InterpreterPeerReviews: March 2023

Thursday, March 30, 2023

Peter Pan and Slander Dan

Recently during the Q&A after a podcast, a viewer asked if I could have lunch with and be friends with Mike Parker. I don't know Mike Parker; at least, I don't remember ever meeting him. Apparently he claims to be the real person behind the "Peter Pan" pseudonym who writes the blog that Dan Peterson (aka, Slander Dan and Dan the Interpreter) has been touting for years. I have no idea whether Mike Parker is the "real" Peter Pan, nor does that matter, because it is Slander Dan who promotes the blog. Without Slander Dan behind it, no one would know or care about the blog. More on Dan below.*

Back to the blog that, in good Slander Dan fashion, features my last name in its title. Debates about issues can be productive and useful, and I welcome them. But we've seen for years that Dan and other M2C citation cartel members get easily offended and lash out with ad hominem and other logical fallacies that undermine the credibility and usefulness of whatever valuable material they offer. This has puzzled me for a long time, but now Peter Pan unveiled their rationale, as we'll see below.

Back again to the blog. Some time ago someone sent me a link to it. I clicked on it and read an article that was so ridiculous that it was no wonder the author used a pseudonym.

One thing for sure: the author chose an appropriate name: Peter Pan, the boy who never grows up, as the theme song explains:

I won't grow up.
----I wont grow up
I will never even try
----I will never even try
I will do what Peter tells me
----I will do what Peter tells me
And I'll never ask him why
----And I'll never ask him why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nydUgAr3xek.

Peter Pan and the Interpreters

The rants on the blog post I read were childish and snarky, consistent with the reputation Slander Dan has accumulated during his career. I figured it was either Dan himself, or one of his admirers/fans, who was writing under the pseudonym.

But now Mike Parker claims to be the author.

Which is fine. Whether or not he's the actual author, I'd be happy to meet Mike for lunch, or have a conversation, or be friends, or whatever. If nothing else, I'm curious about his thought process.

That leads into this quotation someone sent me from Peter Pan's unveiling:

Jonathan Neville has set forth specific propositions that are at odds with the historical record, at odds with what has been taught by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and at odds with careful analysis of the data. He’s free to believe whatever he wants to believe, but when he publicly advocates for his beliefs, then he opens himself up to review, criticism, and rebuttal.

I believe that his teachings will destroy faith and confidence in The Church of Jesus Christ and its divinely ordained leaders. As I wrote above, I’m sure that Jonathan Neville is a nice person, but his words are spiritually toxic. The [ ] blog exists to expose and examine his teachings and the erroneous statements of others in the Heartland movement.

I assume this is representative or typical of Mike's work. That would explain why Slander Dan likes it so much.

Let's go through this.

What are the "specific propositions" I have set forth?

Anyone who has read my books or heard me speak knows that I disagree with the citation cartel because, unlike them, I still believe what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

That's it.

Nothing I've said contradicts the teachings of Church leaders, all of whom I fully support, both past and present. (After all, I'm currently a Pathway missionary, I teach two Institute classes online, and I'm first counselor in our Bishopric.)

People can disagree about the interpretation of historical sources, but the sources themselves are objective facts.

This table summarizes our different approaches. I'm interested in corroborating the teachings of the prophets; Mike and his fellow scholars seek to repudiate those teachings.

Me	Dan Peterson, Mike Parker, Steve Smoot, Jack Welch, Brant Gardner, Royal Skousen, and their followers and donors
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery told the truth about the Hill Cumorah in New York. Extrinsic evidence corroborates their teachings.	Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did not tell the truth about the Hill Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon. Oliver Cowdery invented the New York Cumorah, but he was speculating and was wrong. Joseph Smith passively adopted Oliver’s false theory about Cumorah.
Their faithful contemporaries and successors in Church leadership reaffirmed the truth about Cumorah in New York, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.	Their faithful contemporaries and successors in Church leadership, like Joseph Smith, passively adopted Oliver Cowdery’s false theory about Cumorah and thereby misled everyone for decades until the scholars found the truth.
Origin of M2C. Scholars starting with RLDS scholars Stebbins and Hills, and continuing with LDS scholars Sorenson, Welch, Peterson, et al, decided JS, OC and their successors were wrong about Cumorah. Instead, these scholars determined that the real Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico (Mesoamerica). Hence the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, or M2C, which repudiates the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah. M2C is merely the speculation of intellectuals.	Origin of M2C. Scholars starting with RLDS scholars Stebbins and Hills, and continuing with LDS scholars Sorenson, Welch, Peterson, et al, decided JS, OC and their successors were wrong about Cumorah. Instead, these scholars determined that the real Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico (Mesoamerica). Hence the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, or M2C, which repudiates the mere false speculation of the prophets about Cumorah. M2C is the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings of the prophets.
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery both told the truth about the translation of the Book of Mormon; i.e., that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.	Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery both intentionally misled everyone about the translation because in fact, Joseph never used the plates or the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon (at least the text we have today).
Witnesses who rejected the leadership of Brigham Young, such as David Whitmer and Emma Smith, are less credible than what Joseph and Oliver (and their successors) said, so even if Joseph Smith dictated words while looking at the stone in the hat (SITH), this was a demonstration, not the translation of the Book of Mormon.	Witnesses who rejected the leadership of Brigham Young, such as David Whitmer and Emma Smith, are more credible than what Joseph and Oliver (and their successors) said, so we know that, instead of using the U&T and the plates, Joseph Smith merely read words that appeared on the stone in the hat (SITH).

Summary of the table:

click to enlarge

Back to Mike's post.

He’s free to believe whatever he wants to believe, but when he publicly advocates for his beliefs, then he opens himself up to review, criticism, and rebuttal.

Hence the Peter Pan persona, the blog, and all the rest.

I'm fine with "review, criticism, and rebuttal," so long as it is honest and clear. However, the citation cartel, as Mike's post quoted above shows, continues to obscure the main point that of disagreement.

I still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught. They don't.

We all look at the same historical sources. Everyone who reads my work can see which sources I consider more credible than others, and that's a fair conversation to have.

But creating and promoting an ad hominem blog that misrepresents my views is not a serious way to engage the topics. It's simply childish, worthy of the name Peter Pan.

I've long said I'd be happy to meet in person, do a presentation at a FAIRLDS conference, or a podcast with the Interpreter, or write articles, or do peer reviews, or engage in any other way. Instead, the citation cartel has outright refused. They prefer the sniper attacks and misdirection from an anonymous blog. (Ironically, Dan the Interpreter frequently complains about anonymous bloggers.)

I believe that his teachings will destroy faith and confidence in The Church of Jesus Christ and its divinely ordained leaders.

This is pure Newspeak (War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength).

Whereas I seek to corroborate, support and sustain the teachings of the prophets, past and present, Mike and his friends specifically and deliberately seek to persuade Latter-day Saints (and others) that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. They further claim that every subsequent Church leader who has reaffirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught also misled the Church by expressing false personal opinions.

We can all see the impact of the citation cartel with their M2C and SITH theories.

After decades of rapid growth, the rise of the M2C and SITH theories has led to a decline in faith, conversions, and activity, as the data shows us.

click to enlarge

Given that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, it should hardly seem surprising that repudiating the foundation built by Joseph and Oliver regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon has a deleterious impact.

Yet Peter Pan, Slander Dan, and their like-minded followers (and donors) continue to double-down on their destructive approach.

As I wrote above, I’m sure that Jonathan Neville is a nice person, but his words are spiritually toxic. The [ ] blog exists to expose and examine his teachings and the erroneous statements of others in the Heartland movement.

He's right about one thing. I am a nice person.

Plus, I encourage people to make their own decisions. I offer my interpretations of the facts, which for me and many others are uplifting and useful for building and affirming faith, but I'm also fine with alternatives, including M2C if people want to believe that; i.e., multiple working hypotheses.

"Spiritually toxic" is a fascinating term. The only thing my work is toxic to is the teachings of the scholars who have repudiated what Joseph and Oliver taught.

There is hardly any need to "expose" (pejorative term) my "teachings" (as if I had any teachings). I'm perfectly open in my blogs, books, interviews, and presentations.

The only way Peter Pan can dupe his readers is by mischaracterizing what I've said and written, with the eager encouragement of Slander Dan.

Whether or not Mike Parker is Peter Pan, and whether or not he sheds the pseudonym, everyone can see for themselves the childish tactics of the citation cartel.

But sure. Let's do lunch.

You know how to contact me.

_____

*Back when the Maxwell Institute kicked Dan out of FARMS, some of us thought Dan might modify his behavior and become a legitimate apologist. Instead, he took the spirits that followed him and started the Interpreter, an astonishingly arrogant name. There is no more priestcrafty term for an organization than claiming to be the "Interpreters." Co-opting that scriptural term was an unambiguous declaration by Dan and his followers about their stated intentions, which they've fulfilled ever since. It's amazing that any serious (or gospel) scholars participate under such a rubric.

Monday, March 20, 2023

Monday Meme

Click to enlarge

Friday, March 17, 2023

Dan and M2C rationalization

Some people, including my critics, forget that I, too, fell for the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs (M2C) theory for decades. I read all the stuff from FARMS, attended the conferences, etc. I trusted Jack Welch, John Sorenson, Dan Peterson, et al. At one time, I actually thought "two Cumorahs" made sense.

That's why I don't blame my critics for their opposition to the New York Cumorah and all that entails (although their animosity is less excusable...).

Eventually, I realized I had accepted M2C by default. I had fallen for M2C because the M2Cers never disclosed all the relevant information from Church history and the extrinsic evidence that corroborates the teachings of the prophets about the new York Cumorah. They were (and are still) more obsessed with proving M2C than with pursuing the truth.

Lately, the M2Cers keep posting the same "facts" about Mesoamerica that we've all seen for decades. While it's true that repetition can make ideas seem more plausible, it doesn't work on people who are well informed.

I used to think that scholars, like everyone else, sought to make (and help others make) informed decisions. My interactions with M2Cers (and SITH sayers) has shown me otherwise.

To be clear for the umpteenth time, I'm fine with people believing M2C if they want to. It doesn't matter to me in the least. Lots of people choose to repudiate the teachings of the prophets because of their personal ideas, values, preferences, and programming, so why should the M2Cers be any different? My problem is with the way they enforce M2C through misinformation and censorship.

_____

Now Dan Peterson ( the self-appointed "Interpreter" aka Slander Dan) is trying to justify his decades of promoting M2C. And that's fine. People can believe whatever they want, and it's helpful to see how they think.

In doing so, he offers yet another example of the way he "interprets" reality to rationalize the things he teaches.

Dan, writing from Israel (as if that matters) explains that the Bible is a limited geography, so John Sorenson was justified in claiming the Book of Mormon must be in the limited area of Mesoamerica.

It's an obvious non sequitur, but let's indulge his point for a moment.

Dan states, "Most of the stories of the Old Testament and the New Testament, after all, take place within a strikingly small area between Dan in the north and Be’er-Sheva (Beersheba), about 136 miles to the south, from the Great Sea (the Mediterranean) to the River Jordan. Israel is, as I can promise you from actual personal acquaintance with it, a rather tiny country. At its widest, it’s only about seventy-one miles across."

Notice first that Dan's "promise... from actual personal acquaintance" is a nonsense argument. Such a "promise" is condescending and serves no purpose other than to convey a faux aura of authority, as if by writing from Israel he has some relevant insight, making him and his "promise" a credible "Interpreter" for the rest of us.

Those of us who have visited Israel (like other Latter-day Saints, I've visited Israel many times, along with Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, and Italy) know that being there is useful for lots of reasons, but not for assessing the geographic reach of scripture. Whether you have visited in person or not, you can still read a map.

And you can read the Bible.

Contrary to what Dan the Interpreter wants his readers to believe, the Bible involves far more territory than the State of Israel. Ancient people were able to travel, and they did travel.

In the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible.

While Dan qualified his claim by vaguely saying "most of the stories" take place within Israel, the M2C theory he promotes puts all of the events of the Book of Mormon in the promised land in the limited area of Mesoamerica.

Two maps from the Gospel Library inform us that the scope of the Bible is far greater than what Dan tries to persuade his followers to believe.

Now, compare the two realities. The purple area is what Dan the Interpreter dupes his followers into thinking by simply omitting relevant biblical information because it doesn't fit his narrative. The red area is what the Bible itself explains.

In the New World, we have a similar comparison. The purple area is what our M2C friends want everyone to believe is the setting for the Book of Mormon. The red area is what so-called Heartlanders generally think.

Many readers of the Book of Mormon find it difficult to believe that a civilization that started by crossing the Arabian peninsula and then the ocean would stick within a small area of Mesoamerica for 1,000 years. Those same readers wonder why the text never mentions volcanoes, pyramids, or the 3 Js: jade, jaguars, and jungles.

The M2Cers have answers for all of this, of course, but they use the same logical fallacies as Dan did in his discussion of the limited geography of Israel. They omit relevant information, retranslate the text (replacing horses with tapirs) and find "correspondences" with Mayan culture that are attributes of most human societies everywhere.

All in an effort to persuade Latter-day Saints that the prophets were wrong about Cumorah.

Although I have had many discussions with M2Cers over the years

_____

This topic reminds me that we've discussed before the irrationality of M2Cers looking in the Americas in the first place. I've asked them why they limit their analysis to the Americas. The conversation goes like this.

Me: You claim you rely on the text above all else when it comes to geography.

M2Cers: Correct.

Me: Why are you looking in the western hemisphere for Book of Mormon events? The text never mentions America, western hemisphere, or any other modern term for geography. The events could have taken place anywhere in the world.

M2Cers: Well, in this case we look beyond the text. We look at what the prophets have taught.

Me: Which prophets?

M2Cers: All of them, starting with Joseph Smith.

Me: When Moroni visited Joseph, he "gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigenes of this country."

M2Cers: We don't believe that part because Moroni really meant Mesoamerica. Joseph misunderstood, or else Moroni mean "hemisphere" when he said "country."

Me: Moroni "said this history was written and deposited not far from that place," referring to Joseph's home near Palmyra.

M2Cers: We don't believe that part, either. Joseph must have misunderstood because we know that Mormon and Moroni wrote their record in Mesoamerica, not western New York.

Me: How about when Moroni said "that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record."

M2Cers: Nope. That's false, too. We know Joseph didn't use the Urim and Thummim which were deposited with the record because he used a seer stone he found in a well. He didn't even use the plates, for that matter.

Me: You know I could go on with more examples.

M2Cers: Yes, but they're all wrong, because we know Cumorah is not in New York. The prophets have been wrong about that, just like they have been wrong about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Me: That's been my point all along. Now, make sure your followers are all crystal clear about your position.

M2Cers: Never. We're the gatekeepers. Our followers don't need to know what the prophets have taught, just like they don't need to know about the extrinsic evidence that supports and corroborates what the prophets have taught.

After all, they'll all believe me when I tell them the Bible took place in a small area about the size of Mesoamerica.

Thursday, March 16, 2023

Dan and the Interpreter

Key point: As an optimist, I would like to see the Interpreter change its name and become a serious academic resource that respectfully considers multiple faithful points of view. I don't think that's possible so long as it's under Dan's thumb.

_____

The other day on his blog, Dan Peterson (aka Slander Dan) was complaining again. He wrote, "For an unpleasant few days recently, a zealous and pseudonymous advocate of the "Heartland" model for the geography of the Book of Mormon was active in the comments section..."

This is the same Dan who for years on his same blog has eagerly promoted a blog by "a zealous and pseudonymous advocate" of Dan's theories. The blogger there goes by the name of Tinker Bell, or Peter Pan, or some such. He named his blog using my name, which should be enough of a clue that what he writes is full of logical fallacies.

One time I looked at that blog and it was so ridiculous that I've ignored it, but sometimes people send me excerpts. The person(s) who writes there chose an apt pseudonym because the arguments and claims are childish and foolish. Delusional, really. That author(s) writes so poorly and angrily that it's no wonder he/they uses a pseudonym. And he's even a contributor to the Interpreter.

Which is actually not surprising.

I'd welcome an honest exchange and debate, of course. But not with a pseudonymous fool.

The question is, why does Dan love his pseudonymous blogger? And, since he endorses pseudonymous bloggers, why does he simultaneously complain about "a zealous and pseudonymous advocate" who apparently challenges Dan's theories?

The answer is evident in Dan's entire apologetic career.

I've explained before that I used to respect Dan, back in the day. I used to attend the FARMS conferences, FAIRMormon, etc. He was always a lot of fun. A great guy.

Dan was popular then. Apparently he still is, although I can't figure out why. His cantankerous, thin-skinned approach to apologetics was mildly humorous decades ago, but has worn thin with overuse. After all these decades, he still plays the victim. It's tiresome, goofy, and reflects badly on other Latter-day Saints who engage with critics.

When he was removed from FARMS years ago, I was initially sympathetic with his complaint. But then I saw how he took those who followed him and started his own organization, which he named The Interpreter Foundation. That name distilled Dan's apologetics. He and his followers, as exemplified by the pseudonymous blogger he loves, consider themselves superior to ordinary Latter-day Saints. They think they, as the credentialed class, are entitled to interpret Church history, scriptures, and doctrine for the rest of us. As they've claimed, they've been hired by the Church to guide us in these areas.

That's all a bunch of nonsense, IMO.

And then there was the Witnesses movie that promoted SITH to the world....

To be clear, there are some thoughtful, honorable people working at and contributing to the Interpreter. They put out some good material. Others, not so much.

Regardless of the original intent, which may have been honorable, the Interpreter has become a strident gatekeeper and enforcer of dogma. That's why I include them in the M2C/SITH citation cartel and that's why I started this blog in the first place.

True, the Interpreter did publish my response to the two Kraus reviews of two of my latest books, albeit long after the original reviews. A legitimate journal would have published my response with the original reviews. But that's not how the Interpreter operates.

In writing my response, I complied with the word count and editorial input they gave. Fair enough. But when they published my response, they simultaneously published a rejoinder by Kraus that I hadn't seen. And they didn't let me respond to the rejoinder!

They said I could post a response as a comment, which of course would not appear in their print version and would be buried in the online version even if they did permit it (and their webmaster screens comments anyway).

So I posted my response here, where few will see it.

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2022/11/my-response-to-kraus-rejoinder.html

Consequently, readers of the Interpreter will be misinformed again, as usual, thinking I had no response to the Kraus rejoinder.

The Interpreter is a laughably fake journal, a digital Potemkin village designed to look serious and academic while rejecting the hallmark of actual academic journals: reasonable, considered debate from multiple perspectives.

To repeat: As an optimist, I would like to see the Interpreter change its name and become a serious academic resource that respectfully considers multiple faithful points of view. I don't think that's possible so long as it's under Dan's thumb.

Thursday, March 9, 2023

Slander Dan, at it again

Dan Peterson is awesome. He has spent years earning the nickname Slander Dan and he continues to add to his resume.

Slander Dan eagerly follows the scriptures, thinking this is an admonition instead of a condemnation: "take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor..." (2 Nephi 28:8)

Recently on his blog he posted excerpts from a brief Facebook post by Rian Nelson in which Rian described his belief in a conspiracy theory. Rian made the post in response to an accusation from an anonymous person that he was anti-Semitic. Rian foolishly fell for the bait, posted his response, and then removed it.

But one of Dan's henchmen screen-captured Rian's post and sent it to Dan so Dan could publicize it to the world in an effort to slander all Heartlanders.

Slander Dan speaking at FAIRMormon

People sent me Dan's post, of course. I hadn't seen Rian's post previously, and hardly anyone else had, either. Like the rest of the world, I would never have known about it if not for Dan's post.

FWIW, I think Rian's post was dumb. His conspiracy theories are delusional, IMO, and I've told him that many times. But people are complicated, lots of people think crazy things, and normally that doesn't matter because we recognize that none of us is perfect.

After all, I'm fine with Dan and the rest of the M2C/SITH citation cartel believing and teaching what they teach. I happily associate with people regardless of disagreements about particular issues of religion, politics, science, etc. True, I criticize the citation cartel for their censorship, elitism, and repudiation of the teachings of the prophets, but only because they create obstacles for people to make informed decisions. I've said for years that the nanosecond they embrace full disclosure, comparisons of alternative viewpoints, and serious scholarship I would cease all criticism of their work.

But Rian's post gave Slander Dan an opening.

Dan and his cronies and followers are so insecure about their SITH and M2C dogmas, which they cannot defend openly on their merits, that they resort to such a desperate tactic as capturing a momentary Facebook post and publishing it to the world to falsely slander a group of fellow Latter-day Saints.

Rian, as an individual, is fair game. He can speak for himself.

But he doesn't represent Heartlanders who are a diverse group of Latter-day Saints who have a common belief in the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. They have a variety of beliefs/opinions (multiple working hypotheses) about Book of Mormon settings beyond Cumorah, about interpretations of Church and secular history, as well as about politics, science, sociology, music, art, literature, and every other human interest.

But for Slander Dan, painting them all with Rian's conspiracy theory is just ordinary business.

He and his followers delight in taking the advantage of one because of his words and digging a pit for their neighbor.

_____

Jordan Peterson described this conduct recently.

Dr Jordan B Peterson

@jordanbpeterson

52m

"It's such hard work extracting bigotry from the words of famous, competent  people I want to feel morally superior to..." @MonicaHesse

Quote Tweet

Monica Hesse

@MonicaHesse

Mar 6

Rowling’s tweets are exhausting because they require constant vigilance. They are not screaming out obvious bigotry, rather, they are whispering plausible-deniability bigotry, the kind that purports to be just asking questions. https://washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/03/06/witch-trials-jk-rowling-podcast-hesse-column/

Thursday, March 2, 2023

Dan's apologetics 2021

From time to time, people send me some of Dan's posts.

For a good example of Dan's apologetics, see the comments to his post here:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/03/a-free-fall-death-spiral.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Walking+in+the+Light+of+Jesus+Christ&utm_content=48&lctg=243269&rsid=Legacy&recipId=243269&siteId=7DF2956C-D2F1-40D4-A777-98E450E58360

Dan cites John Clark's M2C theories, condescends to the other comments, and declines to answer questions because the commentors haven't read the voluminous works Dan has.

Louis Midgley's even worse comments make Dan look only slightly less ridiculous by comparison.

Let's hear it for the pilot.

- −
C
Chapstick gemli2 years ago edited
Gemli, “Let's hear it for the pilot.”
The passengers can all be thankful for the pilot’s training, experience and education which saved the day. It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because I guarantee that god wasn’t going to land that plane.
I wonder why that “woman” was so hysterical? Chances are very good she was LDS. Aren’t LDS less fearful of death because they have a sure knowledge of the afterlife? When the rubber hit the road, hysterical woman obviously didn’t take much comfort in the LDS teachings.
6
Reply
Share ›
- - −
  moonshine Chapstick2 years ago
  "...It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because..."
  Maybe you gave up on 'rubbing your tummy while patting your head' as a kid, but I assure you: some people really can do two things at once.
  10
  Reply
  Share ›
  - −
    Kiwi57 moonshine2 years ago
    With practice, maybe Chapstick could too. For example, he could try walking and chewing gum.
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
- - −
  DanielPeterson Mod Chapstick2 years ago
  CS: "It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because I guarantee that god wasn’t going to land that plane."
  And CS imagines that the pilot wasn't praying because CS imagines that he wouldn't have been.
  CS: "I wonder why that “woman” was so hysterical?"
  Is CS suggesting that she somehow wasn't a real woman?
  CS: "When the rubber hit the road, hysterical woman obviously didn’t take much comfort in the LDS teachings."
  Good grief, CS. The sheer strain that you're putting yourself through is painful to watch.
  10
  Reply
  Share ›
  - −
    Louis Midgley DanielPeterson2 years ago
    I think it wise for me not to comment on Chapy linking hysteria with woman.
    4
    Reply
    Share ›
- - −
  Jacob Ames Chapstick2 years ago
  It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because I guarantee that god wasn’t going to land that plane.
  For someone who is so adamant about physical evidence, I'm curious how you could possibly back up that spurious claim.
  9
  Reply
  Share ›
  - −
    Louis Midgley Jacob Ames2 years ago
    Jacob Ames: gemli never ever backs up any of his claims with evidences. If gemli had ever once read Aristotle on the four different kinds of causation, he might be able to see how God can and does meddle in human affairs without actually flying airplanes or navigating ships or building buildings or causing the blind to see, and so forth.
    4
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli Louis Midgley2 years ago
    How would one provide evidence for the nonexistence of anything? Of course it's impossible to do so. Dr. Midgley must know that such a claim must be backed up by evidence that is commensurate with the claim. A claim that a god can and does meddle in human affairs requires a great deal of evidence, both to verify that such a divine being exists, and that the vagaries of human desire and experience cannot be explained by natural means.
    Every claim made in history (to take a discipline at random) must be verified. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more proof is required if the claim is to be taken seriously. Given recent political events, it's clear that people in large numbers will believe in the most abject nonsense imaginable, to the point of crawling up the U.S. Capitol building, if they're in the thrall of a charismatic charlatan.
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
- - −
  Kiwi57 Chapstick2 years ago
  I wonder why that “woman” was so hysterical? Chances are very good she was LDS. Aren’t LDS less fearful of death because they have a sure knowledge of the afterlife? When the rubber hit the road, hysterical woman obviously didn’t take much comfort in the LDS teachings.
  Jeering at someone's fear is just so mature; so praiseworthy; so deserving of all emulation.
  Especially coming from someone who doesn't dare to do his online heckling without first carefully hiding his identity. What an outstanding example of moral courage!
  6
  Reply
  Share ›
  - −
    tangata neneva Kiwi572 years ago
    The interesting thing is, I jumped (I know wrongly so) to the opposite conclusion. Considering that:
    1) In the army I found the non-believers to be the one that struggled with the heat of combat. The believers were always pretty calm.
    2) 50% of St George residents are not Latter-day Saints (Dixie State U [soon to have a name change]) students and a lot of move ins.
    3) Utahn's rarely fly to St George. It is an easy drive if you have the time. So maybe the woman was an out of state passenger coming to vacate?
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Kiwi57 tangata neneva2 years ago
    I'm sure the possibilities are endless. But bigots and demagogues, like the brave dipstick, always rely upon stereotypes.
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
- −
Kiwi57 gemli2 years ago edited
Yes, indeed.
I'm glad to see you agree with President Nelson about something. It vastly increases your chances of getting something right, for a change.
6
Reply
Share ›
- −
Tim Ernst gemli2 years ago
Haha, right???
2
Reply
Share ›
- −
Louis Midgley gemli2 years ago edited
Dear dogmatic gemli: Please explain why it makes any real difference to a kind of mere slightly sentient large cockroach as you have been insisting that you are certain that this is all there is to human beings?
2
Reply
Share ›
- - −
  G
  gemli Louis Midgley2 years ago
  We are not sentient cockroaches, one recent former president notwithstanding. We are slightly more sentient apes, made of the same stuff and behaving in similar ways as the hairier variety. More precise vocal capabilities (due more than likely to our acquiring the foxp2 gene) advantaged the evolution of a larger brain capable of communicating with more precision, as well as allowing stories to be told that were not tied to physical reality.
  The fact that there is not a scrap of physical evidence for the stories of actual angels, gods and other "beings," despite the widespread and varied claims of such evidence, indicates that such beings exist only in these stories. The fact that people have imagined a huge variety of supernatural beings and afterlives is not evidence of their existence, but of a common pattern of wishful thinking designed to assuage our fear of death.
  Dying is not something we look forward to, but death is a piece of cake. There's literally no way to get it wrong. So theists should relax and not waste time doing the recitations and gyrations designed to get them to the afterlife.
  6
  Reply
  Share ›
  - −
    moonshine  gemli2 years ago
    The fact that there is not a scrap of physical evidence for the stories of actual angels, gods and other "beings,"
    What would actually count as physical evidence to you? The plates?
    Would you actually give Joseph Smith a single consideration if you handled the gold plates yourself and someone wearing a shiny SCIENCE! badge ran a mystery test and said, "Yep this gold dates from roughly 600 BC?" Or would you find some other way to write him off as a charlatan? Whatever, he got lucky!
    Not a single thing would actually convince you, gemli. You said yourself on this forum that if you DID see a divine manifestation, you'd discount it as hallucinatory or that you had gone crazy.
    Have you every actually tried praying? Have you ever offered a sincere, searching prayer in your life? Not a "strike me down if you're real" ploy. Like, talked for real to Him, on the chance He might be real?
    There's a reason a lot of us are here, saying the things we say. And it's not because we just took someone else's word for it.
    5
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   moonshine2 years ago
    No sincere believer in any of the scores of discrepant theological claims thinks that their belief is untrue. They can persist in their beliefs because there is no evidence that would certify any of them. Somehow, lack of evidence makes belief far more persistent. Such belief requires commitment, and must be defended, which make people believe all the more fervently.
    Yes, neither golden plates nor actual evidence of past civilizations as purportedly described in them ever existed. Neither did Adam and Eve, or a garden, or a snake. There are endless such claims that have nothing to do with actual beings or events, and everything to do with human psychology.
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago
    gemli: "Yes, neither golden plates nor actual evidence of past civilizations as purportedly described in them ever existed."
    Considerable evidence indicates otherwise. You refuse even to look at it, though, which renders your opinion on the matter absolutely worthless.
    9
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   DanielPeterson2 years ago
    No, there is not considerable credible evidence. If there were, both religious and non-religious people would support their existence.
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Kiwi57   gemli2 years ago
    No, there is not considerable credible evidence. If there were, both religious and non-religious people would support their existence.
    Rubbish. There would always be at least two groups of people who would not.
    1. Those who don't know anything about it. This is by far the largest group in relation to just about any subject. People learn about what interests them, and a great many people don't care about past events, religious artefacts, or both.
    2. Those who refuse to know anything about it. This is a much smaller group, consisting of the stubbornly ignorant. I'm sure you know at least one person just like that. Someone who made up his mind at a very early age that there just ain't no such thing, not nohow, neither. Someone who is convinced that his 11-year-old self couldn't possibly be wrong, so that anything that might challenge his pre-adolescent prejudices couldn't possibly be right; and therefore, any evidence that suggests that there is anything mistaken or inadequate about those prejudices must be excluded, by any dodge, however desperate.
    But the fact is that there is indeed considerable evidence regarding the existence of the Plates, and all of it is affirmative. You'll never see it, because you're too terrified of it. But others can.
    7
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Louis Midgley   Kiwi572 years ago edited
    I also happen to know one person who refuses to know a thing about the actual beliefs and history of Jewish, Christian and Islamic faith. And who has many, many dozens of times boasted that he does not care to know a thing about the faith of Latter-day Saints. And who constantly demonstrates that he has tried hard to know as little as possible about our faith. Please notice how carefully I avoided mentioning gemli, who insists that there cannot be evidence, since history is bunk.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Jack   Guest2 years ago
    Fred, IMO, what we've learned about those ancient civilizations over the years is evidence that the Book of Mormon has always been correct with regard to its portrayal of large complex civilizations existing on this continent in the past. A lot of folks in the early days thought the BoM was quite imaginative on that point--laughable really. But now we can see that it has been vindicated on that particular claim.
    With regard to your second paragraph--I like to imagine archaeologists in the distant future discovering evidence of a very large civilization within the boundaries of the U.S.--and then asking myself: what would they find in the intermountain west that would compel them to believe that an entirely different people and culture existed there as compared to the surrounding areas?
    7
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    FK: From the Book of Mormon we get other, supposedly large civilizations, existing in a supposedly specific area for thousands of years. Yet, not one scrap of physical evidence has been found, even though these civilizations were living in the same area."
    John Clark's comment is directly relevant to that point.
    It's odd that you're unfamiliar with it, and that you don't care to know about it.
    7
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Kiwi57   DanielPeterson2 years ago
    John Clark's comment is directly relevant to that point.
    
    It's odd that you're unfamiliar with it, and that you don't care to know about it.
    See my comment, "Those who refuse to know anything about it," above.
    4
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Louis Midgley   DanielPeterson2 years ago edited
    gemli actually does seem to be contagious.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    tangata neneva  Louis Midgley2 years ago
    Now, I am wondering if I should work with CSTE to get a case definition for gemili-itis and add it to mandatory reporting statute?
    5
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    FK: "Please point to anything Dr. Clark has published in an archeological journal where he makes the case for zero physical evidence."
    But, poor fellow, that's precisely the point of his comment!
    Why do you insist on bloviating about a subject on which you refuse to inform yourself? Is gemli contagious?
    7
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    FK: "Do you truly believe that a "comment" by someone is enough to explain away the total lack of evidence for a civilization, numbering in the millions? Perhaps in your world."
    I'm playing with you, FK. I'm astonished at your gemli-like insistence on commenting unfavorably on the beliefs of other people without taking much if any effort to understand those beliefs.
    Professor Clark's comment doesn't "explain away the total lack of evidence." It recasts the issue in a way that more or less dissolves it.
    If I thought that you were seriously interested in understanding our position, I would help you out. But I don't.
    7
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Louis Midgley   Guest2 years ago
    I am confident that a bald assertion by someone like Fred Kratz, who most likely has exactly no training in any academic discipline relevant to the comments he makes, need not be taken seriously.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago edited
    I take physical evidence seriously when someone makes a bald assertion.
    And what "bald assertion" is that?
    5
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    Happy reading, then!
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Louis Midgley   Guest2 years ago edited
    Fred Kratz seems to actually want Professor Peterson to "Please point to anything Dr. Clark has published in an archeological journal where he makes the case for zero physical evidence." The fact is that John Clark believes that there a great deal of "physical evidence" supporting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, but zero evidence in the Great Lakes area. I just happen to own a book entitled Remembrance and Return, in which on pages 213-256, John Clark sets out evidence that Fred Kratz should and even could read if he really wants to know something about the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago
    Kratz, are you familiar with Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic?
    6
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago
    The definition undoubtedly means a great deal more to someone consistently willing to label others.
    He deflected.
    Churchill defined a fanatic as someone who "can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
    Tell us the shoe doesn't fit, Kratz.
    5
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago
    I remind you that Sic et Non is not a public message board, Kratz. Sic et Non is a blog. It has a POV, because the owner has a POV. Given that the POV here so enrages you, I'm sure it would be better for your blood pressure to go and find a forum that is more congenial to your narrow, censorious views.
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago
    Did you manage to write that with a straight face?
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    FK: "Has he published anything in an archeological journal regarding this great deal of physical evidence for millions of Jaredites or Lehites?"
    He's published a great deal in archaeological journals, and has done some LDS-oriented publishing. I hope you'll read it someday.
    4
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Louis Midgley   Guest2 years ago edited
    Fred Kratz is stuck in repeat. It might be getting close for him to go to the Sin Bin for a while so he can figure out if he really needs to post comments on sic et non.
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    If students refuse to read the assigned texts, should they be allowed to commandeer class time for questions that others have already answered for themselves?
    8
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago
    Is that what you did with students who asked uncomfortable questions?
    If you really believe your (completely rhetorical) questions are "uncomfortable," then I need to introduce you to two gentlemen who may be able to help: Dr Dunning and Dr Kruger.

- - his comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago edited
    No, Churchill is still relevant: you can't change your mind and won't change the subject, much like Noel. But Dunning and Kruger are relevant, too: you don't know enough to realise just how little you know. Much like gemli.
    4
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Louis Midgley   Guest2 years ago edited
    Fred Kratz is not able to ask what he describes as "uncomfortable questions."
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago
    What I am asking is where is the evidence for those millions and millions of literate, city building, gold, silver, brass, bronze, and steel using Jaredites who lived for a thousand plus years in a small geographic location after crossing the Pacific in eight sail-less water tight barges against prevailing currents and trade winds?
    You really are just relying upon bluff, aren't you?
    https://oceantracks.org/lib...
    4
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    This has actually been addressed in print, FK.
    Do you care?
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago
    I would love to read your personal take on this Jaredite barge building/year-long ocean voyage, or anyone else's.
    But would you, though?
    Dan keeps recommending things for you to read about your various obsessions, and you refuse to read any of them.
    Is that so that you can maintain the illusion that those things "defy common sense?"
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago
    You keep repeating the questions which they address, quite as if no response had been given. That is, you don't respond as if you disagree with (for instance) John Clark, but as if you are simply unfamiliar with what he wrote. Either you haven't read them, or you are not engaging this discussion in good faith.
    Which is it?
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    FK: "John Clark must have all the answers."
    He has some -- including some that answer questions in which you claim to have an interest.
    FK: "How does he explain a lack of evidence for millions and millions of Jaredites?"
    Find out!
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    It's not hidden, FK.
    If I thought you were sincere, I would put some effort into preparing a reading list for you.
    I've long since concluded, however, that you aren't. So I'm not inclined to do that.
    You can easily do it on your own.
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    You show little if any evidence of having read any of them, FK.
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Kiwi57   Guest2 years ago edited
    And of course, there's not the slightest hint of anger evident in that outburst. :)
    The "trade winds" are equatorial, of course. In the temperate zones, the prevailing winds are westerlies, of course.
    For more information, Google "Great Circle route."
    Have you ever truly thought about how unreasonable this barge story is? There are so many problems, it's a wonder anyone takes the story seriously.
    Do you really have no working sense of irony left? You say that, and yet you take it so seriously that you just can't bear to let it go. You "can't change your mind and won't change the subject," as Churchill said.
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Louis Midgley   Guest2 years ago
    Fred Kratz: Please do a little search and you will discover that not all that much is known about the people we call Olmecs, since they called themselves Xi, if they were from somewhere in China or some other name, if they were from Africa. The fact is that, much like gemli, you refuse to read the answers to you questions, which are not genuine questions by actually assertions that you think, wrongly, should damage or even destroy the faith of Latter-day Saints. I strongly urge you to play in your own little sandbox, and cease being a pest on sic et non.
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Guest2 years ago
    FK: "What I am asking is where is the evidence for those millions and millions of literate, city building, gold, silver, brass, bronze, and steel using Jaredites who lived for a thousand plus years in a small geographic location after crossing the Pacific in eight sail-less water tight barges against prevailing currents and trade winds?"
    That one simple comment from John Clark would help you so very, very much! And yet you don't care.
    FK: "After all, the people called Olmecs, their carved heads and remnant cities have been found."
    Indeed!
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
- −
G
gemli Kiwi572 years ago
You're welcome to believe anything you like. All religions cling to different miraculous claims, and believers will literally fight to the death to defend conflicting beliefs. This is the only way to settle such conflicts because there's no way to demonstrate the truth of one claim over the other. That's because they're all products of the imagination.
When I hear these discrepant tales of gods, angels, demons, "golden plates" and all the rest the last thing I feel is "terror." What I feel is bewilderment. There's no evidence of gods, angels, golden plates, walking on water, living forever and all the other imaginary claims that theists make to alleviate their terror of actual and final death. Meh. Get used to it. We die. It's the fate of every living thing. It's nothing to be happy about (usually), but it's not the end of the world.
My beliefs were shared by Freud, Albert Camus, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking and Bertrand Russell, just to name a few, so I'm not the only one harboring ignorant pre-adolescent prejudices. I'm OK with that.
0
Reply
Share ›
- - −
  DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago
  gemli: "There's no evidence of gods, angels, golden plates"
  "Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish." (Proverbs 18:13, New Living Translation)
  5
  Reply
  Share ›
  - −
    G
    gemli   DanielPeterson2 years ago
    There are claims of facts, and the claims rely on the preemptive belief that spirit beings exist. So to use such claims to prove the existence of spirit beings is a fallacy.
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Kiwi57   gemli2 years ago
    There are claims of facts, and the claims rely on the preemptive belief that spirit beings exist. So to use such claims to prove the existence of spirit beings is a fallacy.
    Wrong. But thanks for playing.
    There are reports of events and artefacts. These reports are evidence. Multiple reports that the witnesses maintain over time, without any obvious motive to lie, are good evidence.
    If the events happened and the artefacts existed, that may, in turn, be evidence in support of the existence of what uninformed people lazily and inaccurately describe as "spirit beings." But the reports do not "rely on the preemptive[sic] belief that spirit beings exist." They rely only upon the events.
    There is, however, a fallacy in view: namely, the fallacy that assumptions are evidence.
    They are not.
    Your prejudice against reports of events and artefacts that threaten your assumptions does not weigh against those reports.
    Sorry.
    6
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  Kiwi572 years ago
    Exactly.
    3
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   Kiwi572 years ago
    How do we know that the witnesses saw and handled the plates? This tale has grown in the telling, like all fables.
    Smith was certainly an honorable fellow, only having been arrested forty-two times for perpetrating various frauds in four states. But I'm sure this time he was telling the truth, because it's so obvious. Of course there are gods and angels and spirits and all sorts of beings that provide golden plates containing stories of civilizations that lived in North America and yet left no physical trace or record of their existence.
    It's the people who doubt such stories that have to prove that they didn't exist. The fact that it's impossible to prove that anything didn't exist is irrelevant.
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago
    gemli: "How do we know that the witnesses saw and handled the plates?"
    Eleven official witnesses and roughly half a dozen unofficial witnesses testified -- repeatedly, for sixty years -- about their experiences. Nothing, except your own rigid and closed-minded dogmatism, prevents you from examining the evidence on this score.
    gemli: "This tale has grown in the telling, like all fables."
    Actually, it hasn't. As you could know, were you willing to know things.
    gemli: "Smith was certainly an honorable fellow, only having been arrested forty-two times for perpetrating various frauds in four states."
    Excellent research has been done (and much of it has been published) on Joseph Smith's legal history. You could know this, if you weren't completely unwilling to know it.
    "Whoever answers before listening, theirs is folly and shame." (Proverbs 18:13, New American Bible, Revised Edition)
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   DanielPeterson2 years ago
    There are witnesses to magic tricks today who swear that what they saw could not have been faked. I can only imagine what sort of skepticism superstitious townspeople in the 1800's would bring to claims of spirit beings and magical artifacts if they were not presented as a trick, but as an actual miraculous event.
    Psychological researchers know that superstitions grow in the telling. Every magician knows that a simple card trick becomes a miracle if someone who was fooled relates the story to another. The viewing of a "miracle" grants status to the viewer. They become invested in their tale, and will never admit that they were fooled.
    Yes, there has been excellent research by many people made of Joseph Smith's legal history. There would be very little such research to do on mine, because there's nothing to research.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago edited
    gemli: "There are claims of facts, and the claims rely on the preemptive belief that spirit beings exist."
    The claim of the Eight Witnesses absolutely does not depend upon a presumption that angels exist.
    You would know this, if you would ever take the trouble to make yourself even minimally informed on this subject.
    "Answering before listening is both stupid and rude." (Proverbs 18:13, The Message)
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   DanielPeterson2 years ago
    I'm fairly well informed about the real world, and about the psychology of belief.
    I'm always surprised that theists can believe completely discrepant and conflicting "truths" and still band together when atheists point out their foolish inconsistencies.
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago
    gemli: I'm fairly well informed about the real world"
    On the question of the plates and the witnesses to them, your boast is completely vacuous.
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   DanielPeterson2 years ago
    I said the real world, not the scores of conflicting supernatural worlds that people have created out of their imaginations.
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago
    gemli: "I said the real world, not the scores of conflicting supernatural worlds that people have created out of their imaginations."
    In the matter of the plates, we're not talking about some vague "supernatural [sic] world." We're talking about inscribed metal plates weighing between forty and sixty pounds.
    Your dogmatic ideology forbids you to acknowledge their existence. But that's your problem, not ours. The evidence is clear. You simply refuse to look at it.
    "The one who gives an answer before he listens—this is foolishness and disgrace for him." (Proverbs 18:13, Holman Christian Standard Bible)
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   DanielPeterson2 years ago
    The fact that the plates don't exist prevents me from acknowledging their existence. All that exists is a story, attested to by people who had a stake in its telling.
    Are all theological claims real, even the ones that contradict other ones?
    Has any visitation by a spirit being left a shred of evidence that can be examined?
    Would you be comfortable buying a gold mine claim from Joseph Smith?
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago
    gemli: "The fact that the plates don't exist . . ."
    . . . hasn't been demonstrated and seems to contradict an abundance of evidence.
    The fact that you're deliberately ignorant, however, has been conclusively demonstrated.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   DanielPeterson2 years ago
    The claims of a handful of people who were susceptible to superstitious belief do not constitute and "abundance of evidence."
    There are many distinguished, intelligent and accomplished scientists who are as deliberately ignorant as I am. I'm glad to be in their company.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago edited
    gemli: "The claims of a handful of people who were susceptible to superstitious belief do not constitute and "abundance of evidence.""
    You're too uninformed to have a valid opinion on this topic, gemli. You should stop embarrassing yourself.
    "Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish." (Proverbs 18:13, New Living Translation)
    gemli: "There are many distinguished, intelligent and accomplished scientists who are as deliberately ignorant as I am. I'm glad to be in their company."
    Your deliberate refusal to know what you're talking about doesn't place you in their company. If they were as resolutely ignorant as you are on the subjects that they address, they would be neither distinguished nor accomplished nor, for that matter, scientists.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   DanielPeterson2 years ago
    There are many distinguished scientists who think religions are bunk. A smaller but significant percentage are devout believers. That fact would indicate that intelligence is not what distinguishes theists from atheists. It's a question of psychological predisposition, because there is no tangible, examinable or convincing evidence of any theistic claim.
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago
    gemli: "It's a question of psychological predisposition"
    More obviously true words were never uttered.
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    G
    gemli   Guest2 years ago
    I don't doubt that eight men lifted something heavy.
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago
    gemli: "I don't doubt that eight men lifted something heavy."
    Their consistent testimony, and that of others, goes beyond merely lifting something heavy -- as you could easily know, if you were willing to know something.
    "What a shame—yes, how stupid!—to decide before knowing the facts!" (Proverbs 18:13, Living Bible)
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    G
    gemli   Guest2 years ago
    Your repeating a story, not presenting evidence for it that comports with reality. I know what you believe. What I don't understand is why you, or anyone, would believe it.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    DanielPeterson Mod  gemli2 years ago
    gemli: "Your repeating a story, not presenting evidence for it that comports with reality. "
    You haven't looked at the evidence.
    gemli: "I know what you believe. What I don't understand is why you, or anyone, would believe it."
    There's no secret about why we believe it. You refuse to look.
    You've embarrassed yourself here very badly with this performance.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    G
    gemli   Guest2 years ago
    Testimony is a story. It can be true, false or mistaken.
    I wonder what sort of scientific skepticism people from the early 1800's might bring to a miracle story presented by a charismatic charlatan who was known to commit various frauds?
    1
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    This comment was deleted.
    −
    −
    G
    gemli   Guest2 years ago edited
    Smith was arrested dozens of times, so no, he was not an honorable character. To think farmers born in the 1700's were rational and skeptical about the supernatural is stretching things to the breaking point. Only a few related family members claim to have seen the "plates," and they were certainly not random strangers, being comprised almost entirely of Smiths and Whitmers.
    I've got no motive to "lie." I'm not in the thrall of this or that faith. I want to know what is true, and every religious story makes hash of reality. This is something up with which I will not put. I don't need to be defensive or snarky. I only need to point out that the scores of theologies are not based on real events, but on the credulous nature of human beings.
    0
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    Kiwi57   gemli2 years ago
    Smith was arrested dozens of times, so no, he was not an honorable character.
    Actually the evidence of Joseph Smith's honourable character is far greater than any evidence there might be for yours. Put another way: Joseph was a better man than you. And if all the spiteful gossip you choose to believe because it fits your ideology was true, he'd still be a better man than you.
    2
    Reply
    Share ›
    −
    G
    gemli   Kiwi572 years ago
    Smith was a scam artist with enormous chutzpah and imagination. Given his legal history, he sure knew how to hook the rubes and reel them in. You've got to admire the guy.
    And by the way, I can get you a great deal on dowsing rods, slightly used and completely dry.