My Column in "Mormon Times"

[Daniel Peterson]

Today's monument of journalistic excellence:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700166335/Mormon-Apologetics-Conference-has-grown-from-humble-roots.html

[Mortal Man]

Today's monument of journalistic excellence:

http://www.deseretne...mble-roots.html

I hope your security is tighter this year. It would be embarrassing if critics were to infiltrate the conference again.

Also, when are you going to get Kerry Shirts some decent grips so he doesn't have to do everything himself?

[Daniel Peterson]

I hope your security is tighter this year. It would be embarrassing if critics were to infiltrate the conference again.

What makes you think that we care about whether the critics embarrass themselves?

I certainly don't.

[Daniel Peterson]

My most recent criminal offense against reason, charity, and ethics:

http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700169869/Societal-advances-founding-of-LDS-Church-coincided.html

[Daniel Peterson]

Although the title given to the article by the editors is a bit misaligned with the actual theme of the article itself, here is my latest assault on basic reason and human decency:

http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700171496/Despite-claims-of-secularists-religion-makes-for-happier-people.html

[Nofear]

Not having heard the term apatheism before, I had to look it up. This is what one paragraph in the wikipedia article suggested:

In recent history (2000s onward), pragmatic atheism has been seen in a more positive light. The journalist Jonathan Rauch believes that "apatheism is to be celebrated as nothing less than a major civilizational advance. Religion, as countless acts of violence in the name of God have underscored, remains the most divisive and volatile of social forces... Apatheism, therefore, should not be assumed to represent a lazy recumbency... Just the opposite: it is the product of a determined cultural effort to discipline the religious mindset, and often of an equally determined personal effort to master the spiritual passions. It is not a lapse. It is an achievement."

At least I'll give him credit for not flinching in the face of negative sounding name -- though, I think, by many empirical measures he should flinch if mastery of one's "spiritual passions" makes one a less humane human.

[Mortal Man]

Although the title given to the article by the editors is a bit misaligned with the actual theme of the article itself, here is my latest assault on basic reason and human decency:

http://www.deseretne...ier-people.html

Your article is spot on. Direct personal acts of charity, like Jesus taught, produce love and gratitude. Government redistribution programs, like Marx taught, produce resentment and bitterness.

No one writes 'thank you' notes to the government for their welfare check.

[Daniel Peterson]

Today's offering, mediocre as ever:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700173267/Religion-matters-in-death.html

[Daniel Peterson]

In response to no discernible public demand, here's a link to this week's Deseret News column by . . . well, me:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700175284/Book-of-Mormon-expressly-condemns-anti-Semitism.html

[Mortal Man]

In response to no discernible public demand, here's a link to this week's Deseret News column by . . . well, me:

http://www.deseretne...i-Semitism.html

"O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people" (2 Nephi 29:4-5).

“That a book which God gave, was once theirs; and then things went well with them. But other people got it from them, and then they fell under the displeasure of the Great Spirit; but that they shall at some time regain it.” (VotH, p. 78, 1823).

"Yea," wrote the prophet Mormon, "and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor of any remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn" (3 Nephi 29:8 ).

“Look at the origin of those degraded natives of your continent, and fly to their relief. -- Send them the heralds of salvation. Send them the word, the bread of life. You received that book from the seed of Abraham. Restore it to them, and thus double your own rich inheritance in its blessings. Learn them to read the book of grace. Learn them its history and their own. Teach them the story of their ancestors; the economy of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (VotH, p. 151, 1823).

Mormonism, in fact, has a long record of philo-Semitism, friendship toward Jews.

It also has a long record of friendship with their lost Indian brethren.

[blackstrap]

MM instead of moving the goal posts,start a new game.

[Mortal Man]

MM instead of moving the goal posts,start a new game.

I simply answered the question Dan left hanging in the air; i.e., why does the BoM promote philo-Semitism?

I have not moved the goal posts; rather, I have recovered the ball and put it back on the line of scrimmage.

Dan claims that:

Against this background, it's remarkable, even startling, that the Book of Mormon, published in 1830, expressly condemns anti-Semitism — so far as I'm aware, the only scriptural text, from any tradition, that does so.

The fact is that numerous texts, religious and otherwise, published prior to 1830 promoted philo-Semitism.

Why did they do this? One reason was the widespread belief that the American Indians were part of the ten lost tribes.

Dan points to 2 Nephi 29:4-5.

The Bible, says the Lord to Nephi, "shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

You could also say that VotH (or Wonders, or Hunter's Narrative or American Archaeology etc.) shall proceed forth from Ethan Smith et al. And what thank they Ethan et al. for the books which they receive from them? Do they remember the travails and labors and pains and diligence of those who first brought forth the save-the-Indian-Jews doctrine?

Start a new thread or you will be banned from thread.

[Stargazer]

What percentage of my columns "attack critics"?

Be sure to give an accurate figure. Some might think you're going soft in the head.

All of them!

The columns where you don't appear to attack critics only appear not to -- by ignoring them you attack them by refusing to acknowledge their drivel. That's possibly worse than a mere attack.

See? You can't win for losing!

[Daniel Peterson]

According to my Malevolent Stalker, I've been perpetrating unspeakably cruel and sadistic acts of evil upon those with whom I disagree -- the Stalker actually uses words like that -- for several decades now.

Here's another specimen of my vicious ongoing war against dissent:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700177056/Going-beyond-what-evidence-can-provide.html

[mfbukowski]

Here's another specimen of my vicious ongoing war against dissent:

http://www.deseretne...an-provide.html

Great piece!

I especially liked this part:

Beethoven's "Emperor" Concerto is both a set of vibrations in matter (the domain of physics and acoustics) and a powerfully complex creation at the dawn of music's romantic period (in the realm of cultural history). Neither description can be reduced to the other.

You remind me of Thomas Nagel's point in my siggy, that descriptions of physical brain states can never capture the phenomenology of experience.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, mfbukowski.

Here's today's stench in the nostrils of my critics:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700179165/Evidence-of-Jesus-Christs-resurrection.html?pg=1

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

Excellent article on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Gary Habermas's article on "The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus" is a good example of an article by an evangelical on this subject; he makes essentially the same points that you make in your article.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, and thanks for the reference.

This is a subject on which I plan to expend considerable time at some point in the next few years, and I deeply appreciate the work that has been done on it by evangelical scholars like Gary Habermas.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan, I highly recommend Michael Licona's recent book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (InterVarsity, 2010). It's a massive (700-page) academic study (a published version of his PhD dissertation, actually). Mike is a good friend of mine, by the way.

[Mortal Man]

Many skeptics lightly dismiss the story of Christ's resurrection from the dead as merely ancient folklore, a tall tale that emerged and grew with the retelling over generations.

I don’t know anyone who “lightly” dismisses it, and there is no question that the story evolved.

It's generally agreed among historians that 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus in A.D. 54 or 55. Jesus was crucified somewhere between A.D. 30 and 33. That leaves a period of only 25 years or less between Christ's resurrection and Paul's strong affirmation of it. (Paul's own conversion, resulting from a dramatic vision along the Damascus road, had occurred somewhere between A.D. 33 and 35.)

Paul taught a spirit-only resurrection. He never said anything about an empty tomb or showing of wounds. It is extremely improbable that he knew about these things but chose never to mention this core evidence.

But some obvious names are absent from Paul's list. Where, for example, is Mary Magdalene, probably the first witness to the Resurrection? Where are the other women who came to the tomb that Sunday morning?

If Paul knew of their alleged visit then he also knew that they saw nothing remarkable, so why bother mentioning them?

Paul was a Pharisee by training, and the testimony of women wasn't considered credible in ancient Jewish legal proceedings. (See his own restrictive comments about the role of women in early Christian worship just a few verses before, in 14:34-35.) Ironically, this actually increases the plausibility of the resurrection accounts:

Paul didn’t write those verses. His view of women was exactly the opposite of what you've portrayed.

If the gospel writers had simply invented the story, they wouldn't have chosen women as the first witnesses. That they identify those first witnesses as women strongly suggests that they're telling what actually happened.

Mark chose women (who became frightened and never told anyone anything) to get around the fact that none of the original apostles had ever mentioned running to the tomb and finding it empty. Matthew, Luke and John picked up where Mark left off and each took the story in his own direction.

But the interval between the resurrection and Paul's testimony of it can be reduced even further, because his first letter to the Thessalonians, which also mentions Christ's emergence from the tomb (see 1:10 and 4:14), is typically dated to A.D. 50 or 51, approximately 20 years (or less) afterward.

Neither of those verses mentions anything about “Christ’s emergence from the tomb”.

In fact, that letter was probably written from Corinth, where Paul lived for roughly a year and a half beginning in late A.D. 50 or 51. It was, obviously, during that stay that he first preached the message of Christ's resurrection to the Corinthians.

During that stay he visited the Temple of Asclepius (see note [2]), where he learned how to make Jesus more competitive against the other popular man-god.

But he had already spent 15 days in the city with Peter and John during the spring or summer of A.D. 36 or 37 (Acts 9:26-29; Galatians 1:18-19).

Peter and James, but neither one told him of the empty tomb, angelic messengers, linen burial wrappings, breaking of bread, eating of fish/honeycomb or any other bodily act of the risen Jesus.

In other words, Paul was converted to Christianity within two to five years of Christ's death, and he almost certainly heard the story of Christ's resurrection directly from its principal apostolic eyewitnesses at Jerusalem within, at the very most, six or seven years of the event itself, and perhaps within roughly half that time.

Yes, but he heard a wildly different story than what’s in the canonized gospels. His vision on the road to Damascus was of a purely spiritual Jesus, otherwise his companions would have heard/seen the same things he did.

The interval between the claimed resurrection of Jesus and Paul's learning about it seems far too short for a mere legend to have evolved.

It evolved more rapidly after Paul's death.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, I highly recommend Michael Licona's recent book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (InterVarsity, 2010). It's a massive (700-page) academic study (a published version of his PhD dissertation, actually). Mike is a good friend of mine, by the way.

I bought it, but I haven't yet read it. I've heard good things about the book, though, and really look forward to doing so.

At some point -- it's probably at least a couple years down the line, though, because it forms a specific part of a multiphase project that I'm launching -- I would love to be able to put some questions to, and get some feedback from, somebody like him. (I exchanged one or two brief e-mails with Gary Habermas a few years ago, on this subject.) I hope that will be possible. For all our differences on other things, we have a common cause in this centrally important issue.

[Mortal Man]

I would love to be able to put some questions to, and get some feedback from, somebody like him.

Perhaps you could start with these questions:

Who was there (besides Mary Magdalene)?

Did she/they witness the stone being rolled away?

Who appeared to her/them? A man? An angel? Two men? Two angels?

What did the man/men/angel/angels say to the woman/women and vice versa?

Were there linen burial wrappings in the tomb? If so, who saw them?

To whom did Jesus first appear?

Where did he first appear?

What was the first thing he said?

Did the eleven disciples see Jesus in Galilee or Jerusalem?

How does a glorified celestial body retain its wounds of death?

How did Jesus’ invitation to Thomas to feel his wounds prove he was "raised an imperishable body"?

[mfbukowski]

According to my Malevolent Stalker, I've been perpetrating unspeakably cruel and sadistic acts of evil upon those with whom I disagree -- the Stalker actually uses words like that -- for several decades now.

Here's another specimen of my vicious ongoing war against dissent:

http://www.deseretne...an-provide.html

You know this but I just wanted to go on record saying this.

The attacks over there on your position are totally philosophically unwarranted. I'm not talking now about the insane hatred - obviously that is unwarranted- I am just speaking to the philosophical position you took in this article from last week.

The most knowledgeable person over there, in philosophy, came to your defense- your attacker doesn't know what he is talking about.

He is known to use only secondary source material out of textbooks and use general criticisms saying that various "isms" are incompatible with other "isms"- when of course they are not; individual philosophers never subscribe totally to an "ism"- every one is an individual. Your article was not intended obviously to be a philosophical discourse anyway- it was intended to do what it did- to explain a rather arcane point about the nature of evidence to a general audience which was presumably quite uninformed about such matters- and it did it well.

I have finally learned that responding to every uninformed critic who decides to shoot off his mouth is just a drain on one's time and a total waste- but I did want to support the philosophical point you made- I thought it was a great article.

[Pahoran]

I don’t know anyone who “lightly” dismisses it, and there is no question that the story evolved.

I know this comes as a surprise to you, MM, but the fact that you unquestioningly accept a controversial opinion is not quite enough to put it beyond question. Sorry.

Paul taught a spirit-only resurrection.

That interpretation of his teaching is highly questionable on the evidence and actually incoherent. And yet you baldly and dogmatically assert it as if it were an unquestioned fact.

Sorry, but it is not.

He never said anything about an empty tomb or showing of wounds. It is extremely improbable that he knew about these things but chose never to mention this core evidence.

And this is the best you've got? The argument from silence?

If Paul knew of their alleged visit then he also knew that they saw nothing remarkable, so why bother mentioning them?

And now MM will demonstrate his ability to read the mind of a man who has been dead for two millennia.

Paul didn’t write those verses. His view of women was exactly the opposite of what you've portrayed.

In support of which dogmatic opinions, you hyperlink to more of your own dogmatic opining. What more could we possibly want?

Mark chose women (who became frightened and never told anyone anything) to get around the fact that none of the original apostles had ever mentioned running to the tomb and finding it empty. Matthew, Luke and John picked up where Mark left off and each took the story in his own direction.

So not only can you read the minds of men two thousand years dead, but women as well. Good luck with that; most of us confess that we have enough trouble figuring out why our wives are annoyed with us in the here and now -- and we are far better acquainted with the actual circumstances than you are with those of the women who witnessed the Resurrection.

Neither of those verses mentions anything about “Christ’s emergence from the tomb”.

They talk explicitly about the Resurrection of Jesus, who "died and rose again." To everyone not sold on your silly notion of Paul as a proto-JW, it is obvious that to talk of Jesus being resurrected is indeed to assert that he emerged from the tomb.

During that stay he visited the Temple of Asclepius (see note [2]), where he learned how to make Jesus more competitive against the other popular man-god.

Utterly baseless speculation. No wonder you baldly and dogmatically assert it as though it were an established fact.

Peter and James, but neither one told him of the empty tomb, angelic messengers, linen burial wrappings, breaking of bread, eating of fish/honeycomb or any other bodily act of the risen Jesus.

And your evidence for that is...?

Yes, but he heard a wildly different story than what’s in the canonized gospels. His vision on the road to Damascus was of a purely spiritual Jesus, otherwise his companions would have heard/seen the same things he did.

What a ridiculous assumption.

It evolved more rapidly after Paul's death.

You are at all times entitled to your opinion, MM. Your contributions would benefit greatly if you were to follow the example of Paul and admit that opinion is all it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

You know this but I just wanted to go on record saying this.

The attacks over there on your position are totally philosophically unwarranted. I'm not talking now about the insane hatred - obviously that is unwarranted- I am just speaking to the philosophical position you took in this article from last week.

The most knowledgeable person over there, in philosophy, came to your defense- your attacker doesn't know what he is talking about.

He is known to use only secondary source material out of textbooks and use general criticisms saying that various "isms" are incompatible with other "isms"- when of course they are not; individual philosophers never subscribe totally to an "ism"- every one is an individual. Your article was not intended obviously to be a philosophical discourse anyway- it was intended to do what it did- to explain a rather arcane point about the nature of evidence to a general audience which was presumably quite uninformed about such matters- and it did it well.

I have finally learned that responding to every uninformed critic who decides to shoot off his mouth is just a drain on one's time and a total waste- but I did want to support the philosophical point you made- I thought it was a great article.

Thanks. I appreciate your note.

I'm going to go back through that and other threads where I've been revealed to be a dishonest incompetent, to see if I can extract anything from them that actually counts against my positions. My sense thus far is, on the whole, that my opponents there and I are talking past one another. But they're so disposed to regard me as a scoundrel and a liar that I can see no real point in trying to engage them there, and any explanation that I would offer would, I absolutely guarantee, be regarded by the most vocal as nothing but disingenuous and mercenary evasion.

Right now, several seem to be busily engaged in demonstrating that I hold all those who disagree with me in contempt, that I explain all disbelief as caused by a desire to sin, that I advocate misogyny, and etc., and so forth.

it's wearisome. But it would be futile to try to convince them otherwise. I know, because I've tried.