It is currently Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:10 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:31 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 6170
Location: The Land of Lorn
Actually, the account is not worth noting in the context of claimed first vision evidence. It's only worth is what Kish stated, in the context of the surge of first vision interest in the late 19th century. It has no place in any serious discussion of the claimed first vision, but it would fit into a discussion about how the claimed first vision finally gained prominence in the church. So what was the original context of the Peterson article? He wrote,

Quote:
It’s sometimes alleged by critics that Joseph Smith came up with the idea of a visit of two personages — the Father and the Son — rather late (say, in the 1838 “canonical” version now known as JS-History 1) and/or that he began to soup the story up from a mere vision of angels during, say, the collapse of the Kirtland Panic in the national Panic of 1837 (so as to shore up his personal prestige and authority). In the light of such charges, I think this 1894 autobiographical account from Edward Stevenson worth noting:

Using it in this context is simply misleading. In this context it is not worth noting at all.

_________________

Riding on a speeding train;
trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain;
Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world
can change your direction:
One step where events converge
may alter your perception.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:48 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18978
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
grindael wrote:
Actually, the account is not worth noting in the context of claimed first vision evidence. It's only worth is what Kish stated, in the context of the surge of first vision interest in the late 19th century. It has no place in any serious discussion of the claimed first vision, but it would fit into a discussion about how the claimed first vision finally gained prominence in the church. So what was the original context of the Peterson article? He wrote,

Quote:
It’s sometimes alleged by critics that Joseph Smith came up with the idea of a visit of two personages — the Father and the Son — rather late (say, in the 1838 “canonical” version now known as JS-History 1) and/or that he began to soup the story up from a mere vision of angels during, say, the collapse of the Kirtland Panic in the national Panic of 1837 (so as to shore up his personal prestige and authority). In the light of such charges, I think this 1894 autobiographical account from Edward Stevenson worth noting:

Using it in this context is simply misleading. In this context it is not worth noting at all.

Yep. That's very important to stress. Well put, grindael.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:57 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18978
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
consiglieri wrote:
While this is true as far as it goes, the problem I have is that Professor Peterson is fiddling around with this marginally probative reminiscence instead of addressing the claim I made against him that he lied in his recent Deseret News article when he wrote there has been "no suppression" of early First Vision accounts.

Professor Peterson has time to post voluminously on Bill Reel's Facebook page where Bill was holding his feet to the fire, adamantly denying he was lying but saying he would not address why it was he wasn't lying until he was darn good and ready.

Professor Peterson has time to post a non-response response in a recent Sic et Non blog.

Professor Peterson now has time to post about this reminiscence from sixty-years after the fact.

But what Professor Peterson does not have the time to do is explain how he wasn't lying in his Deseret News article.


The suppression of the 1832 account seems to be a pretty slam-dunk case of suppression. There really isn't room to wiggle around that one, and yet Peterson would have use believe that there was no suppression. You really let him have it, and he has yet to address the pretty clear evidence that he did not present the case honestly. But he has managed to divert everyone's attention to this new issue of his misuse of the Stevenson account.

Oddly, I am kind of reminded of Trump here. People are too busy chasing all of his new disasters to keep track of the old ones. He is consistently a source of chaos. As much as people hate such comparisons, DCP's diversionary tactics are similarly maddening. He keeps piling one on top of the other.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:02 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18978
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Symmachus wrote:
Whether that means he or anyone shouldn't believe in Mormonism is another question, because it's perfectly possible, perhaps even reasonable, for someone who has had intimate contact with a higher order of reality, as I understand he once had while scouting for water with a stick, not to care about such mundane, trivial matters.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I love rereading that passage time and again.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:28 pm 
Apostle

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am
Posts: 776
Kishkumen wrote:
This one is particularly interesting to me. Stevenson was really struck by the comparison of Smith and the ancient apostle Paul. He mentioned Paul in the 1894 account as well. It is interesting that here there are no bodily personages, at least in the part of the text you cite. There is the Father's voice introducing "His Only Begotten Son." I am reminded of the significance of the voice in Paul's "vision." We may have to add the New Testament to the sources of contamination here.

Here is a link to the full 1886 article: https://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/digital/c ... r/id/28172 (p. 341).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:46 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7009
Location: Cassius University
Kishkumen wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Excellent opening post, Reverend. I would say that I'm surprised that Dr. Peterson is (apparently) engaged in dishonest behavior, but, of course, I'm not. It really is kind of an inside joke at this point, isn't it? We point out he's dishonest; he makes some quip about how critics just automatically accuse him of dishonesty, and ho! ho! ho! it's all just so funny! Except for the fact that the key audience for this dissembling is going to wind up accepting it. In other words, DCP *knows* he is being dishonest but writes it off on the grounds that the Chapel Mormon "rubes" are too stupid to know better.


Thank you for the compliment, Doctor. I agree that DCP's target audience is already primed to assume that his critics hate him for no good reason, and so their criticism has no merit. That is what being a partisan is all about for many people--listening only to your own side's point of view, and never even bothering to examine the criticisms and counter-arguments.

Since DCP is a proponent and defender of Mormonism, the one true faith, and his critics are also critics of Mormonism, then he must be right and his critics must be wrong. Right? It is tribal thinking at its best, or, rather, worst.


Gee, I sure hate being right:

DCP wrote:
Elsewhere, responses were occasionally stronger, much more harsh. My posting of the quotation, according to several posters at one particularly dark place, proves my mendacity. (Of course, that’s a site where, if it were reported that I’d drawn breath upon waking up in the morning, that would demonstrate my dishonesty.)


DCP wrote:
In the following little playlet, “The Deceiver” represents me, while “Veritas” represents all those who recognize my depraved indifference to Truth and Goodness. Here’s how the routine goes:


The Deceiver: “Here’s a late reminiscence worth noting, particularly in the light of Claim X.”

Veritas: “The Deceiver is claiming that this account refutes Claim X! What a liar!”

The Deceiver: “I never actually said that this account refutes Claim X. I said ‘Here’s a late reminiscence worth noting, particularly in the light of Claim X.'”

Veritas: “Hah! See? The Deceiver is backing away from his claim that this account refutes Claim X! What a liar!”


You sort of start to wonder about the extent to which he even *wants* to be taken seriously. It's obvious he wants attention, but I guess he doesn't want any serious scrutiny of his ideas?

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:12 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18978
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Quote:
You sort of start to wonder about the extent to which he even *wants* to be taken seriously. It's obvious he wants attention, but I guess he doesn't want any serious scrutiny of his ideas?


I think he is taken seriously by the caliber of mind that thinks pro wrestling is earnest competition and by those who find that manipulative power useful.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:18 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18978
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Tom wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:
This one is particularly interesting to me. Stevenson was really struck by the comparison of Smith and the ancient apostle Paul. He mentioned Paul in the 1894 account as well. It is interesting that here there are no bodily personages, at least in the part of the text you cite. There is the Father's voice introducing "His Only Begotten Son." I am reminded of the significance of the voice in Paul's "vision." We may have to add the New Testament to the sources of contamination here.

Here is a link to the full 1886 article: https://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/digital/c ... r/id/28172 (p. 341).


Thanks, Tom!

Sadly, there is a full missing page. The pagination skips and there is an obvious lacuna.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:38 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 6170
Location: The Land of Lorn
Yeah, the "dark place" is the one with free and open ideas being exchanged, while in his world, what there is, is suppression, and heavy moderation of anything they don't like (the Deseret News is notorious for that).

_________________

Riding on a speeding train;
trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain;
Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world
can change your direction:
One step where events converge
may alter your perception.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:12 am
Posts: 1508
Location: Utah County
consiglieri wrote:
Johannes wrote:
Actually, in the spirit of being counter-intuitive, I'm going to defend old Peterson here. He has at least (1) engaged with criticism of his opinion-journalism on the First Vision by producing something other than self-pity or polemic, and (2) pulled out a source which seems to be genuinely new to most people here.


While this is true as far as it goes, the problem I have is that Professor Peterson is fiddling around with this marginally probative reminiscence instead of addressing the claim I made against him that he lied in his recent Deseret News article when he wrote there has been "no suppression" of early First Vision accounts.

Professor Peterson has time to post voluminously on Bill Reel's Facebook page where Bill was holding his feet to the fire, adamantly denying he was lying but saying he would not address why it was he wasn't lying until he was darn good and ready.

Professor Peterson has time to post a non-response response in a recent Sic et Non blog.

Professor Peterson now has time to post about this reminiscence from sixty-years after the fact.

But what Professor Peterson does not have the time to do is explain how he wasn't lying in his Deseret News article.


You, Bill and John Delian's podcast with Sandra Tanner totally dropped the hammer on DCP and his ridiculous first vision misinformation in the DN. He knows this, so I wouldn't expect him to be responding anytime soon. I bet he wishes the whole thing would go away.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:53 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18978
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
grindael wrote:
Yeah, the "dark place" is the one with free and open ideas being exchanged, while in his world, what there is, is suppression, and heavy moderation of anything they don't like (the Deseret News is notorious for that).


People in power know that information is dangerous to their power. They set up an echo chamber where the right messages—those that protect and reinforce their power—sound and resound. DCP is one of those voices in the echo chamber, protecting powerful interests. There is a lot of wealth and power at stake here. Billlions of dollars and some powerful people who are not going to take a challenge to their beliefs and power sitting down. Remember the real estate mogul who paid big money to deny D. Michael Quinn employment? These are the kinds of people who handed lots of money to FARMS.

The internet has provided us the tools to escape the echo chamber. From the outside it no longer appears the same. I like the fresh air and sunshine. Others prefer the comfort of hearing a reassuring message, and they would sooner attack their would-be liberators than follow them out of the chamber. It’s really quite like that cave in Plato’s Republic.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:39 am 
Apostle

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am
Posts: 776
Kishkumen wrote:
Tom wrote:
Here is a link to the full 1886 article: https://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/digital/c ... r/id/28172 (p. 341).


Thanks, Tom!

Sadly, there is a full missing page. The pagination skips and there is an obvious lacuna.

I think if you click the white box on the upper right hand corner of page 341, you can view the missing page.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:09 am 
Apostle

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am
Posts: 776
I note that a commenter at sic et non has quoted from another account from Stevenson, this one published in 1885:

Edward Stevenson, "Gibraltar, Letter XII: Missionary Experience,"Juvenile Instructor 20 (August 1, 1885): 229 (relating a conversation with a "Mr. Smith" he met in Gibraltar in 1853; Smith had known Stevenson's father years earlier as then-fellow members of a Methodist congregation in Gilbratar): “'At the age of thirteen, I heard Joseph Smith, the Prophet, preach by the power of the Holy Ghost. He related the heavenly vision with which he was favored; I had a witness of the truth that he had told, although I was not baptized until some time later.'”

As Stevenson tells the story, Mr. Smith rejected Stevenson's gospel message. Stevenson writes: "I told him the consequences of his rejecting the light that he had already acknowledged, and for turning me--a servant of God, from his door, and that the hand of the Lord would speedily follow him to his sorrow."

Stevenson notes that Mr. Smith's wife had been reading the Book of Mormon, and that she and some of her children became believers. Things took an unfortunate turn for the worse for Mr. Smith, however. Stevenson writes: "It was but a short time before Father Smith was stricken and was confined not only to his house, but to his bed. . . . He was not expected to live. Soon after he desired to see me and said if the Lord would only spare his life, he would serve Him better than he ever had done. I told him that the Lord brought down and raised up; that if he desired to recover and serve Him faithfully, he should get well and the Lord would raise him up to better health."

Stevenson was invited to eat and pray with the family a few days later. Mr. Smith was feeling better. However, Smith subsequently turned against Stevenson once again, burning church literature and refusing Stevenson entry into his house. "I of course left my testimony," Stevenson relates, "telling him the consequences of his actions. I told him it would now be worse than ever with him. The poor man was very soon again confined to his bed, but not long this time, for he died. His family decided to go to England, where they said they intended to obey the gospel."

Here is a link to the faith-promoting account: https://archive.org/details/juvenileinstruct2015geor.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:27 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 7166
Kishkumen wrote:
Quote:
You sort of start to wonder about the extent to which he even *wants* to be taken seriously. It's obvious he wants attention, but I guess he doesn't want any serious scrutiny of his ideas?


I think he is taken seriously by the caliber of mind that thinks pro wrestling is earnest competition and by those who find that manipulative power useful.

I've been trying to understand why he does this, but doing it for the attention didn't seem to cover all the bases until i read this, from you. I think you have discovered the true "caliber of mind" that it would take to imagine that all this negative publicity is actually a good thing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:40 pm 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 414
Location: The ground
Kishkumen wrote:
Quote:
You sort of start to wonder about the extent to which he even *wants* to be taken seriously. It's obvious he wants attention, but I guess he doesn't want any serious scrutiny of his ideas?

DCP is a salesman, using the narrative that he is fighing the good fight against the apostate hordes, as a pitch to draw cash from well meaning LDS supporters. His articles and facwbook activity are designed just to do do.

His supporters are on average TBM's members with a leaning towards agressive action. And DCP feeds into that. He thinks he is justified because he is defending his faith. Hiding behind the skirts of cowboy Jesus.

It is appaling to see how ethically depraved religious zealots can behave, as their moral compass is bent by imaginary consepts.

DCP thinks he is justified because he has good intentions. He seems not to realize that all but a few inhabitants of this planet has "good intentions".

DCP is lost in a quagmire of results of previous actions, and the only corse available seems to be to keep defending his employer (LDS inc) at all (moral) costs.

_________________
About Joseph Smith.. How do you think his persona was influenced by being the storyteller since childhood? Mastering the art of going pale, changing his voice, and mesmerizing his audience.. How do you think he was influenced by keeping secrets and lying for his wife and the church members for decades?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:51 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10770
Location: Multiverse
Kishkumen wrote:
Quote:
You sort of start to wonder about the extent to which he even *wants* to be taken seriously. It's obvious he wants attention, but I guess he doesn't want any serious scrutiny of his ideas?

I think he is taken seriously by the caliber of mind that thinks pro wrestling is earnest competition and by those who find that manipulative power useful.

Brilliant, Reverend. :wink:

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:42 am 
Priest

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:13 pm
Posts: 283
consiglieri wrote:
Professor Peterson has time to post voluminously on Bill Reel's Facebook page where Bill was holding his feet to the fire, adamantly denying he was lying but saying he would not address why it was he wasn't lying until he was darn good and ready.

I tried to find that thread to read it, but I can't find Bill Reel's Facebook page. Apparently, he's blocked me. Don't know why, because my Facebook activity is extremely tame and rarely, if ever, religious.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1102
mentalgymnast wrote:
Except for my sigline that I'll keep for now.

Nothing ironic about that. Do you not realize I was describing you? That quote is what I imagine you saying in your mind to justify your dishonest behavior. LOL. You then react to it by doing exactly as I described.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:56 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm
Posts: 1507
Goebbels

A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth

There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the **er, and this will always be "the man in the street." (the TBM) Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.

_________________
Israeli Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein: "For if there were no patriarchs no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan--and no prosperous united monarchy under David & Solomon--can we say that early biblical Israel as described in the Five Books of Moses and the books of Joshua Judges and Samuel ever existed at all?" The Bible Unearthed, p. 124.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:48 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18978
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
aussieguy55 wrote:
Goebbels

A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth

There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the **er, and this will always be "the man in the street." (the TBM) Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.


The man in the street or the sister from Parowan?

Excellent choice of quotes, aussie. You are right that Mopologetics works by offering a spirited defense of the faith as opposed to an intellectually rigorous one. The important thing is to see Mopologists being snarky about the critics, showing a willingness to mix it up with the anti-Mormons, and so forth. It gets the blood moving and helps members feel like the faith is worthy of defense.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: That Lovely Morning
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4686
Location: Firmly on this earth
Quote:
Kishkumen
The important thing is to see Mopologists being snarky about the critics, showing a willingness to mix it up with the anti-Mormons, and so forth. It gets the blood moving and helps members feel like the faith is worthy of defense.


Excellent point Kish. It also demonstrates that there are heroes fighting for their faith and they need not worry if there is something they cannot answer, because there are answers. What the average member is never told (and many apologists know this, whether they deny it or not) is that their answers are seldom persuasive nor vigorous, certainly not enough to get published in legitimate non-Mormon venues of peer reviewed world wide read materials instead of merely local Utah/Idaho/Wyoming/Nevada publications apologists always publish with.

_________________
Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. And it is reliability we need, not certainty. The most credible answers are the ones given by science, because science is the search for the most credible answers available, not for answers pretending to certainty. Carlo Rovelli


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cacheman, Exiled, Google [Bot], reflexzero and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group