very palpable and gratuitous falsehood. The extent to which any of you have any functioning consciences at all can be gauged by the urgency you put into your efforts to distance yourselves from this baseless libel.

Regards,

Pahoran

I always love your posts, Pahoran. My saying that Dan's choice of wording was poor constitutes "baseless libel"? I love it.

I have no idea why Dan used the word "so-called," but I am puzzled as to why he apparently didn't see that it might set off the "Mormon haters."

Anyway, thanks for a good chuckle, Pah.

[alter idem]

I brought this up to my 17 year old--I asked her; what would you think if someone used the term, the "so-called Holocaust"? She said, "I'd think the person was a jerk".

That's because she, like John W. and Solomarinarisis and myself, are all familiar with definitition 2: "incorrectly or falsely called".

Whereas, Dr. P, Pahoran and Jwhitlock et al. are more familiar with the other definintion: "commonly called".

No harm intended on either side. It's just a term that has two very different meanings.

I have no idea why Dan used the word "so-called," but I am puzzled as to why he apparently didn't see that it might set off the "Mormon haters."

No reason to think he was trying to set anyone off. Obviously, he uses Websters' first definition and assumed we all do as well.

I don't fault him for not realizing some would take his statement a different way.

And so if someone says "the so-called Mormon Church", I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean "commonly called".

[John Williams]

I brought this up to my 17 year old--I asked her; what would you think if someone used the term, the "so-called Holocaust"? She said, "I'd think the person was a jerk".

That's because she, like John W. and Solomarinarisis and myself, are all familiar with definitition 2: "incorrectly or falsely called".

Whereas, Dr. P, Pahoran and Jwhitlock et al. are more familiar with the other definintion: "commonly called".

No harm intended on either side. It's just a term that has two very different meanings.

No reason to think he was trying to set anyone off. Obviously, he uses Websters' first definition and assumed we all do as well.

I don't fault him for not realizing some would take his statement a different way.

And so if someone says "the so-called Mormon Church", I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean "commonly called".

I've known Dan a long time and don't expect that he was being malicious. I'm just surprised that people who are, as you and I, more familiar with the second definition are accused of baseless libel. Pahoran thrives on hyperbole, so it's not out of character. Just made me chuckle.

[hearserve]

For what it's worth, I am a big fan of D.P.'s, am familiar with both usages of the phrase, but was still initially surprised at its use in his post. I am, however, willing to wait until D.P.'s return and hear from him what his intent was. I am also a big fan of conjecture, mainly because of how foolish it can make us all look.

[Pahoran]

I always love your posts, Pahoran. My saying that Dan's choice of wording was poor constitutes "baseless libel"? I love it.

No.

Solomarineris's paraphrase was the baseless libel.

And note, please, that that is not hyperbole. His accusation tends to defame Dr. Peterson, hence it is libellous, and it had no basis. Thus, baseless libel.

I have no idea why Dan used the word "so-called," but I am puzzled as to why he apparently didn't see that it might set off the "Mormon haters."

Anyway, thanks for a good chuckle, Pah.

If you'd like me to comment on your misreading of Dan, I'll say that it is consistent with your misreading of me. In both cases you seem to have gone for the "chuckle" factor without expending a whole lot of brain energy on parsing the statement to determine its meaning.

Regards,

Pahoran

[John Williams]

No.

Solomarineris's paraphrase was the baseless libel.

And note, please, that that is not hyperbole. His accusation tends to defame Dr. Peterson, hence it is libellous, and it had no basis. Thus, baseless libel.

If you'd like me to comment on your misreading of Dan, I'll say that it is consistent with your misreading of me. In both cases you seem to have gone for the "chuckle" factor without expending a whole lot of brain energy on parsing the statement to determine its meaning.

Regards,

Pahoran

I apologize for thinking you were attributing libel to me.

[Pahoran]

I apologize for thinking you were attributing libel to me.

Think nothing of it. I wasn't offended.

To your other question: if someone were to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ as "the so-called Mormon Church," a construction reasonably parallel to Dan's, it wouldn't bother me. However, when we see expressions like "the disgusting teachings of this so-called 'church'" regularly coming from sources that only seem to know how to level accusations against us, I'm inclined to think we are seeing examples of Alter Item's second definition.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

And so if someone says "the so-called Mormon Church", I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean "commonly called".

It wouldn't bother me even if their intended connotation was "incorrectly or falsely called."

It is, after all, not correctly called "the Mormon Church." It is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, the Church as an institution asks news media not to refer to it as "the Mormon Church," preferring instead that if they are going to use a shortened form of the name, they use one such as "the Church of Jesus Christ."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Shouldnt Dr. Peterson be back soon?

[Daniel Peterson]

Actually I don't think DCP is claiming it didn't happen, he just trivializes it.

I didn't claim that the massacre didn't happen, and I didn't trivialize it.

To suggest that I seek to trivialize the massacre is false and, quite possibly, malicious.

Obviously, by so-called, I meant commonly so called. In the same way, I've often referred to the so-called Mormon Church, so-called Muslim fundamentalism, etc.

[smac97]

I didn't claim that the massacre didn't happen, and I didn't trivialize it.

To suggest that I seek to trivialize the massacre is false and, quite possibly, malicious.

Obviously, by so-called, I meant commonly so called. In the same way, I've often referred to the so-called Mormon Church, so-called Muslim fundamentalism, etc.

Here's an example of using "so-called" to trivialize the noun its modifying:

The large billboard in downtown Salt Lake City features a diverse group of people with the caption "You are not alone" and the Web site www.postmormon.org.

It is sponsored by the Post-Mormon Community, made up of people who have voluntarily left Mormonism.

"

We choose to no longer base our lives, and the lives of our children,

on so-called truths dictated by others

," organizers say in their mission statement. "We endeavor to help those like us who also feel the need to explore meaning, purpose and life beyond Mormonism."

-Smac

[Daniel Peterson]

Obviously, so-called can be used to trivialize or, even, to implicitly deny. But I would have to be a complete fool to deny the occurrence of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and something of a moral monster to regard it as trivial.

I don't believe that there's enough evidence to convict me of either of those things. However, Solomarineris (or, for that matter, anybody else so inclined) is welcome to make the attempt.

Incidentally, this focus on one phrase in my letter is irrelevant to its main thrust.

[smac97]

Obviously, so-called can be used to trivialize or, even, to implicitly deny. But I would have to be a complete fool to deny the occurrence of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and something of a moral monster to regard it as trivial.

I don't believe that there's enough evidence to convict me of either of those things. However, Solomarineris (or, for that matter, anybody else so inclined) is welcome to make the attempt.

Incidentally, this focus on one phrase in my letter is irrelevant to its main thrust.

I'm curious: Is your reference to a spurious quote attributed to Brigham Young a reference to the following line: "I am the voice of God, and anyone who doesn't like it will be hewn down"?

Thanks,

-Smac