NOM

New RFM podcast just went up yesterday.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/201 ... ul-dodger/

It deals with Daniel C. Peterson's statement that there has been "no suppression" of the First Vision accounts.

Amazingly, I just found out that after my podcast went up, Daniel C. Peterson replied to it on his blog!

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ision.html

Of particular interest is this quote from Professor Peterson's blog article:

I’m also being branded a liar because of my declaration, in that 31 May 2018 Deseret News column, that there’s been no scandal and no suppression of the variant accounts of the First Vision.

I stand by that statement, as well — and particularly when referring to the past fifty years.

By the same token, Mark Hofmann would be justified in saying:

I'm also being branded a liar because of my declaration that I've never forged documents.

I stand by that statement--and particularly when referring to the past thirty years.

I had an unwelcome visitor in my dreams last night. Ted Bundy said he wasn't lying when he said he had never killed anyone.............since 1989.

ETA: Daniel needs to remember that before one can lie to someone else, they first have to lie to themselves that they're not really lying.

Thank you for calling him out on stuff like this consig. My extended family loves everything that man writes. Occasionally I point out a contradiction or two from the stuff he's published, but they just shrug it off or assume I'm confused about his real intent.

Starting the episode now.

Well. Tapir-Dan may be correct that there was no "scandal" or "suppression." (By his own, crazy definition of the words scandal ans suppression.)


I only have one question for Mr. Tapir though: How many times were the multiple versions of the first vision mentioned in correlated mormon publications? (Before 2013.) Just a seminary, institute or Sunday-school manual would be great.

I'll wait...


OK, maybe 2 questions: How many "volunteer" instructors taught about the multiple versions in their classes on Sunday? How 'bout seminary or institute instructors? (Again, before 2013.)

I'll wait again...


Let's make it 3 questions: Show me in correlated mormon publications where it was documented how Joseph F. Smith hid the 1832 version of the first vision in his safe? (I doubt there this has even been mentioned after 2013.)

Still waiting...


It always amazes me that when grown adults like Tapir-Dan get proven wrong, they act like a 6-year-old caught in a lie, and use the same types of excuses as a 6-year-old would, and lie some more to attempt to cover the original lie. Lying for the Lord... A time-honored tradition since... Well, probably since the first god that any human invented and decided to "worship." I wonder what lying for the sun-god looked like back in pre-history?

Wow! He is one sad sorry little apologetic man if he thinks that listing a few obscure sources mentioning the multiple FVs gives him and TSCC a free pass to lie to it's general membership! Also, why do I find his style and manner of writing so annoying? It just wreaks of BS. Ask him what the weather forecast is tomorrow and you'll probably get about six paragraphs of hyperbole and still not really know what it might be.

Doesn’t anyone ever get tired of doing this? I guess when you’re paid to be a shill for the church then it’s easier to do.

How is Dan even relevant in 2019?

I’ve read that same post on Patheos by DP like several months before my 49th birthday. I think just after his article in the Deseret News he wrote that. I think he just changed the date and published the same article.

Dan Peterson is an idiot.

He's made a career out of lying for the lord and attacking those who call him out as playing 'tricks' and even wrote a book about it.

There's a good Mormon Stories episode that came out at the same time of Dan's Deseret News article on the First Vision - it has Sandra Tanner and I think two others and really hits home just how dishonest Peterson was and also dives into why the First Vision changes really do matter.

The worst thing about Peterson is that a lot of believing Mormons read him and his pompous, authoritative claims make them believe what he's selling.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:21 pmHow is Dan even relevant in 2019?

Um... Maybe the same way a religion created by a predator/con-man with a magic rock is still relevant in 2019?

(Or was it really the hat that was magic?)

Just because something was torn out of a journal and hidden in a safe in a locked office does not mean it was not available to all - well, only if you are going by the common English definition of those words - but certainly not the well understood meaning of those same words in the Alternate Apologetics Universe. So there!

Remember, the Alternate Apologetics Universe is where everything has been perfected and where everything is true.

In conclusion, it was unfair for Bill Reel to represent Dr. Peterson as Mr. Ed. They are separate entities and Mr. Ed does not hold a degree from UCLA. The only point of similarity is that neither will be available to do a segment on Radio Free Mormon since they refuse to speak unless they have something to say unchallenged.

I continue to be surprised that the Dan Peterson episodes of Mormon Stories are still online. Dr. Peterson does do a decent job of explaining his beliefs, but John Dehlin certainly sounds like he is not pushing back as hard as he could. I certainly was not convinced by Peterson's explanations.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:02 am It always amazes me that when grown adults like Tapir-Dan get proven wrong, they act like a 6-year-old caught in a lie, and use the same types of excuses as a 6-year-old would, and lie some more to attempt to cover the original lie.

I suggest Petersen change his tactics and do what my youngest did when he was 3 years old and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar: close his eyes and assume that since he can't see you, you can't see him, and back slowly out of the room.

Loved it consiglieri.

My blood boils when I hear about these apologists attacking Bill Reel for his "priestcraft" in profiting off his podcast. Especially the BYU-employed ones. Don't know how many people know this, but BYU equalizes the salaries of their academics relative to the rest of the academic world. If you're a history or english professor, then the best money you can make as a LDS academic will likely be BYU. On the other hand, if you're a business professor, you're gonna take a decent cut to work at BYU as opposed to the UofU. BYU's median professor salary is higher than that of other big R1 schools and the standard deviation is lower.

I know for a fact that a full tenured SOCIOLOGY professor at BYU makes $110k. Very good for a sociology professor. Makes me wonder how much the religion guys get paid, not to mention the pension that's awaiting them. Circling back to my blood boiling - I presume that BYU-employed apologists have it very easy financially. So to dig on Bill Reel like they do is F***** up.

Very entertaining and enlightening episodes, Consiglieri!