The purpose of this section is to discuss the activities and issues a prominent Mormon apologist creates both on purpose and serendipitously within the Mormon and former Mormon communities. As passion flows down both the faithful and less faithful aisles no insults or ad hominen attacks will be posted.
10. As a bishop, he doesn't have to worry about his Temple Recommend being revoked for reading apostate material.
9. Has to because Substrate visits this place regularly.
8. Doesn't trust FAIR or the Maxwell Institute to give him the straight dope on subjects like DNA or the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
7. Hey, you'd be doing crazy stuff, too, if you had to read what whacky Mormon Apologists write every day.
6. Because Middle Eastern languages secretly bore the crap out of him.
5. He's worried because he once sent a troll here, and the guy left the church; doesn't want that one ever happening again.
4. He really wants to ask Steve Benson for some drawing lessons, but he's shy.
3. Needs material because reading about Middle Eastern languages also bores the crap out of most people.
2. Nobody ever, ever talks about Krispie Kremes on MA&D.
1. Secretly has designs on a couple of RFM ladies as plural wives when he reaches the Celestial Kingdom.
I had seen Peterson's tagline on the MAAD board a couple of weeks ago. "I have always made one prayer to God, which is very short. Here it is: God, render our enemies ridiculous! God has granted it to me."
Now, let me get this straight: Daniel Peterson, being a TBM (True Believing Mormon), believes that a guy named Moroni, who had been dead for 1400 years, came back to life as an "angel," and magically appeared to Joseph Smith in his bedroom in 1823, and told him where to dig up these golden plates upon which was etched a history of some Israelites who lived anciently in America.
Then the undead Moroni informed Joseph that he was supposed to translate the golden plates into English, via the method of putting a magic rock in his hat, whereupon the English words would magically appear on the rock (thus not even needing the plates), and Joseph was to then dictate those words to a scribe.
But in Daniel Peterson's keen mind, we Ex-Mormons are supposed to be the "ridiculous" ones.
Is it true that Daniel C Peterson is a candidate for excommunication from the Mormon Church?
We know that DCP fails to agree with every so-called prophet, seer and revelator of the Mormon church, since Joe Smith to Gordon Hinkley, but will they excommunicate him for that?
1. He does not support the so-called prophets doctrinal teachings on the Lamanites being the principle ancestors of the American Indians.
2. He sympathises and associates with other apostates, know as Mormon apologists, who also disregard and do not support what every prophet of the so-called church has taught about the Lamanites.
3. He does not advocate what the Mormon book of fiction has to say about the Lamanites.
Therefore, I wonder if he is ripe for excommunication. He must certainly be on thin ice.
Does anybody know if a date has been set for his court of love?
The men who control the Mormon Church have excommunicated many. For example, they kicked out Michael D. Quinn, who's only sin was simply exposing some of the lesser known aspects of Mormon history. How much more deserving of excommunication is Daniel C Peterson and his associates, for their heretical stance on the Lamanites?
If anybody knows of an upcoming excommunication court which has been set for Daniel C Peterson, please let us know.
Having said that, if anybody knows of a revelation or doctrine, which states that profesional liars or apologists are senior in ranking to the 15 so-caleld prophets, and can now trump any prophets statement on any subject, please advise.
Those Mormon apologists. They're the guys with the real power. They can change Mormon doctrine at a whim. At the slighest wish of an apologist, almost 180 years of Mormon doctrine can be flushed down the toilet like any other waste product.
And if Daniel ever has to get excommunicated to please the egos of the Mormon Jesus' apostles, I hope that he can find an equally satisfying job, although - according to Tal Bachman, if my memory serves me correct - nobody in Peterson's area of professional expertise has ever heard of him. Tal once contacted professors at several universities across the globe with Islamic Studies programs, and the boffins (British slang word for scientist) had not the slightest idea of who the highly esteemed Peterson in the Mormon apologist circle actually was?
I wonder why?
Oh, well, back to rescuing the reputation of the fake Mormon prophets.
I agree, Grey Matter - Davo
That's the first thing that came to my mind 2 or 3 years ago when I first started reading some of DP's articles. "How does he get away with THAT".
The LDS church has exed many for less. I guess that if you have been "assigned" by the bretheren to act on the church's behalf and don't publicly disagree with them you can say whatever you want as an apologist with nothing more than a wink and a nod from the big 15.
I think Jeff Lindsay's position is even less tenable than DP's. Lindsay was NOT assigned as an official apologist--he simply took it upon himself to be a "defender of the faith", and he spouts, basicly the same drivel as FAIR--and does so with NO authority from LDS, Inc. He's the one that ought to be looking over his shoulder.
Heh, Peterson won't get exed - Mårv Fråndsæn
Peterson can be as heterodox as he wants.
The question LDS Inc. will ask is - if Peterson is successful, will this increase or decrease tithing revenues?
As long as it is the former, Peterson is in good graces of LDS Inc.
Yes, he is in apostasy - Deconstructor
Daniel C. Peterson has done much more harm to the church and the faith of its members than I have, or perhaps many of us combined. If I were a church leader I would boot him out of the church.
Not only does Mr. Peterson not support the teachings of the current anointed church leaders, he leads members astray when they start believing him more than church leaders on critical points of church faith.
Peterson's problem is that he has no priesthood authority to interpret scripture and explain church doctrine. Mormons have been specifically wanted to not trust the teachings of men mingled with scripture, which is exactly what Peterson does.
As an ex-Mormon, I appreciate the work Peterson does to further damage the faith of members. His writings are the gateway drug which leads members to discover the truth about the church.
But I don't understand why the church would ex-communicate others for personal apostasy, when Peterson is actively destroying the testimonies of so many members. He has church leaders duped into thinking he is an asset. More power to him!
That's how it worked for me anyway - angsty
When I had questions, I didn't turn to sources that were critical of the church, I started reading FARMS papers.
The more I read, the more incredible the church's claims appeared, and the less I could believe in good conscience.
Taking the church's truth claims seriously was my first step out of the church. I personally owe DCP and his colleagues a debt of gratitude for making my path easier.
Peterson's job description - Stray Mutt
Peterson's job is to give doubting Mormons reasons to keep believing. (Mormons who don't doubt don't go looking for answers.) It doesn't matter that what he offers contradicts the prophets or scripture as long as the net result is a few semi-thinking Mormons remain loyal to the church and that others get to say (without ever having read what the Mopologists write) that there's all kinds of proof the church is true.
The Mopologists get to make all sorts of bullshit claims and conjectures. Meanwhile, if anything the Mopologists say is proved false, the brethren get to deny they had anything to do with the claim, that it was never the official position of the leaders, just the opinion of unofficial sources.
I think you're explaining why church leaders don't do the right thing - Deconstructor
If the Mormon Church leaders had any integrity they would ex-communicate Peterson. But you're right, it serves their own interests better than Peterson does what he does.
Peterson can spew bullshit so the brethren don't get themselves dirty with it. He gives them deniability.
But it's also made the General Authorities lazy. They don't even try to explain many of the church's problems anymore.
When Steve Benson tried to get them to explain things, they just gave him a fax from FARMS. That tells you how much church leaders really rely on their mopologists, so they can focus on running the business.
While I was in the church, I read a great deal by Mormon authors. I especially liked church history, but it raised many questions for me. It eventually became obvious that the church wasn't telling the truth, even as given from its own earlier sources.
As for apologists, John Sorenson's book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon was the last Mormon book I read before leaving Mormonism and it was the last it was the last straw. I thought, "If this is the best they have, they don't have anything" and I was done with even trying to believe in the Book of Mormon.
Anyone else find that the apologist arguments had the opposite effects on them from what the apologists had hoped? What was the last apologetic work you read before leaving the church or making the decision it isn't true?
Long before I knew the church was not true - confused
Long before I knew the church was not true, I knew that the apologists were lying, or desperately stupid.
It seemed like whenever I looked up something that had LDS scholars to explain it, I always ended up shaking my head in bewilderment. How confusing do they need to make something anyway?
So when I did find out the many troubles, I went to those sites again and realized for certain that they were blowing smoke and being paid for it.
I guess, sorta - Deb
When I first started reading things about the real history of the church, I was so scared. I even went to the Orem library and looked some things up because they had a lot of the original sources. I just thought it was anti-Mormons making stuff up, but I'd read their sources and find out they had quoted word for word. Then while I was there I started pulling things like the Nauvoo Expositor and read it for myself.
The thing that I needed so badly to be explained to me was the different versions of the first vision and why there was no backup of JS ever telling anyone about the vision when he said he was so persecuted by other ministers and towns people for saying that he'd seen God.
So I got on the Internet and tried looking for answers from the church and the apologists. Basically the only thing I could come up with was that JS told "the same" story in a different light depending on who his audience was. That was so ridiculous because it wasn't the same story in any sense. I really did search hard because I WANTED an answer that just came close to giving a plausible explanation. When I realized that there just were no other explanations because it was unexplainable, I had to ask myself, "Is this the best they can do"? When I realized it was, that's when I had to face the truth.
Absolutely. Hugh Nibley did me in. - Winter
I was in college when he was writing about the BoA papyri. I actually read the footnotes. It was obvious he was just doing a tap dance. I already had serious doubts about the BoM, but Nibley's BSing trying to make a silk purse out of the BoA sow's ear really did it for me.
Had I known the details of First Vision Roulette (Let's see, who will appear in this version?), or JS's affairs, that would have helped the process along, but just the facts of the BoM/BoA are really sufficient, at least for me.
The apologists are, in my view, writing satire! That's how funny some of their stuff is! - SusieQ#1
They are a weird lot in my view.
I have a whole page on the SHIELDS web site (not my choice!) dedicated to me -- re: emails with Mr. P - my term of endearment for Daniel Peterson! :-)
Silly me, I knew nothing about apologists when I responded to an article written by Mr. P. ... and jokingly suggested they were writing humor-satire!
Guess who didn't get the joke? :-)
That was my first experience with emailing a "Mo'pologists" and wowza, did I learn a lot - first hand. I had no idea how the mind of these Mo'pologists worked. It's like trying to dodge bullets! And no sense of humor!
Oh well, they did so much damage with that web link, that I finally asked them to delete my email!
They are just smart enough to play into the gullibility of the testimony bearing Mormons who eat this stuff up.
I found out they are not just funny, they have no integrity, do as they please because they can because they believe they have a sense of entitlement and are experts at slamming and threatening anyone who disagrees with them.
Odd bunch. And associated with BYU? What the hell happened to allow this bunch of characters to be associated with BYU? Doesn't fit with our experience, but sure shut the door on supporting BYU - alums in our family are fed up!
These characters can write a 1000 words on how to comb a gnats eye brow! They run around the barn so many times, you get dizzy!
Oh the arrogance and the irony -- the intellectuals preaching to the choir! hehe
Something is off - robertb
Yeah, there is something about Mormon apologetic writing that is off. It lacks clarity or integrity or something. It sets of my bullchip detector to use Cabbie's wonderful phrase. When I was a Mormon I tried hard to follow then because I wanted to believe but I ended up feeling I was in a fog. I've disciplined myself (mostly) to stop trying to follow when I start feeling like that and attend to what I am thinking and feeling and usually I figure out where I am crossed up.
Oh yeah. The Book of Abraham - angsty
Especially apologetic discussion of the Book of Abraham. Even as a TBM I was very uncomfortable with the story behind it. It just sounded fishy.
I remember really vague discussion in Seminary and Institute classes that were weird, but not too alarming. However, when I heard it again in Sunday School, while in my mid-twenties, I was astounded at how ridiculous it seemed.
I decided that I needed to get facts the in order to bolster my belief. I assumed that the reason I was uncomfortable was because I didn't fully understand what had been explained to me in Sunday School, or that the teacher had left out some information. The story HAD to be more believable than that.
I turned to every FARMS paper I could get my hands on, as well as Nibley's 'Abraham in Egypt'. The more I read, the more unbelievable and nonsensical the BoA appeared. It was a short trip from there to complete disbelief.
"Emma, Mormon Enigma" bibliography got me started on real history and way out. - Michael Pace
It's only in the last couple of years that I've seen the apologist stuff. - UK-Sinner
Mainly after hearing about various apologists & their respective sites here on RfM. I'd already made my mind up before hearing about them but they were the final confirmation that was needed for me.
Some of the arguments put forward are so wafer thin, that the morg should really stick to the "That will be revealed in the next life" type of answer to difficult question. It may not be ideal for questioning members but it has to be better that some of the garbage that they try to pass as church doctrine. (Oops silly me it's not official church doctrine is it, just research funded by the church!)
That said, I'm hoping to steer my wife to some of the more outlandish apologist stuff this year. She certainly has no idea about the 'Limited Geography Theory' or the 'Dynastic Marriges' of Joseph Smith!
Yes - They helped speed my exit from the church of Jesus Smith - Grey Matter
Anyway, the Mormon apologists helped to speed up my exit from the so-called church.
The Cult is on the back foot in virtually every aspect of its history and doctrine. Each time I read the FARMS responses to the thorny facts, I'd ask, "Is that really the best they can do?"
An eye opener was the pish they produced in response to Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins". I think five or six of the apologists wrote their own separate articles on the book. There wasn't a single intelligent arguement between them. Plenty of attempted character assasination of Palmer, but they completely avoided the damning contents of Palmer's book.
I'm convinced they do more harm than good.
Yes Mormon apologists contributed to my leaving Mormonism - Anonymous Troublemaker
A non-Mormon friend asked me some hard questions, and I went to FAIR for answers.
As is true of many Mormons, I wasn't fully aware of all the problems with church history, Joseph, and the Book of Mormon. What FAIR did was open my eyes to how many problems there were and what they were. Then it made me see that the apologist explanations were strained, circular, weak, or ridiculous.
It took a lot more to ge me out, but the apologists helped me get started.
Yes, so much so that - CA girl
I think Daniel C. Peterson is a closet Mormon-hater, trying to destroy the church from the inside. (grin) I read the truth about the Morg, starting with the problems with the first vision story. In fairness, I was going to spend equal time on apologists websites. But, as I read the "answers" they had to my questions, the answers were sooo far fetched and consisted mostly of putting down the mean people who disagreed with them - well, that's what really killed my testimony off.
Before that, I knew the church was not true but really was hoping someone would prove me wrong. When I read and listened to people like Daniel C. Peterson, I thought "they don't have any answers!!!" I knew if that was the best the church could do in response to their critics, then all the "anti" stuff really was true. The church didn't have a leg to stand on. It was definitely the apologists who destroyed my testimony - or at least the hope of having a testimony again some day.
So, thank you, Daniel C Peterson for helping me out of the church and keep up the good work!
Perhaps what the apologists don't realize is - Randy J.
That once somebody begins changing their attitude from one of gullible, blind faith, into one of rationality and skepticism, that their arguments are no longer effective.
For instance, one of the apologists' arguments that really helped me out was John Sorenson's "Maybe the BOM horses were really deer or tapir" nonsense. I knew that nobody in their right mind would come up with something so ridiculous. But other Mopologists, such as Michael Ash, continue to repeat that bit of lunacy, as though it's perfectly reasonable and legitimate.
The apologists don't understand that their ridiculous arguments only work on readers who are as gullible as they themselves are.
Yeh, my wife said that John Gee, the Egyptologist that teaches at BYU - ihidmyselfbecauseIwasnaked
Wrote a book about the Abraham papyri that completely sidestepped all the problems with the Book of Abraham. It was obvious and painful.
But, hey, thanks John! You did what I couldn't do. Life outside the Church is great.
Thanks for the help!
Apologetics was THE single thing that got me out - Laman and Lemon
I wont say which FAIRLDS article it was, but by the time I finished reading it, I KNEW I would be leaving the church. One sitting, one innocuous browsing on the internet on a PRO LDS apologists site and I KNEW it was over after 41 years of activity.
I didn't need any "anti" material from you heathen apostates :-) I just needed apologetics to get me out.
The words of prophets and apostles, in the Journal of Discourses and fine publications from Deseret Book, did the trick for me. - Mayday Man
The Church and the Negro did it for me - jafnhar
It's an old book, but when I wanted to find out about why blacks were excluded I found this book called "The Church and the Negro" on my own, read it, and left.
This web site is an obvious dumping ground. Perhaps should call it "Losers Anonymous-12 step program"...! - 01/04/2014 - jerry
As a retired professional investigator probably nothing was more convincing proof against my faith then LDS Apologists.
The douchbaggery of Dan Peterson alarmed me. I asked questions of FAIR and in response was immediately accused of being an "Anti-Mormon", "a non-member posing as a member", "not having a testimony", "an apostate" and so on. Yes, I had developed some serious questions but a response like that told me there was a HUGE problem.
These same morons I later vented at and in response one said "it would be better if you just went and slit your throat", interestingly enough this same apologist had previously identified himself as "we are somewhat like the Danites". (Danites being those who carried out blood atonement in said manner). It made me so sick to my stomach reading these peoples lies and seeing how they twisted everything that I can't believe I was ever LDS.
Its one thing to believe in something its another to defend it by attacking people like myself who have donated nearly $200K to the church and served my whole life. At the worst point, Dan Peterson himself told me in his intellectual best "why you have never had a testimony to start with now have you, of course the church has never hide that the plates where translated with a stone and hat".
My response was please tell me where? His reply was to cite a single sentence in a 1980ish Ensign Magazine! I'm so glad to have found the truth and so grateful to those who expose Mormonism as I think it makes people arrogant and preys on the ignorant and appeals to a sickening desire to become Gods and has nothing to do with worshipping any God, but only worshipping demented men.
My GG Grandfathers are Heber C Kimball and Orson Pratt, they had lots to gain and everything to lose in their day...I had nothing to lose and have gained everything by leaving Mormonism. - 03/05/2010 - Steve K
DCP is the current version of Hugh Nibley but his star will flicker out much sooner. The truth is closing in and these arrogant spinsmiths will trip on it and slide into disgrace. - 01/14/2009 - Observer
Post your comments in this text box.
Home - Site Map