Apologetics - the new derogatory term

cdowis · August 22, 2017

On 8/20/2017 at 6:14 PM, Calm said:

"I just point out some Biblical prophets who had some "interesting" backgrounds, much worse than using a seer stone -- Moses, Saul, Peter, etc. The point being that God knows what He is doing, even when we would disagree with His choices of prophets"

And how does that work for those who don't believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Then they are arguing just for the sake of argument, since they probably do not believe in prophets at all. It is a moot issue, we have no common ground for a discussion on that topic.

Edited August 22, 2017 by cdowis

Daniel Peterson · August 23, 2017

On August 15, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

This moral equivalency between Dan Peterson and John Dehlin is odd. Since when has Peterson ever engaged in "explosive" attacks on Dehlin? Any kind of attacks? What is this nonsense about them not being able to get along? So far as I know, they have never even met.

it is, indeed, odd.

For one thing, I've never called for Dehlin to lose his job, nor rejoiced when I thought he had. I've never tried to block him from publishing anything. And I pay virtually no attention to him (which, I think, cannot be said about his attention to ME.)

That said, we HAVE met a few times, and we've always been entirely civil and polite. But I probably won't be going on any double dates with him.

Daniel Peterson · August 23, 2017

On August 15, 2017 at 2:20 PM, hope_for_things said:

Dan Peterson is one that I don't respect much at all. He's a polarizing figure for one, so whenever people discuss him, its seems to illicit quite a bit of emotion and irrationality by many people. Two, I have seen his comments in social media and on his blog and he can be quite disrespectful and dismissive of people he disagrees with, and he seems to intentionally stir the pot. I don't like those tactics, and find his style off putting for me.

You're wise to have no respect for him. He deserves none.

He's extremely mean-spirited and cruel, and has no respect for anybody who disagrees with him.

hope_for_things · August 23, 2017

38 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said:

You're wise to have no respect for him. He deserves none.

He's extremely mean-spirited and cruel, and has no respect for anybody who disagrees with him.

First let me applaud you for commenting on my posts and take this opportunity to clarify my comments. Which if you read through the full context you'll see I'm not making this as personal as that one snipet sounds.

I participate in groups of people struggling with the church, but that want to stay engaged and value the good they find in the church even with strong disagreements at times. In the past I have seen some pretty strong disagreements between you and some of the people that I respect very highly and who were attempting to engage you in polite disagreement but were met with what I consider rude behavior, even trollish at times, when it was very obvious they were speaking sincerely they weren't treated with a common respect and etiquette that I think everyone deserves. If I had noticed this behavior just once I wouldn't have formed an opinion on the subject or commented here.

Personally I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and I like to be proven wrong about negative impressions of others. Maybe you could shed some light on your modus operandi for your online persona. When you stir the pot or make statements you likely know will be received in a particular way by others, are you doing so with ill intent or just for fun or do you think you'll win hearts and minds or are you trying to fight the good fight? What exactly are your intentions and do you know how you come across sometimes to those like me who are actively involved with the church but don't hold very literal beliefs.

Daniel Peterson · August 23, 2017

I would need to see specific examples. On the whole, frankly, I regard descriptions of my awful online behavior as fiction. The things that I'm alleged to have done are often so completely unlike me or anything I've ever thought or felt that, charitably, the best I can say of them is that they reflect wild misunderstandings.

Sometimes, of course, there's a prior history between me and a poster that might be unknown to an observer. Where they see sincere questions, I see something else. And when somebody comes on aggressively and insultingly, I don't feel obliged to pretend that I haven't noticed.

Robert F. Smith · August 23, 2017

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

...........................................................

Personally I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and I like to be proven wrong about negative impressions of others. Maybe you could shed some light on your modus operandi for your online persona. When you stir the pot or make statements you likely know will be received in a particular way by others, are you doing so with ill intent or just for fun or do you think you'll win hearts and minds or are you trying to fight the good fight? What exactly are your intentions and do you know how you come across sometimes to those like me who are actively involved with the church but don't hold very literal beliefs.

Aside from your response here to Dan, you also said in a now closed thread:

Quote

Also, my attempt to talk about Dan's attitude/approach was not to be overly critical or to characterize him in a strawman kind of way, so if my comments and the replies to my comments escalated this discussion down that road I apologize and wish to turn the clock back on those sentiments. I have an opinion based on personal observations in the past. I don't want to overstate that opinion or make wide claims about a person's character as a whole. That is not my objective and I wish to leave things where they are. If this is not acceptable to you, please let me know which specific opinions I made that I need to modify to be in alignment with the CFR rules that will also allow me to be honest with my conscience.

That is a quite satisfactory reply, and I hereby release you from any CFR obligations. The point is that Dan has not to my knowledge done any of the horrible things he often gets accused of, and I apparently won't have to call him to repentance any time soon. I just hope that we are not letting him slide by and miss a well-deserved comeuppance. :pirate:

Edited August 23, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

hope_for_things · August 23, 2017

12 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

I would need to see specific examples. On the whole, frankly, I regard descriptions of my awful online behavior as fiction. The things that I'm alleged to have done are often so completely unlike me or anything I've ever thought or felt that, charitably, the best I can say of them is that they reflect wild misunderstandings.

Sometimes, of course, there's a prior history between me and a poster that might be unknown to an observer. Where they see sincere questions, I see something else. And when somebody comes on aggressively and insultingly, I don't feel obliged to pretend that I haven't noticed.

Probably hard to discuss without specifics, and I was asked earlier to provide some specific examples, but I said I wasn't comfortable bringing in that kind of external content from social media or blogs onto this message board. Oh well. I will try to have an open mind and see what the future holds as for interactions that I see.

stemelbow · August 23, 2017

13 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

I would need to see specific examples. On the whole, frankly, I regard descriptions of my awful online behavior as fiction. The things that I'm alleged to have done are often so completely unlike me or anything I've ever thought or felt that, charitably, the best I can say of them is that they reflect wild misunderstandings.

Sometimes, of course, there's a prior history between me and a poster that might be unknown to an observer. Where they see sincere questions, I see something else. And when somebody comes on aggressively and insultingly, I don't feel obliged to pretend that I haven't noticed.

I do wonder after all these years how people are stuck on a very negative opinion of you. I don't know where it comes from. For some reason in this world of Mormon online discussion you are a very explosive topic. And it's a shame. I've always enjoyed your contributions (Your recent FAIR address was a delight, I'd say) wherever I've found them, even if in some cases I've disagreed. I was not surprised a few weeks ago when I ventured over to the board to see a handful of topics dedicated to maligning you. It's amazing that this continues to live on.

cdowis · August 23, 2017

15 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

You're wise to have no respect for him. He deserves none.

Personal experience.

He takes credit for somebody else's ideas which were shared with him. In a speech, he bragged about being on the cutting edge of the DNA argument, following it closely while others were ignoring it. Perhaps it was jut a failure of his memory, but this interest was only sparked by a phone call by someone many years ago who pointed out this was a NEW antiMormon argument which had the potential to give the church alot of trouble. That the LDS scholars and apologists should be addressing that issue. At that time, nothing had been written about it.

He said he knew nothing about it, and would look into it. He deserves credit for what he did, but he was not the ever vigilant pioneer as he claimed. The individual who had made the call for help had been fighting that battle for almost a year before Dan came on the scene.

I guess he figured he might as well take credit for it.

Edited August 23, 2017 by cdowis

hagoth7 · August 23, 2017

On 8/15/2017 at 1:13 PM, stemelbow said:

What made apologetics the derogatory term it seems to be in some circles now?...

I have *never* cared for the term agologist.

And have never wished to be considered one.

On 8/15/2017 at 1:13 PM, stemelbow said:

...2. His dealings with FAIR suggested, as he points out, that FAIR is so beholden to the failing narrative, it sometimes has to prop up known terrible arguments to defend things, lest if it does not, it'll lose it's connection or favor with the brethren.

...Let's hear what you have to say.

If what you're representing is accurate, some may simply be giving too much concern over how they happen to be viewed by others.

It's *much* more important to think highly of the brethren than it is to be in *their* favor/connection.

I wouldn't know what to say to someone who intentionally minced words in order to curry favor with others. (But I suspect you've overstated things.)

Edited August 23, 2017 by hagoth7

hagoth7 · August 23, 2017

17 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

You're wise to have no respect for him. He deserves none.

He's extremely mean-spirited and cruel, and has no respect for anybody who disagrees with him.

You're funny Dan.

Had the privilege a few years back to attend two firesides/meetings where you spoke. Both were enjoyable/edifying.

I hope you and yours are doing well.

stemelbow · August 23, 2017

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I have *never* cared for the term agologist.

And have never wished to be considered one.

If what you're representing is accurate, some may simply be giving too much concern over how they happen to be viewed by others.

It's *much* more important to think highly of the brethren than it is to be in *their* favor/connection.

I wouldn't know what to say to someone who intentionally minced words in order to curry favor with others. (But I suspect you've overstated things.)

Just to be clear, I was trying to restate Bill's opinion, not my own.

Calm · August 23, 2017

4 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

If what you're representing is accurate....

It is not in terms of FairMormon as an organization and probably the vast majority of the group as individuals. There may be a few who have treasured the idea of being connected in some fashion to the SL leadership, but I don't see any group benefits deriving from just a connection. Some are related but no one is dropping names on that basis in our conversations; for the one with the 'best' connection I didn't know of the relationship for at least ten years after I got to know him. Others have been friends or coworkers with GAs before joining FairMormon so their membership has had little impact on that relation. Any connection solely through FM is not all that impressive to the group that I can see since we don't discuss GAs unless there is an apologetic need and generally friendship is not a benefit there since we must base our comments and conclusions on public evidence.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Calm

cdowis · August 24, 2017

On 8/22/2017 at 8:25 PM, Daniel Peterson said:

You're wise to have no respect for him.

To clear up any misunderstanding, I have great respect for Dr. Peterson, and I sure that this was based on a memory lapse and was not deliberate. It was simply a "peeve" of mine, and no big deal.

I apologize for offending him or anyone else. I did not intend it to be negative.

Edited August 24, 2017 by cdowis

Wiki Wonka · August 27, 2017

On 8/20/2017 at 7:02 AM, Physics Guy said:

Thanks for the link; I looked at it. It seemed that only the last item in the list, the article by Brant Gardner, addressed the "elephant" issue of how the rock in the hat seems hokey and incongruous.

I think it might be more "horn-grabbing" for the site as a whole if the Gardner article weren't left to the end. I can see how some of the other items may be important preliminaries for some of the FairMormon readership. It makes some sense to first establish that the rock-in-hat method was indeed used, before going on to try to account for it. But leaving till last the only article that tackles the fact that rock-in-hat looks more like village seer than like prophet, and having articles before it about what Fielding Smith thought or precisely which stones were used, gives a bit the impression of deliberately turning a blind eye to the really pressing concern.

You are reading WAY too much into the order of the articles. I am the one that arranged them (and all others in the FairMormon wiki). The order is completely random: The sub-articles are not organized by importance, alphabetically or in any particular deliberate order. I have been too consumed with the task of gathering all of the subject articles under specific topics (the website has undergone a major redesign to make it mobile friendly, and it isn't finished yet). One of these days I plan to go through each set and determine some sort of logical order for presenting the subarticles, but at the moment I'm just trying to group them properly.

I did, however, just notice that the "Jump to Subtopic" for the Gardner article wasn't included in the list, so I've added it (there are many such instances that I still need to correct in the wiki):

Joseph Smith used the same "rock in hat" seer stone for translating that he used for "money digging"

JUMP TO SUBTOPIC:

Edited August 27, 2017 by Wiki Wonka

Physics Guy · August 28, 2017

I think readers do tend to interpret the order of items in a list like yours as order of importance. You may have collected the items at various times but the reader sees them there all at once, in their order, and I think the default assumption is that it's a single coherent discussion of the general topic.

I understand that FM is a volunteer effort and I am way too far behind in my own work to complain about anyone else not having fixed something up perfectly. If at some point you find time to do something to polish the site a bit, though, reordering articles by priority might be some low-hanging fruit. It wouldn't take long to do any one page but it might well make that page more effective.

juliann · August 28, 2017

Please explain how you would order these as to "importance." How in the world do you decide importance? What standard are you using? I find that a very strange expectation, particularly your assumption that a self-explanatory list of sub-topic links must be "coherent," something else you don't really explain. I think the natural thing to do is scan through the topics and find the one that you are interested in.

cdowis · August 28, 2017

Joseph Smith used the same "rock in hat" seer stone for translating that he used for "money digging"

Moses used the same staff to strike the rock to get water, that magically turned into a snake in Pharaoh's court.

BTW, the magicians of Pharaoh also had the same kind of magic staff that turns into a snake. It seems that he learned that from magicians.

Edited August 28, 2017 by cdowis

Daniel Peterson · August 29, 2017

On August 23, 2017 at 9:26 AM, cdowis said:

Personal experience.

He takes credit for somebody else's ideas which were shared with him. In a speech, he bragged about being on the cutting edge of the DNA argument, following it closely while others were ignoring it. Perhaps it was jut a failure of his memory, but this interest was only sparked by a phone call by someone many years ago who pointed out this was a NEW antiMormon argument which had the potential to give the church alot of trouble. That the LDS scholars and apologists should be addressing that issue. At that time, nothing had been written about it.

He said he knew nothing about it, and would look into it. He deserves credit for what he did, but he was not the ever vigilant pioneer as he claimed. The individual who had made the call for help had been fighting that battle for almost a year before Dan came on the scene.

I guess he figured he might as well take credit for it.

I can't really respond to this because it rings absolutely no bells with me.

Moreover, I can't imagine having "bragged about being on the cutting edge of the DNA argument." I'm not a geneticist, and I've never pretended to be one. Nor am I a braggart.

juliann · August 29, 2017

On 8/23/2017 at 8:26 AM, cdowis said:

He takes credit for somebody else's ideas which were shared with him. In a speech, he bragged about being on the cutting edge of the DNA argument, following it closely while others were ignoring it.

That is kind of weird, cd. The apologetics follows the critics, what they were saying drove the responses. I think it was Thomas Murphy that put DNA on the map. You might be thinking of the response which probably came out of FARMS....a few scientists who specialized in human DNA, unlike anthropologist Murphy or plant guy Simon Southerton, took his stuff apart. It went eerily quiet after that. There wasn't even a response to it.

Pete Ahlstrom · August 29, 2017

9 hours ago, juliann said:

That is kind of weird, cd. The apologetics follows the critics, what they were saying drove the responses. I think it was Thomas Murphy that put DNA on the map. You might be thinking of the response which probably came out of FARMS....a few scientists who specialized in human DNA, unlike anthropologist Murphy or plant guy Simon Southerton, took his stuff apart. It went eerily quiet after that. There wasn't even a response to it.

What are you trying to say with the "eerily quiet" comment? Are you saying that DNA evidence supports the book of mormon? Also, simon comments on the other board and has a blog:

simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/?m=1

At least it seems from recent comments and the blog that Mr. Southerton responds to whatever the latest lack of historicity supporting dna evidence brings.

stemelbow · August 29, 2017

10 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What are you trying to say with the "eerily quiet" comment? Are you saying that DNA evidence supports the book of mormon? Also, simon comments on the other board and has a blog:

simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/?m=1

At least it seems from recent comments and the blog that Mr. Southerton responds to whatever the latest lack of historicity supporting dna evidence brings.

I think both of them feel like they've said their piece and have felt the responses coming from the LDS side have been inadequate and have said so. Then apologists say, "well, there's still possibility, even Southerton admitted it". And then I read from him that the issue is still way problematic for the historicity of the book, claiming it ruins Mormonism.

It feels like more of an impasse than any sort of resolve.

cdowis · August 29, 2017

11 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

I can't really respond to this because it rings absolutely no bells with me.

Moreover, I can't imagine having "bragged about being on the cutting edge of the DNA argument." I'm not a geneticist, and I've never pretended to be one. Nor am I a braggart.

I was very silly in posting that comment and regret it. I have a tremendous respect for you and your work.

Best regards.

Calm · August 29, 2017

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

I was very silly in posting that comment and regret it. I have a tremendous respect for you and your work.

Best regards.

You can edit it as you are not limited. As it now stands, it is an accusation. If you regret it, remove it.

cdowis · August 29, 2017

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

You can edit it as you are not limited. As it now stands, it is an accusation. If you regret it, remove it.

If you read my post, it indicated that it was may have simply been a memory thing, and Dan confirmed that was the case.

This is my the last post on the subject, but you are free to blather away and I will put you on ignore if necessary.

Sign In

Apologetics - the new derogatory term

Recommended Posts

cdowis

Daniel Peterson

Daniel Peterson

hope_for_things

Daniel Peterson

Robert F. Smith

hope_for_things

stemelbow

cdowis

hagoth7

hagoth7

stemelbow

Calm

cdowis

Wiki Wonka

Joseph Smith used the same "rock in hat" seer stone for translating that he used for "money digging"

JUMP TO SUBTOPIC:

Physics Guy

juliann

cdowis

Joseph Smith used the same "rock in hat" seer stone for translating that he used for "money digging"

Daniel Peterson

juliann

Pete Ahlstrom

stemelbow

cdowis

Calm

cdowis

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse