My Column in "Mormon Times"

[Daniel Peterson]

Some more shameless self-promotion. (Senator, don't read beyond this sentence.)

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700187387/Mormons-should-prepare-for-scrutiny-opportunities.html?s_cid=Email-4

[KevinG]

Some more shameless self-promotion. (Senator, don't read beyond this sentence.)

http://www.deseretne...l?s_cid=Email-4

Nice Dr. P. As my wife jokes "I don't want to live in the great and spacious building but is it okay if I visit now and then to go shopping? They have such cool styles."

[Daniel Peterson]

This week's violation of community standards of decency and fairness:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700189548/Mormons-not-Christian-Thats-a-fallacy-of-equivocation.html

[Libs]

That was a good article. I just read it on another LDS board.

I agree that LDS are Christians, but the critics always bring up the idea of a "different Jesus", which in their minds, makes the LDS Church a different religion. I've thought about that a lot and even thought, for awhile, that they might have a point, but thinking about it further, it is more that LDS believe different things about the "same Jesus", than they believe in a "different Jesus". All Christians, including LDS, are talking about the Jesus Christ of the Bible, born of the Virgin Mary, in Bethlehem. All Christians, including LDS, mostly, agree on the details of his earthly life (the healings, the sermons, his death and resurrection). Definitely, talking about the same person. The differences are over ontology and various interpretations on salvational issues (which even other more mainstream denominatons disagree upon, to somewhat lesser degrees).. Critics often exaggerate the differences, to make the gap appear much wider than it truly is. There are some big differences, to be sure, but not to the ridiculous extent that some paint them.

[Calm]

You definitely get it. Never understood why others don't. Seems pretty straightforward and simple.

[Stargazer]

This week's violation of community standards of decency and fairness:

http://www.deseretne...uivocation.html

Perfect. Kudos to the master.

[Daniel Peterson]

This week's deception:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700191814/Book-of-Mormons-consistency-complexity-still-amaze.html

Curiously, there are a fair number of comments . . . but, for a change, they're almost all positive.

Weird.

[Gohan]

Awesome article! Sadly, the link to the article you mentioned by Dr Thorpe doesn't seem to work. Do you have an alternate one?

[Daniel Peterson]

Sorry about that. I asked them to fix it, and I think they eventually did.

But now for today's piece of viciousness, even nastier than usual:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700193949/Cherry-picking-similarities-a-powerful-way-to-mislead.html

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently, Daniel hasn't yet gotten around to posting a link to his latest column, so I will do it here:

http://www.deseretne...us-freedom.html

I was amazed by the fatuousness of one reader comment in particular:

"Defending the Faith" is a adversarial title. It makes the tone of this column one of animosity towards others who do not share Mr Peterson's beliefs.

I wish the DMN [sic] would stop this column, as it doesn't add to the civility of discourse in our state.

As though defense of a religious faith by one who didn't start the fight in the first place but only seeks to set the record straight is somehow uncivil.

And "those who do not share Mr. Peterson's beliefs" are in quite a separate category from those who overtly attack them. It is the latter, not the former, with which the column concerns itself.

And note that it is not the content of any column in particular that the commenter objects to but the very act itself of defending Mormonism by means of a newspaper column.

It's a constant, I know, but I'm nevertheless astounded by the hubris of those who seem to have convinced themselves that Mormons should roll over and play dead while others attack the church and faith they hold dear and that to respond is uncivil, unChristian, whatever. To hold such a view is rank hypocrisy.

From time to time, I've seen Daniel evoke a French saying that I think applies here, something to this effect: "This animal is extremely vicious; when attacked, it bites."

[Daniel Peterson]

Ah yes. Thanks for posting the link, Scott. I was about to do it the other day, but then I was distracted by something.

I got a chuckle out of the reader's suggestion that my column be dropped because it's full of "animosity" toward non-Mormons and lacks "civility."

Maybe I'm just too depraved to live, too corrupted by spite and hatred even to notice what a monster I've become, but I don't think that yesterday's column showed any animus or was uncivil at all, and I don't think, really, that any of my columns have borne those traits.

I doubt, by the way, that the editors at the Deseret News will be convinced by that reader's claim that "'Defending the Faith' is an adversarial title." After all, it was their suggestion, not mine.

[Libs]

Near the program's end, an audience member asked how things would change if Islam became the dominant American belief. My opponent replied that all false religions would be outlawed, leaving Islam as the only legal faith.

This statement really was chilling...

[Daniel Peterson]

It was. Especially so as the Muslim "evangelist," who was (I guessed) of south Asian background, spoke English without the slightest trace of an accent. He was probably born and raised in North America, but, quite obviously, cared nothing about American or Canadian traditions of freedom and human rights. Somehow, I found that particularly troubling.

Incidentally, I'm curious whether anybody here, reading that column, seriously thinks it "adversarial," uncivil, or filled with animosity. I ask because a few of my more rabid and determined critics, posting elsewhere, are writing as if it really is nasty and hostile toward non-Mormons.

[Calm]

At most, there is a tone of disappointment in your reception at the debate, hardly nasty though and you begin and finish off with pointing out the exceptional nature of the Muslim's position....and sadly since there are Christians out there promoting the same idea of outlawing all faiths save their approved ones as well as the 'gentler' versions of just not allowing them involvement in the government or equal protection, it comes across to me as more of a comment about a certain type of mindset rather than faith, though it is explicitly taught against in LDS doctrine as you point out.

[Libs]

It was. Especially so as the Muslim "evangelist," who was (I guessed) of south Asian background, spoke English without the slightest trace of an accent. He was probably born and raised in North America, but, quite obviously, cared nothing about American or Canadian traditions of freedom and human rights. Somehow, I found that particularly troubling.

Yes, always especially troubling from folks that should know better and have actually benefited from our system of religious freedom.

Incidentally, I'm curious whether anybody here, reading that column, seriously thinks it "adversarial," uncivil, or filled with animosity. I ask because a few of my more rabid and determined critics, posting elsewhere, are writing as if it really is nasty and hostile toward non-Mormons.

I didn't see the article as adversarial, uncivil or the least bit hostile, even though it sounds like you had reason to be, all things considered. That was a setup and a very "hostile" one, at that.

[Daniel Peterson]

My most recent brazen attack on civility and religious tolerance:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700198500/Apostles-became-fearless-preachers.html

My Malevolent Stalker says -- and, surely, she would never say anything that was untrue -- that my columns are becoming more and more adversarial towards non-Mormons.

[KevinG]

Shocking that the Deseret News - paper of choice for the Bible hating Mormons - would allow you to post an article with so many Biblical quotes!

[Scott Lloyd]

From Daniel's column:

So what transformed the fearful, cowering apostles of Passover weekend into fearless preachers of Christ's resurrection less than two months later? There is a very obvious possible answer. Everything hinges on it.

I am preparing for a work assignment this weekend in Richmond and Liberty, Missouri. I will be covering a re-dedication of the monument to the Three Witnesses dedicated 100 years ago at Richmond and the dedication of a new monument in LIberty to the Eight Witnesses.

In preparation, I have been boning up on the Book of Mormon witnesses, reading portions of Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses and other sources.

Several of these 11 men later became disaffected with the Prophet Joseph Smith. Yet none ever denied his testimony of having seen the plates. Why would they stand fast by their testimony, even after, in several cases, becoming disenchanted with the Prophet?

Applying Daniel's words, I would say there is a very obvious possible answer, and everything hinges on it.

[Daniel Peterson]

As I hope I've made really clear over the years, I'm an enthusiastic partisan of the Book of Mormon witnesses. I think their testimony is extraordinarily impressive.

And I recommend Richard Lloyd Anderson's book (and his other writings on the Witnesses) every chance I get.

I envy you the trip to Richmond and Liberty. Holy ground, as far as I'm concerned.

(I'm going to be in San Francisco this weekend, for an academic conference. Very interesting, of course. But not exactly holy.)

[Calm]

(I'm going to be in San Francisco this weekend, for an academic conference. Very interesting, of course. But not exactly holy.)

Well, it's my birthplace, that's got to count for something.

[Daniel Peterson]

LOL. It appears that I need to apologize.

My hypersecretive Malevolent Stalker is actually male -- and a rage-fueled sexist, to boot. He has, it seems, absolutely blown a gasket elsewhere because I referred to him, above, as "she," and has started yet another thread about me (his fourth or fifth, I think, in the past few days) in order to hyperventilate about what he clearly regards as one of the worst insults that could be directed against him.

I was just being even-handed -- since I knew nothing whatever about his personal circumstances, including his gender, it seemed to me fair and reasonable to refer to him as a "she." But he apparently regards it as a terrible thing to be female.

My apologies to the Stalker. (I know that he'll read this.)

[blackstrap]

Methinks"she" doth protest too much.

[Calm]

But he apparently regards it as a terrible thing to be female.

This female thinks it as a terrible thing to be the Malevolent Stalker so I guess it's fair more or less.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I hope I've made really clear over the years, I'm an enthusiastic partisan of the Book of Mormon witnesses. I think their testimony is extraordinarily impressive.

And I recommend Richard Lloyd Anderson's book (and his other writings on the Witnesses) every chance I get.

I envy you the trip to Richmond and Liberty. Holy ground, as far as I'm concerned.

(I'm going to be in San Francisco this weekend, for an academic conference. Very interesting, of course. But not exactly holy.)

It was in fact your recommendation of Brother Anderson's book that first prompted me to read it in earnest.

I have since met him on several occasions and have had occasion to thank him for writing it. Most recently, I had a good chat with him and his wife Carma on the grounds of the St. George Temple in May when we were all in town for the Mormon History Association Conference.

It's going to be an enjoyable trip this weekend. So far I've only gotten as far as the hotel in Kansas City and have already met up with Alex Baugh, Kenny Mays, Glen Rawson and Dennis Lyman. Susan Easton Black is one of the scholars who will be involved tomorrow.

Have a good time in San Francisco. Will you be stopping by the Oakland Temple?

[Daniel Peterson]

We didn't have a car there, and never got beyond walking distance from the Moscone Center and Union Square. Too bad, because I've always really loved the Oakland Temple.

How was your trip to Missouri?

I'm a bit late with this, but here's my Deseret News column for this morning:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700200662/Gratitude-to-our-God-is-paramount.html

Yet another in my continuing, even escalating, series of attacks on non-Mormons and non-Mormon faiths.