"bill And Dan's Excellent Adventure In Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell."

[Wiki Wonka]

During Dan Peterson's FairMormon conference talk "Some Reflections on that Letter to a CES Director," he talked about the Spalding theory

 

This is his fourth objection: Book of Mormon Geography, and he uses Vernal Holley, who relied on the Solomon Spalding theory of the Book of Mormon, which has been exploded, detonated so many times that its exasperating to see it keep coming back. I’ve mentioned, I think, here before that Hamblin and I have wanted to do a film that we call tentatively, “Bill and Dan’s Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell.” The idea is that these just keep coming back. I mean, you shoot them between the eyes and they don’t stop because there’s no brain in there, right? And, I see the Spalding manuscript theory just keep coming and coming...

 

Now, I'm seeing a number of comments online from ex-Mormons claiming that Dan is calling them "zombies" because they "have no brain." I cannot get this from any reading of this statement - he is clearly talking about old arguments, in this case the Spalding Theory, that keep resurrecting themselves. I can't read this to mean "people."

 

BTW, this "zombie" comment is not new - Dan made it at least nine years ago in another FairMormon conference talk.

 

Those who have been on this board for a very long time might remember this thread from June 2006 (eight years ago):

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/16090-popular-anti-mormon-misconceptions/?p=1207976060

 

Scott Lloyd said:

 

Don't hold your breath.

Daniel Peterson once wrote of his and Bill Hamblin's experience responding to critics' arguments as "Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell." Meaning of course that the lame anti-Mormon arguments refuse to lie down, despite having been shot full of holes.

 

Now we go back to 2005, to Dan's FAIR Conference talk "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism":

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2005-fair-conference/2005-reflections-on-secular-anti-mormonism

 

I will, as advertised, reflect on “secular anti-Mormonism.” I’m grateful for the assignment because, frankly, anti-Mormonism of the evangelical kind has come, with a few exceptions, to bore me intensely. It’s not only that it tends to be repetitious and uninteresting–I think I’ve mentioned here before the film that my friend Bill Hamblin and I have laughed about doing: Bill and Dan’s Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell. It’s not merely that the same arguments reappear ad nauseam, no matter how often they’ve been refuted, and that reviewing essentially the same book for the thirty-second time grows tiresome. (You’ve heard the definition of insanity as when you keep doing the same thing over and over and over again, and expect to get different results.) It’s also the deep streak of intellectual dishonesty that runs through much of the countercult industry, the triumphalism that exaggerates and even invents problems on the Mormon side while effectively pretending that no problems remain to be addressed on the so-called “Christian” side.

 

So, does anyone see any way that this can be interpreted as calling ex-Mormons "zombies?"

 

WW

 

[USU78]

I don't think it means anything more than some folks lack the capacity to learn.  Once convinced of a proposition, no amount of argument or evidence will ever make a dent in the blocks that pass for heads of same.

[cdowis]

I thought he was referring to the discussions on youtube,

 

Did you know that Joseph Smith killed two people and went on a "killing spree"?

Edited August 25, 2014 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

During Dan Peterson's FairMormon conference talk "Some Reflections on that Letter to a CES Director," he talked about the Spalding theory

 

 

 

Now, I'm seeing a number of comments online from ex-Mormons claiming that Dan is calling them "zombies" because they "have no brain." I cannot get this from any reading of this statement - he is clearly talking about old arguments, in this case the Spalding Theory, that keep resurrecting themselves. I can't read this to mean "people."

 

BTW, this "zombie" comment is not new - Dan made it at least nine years ago in another FairMormon conference talk.

 

Those who have been on this board for a very long time might remember this thread from June 2006 (eight years ago):

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/16090-popular-anti-mormon-misconceptions/?p=1207976060

 

Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

Now we go back to 2005, to Dan's FAIR Conference talk "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism":

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2005-fair-conference/2005-reflections-on-secular-anti-mormonism

 

 

 

So, does anyone see any way that this can be interpreted as calling ex-Mormons "zombies?"

 

WW

It's a hilarious comparison -- and so very apt!

 

Even today, after many years, it ranks as my favorite specimen of Peterson witticism. I think I may have first encountered it in an issue of what was then probably called the FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. As much as anything else, it helped make me an avid Peterson reader and watcher.

 

In the 2006 thread you link us to, a follow-up post in response to mine by someone who went by the name of Maygar sums up very well the genius in the zombie imagery:

 

I just got a mental picture of every zombie movie/cartoon I have ever seen, and the hapless heroes desperately shooting/hacking away while the undead moan and reconstitute themselves endlessly.

I may burst out laughing and break a rib the next time I see Adam-God or Adieu splashed across a lurid tract.

A better metaphor has never been coined.

 

But no, Dan was not calling any individual a zombie. He was talking about the stupid arguments some anti-Mormons keep raising despite the fact that the arguments have been soundly rebutted many, many times -- like a zombie that won't die despite how much it is ... well, you get the idea.

[Buckeye]

I read the quote as refering to arguments, not people, as zombies.  And like it or not, it's just a joke.  Dan can go over the top at times (we all can), but not here.  Give it a rest.

 

On a related note, the spaulding manuscript currently resides at Oberlin college in Ohio.  For youth temple trips sometimes our route will take us by the college.  As we pass the college, I will honk and tell the youth to give a shout out for Mr. Spaulding.  They just tune me out.

[The Nehor]

I agree we should not compare brainless idiot antis who repeat things endlessly to zombies. Zombies have a hard enough time with the stress and frustration of procuring precious brain meats without being compared to mindless dullards. Let the zombies have their dignity.

Edited August 26, 2014 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

During Dan Peterson's FairMormon conference talk "Some Reflections on that Letter to a CES Director," he talked about the Spalding theory

 

 

 

Now, I'm seeing a number of comments online from ex-Mormons claiming that Dan is calling them "zombies" because they "have no brain." I cannot get this from any reading of this statement - he is clearly talking about old arguments, in this case the Spalding Theory, that keep resurrecting themselves. I can't read this to mean "people."

 

BTW, this "zombie" comment is not new - Dan made it at least nine years ago in another FairMormon conference talk.

 

Those who have been on this board for a very long time might remember this thread from June 2006 (eight years ago):

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/16090-popular-anti-mormon-misconceptions/?p=1207976060

 

Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

Now we go back to 2005, to Dan's FAIR Conference talk "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism":

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2005-fair-conference/2005-reflections-on-secular-anti-mormonism

 

 

 

So, does anyone see any way that this can be interpreted as calling ex-Mormons "zombies?"

 

WW

I've traced Dan's zombie imagery back to 1997, in a FARMS Review of Books piece in which he reviewed the anti-Mormon book, Die Mormonen by Rudiger Hauth. (See the second paragraph of the review.)

 

This may or may not have been the first published occurrence of the analogy. I'm fairly certain it's the first instance in which I saw it.

 

Of course, that's neither here nor there, but with your encyclopedic mind, Roger, I thought you might be interested in adding this element to the quote's provenance.

 

Edited to add:

 

The review, by the way, is vintage Peterson. In addition to the zombie analogy, there is this choice gem:

 

Is there no conservation group that can stop this? How many trees will continue to be slaughtered merely to print -- and then, again and again, to reprint -- such materials?

 

Edited August 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

I agree we should not compare brainless idiot antis who repeat things endlessly to zombies. Zombies have a hard enough time with the stress and frustration of procuring precious brain meats without being compared to mindless dullards. Let the zombies have their dignity.

 

[wenglund]

So, does anyone see any way that this can be interpreted as calling ex-Mormons "zombies?"

 

Ironically, one would have to be a "zombie" to misinterpret it that way and fuss so much about it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 26, 2014 by wenglund

[Vance]

Now, I'm seeing a number of comments online from ex-Mormons claiming that Dan is calling them "zombies" because they "have no brain."

Perhaps the shoe fits, so they are gladly putting it on.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps the shoe fits, so they are gladly putting it on.

Or perhaps they don't like being faced with the realization that they "jumped ship too soon" as Dan put it in his FairMormon talk, that they let themselves be led out of the Church by what, in the final analysis, really are weak arguments. A real tragedy that would not be pleasant for anyone to contemplate. No wonder people resist that realization so.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[BCSpace]

So, does anyone see any way that this can be interpreted as calling ex-Mormons "zombies?"

 

 

Seems more like answering the same old anti Mormon criticisms ad-nauseum turns one into a zombie.

[Wiki Wonka]

I've traced Dan's zombie imagery back to 1997, in a FARMS Review of Books piece in which he reviewed the anti-Mormon book, Die Mormonen by Rudiger Hauth. (See the second paragraph of the review.)

 

This may or may not have been the first published occurrence of the analogy. I'm fairly certain it's the first instance in which I saw it.

 

Of course, that's neither here nor there, but with your encyclopedic mind, Roger, I thought you might be interested in adding this element to the quote's provenance.

 

Edited to add:

 

The review, by the way, is vintage Peterson. In addition to the zombie analogy, there is this choice gem:

 

Hah!...all the way back to 1997 now - 17 years ago. This particular "zombie" reference keeps....well.....coming back again and again to be shared with each new generation (and it's just as funny each time, although the humor appears to be lost on those who don't read it carefully enough).

 

Could it be that this quote has been zombified reincarnated? 

[strappinglad]

So Dan's zombie reference has been coming back again and again for 17 years. Inconceivable ! Excuse me, I have a shirt to iron.

[Stargazer]

So, does anyone see any way that this can be interpreted as calling ex-Mormons "zombies?"

 

WW

Well, if the shoe fits...

[Damien the Leper]

Ironically, one would have to be a "zombie" to misinterpret it that way and fuss so much about it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I love you, Wade. I wish the hubby and I were in your ward.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, Wiki, for dealing with this.

 

I've really been amazed to see people try to take this as a personal insult aimed directly at them.

 

It absolutely wasn't.  The thought never even crossed my mind.

 

Others have been describing my FairMormon remarks as one endless series of vicious personal attacks on the author of the "Letter to a CES Director."

 

This astonishes me, too.  

 

I very deliberately never used his name, and scarcely ever so much as referred to him.

 

I was curious to see whether I would be accused of attacking him personally, even then.

 

Big surprise.  I was.  And I continue to be.

 

It seems that what I actually have to say is of no importance.  The narrative is already in place before I even say or write a word,

[ERayR]

 

 

The narrative is already in place before I even say or write a word,

 

You really don't need to write any more speeches.  Just have them send you their copy.

Edited August 28, 2014 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks, Wiki, for dealing with this.

 

I've really been amazed to see people try to take this as a personal insult aimed directly at them.

 

It absolutely wasn't.  The thought never even crossed my mind.

 

Others have been describing my FairMormon remarks as one endless series of vicious personal attacks on the author of the "Letter to a CES Director."

 

This astonishes me, too.  

 

I very deliberately never used his name, and scarcely ever so much as referred to him.

 

I was curious to see whether I would be accused of attacking him personally, even then.

 

Big surprise.  I was.  And I continue to be.

 

It seems that what I actually have to say is of no importance.  The narrative is already in place before I even say or write a word,

People don't take kindly to having their cherished unbeliefs rebutted, and that resentment is apt to take shape in hostility and unjust accusation toward the one doing the rebutting. It's human nature, I suppose, and we should hardly be surprised when we see it happen.