New Dan Peterson article mocking those who question the First Vision accounts... pure insanity.

[jfro18]

This is such a deceptive article, but then again for Dan that's par for the course. I saw it from a post by John Dehlin, but man this thing can be picked apart so quickly. It is amazing how words have NO meaning... he effectively says that when JS says an angel appeared before him instead of Jesus/God, he really meant Jesus because sometimes people referred to Jesus as an angel.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... ounts.html

Just curious what others thought - I guess apologetics is doing the best you can with the crap you're given to work with, and I know the audience here is believers who they need to shut out the outside sources, but man... just so angering to see so many be lied to with such ease.

[oliblish]

I am surprised that the Deseret News hasn't removed most of the comment section. 100% of it is negative:

Craig Clark - Boulder, CO
June 1, 2018 9:13 a.m.
There are many ways of deceiving people. One of them is to not give them the full story to begin with.

CMTM - , 00
June 1, 2018 8:21 a.m.
RE: The First Vision, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Vs other views of God the Father. Compare:

no one can see me and live. (Ex 33: 18-20)… The LORD often appeared, but not in His full shekinah glory. Gen. 17:1. … he (Moses)endured, as seeing him who is invisible (Heb 11:27)

Lectures On Faith - Q. What is the Father? A. He is a personage of glory and of power. (5:2.)Q. What is the Son? A. First, he is a personage of tabernacle. (5:2) .

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.(John 1:18 NIV)

The Lord fills the immensity of space. What saith the Psalmist? [Psalm 139:7-10] “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there..” God’s Omnipresence: God is everywhere. (Brigham Young (JoD V 1. P 49-50)

He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him. 1Tim 6:16

Ryan Bush - Carlsbad, CA
June 1, 2018 8:11 a.m.
I don’t find articles like this helpful when Dr. Peterson leaves out important facts, like where the 1832 account was “lost” and the details behind that story. As Elder Snow has recently stated, "My view is that being open to our church history solves a whole lot more questions than it creates.” More transparency will help the church move forward rather than perpetuating a false narrative.

Dmorgan - Herriman, UT
June 1, 2018 8:05 a.m.
Interesting trend afoot when apologetics resorts to gaslighting. Whether it’s Joseph Smith’s use of a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon to the various accounts of the First Vision, tell the members that the historical information has been available for decades, then blame the members for their lack of diligence in investigating the matters. The effects are two-fold: it allows the Church to claim transparency, and allows them to move the goalposts whenever it’s convenient.

IronChild9 - Boise, ID
June 1, 2018 5:42 a.m.
While it may be true that leaders and scholars have known about these issues for 50 years or more, it's hardly common knowledge among rank and file Mormons even today. When was the last time this was discussed from the pulpit, Sunday school lesson, or visiting teaching visit? Why is it only mentioned in an essay that is essentially buried deep on the church website. Sure, this info can be found by those that go looking, but why should they have to go looking? Why isn't this part of the standard narrative that is taught from primary onwards? Until then, it seems that leadership doesn't truly want the average member to know this information!

Nate Stum - Mesa, AZ
June 1, 2018 12:15 a.m.
JS failing to mention seeing God the Father in his 1832 account (personal journal) is material. We’re talking about the one one only ruler of the Universe. If you are recording this event in your journal, and it happened, you mention it. Period.

Suppose I write a journal entry (12 years after it happened) about an amazing day I had at Cafe Rio in which Steve Young sat down at my table and had a conversation with me . Then 6 years after that I tell this story but include the fact that Michael Jordan was with Steve Young and that they both gave me autographed jerseys. Michael Jordan! And Steve Young! Both. Wow! Would there be any version or scenario in recording or telling this story when I wouldn’t include the fact that the incident involved both of these guys?

Let’s use common sense here folks.

Tiktaalik - Logan, UT
May 31, 2018 5:39 p.m.
No need to get all philosophical about this, it's pretty straight forward stuff. Maybe an easier way would be simply present a list, with say the top 10 differences, and let rational people judge for themselves......no explanations, just read it and come to your own conclusions.

Tyler D - Prescott, AZ
May 31, 2018 3:55 p.m.
Wittgenstein once said, “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”

Dr. Peterson sure earned his pay today as a master spell caster.

Michael_M - Scottsbluff, NE
May 31, 2018 2:13 p.m.
"Two other accounts, recorded in Joseph’s earliest autobiography as well as in a later journal, were essentially lost and forgotten until the 1960s, when historians working for the LDS Church rediscovered them and very quickly published them. "

Why not just say what had happened? Three pages had been torn out of Joseph Smith's letter book. Those pages contained the 1832 account, which differs from the canonized version in the Pearl of Great Price. Those pages were not lost and forgotten, there whereabouts were known by leading members of the Church. They were kept in a locked vault and not allowed to be viewed. In the 1960s, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published about this, and after the cat was out of the bag, the pages were returned to the letter book and were allowed to be seen.

Today's article failed to address this matter, and merely tries to dismiss the fact that the LDS Church did hide this differing account.

nouseforascreenname - Farmington, UT
May 31, 2018 2:11 p.m.
Things that true and proven usually don't need to be "defended" . I don't see people writing articles to defend gravity.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Those comments are amazing. Times they are a changin'.

[slavereeno]

I sit and ask myself why it bugs me so much to listen to apologetics.

I suppose it like when you read the hunger games and the capital is gaslighting and using propaganda. That is written into the story to infuriate the reader and give a sense of frustration about their attempts to manipulate people. It helps establish them as the villian of the story. The problem is this is real life and not just a book and I am asked to participate as a member of "The Capital" every day.

[IT_Veteran]

I sit and ask myself why it bugs me so much to listen to apologetics.

I suppose it like when you read the hunger games and the capital is gaslighting and using propaganda. That is written into the story to infuriate the reader and give a sense of frustration about their attempts to manipulate people. It helps establish them as the villian of the story. The problem is this is real life and not just a book and I am asked to participate as a member of "The Capital" every day.

I hadn't read 1984 until getting it on audiobook last year. It didn't click at the time, but it does now. The double-speak, redefining words, and elimination of all history of the things that would cause someone to question authority all have more meaning to me now. Before it was just the government that I was worried about. Now I'm less worried about them, and see how the organization claiming to speak for god is far more insidious.

[Gatorbait]

Dan Peterson. He is the poster boy for:

1. Say that you believe in something and figure out how to con someone into believing it. "It is easier to fool someone than than convince them that they have been fooled". (Mark Twain)

2. Bully someone into either believing as he does or dismiss them without hearing their point of view.

3. Never say anything bad about the Church because that would be biting the hand that feeds him....and he is well fed.

One time, a few years ago, I had a disagreement with Dan Peterson. I told him that I respected his intelligence- and I did and do- but I told him that he was a coward because he refused to challenge Mormon historical hearsay, such as total B.S. that Jos. Smith's mom, Lucy wrote in her book. She and Parley Pratt made a good pair. Make up "history" as you go along, write it down and some sap will believe it and buy it.

I have little use for Dan Peterson, and I told him so once. He does a lot more harm then we know about. He is a dangerous twisted person and I would not trust him any more than I could throw a Clydesdale by the tail. I agree with IT_Vet- Pure insanity, but I will add B.S.

[jfro18]

I sent in a comment this morning and they approved it - I was shocked since it was very critical of the article... and has 12 "likes" already which was funny when I got the automated email to say it was a popular comment.

I hope the comments reach people, but again I think this is directed at those who skim the article, nod along, and feel like they have all the faith affirmation that they need.

[Not Buying It]

This comment is absolutely classic - and makes the point perfectly:

Nate Stum - Mesa, AZ
June 1, 2018 12:15 a.m.

JS failing to mention seeing God the Father in his 1832 account (personal journal) is material. We’re talking about the one one only ruler of the Universe. If you are recording this event in your journal, and it happened, you mention it. Period.

Suppose I write a journal entry (12 years after it happened) about an amazing day I had at Cafe Rio in which Steve Young sat down at my table and had a conversation with me . Then 6 years after that I tell this story but include the fact that Michael Jordan was with Steve Young and that they both gave me autographed jerseys. Michael Jordan! And Steve Young! Both. Wow! Would there be any version or scenario in recording or telling this story when I wouldn’t include the fact that the incident involved both of these guys?

Let’s use common sense here folks.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

This comment is absolutely classic - and makes the point perfectly:

Nate Stum - Mesa, AZ
June 1, 2018 12:15 a.m.

JS failing to mention seeing God the Father in his 1832 account (personal journal) is material. We’re talking about the one one only ruler of the Universe. If you are recording this event in your journal, and it happened, you mention it. Period.

Suppose I write a journal entry (12 years after it happened) about an amazing day I had at Cafe Rio in which Steve Young sat down at my table and had a conversation with me . Then 6 years after that I tell this story but include the fact that Michael Jordan was with Steve Young and that they both gave me autographed jerseys. Michael Jordan! And Steve Young! Both. Wow! Would there be any version or scenario in recording or telling this story when I wouldn’t include the fact that the incident involved both of these guys?

Let’s use common sense here folks.

That example is hilarious and very effective at proving the point.

[moksha]

Perhaps Joseph Smith's publisher suggested he do a rewrite.

[nibbler]

I am surprised that the Deseret News hasn't removed most of the comment section. 100% of it is negative:

I truly don't think this was your intent, but I think framing comments such as the ones you quoted as being "negative" gives control of the narrative back to the apologists. Framing the comments as negative implies that the other side, the side perpetuating the false narratives and gaslighting anyone who dares to voice their concerns, is somehow on the positive side of the equation. IMO the comments aren't negative, it's just people being truthful and open about their feelings.

The same thing with when church leaders talk about people with "doubts." Characterizing people as doubters communicates a whole lot. It says, "We have all truth, if you do not agree with our beliefs you are a doubter. Being a believer is better than being a doubter." Doubters aren't doubters, they just believe something different than the person calling them a doubter. What if the majority started characterizing church leaders as doubters of the truth? There's implied power behind some of the words we use and we can lose power by allowing others to frame us as being negative or as being doubters.

But I know what you meant. Negative to the church's image. So sorry for the rant.

We've got a Dan Peterson level apologist in our ward. Every time he gives a talk in sacrament meeting half of the talk is spent on slamming fellow members of the church that don't believe exactly as he believes. The other half is calling them to repentance using some variant of the 14 fundamentals of worshiping the prophet. It's infuriating, but it's what the guy genuinely believes, it's his worldview. I'd prefer it if our sacrament meetings didn't focus on bashing people... maybe talk about loving people like Christ would love people or some foreign concept like that, but I've come to expect such talks. Apologists feel threatened/persecuted by people that no longer buy into the narratives they so desperately try to maintain.

[græy]

Two other accounts, recorded in Joseph’s earliest autobiography as well as in a later journal, were essentially lost and forgotten until the 1960s, when historians working for the LDS Church rediscovered them and very quickly published them.

I haven't finished reading yet, but damn this makes me so angry. Dan, you liar. The "church" knew about the other accounts decades before that, and hid them. They only published them in the 60's because information was leaking and they had to save face somehow. They weren't lost until the 60s, and the weren't quickly published once found. You lie.

Since that time, these various narratives of the First Vision have been extensively discussed by Latter-day Saint leaders and scholars, not only in academic journals and books published by Brigham Young University and other church-affiliated presses but — beginning at least with James Allen’s April 1970 article on the subject in the Improvement Era — in the church’s official magazines.

So how did I manage to avoid ever hearing about it despite attending church nearly every week of my life for 30+ years, attending seminary, serving a faithful hard-working mission, subscribing to and reading from New Era, Ensign, and even Liahona magazines? Where was this "extensive" discussion?

And despite the contradictions, key elements abide. In each case, Jesus appears to Smith in a vision. In each case, Smith is blessed with a revelation.

Vision vs. revelation. You just said the same thing twice.

In each case, God tells him to remain aloof from all Christian denominations, as something better is in store.

No, he didn't tell him that in the 1832 account.

Dah! So many much lies!

[GoodBoy]

For someone who claims to be a scientist and a scholar Dan Peterson does not follow scientific or scholarly principles. I'm not sure how he lives with himself.

[IT_Veteran]

So how did I manage to avoid ever hearing about it despite attending church nearly every week of my life for 30+ years, attending seminary, serving a faithful hard-working mission, subscribing to and reading from New Era, Ensign, and even Liahona magazines? Where was this "extensive" discussion?

^^This is why I'm angry. Not just at Dan, but at the church. I feel like this is true about so many of the issues. I was faithful for most of my life (some teenage rebellion...). I studied, attended nearly every week, served faithfully in callings, etc.. Never heard of most of these issues until after I decided to leave it.