Episodes

Radio Free Mormon: 033: Selling Your Soul for Apologetics

RFM takes issue with the Logical Fallacies, Deceptiveness, and Blatant Lies by LDS Apologist Dan Peterson in his article “Defending the Faith: The supposed scandal of multiple First Vision accounts”.  In the article Daniel Peterson goes to great lengths to frame the public awareness of the multiple first vision accounts in a faithful context.  Sadly in order to do so, Dan must avoid telling people the problematic details and even go so far as to lie about the history of how and why the 1832 account was obscured for so long.  RFM even goes to show using both a personal interaction with Daniel as well as public audio from Elder Holland that obfuscation and dishonesty is par for the course when trying to defend the Church using apologetics.

RESOURCES:

Elder Holland lying and obfuscating with BBC interviewer

Stan Larsen’s Dialogue Article (Absolute Must Read for Latter-Day Saints who want to understand the History of the First Vision Accounts)

 

Play

7 thoughts on “Radio Free Mormon: 033: Selling Your Soul for Apologetics

  1. Thank you for this podcast. Many of us have recognized Peterson’s “inique” behavior over the last several decades. You might be interested to see some other well documented behavior from Peterson. Here are just a few examples out of thousands:

    Peterson telling a respected LDS scholar to go to hell:

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35385

    Apology for posting racist pictures on the internet:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2013/05/mormon-apologist-uses-photo-of-the-dead-bodies-of-lynched-blacks-as-a-gag-prop/

    Peterson’s misogyny:

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24431

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34996

    Examples of Peterson’s plagarism:

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47272

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/02/an-apology-regarding-my-interpreter-article-today.html

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47289

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2016/01/to-the-editors-of-the-deseret-news/

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2016/01/daniel-peterson-and-admitting-defeat/

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2016/01/too-close-to-call-daniel-peterson-in-the-deseret-news/

    Examples of Peterson caught lying:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20111015220544/http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/02/spencer-lake-horse-skull.html

    http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26812

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28827

    http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19915&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47236&p=1082804#p1082804

    Peterson’s ethical lapses:

    http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9620

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9583

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32954

  2. Brilliant! I applaud any effort to make the church a more open and honest place of worship.

    Daniel Peterson feels the opposite.

  3. I always laugh my a$$ off when they go on about how transparent they are. “We’re totally transparent. It’s up to you to find that info. We’re offended you would say we hide it. It’s readily available in the basement of church archives, locked-up, in a vault, away from prying anti-Mormon eyes…”

  4. Danny Boy once came after me on his personal blog. He couldn’t refute anything I said (which was quoting the Book of Mormon), of course, so he resorted to calling me names. Quite a fellow.

  5. Daniel C. Peterson was absolutely lying by not acknowledging that there were men named Alma living in New York during the time Joseph Smith wrote the BOM! It’s called a ‘lie by omission.” I’m surprised you didn’t mention this, RFM, considering you’re an attorney.

  6. I haven’t even gotten to the part about Peterson yet, but I can hardly wait to hear you lay into him!

    I just have to comment about Holland and the BBC reporter. Technically, the reporter says, “lest I slit my throat” when he is reciting his understanding of what Romney would have said. He even repeats the same words a second time.

    If Holland had been listening carefully enough, he could have answered more clearly by saying, “No, Mitt Romney would not have said that in the temple, nor has anyone who has received their endowment in the temple”, and he would have been telling the truth.

    People going through the temple prior to the penalties being removed in 1990 never said they would slit their own throat or disembowel themselves, etc., although they did make the gestures against their own bodies with their own hands.

    Instead, they said that they would rather have hose things down to them than to reveal the signs & tokens, etc. So, to say, “No, Mitt Romney never said the words ‘lest I slit my own throat’” would have been another crafty way for Holland to have answered the question truthfully in an effort to dodge the question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*