MsJack wrote:He was definitely posting here in 2011. I do believe he stopped not too long after that.
Yes, I believe it was sometime in late 2011, shortly after Mr. Stak posted this critical analysis of how DCP was intentional misquoting and misrepresenting his sources: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19915
So, if we are being accurate, it has been almost 6 years since DCP stopped posting here, not a decade as DCP represented on his blog.
Is DCP stretching the truth, yet again? Does a decade mean almost 6 years? We've always known DCP/Mopologists like to play hard and fast with the truth and they are fond of pointing out that (in the Book of Mormon) millions mean thousands, horses mean tapir/deer and steel swords mean wooden Macuahuitls.
by the way, DCP has a long and well-documented history of completely misrepresenting his various exchanges with numerous individuals (just ask Gerald Bradford). Here are just a few for your reading enjoyment:
When it comes to DCP's dishonest behavior, I don't think it's an issue of history repeating itself, but rather an issue of DCP not being able to change his nature. DCP is a tragic figure, so much wasted talent, full of sound and fury but in the end signifying nothing.
If there is something of note or praisworthy that we can salvage from DCP's life and pass it down to the next generation for their benefit, it's that Mopologetics can be a harsh mistress.
Oh, man. If anyone has time they really need to go through these threads. They're excellent reading! I'm just on page 3 of this exchange:
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
MsJack wrote:Liz, I really don't think you're the emailer Dan quotes in the blog post.
Could be Shulem. Or Ray if he's drifted back to "hates apologists" land.
I didn't read the blog so I wasn't sure. I just saw that he said something about an "informant" on what was going on on MDB. Since I have let him know about various discussions here in the past if I felt like he needed to have an opportunity to at least defend himself, I thought maybe he was referring to me.
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?
"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MDB.
Music is my drug of choice.
"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MDB _________________
I read through Daniel Peterson's blog, and am flattered he took the time to respond.
It seems that on virtually all points, Daniel Peterson admits the relevant facts.
Daniel Peterson admits he has made the Alma argument for ancient Book of Mormon authenticity.
That argument is based on the land deed discovered in the late 1960s by Yigael Yadin.
Daniel Peterson admits there are census records from early 19th century American listing Alma as a man's name.
(Strangely, Daniel Peterson says this is only allegedly and hasn't troubled himself to ascertain whether it is actually true.)
Daniel Peterson admits that the presence of the name Alma as a male name in early 19th Century America substantially undercuts the force of the argument based on the male name Alma in the late 1960s land deed.
Daniel Peterson admits that if he made the Alma argument in favor of the Book of Mormon without mentioning the early 19th Century America man's name of Alma, my loss of respect for him would be "understandable."
The only question I can see that remains to be answered is whether Daniel Peterson made the Alma argument in favor of the Book of Mormon after he learned of the male name Alma in early 19th Century America.
My memory is that he has.
And I suspect the reason he is so vague about never having actually verified the issue of Alma as a man's name in early 19th Century America has less to do with his research abilities and more to do with plausible deniability.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Jesse Pinkman wrote:I didn't read the blog so I wasn't sure. I just saw that he said something about an "informant" on what was going on on MormonDiscussions.com. Since I have let him know about various discussions here in the past if I felt like he needed to have an opportunity to at least defend himself, I thought maybe he was referring to me.
Unlikely, JP.
Daniel C. Peterson has done a new blog called "From the Mailbag" in which he states his anonymous informant sent him the anecdote with a personal message:
I didn’t need to go searching for the recent anecdote about me because my anonymous source quoted it for me in an email that he sent to me at 1:48 PM yesterday afternoon. Then, having quoted it, he appended a bit of his signature wisdom:
you’re a filthy liar by omission fat f**k. that’s your sorry a**ed mo ya shifty shifting b*ttplug. ya give scholarship a bad name. ya should retire…..slink off and have a year long gorge fest….fatter and fatter till ya pop. a**hole.