mormonstories.org

[Sullyute]

When he was putting together his Readers Edition of the BOM he did so in full public view - circulated initial versions through various departments of several schools, including BYU. Several people at BYU reported to higer-ups about the heretical manuscript, and e got several phone calls from SLC about it - from some very senior people. His wife's uncle was in the FQ70 and did a lot of smoothing over of some very ruffled feathers. He came away from it all with a not-so-subtle "Be very careful. We're watching everything you publish."

So this portion of the CHOI would probably apply to him...

21.1.8
Book of Mormon

The Church discourages rewriting the Book of Mormon into familiar or modern English. The First Presidency has said:

“When a sacred text is translated into another language or rewritten into more familiar language, there are substantial risks that this process may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure evidence of its ancient origin. To guard against these risks, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve give close personal supervision to the translation of scriptures from English into other languages and have not authorized efforts to express the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon in familiar or modern English. (These concerns do not pertain to publications by the Church for children.)” (Ensign, Apr. 1993, 74).E]

[pelagius]

So this portion of the CHOI would probably apply to him...

21.1.8
Book of Mormon

The Church discourages rewriting the Book of Mormon into familiar or modern English. The First Presidency has said:

“When a sacred text is translated into another language or rewritten into more familiar language, there are substantial risks that this process may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure evidence of its ancient origin. To guard against these risks, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve give close personal supervision to the translation of scriptures from English into other languages and have not authorized efforts to express the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon in familiar or modern English. (These concerns do not pertain to publications by the Church for children.)” (Ensign, Apr. 1993, 74).E]

The Reader's edition doesn't do that; the text is left unchanged. It uses the official LDS text of the Book of Mormon from the 1921 edition (the 1921 text was in the public domain). It primarily rearranges the text into paragraphs (the 1830 edition contains paragraphs too) and adds different headings to help the reader see the flow of the text (much like what modern study bibles do).

[pellegrino]

When he was putting together his Readers Edition of the BOM he did so in full public view - circulated initial versions through various departments of several schools, including BYU. Several people at BYU reported to higer-ups about the heretical manuscript, and e got several phone calls from SLC about it - from some very senior people. His wife's uncle was in the FQ70 and did a lot of smoothing over of some very ruffled feathers. He came away from it all with a not-so-subtle "Be very careful. We're watching everything you publish."

But a couple of years later, he was called to be a member of his Stake Presidency, so they must be convinced that he didn't have any ill-will in his writings on LDS history/BOM. But still, he wouldn't dream of accepting an invitation to speak to the COC without clearing it with SLC first. Although he offered, they declined to get advanced copy of his speaking notes. The response he got was basically "That would be fine. Thanks for asking. Please report back and tell us how things went."

It's nice to see a kinder, gentler stance from COB.

[UtahDan]

It would be intersting to see the church make inroads with tne COC. They are not the boogieman they are depicted as and don't pose much threat anymore.

[Brian]

Holy Meow.
I just hit refresh in iTunes, and I see that Dan Peterson is on mormon stories. Excited to listen to this one.

[UtahDan]

Holy Meow.
I just hit refresh in iTunes, and I see that Dan Peterson is on mormon stories. Excited to listen to this one.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1904

[Brian]

About 1/2 way through it while doing some yardwork today.
Dan certainly seems to have an extra healthy opinion of himself. Peterson that is, Wotherspoon seems like a loveable teddybear (in a totally non gay sort of way).
I was disappointed that he didn't bring up a lot of the points from the previous podcast on BoM archaeology. But maybe that will come up later.

[jay santos]

Listened to the Dan Peterson piece. Interesting. My thoughts.

1. Mormon Stories always spends too much time on the humanistic side of things: the person's childhood, background, choices in life that lead them to where they are. Also too much time on conjecturing about church politics. Just get to the meat of the issue.

2. Peterson almost came away likable in this interview. He softened his approach by about ten fold, but then he still said enough dickish things to make you wonder if his internet persona is who really is.

3. Completely denied that because the church bankrolls FARMS that they are mandated to only do research that will make the church look good. Says they have complete academic freedom to pursue each issue the way it should be treated, academically. Yeah right. Bullshit.

4. To the question: what is the biggest evidence of Mormonism? "The eight witnesses". I actually think that's a pretty good answer and something the critics don't have a real solid answer to it. The two critical responses are 1) the testimonies of the eight witnesses seemed to change over time to a focus on it being a "spiritual" witness with nothing actually seen or felt, but this doesn't explain ALL eight of the witnesses and it's a bit lacking. 2) Many of the 8 witnesses went on to witness for the plates of Strang--again decent but doesn't explain everything. 3) Joseph could have made fake plates to trick them--not very plausible, IMHO.

5. Says he's very sympathetic to those that discover difficult church historical facts late in life and lose their testimonies over it. Yet he's a complete douche to these people online. But then he cracks a little and starts saying these people might not be telling the truth, they could be sinning, there could be other reasons they want to leave the church, and that often times he discovers there's more to the story when you break these people down.

6. Went on and on about how we don't believe in infallibility of a prophet. Many times a prophet is not speaking for God, he's speaking for man, but sometimes he is truly speaking pure revelation from God. My comment/question: if a prophet sometimes shoots from the hip and is flat out wrong and sometimes speaks from God, yet never tells us which is which, how is that even valuable? How is that even better than no prophet and just randomly saying stuff which also could be partially false and partially true?

7. All in all, came across as a jovial, honest guy who is unfairly picked on by a bunch of wannabe's online (which I guess I'm one now in this post).

My take on Peterson: he's a hired gun for the church. He has some advanced degrees and specialty, none of which he uses in his role as the church's chief apologist. He has no respect for truth. He's no different than a lawyer who is given a bunch of evidence and paid to win his case for his side. He's mean. He's an asshole. He lies. He makes things personal. He's done a lot to harm my testimony of the church, and I imagine many others.

edit: I'll leave that last paragraph the way I originally wrote it, but I should say I have developed this opinion from many years of reading his online posts. I appreciated his willingness to do the interview and he certainly showed a softer side there.

[Brian]

Where does Peterson post?

[jay santos]

Where does Peterson post?

I'm referring to these two sites.


http://www.mormondialogue.org/ (mostly pro-LDS and more scholarly)
http://mormondiscussions.com/ (mostly anti-LDS and more snarky)

and various blogs associated with LDS apologetics topics

[pellegrino]

My take on Peterson: he's a hired gun for the church. He has some advanced degrees and specialty, none of which he uses in his role as the church's chief apologist. He has no respect for truth. He's no different than a lawyer who is given a bunch of evidence and paid to win his case for his side. He's mean. He's an asshole. He lies. He makes things personal. He's done a lot to harm my testimony of the church, and I imagine many others.

I haven't finished the podcast yet, but from what I have watched it's clear that Dan has a very high opinion of himself. I get the impression that he believes his is in some way an heir to the Nibley and Madsen legacy, which is sad, because he's not nearly as intelligent or expressive as either.

Essentially I see his online persona as a continuation of his missionary role as one who was called in to defend the faith and bash.

[DapperDan]

Listened to the Dan Peterson piece. Interesting. My thoughts.

I only listened to a little bit of it the other day, but I had a really good eye roll at Dan and the interviewer when they covered water dousing and divining rods.

[Moliere]

Hmmm, looks like the financial support is not rolling in. I feel a bit for John in that I love his product but he should have known that trying to live on donations from Mos and ExMos isn't going to get him very far....even if it was just to help him get through grad school.

But the most interesting part of this whole thing is found in the comments section:

John,

You really need to take the next step and put yourself on a disclosed salary with defined roles in the organization. Most of us are trained to never give money to orgs that don't issue detailed, sworn and audited financial reports--the risk of abuse is just too great. No one doubts your integrity (I sure don't), but it is a lot to ask for donations into a black hole. If you need help getting it set up right, let me know. I'm happy to help with legal stuff (just don't ask me to do a spreadsheet). Once set up properly, the money will flow in, I'm sure.All the best,Adam Ford

Adam,

I agree. Last time this came up it was voted down by the board (I voted for it, for the record). I'll bring it up again next meeting. I'm sure your voice will carry weight.

John

Although I'm sure the unwillingness of mormonstories to disclose it's financial dealings is not the root of the current financial issues, but it sure seems a bit ironic that they are unwilling to be forthcoming about their cash flow. Maybe they are worried someone will find out about the new Toyota Avalon John is driving around the mean streets of Logan .

[UtahDan]

Hmmm, looks like the financial support is not rolling in. I feel a bit for John in that I love his product but he should have known that trying to live on donations from Mos and ExMos isn't going to get him very far....even if it was just to help him get through grad school.

But the most interesting part of this whole thing is found in the comments section:

Although I'm sure the unwillingness of mormonstories to disclose it's financial dealings is not the root of the current financial issues, but it sure seems a bit ironic that they are unwilling to be forthcoming about their cash flow. Maybe they are worried someone will find out about the new Toyota Avalon John is driving around the mean streets of Logan .

You make it sound like someone has asked for disclosure and that John has been "unwilling" to open up the books. I don't think anyone has ever asked. It is more a question of whether they will do it voluntarily, and I do think they should, not least of all because if the people who value the show knew what a paltry sum he is trying to live on they would give more. I'm not sure how he survives. Don't forget he left a job at MIT to do what he is doing.

[TripletDaddy]

Most of us are trained not to donate to organizations that don't issue detailed audited financial statements?

lol.