"Daniel C. Peterson launches his personal attacks against ex-Mormons, then runs and hides among his friends when evidence to back his accusations is demanded--and he realizes that, well, he just can't produce it.

There, safely tucked away in the rear lines among his Mormon compatriots, Peterson enjoys their cover, their comfort, their condolences and their kudos." - Steve Benson, "Daniel C. Peterson: Master Mason Of Attack And Evasion" LINK.

I would respond that we Latter-day Saints do, quite unapologetically, insist that Jews "are not worthy enough to receive G-d's eternal blessing" "on their own."

I would guess that barring baptisms for the dead would have to be part of a broader strategy that would forbid masses for the dead, prayers for the dead, invoking the memory of the dead, and, perhaps, thinking of the dead altogether.

The total depravity of those who disagree with me is an important article of my personal faith.

And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint. (DandC 89:20)

"I will be tensely awaiting the results of your research, whatever that will involve. Here are a pair of suggestions: I have no idea where you live, but, if you’re in Utah, I invite you to come by 3087 JFSB, where you will be able to see my actual name on an actual office name plate in the same area where other actual members of the actual faculty of the actual Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages have their offices. If you’re lucky, I myself (or, on your apparent theory, perhaps a deceptively similar “LDS Corporation” clone) will actually be in the office, pretending to be a professor of Arabic. Alternatively, even if you don’t live in the state, you can order one of the books produced by the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative (either through the Brigham Young University bookstore or through the University of Chicago Press, which distributes them). Inside, you will find my actual name, as actual editor-in-chief of all four subsidiary series. This could win you the Pulitzer Prize.

I’m not sure what the timetable for your investigation is. I’ll be in Washington DC this next week, on business relating to the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. (Anyway, that’s my story, and I’m sticking by it.) And then, the week before Thanksgiving, I’ll be in Philadelphia, at an academic conference there relating to Near Eastern studies. (Or perhaps I’ll be somewhere else entirely, lying about Mormonism. Pending the outcome of your work, nobody will know for certain.) I probably won’t pay much attention to my e-mail during those trips, but I’ll be on pins and needles until you’re able to inform me what my salary is for. Please do hurry. "

"There is no secret about the fact that Brigham Young University is funded by the “LDS Corporation,” as you choose to call it, and the fact that the “LDS Corporation” is supported by the tithes of its members is also widely known (particularly among tithe payers). Likewise, the fact that I’m employed by Brigham Young University is scarcely classified information: I’m listed in University catalogues, in the University’s telephone directory, and on the University’s website (among other places). I’m not precisely sure, therefore, why you imagine that tithe payers would be “unsuspecting,” or what it is that you propose to “look into,” but I certainly wish you well in your investigations. Courage!"

“I trust that you will correct your misstatement soon. I’m sure that you’re committed to truth and accuracy.”

"I’m aware of the common assumption among a certain class of critics of the Church that I’m a mendacious mercenary hack who cares nothing for the truth. I’m not surprised that you share it. The notion is pure hostile fantasy, of course, and there is no real evidence to support it, but it reveals much about those who hold it."

"Established as a private research organization in 1979, FARMS became part of BYU in 1997. At the time, Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and chairman of the BYU Board of Trustees, observed that, "FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. I wish to express my strong congratulations and appreciation for those who started this effort and who have shepherded it to this point." He concluded by noting that he sees, "a bright future for this effort now through the university.""

I could be mistaken, but it sure sounds like FARMS is funded by BYU which in turn is funded by the Church.

Moreover, as he says, he was director of CPART. Well, CPART is the overarching group on top of FARMS, so yes, he most certainly was being paid for his involvement in apologetics.

"In 2001, Brigham Young University consolidated FARMS with a number of related academic concerns to form the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, now known as the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundati...

He may be correct in saying that he is not paid *directly* by the Church for his apologetic undertakings, but that doesn't mean that the Church doesn't smile on him using his time for such.

Moreover, he most certainly does receive some funding from apologetics. Wasn't he paid for example for editing "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon" for FARMS? Or did he just edit it out of love?

Unfortunately, he may be telling the truth about his activities for accounting purposes, but that doesn't make it honest.

"In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today."

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years. The Book of Mormon records that soon after their arrival in the Americas, the descendants of Lehi “multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land” (Jarom 1:8). By about 46 BC, after which time they had joined with the Mulekites, they had multiplied until they “covered the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east (Hel. 3:8). By the time of the final conflagrations around 400 AD, the Israelite populations numbered in the many hundreds of thousands if not millions. There is not a single mention in the text of groups of people living in ancient America, other than the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites. All three population groups had very large populations. It is hardly surprising then that Joseph Smith and all other church leaders have regarded Native Americans to be the descendants of the Lamanites. The God speaking to Joseph Smith in 1830-31 referred to the “borders of the Lamanites” when talking about missionaries being sent to teach Native Americans who had been relocated to Missouri (DandC 28: 9; 54: 8)

"You want to see someone who can't write in smaller than 10,000 word chunks? There's an apostate Canadian lawyer on a certain virulently ex-Mormon board. I think it reasonably certain that no living human being has ever successfully read one of his posts completely to the end -- except, perhaps, for some of the prison guards at Abu Ghraib (where, I'm told, these posts are sometimes read aloud to hardened insurgents, in order to break their wills and get them to talk)."

"I am flattered to have attracted the gaze of one so wise and holy as Dr. Peterson, but disappointed that the best he could muster was a criticism based on length. I am sure he can do better than that but has only so much time to spare from his full time job as Defender of God's Kingdom.

I read an entertaining piece in Sports Illustrated last night - a summary of a recent roast of the fight promoter Don King. He was described in terms that put me in mind of Peterson and his ilk. For King, it was said, the simplest truth is no less than a three rail bank shot."

"Mike Quinn's sexual orientation was well known by the time of his excommunication -- everybody in my circles had known about it for a long time (although, vicious thugs that we are, we never mentioned it in print or any other comparable venue) -- and, I have reasonably solid reason to believe, was known to his stake president."

"In my judgment, it is official doctrine that the Book of Mormon... recounts stories from two or three ancient migrations from the Old World and something of their subsequent history in the New World, and that these groups were ancestral to American Indians.

Affirming those ideas, my standing with Church and University is entirely secure. Denying them would put that standing in some question. By contrast, holding to a Mesoamerican scene for the final Nephite battle, as I and others are strongly inclined to do, seems to have had no impact whatsoever on our standing with either the University or the Church."

"To Rabbi Hier's remark that "It is sacrilegious for the Mormon faith to desecrate [Simon Wiesenthal's] memory by suggesting that Jews on their own are not worthy enough to receive G-ds’ eternal blessing,"

"I would respond that we Latter-day Saints do, quite unapologetically, insist that Jews "are not worthy enough to receive G-d's eternal blessing" "on their own."

We who write such things engage in apologetics because we believe that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the two of them appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near Palmyra, New York, in the spring of 1820, that the Book of Mormon is the record of ancient inhabitants of the Americas, and that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored.

And, what is more, we believe that defending these and related claims against attack, misunderstanding, and distortion--very often from writers who offer a great deal more in the way of evidence and reasoned analysis (it would be difficult to offer less) than anything Alvin, Beaver, Caleb, Doogie, and Eeyore have provided thus far--is a worthwhile thing to do, and something that we're obligated to do.

Mormonism is really a break off Islam They dont think Jesus is the god , they cover up their women and give them no rights, They hate all other religons and you must convert to their religion or go to hell. They get violent tempers when you question their beliefs. They want to take over the earth. The two groups have too much in common.

Such sweeping statements, of course, do not go without response. "I have said this very thing for years," commented the longest and most substantive reply. "Not quite like you've stated it but similar."

• The church doesn't cover up details about polygamy
• The best treatments of church history have been written by true believers
• The details of Joseph Smith's plural marriages are "murky at best."

So the principle that came to me on this was that if you are looking at a religious tradition that has a large number of adherents...then there must be something in it that appeals to different people.

The UVSC student ward over which I preside consists, essentially, of a single apartment complex that has four buildings.

One of the buildings was seriously damaged by fire today, during church. One apartment unit in it was completely gutted, another severely damaged, and many others are smoke- and/or water-damaged. Nobody will be allowed to stay in it over night, and I'm guessing that it will be quite a while before anybody is allowed (or will want) to move back in to most of it.

It was interesting to see the Church's organization move into action. We have housing taken care of for everybody, as well as food and bedding. My elders quorum president lived up to my expectations for him, and did a marvelous job, as did the Relief Society president. My second counselor, whom I deputed to monitor things at the apartment while I finished up some counseling matters that didn't go away even despite the fire, was also superb.

Of course, some of our people lost virtually everything they had, including clothing, so the challenge will not be over in a day or two.

Some of my ward members were interviewed by KSL News. My understanding is that they will be on at 10 PM.

During the meeting that we held immediately after our three-hour block to hand out instructions, assess needs and resources, wait for the authorities to grant access to the area, etc., I couldn't resist having the congregation sing "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning." They got a kick out of it, and sang with gusto.

I'm grateful for the expressions of concern and helpfulness.

Fortunately, although almost precisely a fourth of my ward were refugees as of last night, things seem to be more or less under control.

I was pleased that at least one of the evening news reports mentioned that, thanks to "the LDS singles ward" to which most of the people in the apartment complex belong, they were well taken care of with food, bedding, and shelter. This is true, and, again, the members of the ward, led by my counselor, the elders quorum president, and the president of the Relief Society, handled the situation quickly and extremely well.

A burning candle -- prohibited by the rules of the apartment complex -- was inadevertently tipped over. While the person who tipped it over (not, incidentally, a member of my ward; a few in the complex go to other wards, and a fair number of inactives and non-Mormons live in the complex) was in another room and unaware, flames engulfed the room in which the candle had been tipped over.

1. That he seemed to want to blame the fire on non-Mormons and "inactives, and
2. He seemed to want to use the whole event as a PR opportunity for the Church.

“The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

“Although the Prophet would polish his skills over the years, Emma acknowledged that Joseph possessed only rudimentary literacy at the time he translated the gold plates”

“It [America] was to be the repository of sacred writing on plates of gold from which the Book of Mormon would one day come,”

“In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.”

"These movements often meet a real psychological need for people who want purpose and meaning and structure. And many people have said that cults represent the unpaid bills of the mainstream religions, that these people did not find the religion in which they were raised or the religion that is predominant in society satisfying to them. It didn't give them the sense of purpose or structure that they needed. We are in a society now that's awash in what many people see as relativism. They don't know if they have a purpose and what that purpose would be," says Peterson. "And a cult offers very decisive answers so that they know their place in the universe and their place in society."

Peterson . . . says potential cult members include people from all age groups, and educational and economic backgrounds.

Peterson said the Book of Mormon was revealed to Smith through a seer stone. Smith never went through the golden pages of the ancient record, but instead put the seer stone in a hat, then buried his head in the hat to shut out ambient light. The stone lit up a line of text, about 30 words at a time, which Smith then dictated to his scribe. Once the text was transcribed correctly, the line disappeared and a new line came into focus, Peterson said, quoting eye witnesses who were 19th Century farmers associated with Smith.

"To have created it any other way (The Book of Mormon) would have required scholarly instincts and experience the young, uneducated farm boy did not have, Peterson said."

"The Brigham Young University professor of Islamic studies and Arabic also sought to dispel some of the myths surrounding the Prophet's translation of the scripture.

Peterson said the Book of Mormon was revealed to Smith through a seer stone. Smith never went through the golden pages of the ancient record, but instead put the seer stone in a hat, then buried his head in the hat to shut out ambient light."

"A common belief among LDS members is that Smith put up a blanket or sheet between him and the scribe, primarily Oliver Cowdery, so the scribe couldn't see Smith working with the plates. But Peterson said the only sheets that were put up were to screen the work from folks passing by the windows, more often at the Peter Whitmore home where much of the translation took place."

"I have always made one prayer to God, which is very short. Here it is: God, render our enemies ridiculous! God has granted it to me."

For a long time, many Latter-day Saint academics and intellectuals have sought to bring Mormon studies into the academic mainstream, and recently their efforts have begun to bear some fruit. A number of schools in the United States and even beyond now include courses on Mormonism in their curriculum. Some-including Utah State University and California's Claremont Graduate University-have established endowed professorships in Mormon studies.

The unique Mormon interest in ancient temples has recently reached international audiences with William Hamblin and David Seely's Solomon's Temple: Myth and History3 and John Lundquist's The Temple of Jerusalem: Past, Present, and Future4-both of which, significantly, are dedicated to the memory of Hugh Nibley, the father of temple studies among Latter-day Saints.

Among other things, such developments undoubtedly reflect considerable confidence on the part of their Latter-day Saint participants that both Mormons and Mormonism are capable of holding their own in the academic "big leagues," of moving beyond the comfort zone of the so-called Mormon corridor along the Wasatch Front and even of making a contribution to the relevant broader fields.

But there is another way of looking at the unfolding situation.

"Apologists," one anonymous critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opined on an Internet message board in mid-March 2009, "opt to hold their conferences in high-LDS-density places like Claremont or New England, where their ideas won't possibly face any significant challenges."

Now, I confess that, when I read that sentence, I laughed aloud. And then I laughed again. And then I included it as a signature on my e-mails.

We've actually approached the notion of holding this thing in California with some trepidation and concern, counting on the rather large Mormon population in southern California and the fairly substantial population of Mormon grad students at Claremont to provide an audience. If we venture anywhere else out of Utah in the relatively near term, it's likely to be to the American Northeast, where there are respectable groups of LDS students at Harvard, MIT, Yale, Brown, Princeton, and etc.

The notion that Mormons would choose Harvard and Yale and Princeton and Claremont because, as compared to other places (including the Mormon corridor itself!), those schools are complacently uncritical and Mormon-friendly is, simply, too ridiculous to require refutation.

(Its author was certainly daring, though, to have advanced his claim anonymously, on an obscure message board whose posters are overwhelmingly hostile to Mormonism and utterly enraptured by virtually anything that denigrates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

And no matter how obviously true a proposition may be, there will still be somebody, somewhere, who will reject it. "It's impossible to make anything foolproof," goes the anonymous saying, "because fools are so ingenious."

The fact is that humans can and will believe and disbelieve anything at all. And this is by no means limited only to religious people.

There is undeniable ingenuity in this sort of thing, as there always is in sophistry.

Dr. Daniel Peterson is a BYU Professor of Islamic Studies and an expert on the analysis of scripture. Prosecutors say he "will speak to the coherency of Mitchell's writings." Peterson told us by phone he will testify about whether Mitchell wrote his scripture in an "ecstatic" mental state or whether the writings are "the product of a deliberate, cool mind."

Peterson did not reveal his conclusions to us, and prosecutors barred interviews.

In a motion opposing the testimony, Mitchell's defense team said, "Whether other fringe groups or individuals share similar delusions as Mr. Mitchell's is irrelevant."

Quite honestly, I don't know whether these things matter much in the long run -- surely, intelligent readers/customers will know what to make of such situations -- but there has been a deliberate effort, spearheaded over at the so-called "Recovery Board," to flood the relatively new entry for the Kindle text of the Book of Mormon with hostile, negative, and dismissive comments:

Some believers may want to go there and provide "alternative voices."

Dan Peterson, you are busted again for reading exmormon.org

By far the most impactful criticism against the BoM in the reviews was the one that quoted Mark Twain. Of course, one would be well-advised to take the words of a curmudgeon humorist at face value when dealing with matters of religious faith. Why nobody quoted George Carlin on the subject of religion is a great mystery.

Most of these "one star" comments are entertaining, but some show at least some modicum of thoughtful analysis. The old "it contradicts archeology" argument.

Too bad they don't come here to discuss their views.

The fact is that Professor Gee went on to earn a doctorate from Yale in Egyptology after successfully petitioning for the removal of Professor Ritner, his appointed advisor, from his doctoral committee. (Aug 2 2006, 10:45 AM)- http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Perhaps you're unaware that Professor Gee (successfully) petitioned his department at Yale to have Professor Ritner replaced as chairman of his doctoral committee. Such requests are not commonly made. And they are not commonly granted. Do you think they're best buddies? (Jun 10 2006, 04:56 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Professor Ritner was once Professor Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale University, until he was removed from that position and replaced by another professor. There is a personal history here (of which I was aware as it played out, since Professor Gee had been a student of mine before he went off to graduate school at Berkeley and then Yale. (Mar 22 2006, 08:43 PM) - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

As I've said, various substantive responses are in the works. Whether the personal side of this will ever come out is unknown to me. I wish it would, but I don't think that's my decision to make. (Sep 29 2004, 01:26 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Peterson provided an email from John Gee which included the following:

"I also will not comment on his removal from my dissertation committee other than to note that it was the department's decision to do so. There is much more to the story than what Professor Ritner has chosen to tell." (Mar 23 2006, 07:47 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Dear Mr. Graham,

Thank you for the kind and informative note. My response to Gee's relevant academic output will be contained in the book edited by Brent. Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings. I do not know Mr. Peterson, nor how he would have any knowledge of my involvement with Gee's dissertation (except through misrepresentations by Gee himself), but I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work, and I signaled many errors in his work as a reason. If Mr. Peterson continues to make false allegations, I may have to consider a slander or libel lawsuit. In any case, whoever he is, he is neither competent nor legally authorized to discuss the private matter. I have retained my dated correspondence and may put it on-line if such misrepresentations continue.

Sincerely, Robert Ritner

Daniel Peterson, a politically conservative Mormon who has studied Islam for 30 years at Brigham Young University and in the Middle East, says he is so fed up with "demagoguery" from the mosque's opponents that he is tempted to endorse the mosque.

And yet he, and several Utah faith leaders, separate the issue of religious freedom from another value held highly in a pluralistic society: respect.

"Of course they have a right to do it," says Peterson, professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at BYU.

But if the mosque's proponents refuse to heed the torrent of criticism that it's insensitive to build a mosque near where Muslim extremists killed thousands, Peterson adds, it could hurt the cause of moderate Muslims.

"I would come forward if I were the imam, and say, 'We've listened, we do not want to make enemies. We want to be good neighbors. We respect the feelings and the pain, so we're going to seek another site.'"

"To Rabbi Hier's remark that "It is sacrilegious for the Mormon faith to desecrate [Simon Wiesenthal's] memory by suggesting that Jews on their own are not worthy enough to receive G-ds' eternal blessing,"

"I would respond that we Latter-day Saints do, quite unapologetically, insist that Jews "are not worthy enough to receive G-d's eternal blessing" "on their own."

"The world," a poster on another message board has just announced, "is comprised of two classes of people: intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence."

The charge is both deeply serious and absolutely false. I had nothing to do with the shutting down of MADB. I don't know what occasioned it, and have had no input on it

I will go after the board, and I will go after each and every one of those who have publicly slandered me in this matter to the extent that the law allows. Enough is enough.

First of all, I would like to confirm all of the rumors that have been circulated over at the Great and Spacious Trailer ParkЉ (Mormon Discussions) and elsewhere in the fever swamps during the past few weeks:

Yes, I was indeed directed to go silent by the Packer Faction. The orders were transmitted through the new radioisotope-powered XL-480 device implanted at the base of my skull. (Eat your hearts out, fellow special operatives!) Yes, I really engaged in an unethical and probably illegal effort to illicitly undermine the defense in a prominent federal criminal trial. My shameless corruption and depravity are boundless. Yes, thousands upon thousands of my despicable and incriminating posts here were deleted by order of the First Presidency and/or a federal judge and/or my wife and/or Manny, Mo, and Curley Joe. Yes, I’m being silenced by the Brethren because they’re embarrassed at my antics and disapprove of me. Yes, I’m being silenced by the Brethren because they’re about to call me as a General Authority. And, yes, I was abducted by lesbian neo-Nazi biker chicks recently landed from the planet Zarkon.

But I’m baack. Sort of. It simply seems to me that the ability to announce new publications, symposia, firesides, and that sort of thing on a free public message board is too useful to surrender. Particularly in view of my role as Director of Outreach for the Maxwell Institute. So I’m intending to use this forum occasionally in order to make such announcements. (We'll see whether anybody actually reads this "Pundit" forum.)

Question: I’m LDS, but have pretty much lost my testimony over contradictions between the Church’s “tightly-correlated data points” and history. I continue to go to church because of a bishopric member I can talk to about these issues. In the past, my bishop was a nice guy, but completely ill-equipped to discuss or deal with these things. I’ve tried FAIR, MADB, etc., but nothing really helps much. My question is: what is the Church doing to improve this state of things, and are things getting better in this regard?

Answer: I can empathize with you. When I was younger, I was thrown for a loop over an alleged denial of Oliver Cowdery’s testimony in a pamphlet printed in Tiffin, Ohio. I couldn’t find anybody who could talk about it, and it seemed that there was no effective response. With the passage of time, this was completely discredited as a fraud, but I still remember the panic and feelings of betrayal involved with this. People really do need to put difficult items “on the shelf” and not panic in the meantime as they patiently and faithfully work through their assumptions, issues, etc. People who are struggling really need to go back to the basics, too. A French noblewoman once made the comment about St. Denis, who purportedly walked 100 steps after his execution by decapitation, carrying his head under his arm: “In such a promenade, it is the first step that is important.” Meaning, if the foundational things happened, the rest is just details. If the Father and Son appeared to Joseph Smith, if resurrected angels really ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to the priesthood, if the Book of Mormon people, places, and events were real, if resurrected angels really appeared in the Kirtland Temple, etc. ---- then the reasons for the priesthood ban, polygamy, varying First Vision accounts, etc. are interesting details. Whether St. Denis walked one mile or a hundred is really unimportant --- the real question is whether he walked at all.

Regarding what is being done and whether things are improving, some of us are trying to do just that. FAIR, FARMS/NAMI, etc. are striving to make information and arguments accessible. The real key is helping members who have emotional reactions and feelings of betrayal when they encounter information that contradicts their assumptions or limited understanding of things.

"If there is no life after death and no loving and merciful God, horrific moral evils and devastating natural disasters have the last word."

"It can easily sound heartless (or pie-in-the-sky) to say it, but, from the standpoint of eternity, even death in a tsunami may someday come to seem a relatively small thing."

The character and claims of Joseph Smith are fundamental to the claims of the church he founded. Knowing this, critics of the Prophet have contended for more than a century and a half that he and his family were the kind of people from whom nobody would want to buy a used car, much less receive a plan of salvation.

The Smiths' farming techniques, it seems, were virtually a textbook illustration of the best recommendations of the day, showing them to have been, by contemporary standards, intelligent, skilled and responsible people. And they were very hard-working.

In order to pay for their farm, the Smiths were obliged to hire themselves out as day-laborers...along the way, they produced between 1,000 and 7,000 pounds of maple sugar annually.

• land and tax records


• farm account books and related correspondence


• soil surveys


• horticultural studies


• surveys of historic buildings


• archaeological reports


• interviews with agricultural historians and other specialists

'But I also realized that the Book of Mormon cautions us powerfully against racism and undue ethnic pride.'

'Have a young man read it. “We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally...''

'Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.'

Should the Church apologize for the ban? Its leaders will do what they believe is wise, under the inspiration (as I believe) of heaven. From my vantage point, though, right now, I don't see precisely how they can. I, at least, don't know that the ban wasn't the Lord's will. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe, though, it was. He seems to work through lineages in a way that seems quite foreign to me -- but then, if God always did things the way I think they ought to be done, he would appear to be quite redundant, and maybe only a projection of Me. Which would be, to put it mildly, disappointing.

From among all the nations, he chose Israel. From among Israel, he chose the descendents of Levi to bear the priesthood. He assigned very different blessings to the various tribes of the Hebrews, and he doesn't seem to have been overly fond of the Canaanites. During his earthly ministry, Jesus largely restricted his teaching to fellow Jews.

Anyone involved in Mormon Studies is keenly aware just who Daniel C. Peterson is, a quick look at his publication history at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship website shows a sustained effort in the area of Mormon Apologetics for two decades. Dr. Peterson is not merely limited to apologetics and faith promoting ventures however; he has also participated in the translation and publication of ancient philosophical texts under the auspices of the Maxwell Institute, a worthy contribution to a variety of fields covering History, Philosophy, and Near Eastern studies.

The industry of Mormon Apologetics rarely comes into contact with atheism or secularism, so when I came upon an essay written by Dr. Peterson entitled “Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism” that was published in the FARMS Review (2005), I was eager to read Dr. Peterson’s thoughts. Now it is important for me to mention that Dr. Peterson presented this essay that same year at a FAIR conference (Youtube video here and transcript here), because what I discovered both angered and disappointed me.

The essay itself isn’t enlightening, informative, nor entertaining, which is what disappointed me. Dr. Peterson’s criticisms of secular thought are shallow, but I found them largely unremarkable and seem to come straight out of the usual apologia-lite style of general Christian Apologetics like Lee Strobel or Norman Geisler. What had angered me was Dr. Peterson’s use (abuse really) of Albert Camus as a means to launch some of these criticisms.

For anybody who might be interested: Roughly three hundred affirmations of their faith from reflective and believing Mormons can be read at

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/cate...

And the collection continues to grow steadily.

And for anyone interested in what an actual archeologist of note has to say about most everything claimed by the book of mormon:

http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/interviews...

Michael Coe is an emeritus professor at Yale. He spent his life in archeology in one of the places Mormons like to claim is a strong candidate for the Book of Mormon lands. In short, the archeological record provides no support for those who like to claim the Book of Mormon is a historical record of early inhabitants of the americas. The most damning evidence is that no pollen has ever been found *anywhere* for cereals the Book of Mormon claims were grown.

That is completely separate from the lack of DNA evidence. The Book of Mormon claims arrivals from the Middle east were amongst the "principal" founders of the native americans, though the DNA record indicates this is strikingly not the case. The time periods concerned are practically overnight in genetic terms so any trace should be easy to pick up - no one has come close to finding any supporting evidence. Several LDS geneticists have fallen from the faith when they realized the evidence in the DNA challenged the central occurrences in the Book of Mormon. By contrast, the genetic history of world Jewry is so clearcut that Jewish or non-Jewish heritage of any group of people has been trivial to determine.

You will find no scientific support if you choose to believe in the Book of Mormon and Occam's Razor would suggest that the whole story is fantasy.

Anyone interested in a profession of faith from a believing Mormon "archaeologist of note" is invited to read

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2166...

And perhaps also

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/114/...

(By the way, Michael Coe has had very laudatory things to say over the years about the scholarship of both of these men.)

And more is on its way.

On the DNA issue:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/displ...

Several quite prominent geneticists happen to be believing Latter-day Saints. DNA neither proves nor disproves the Book of Mormon.

Let's hope these "quite prominent geneticists" read this weeks issue of Science magazine - one of the most reputable peer-reviewed journals.

There's an article entitled "Tracing the Paths of the First Americans" which summarizes the findings of six recent papers looking at the genetic ancestry of native Americans. The key sentence is:

"The findings support earlier indications that the Paleoindians, the ancestors of today's Native Americans, stem from a single Asian source population."

And, a reputable geneticist, who happens to be LDS, has shown that a fragment of DNA (which some LDS thought was a a remnant of Lehi's group) has been in the US for about 15,000 years - way before any of the migrations.

With this new data, and previous work, your assertion that DNA neither proves nor disproves the Book of Mormon, is without foundation. All the extant evidence suggests the Book of Mormon account is not even close to being accurate.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publi...

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publi...

In light of the considerations laid out by Dr. McClellan and Dr. Whiting, it's difficult to see how anything in the "Science" article could disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon.

But then, Dr. McClellan is a population geneticist and Dr. Whiting is a prominent molecular biologist, so what would THEY know? Better to take the word of a hostile pseudonymous layman, right?

Very nice and hostile response. I am not a layman, unless you'd consider an active mid-career academic scientist working in a closely related area a "layman". Hostile isn't accurate - I really could care less what people believe as long as the science they base it on is accurate and not distorted.

It's odd that you would name-drop like this. Both scientists you mentioned are well published though don't work directly on ancestry of native americans. The first is a bioinformatician who works on mitochondrial SNPs and Whiting works on insect mitochondria.

Your FARMS and BYU links (which are not - repeat not) peer-reviewed are from 2003 which is a lifetime in this field and predates many of the most significant discoveries in this area and recent techniques of detecting sequence homology in autosomal DNA (in those days a certain mitochondrial haplotype was considered the great hope of LDS researchers - later shown to be inaccurate by a LDS researcher). They are opinion pieces and should be advertised as such.

I'd take a look at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333...

if I were you for the newer techniques in action. I will say it again - the peer-reviewed scientific literature (which excludes personal opinion pieces in BYU publications for obvious reasons) categorically rules out the requirement of Book of Mormon.

As I maintain - the evolutionary record is so clear that an undergrad would come to the same conclusion.

Dr. McClellan's article is a few years old, but that's not enough, in and of itself, to invalidate his points -- and his points suggest that the "Science" article is probably irrelevant to the Book of Mormon. Incidentally, if I've read the particular "Science" article in question, it specifically notes that more testing is needed, and its accompanying map very conspicuously indicates that testing hasn't been done in the area specifically favored for the Book of Mormon by most believing Latter-day Saint scholars.

Thus, even if Dr. McClellan's points DIDN'T hold, the "Science" article would seem to be indecisive regarding the Book of Mormon.

The authors essentially used DNA extracted from burial sites to piece together migration patterns. The data fits prevailing models rather elegantly. Scientists always request more testing to flesh out their datasets and increase the clarity of their results. The request for additional testing noted in the summary piece I cited relates to the not entirely ruled out possibility of additional arrivals from Asia via the Beringian route but additional sequence data will clarify that. That caveat clearly doesn't mean "We're actually expeting some Middle Eastern DNA to pop up if we keep sequencing". The implication of the caveat is entirely different.

Given the abundance of native american DNA already collected, it's not even remotely likely that new samples will change the current outlook, only it will lend further evidence for a precise number of Alaskan arrivals. Were Lehi's party really the "principal founders" they've done a very good job of hiding all evidence - not just in the US genetic record but also in the soil. Their presence was as real in the US as the Kinderhoek plates.

Plus, the data cover both broad regions where one can buy tours to visit the Book of Mormon lands.

Actually, if you had read the articles by Drs. Whiting and McClellan, and if you understood my position (I suspect that you have no idea what it is), you would realize that I'm not "punting" on any scientific discipline, and that I don't expect "Middle Eastern DNA" to turn up.

I read bits of both references you cited, although I skipped the biology lesson at the start of the first link. I skipped over the sentence which would make a peer-reviewer shudder: "First, however, I feel compelled by my faith to state that the only reliable way to test the veracity of the Book of Mormon or statements by modern prophets such as Joseph Smith is to put Moroni's promise to the test on a personal level".

His argument seems to be a restatement of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and that exact answers to research are not an experimental reality. Here we agree though repeated and sustained absence of evidence does undermine the counter hypothesis that Lehi's DNA does exist.

He suggests it's not probable that the genetic trace of a small migrating party would necessarily or logically be detected. Here I strongly disagree - their DNA was different and if they had *any* survivors (even those whose DNA has been collected from native burial sites) it would have shown up, even if those survivors subsequently died out: people reproduce and so does their DNA. Scandinavian and Asian DNA has been detected in the American genetic record.

The author seems to concede that no DNA from Lehi has been found and he's comfortable with this. Given the plethora of accumulated evidence, I'd venture it will never be found. Science attaches a confidence to predictions and on the basis of the available evidence Lehi's DNA never existed.

The second link's author states no scientific experiment can be used to test the account of the Book of Mormon. Then he deals with a number of problems of DNA research and problems associated with detecting evolutionary relationships and points to the difficulties in making conclusions on data which do not directly test a hypothesis: many of the researchers did not specifically look for Lehi's DNA. But scientists are curious beasts and if they detected an interesting bit of DNA they would have devoted attention to it - especially if they detected Middle Eastern DNA. After all - interesting bits of DNA led to our knowledge of mobile DNA and viral integration.

He identifies the problem of the difficulty of detecting small amounts of DNA in a larger population though recent genetic advances, based largely on the explosion of sequence data from around the world, mitigates that concern: traces from tiny founding colonies have been detected in the genetic record.

The enumeration of difficulties still reads like an apology for the lack of evidence. One LDS adherent once told me "Trust me, BYU whizzes are all over this problem". And that itself causes a problem. Evidence of Lehi's DNA would constantly be on our TV screens and used by the missionaries if it were found. But it never will be.

If your position for the lack of DNA evidence (and the more serious lack of a pollen record) is more sophisticated and subtle than this, I'd be very interested to hear it.

I suspect that there are only a handful of diehards monitoring this portion of the comments section, so I'm probably going to opt out soon on the basis of the principle of marginal benefit.

In the meantime, though, I just want to say that I think it would be wonderful to live in a world, as you and all non-Mormons apparently do, where no argument ever turns out to be mistaken, no evidence ever turns out to be wrong, no seemingly solid claim ever proves unreliable, no scholar ever makes a mistake, all propositions are accepted without resistance, and there is no controversy about assertions of fact.

You're punting on a lot of linguistics, archeology, anthropology, molecular biology and evolutionary science, generated by legions of scientists - some LDS - from around the world being not just mistaken but so profoundly wrong that they somehow miss all the events recorded in the Book of Mormon. Good luck with that.

Richard Mouw, Evangelical Leader, Says Engaging Mormons Isn't Just About Being Nice

Richard Mouw never intended to start a riot within the evangelical community by saying his fellow believers had "sinned against Mormonism." But that's exactly what happened.

Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., had been meeting regularly with Latter-day Saint scholars before he gave a seven-minute introduction of Ravi Zacharias, an evangelical speaker who addressed a packed audience in the Mormon Tabernacle in November 2004.

"We've often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of members of the LDS faith," Mouw said that night. "It's a terrible thing to bear false witness."

The impact was immediate.

Some of Mouw's colleagues and fellow believers were outraged. They accused him of selling out, of not standing for the Christian truth or adequately denouncing evil, of being duped.

Undeterred, Mouw continued this line of preaching to evangelicals for the next seven years and maintained regular conversations with Mormons. He has now expanded it into a just-released book, "Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals."

In the book, Mouw argues that understanding Mormonism isn't just about being nice, it's a Christian mandate.

Too often, evangelicals pick up little-taught LDS beliefs -- such as humans becoming gods or having their own planets -- and put them at the center of Mormon theology, rather than at the periphery.

"If in our attempts to defeat them we play fast and loose with the truth by attributing to them things they don't in fact teach," Mouw writes, "then we have become false teachers: teachers of untruths."

Mouw spells out the doctrinal differences between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and historical Christian faiths: the nature of God and Jesus, the nature of the Trinity, nonbiblical Mormon scriptures and the rejection of the creeds.

Mouw disagrees with Mormon theology, but the Fuller president also grapples with what to think about Mormon founder Joseph Smith.

Evangelicals generally view Smith as either a lunatic or a liar, but neither category adequately explains to Mouw how Smith could launch a movement that produced so many good people who share his values. The same argument could be applied to Muhammad and Islam.

Mouw arrives at what could be seen by many evangelicals as a radical idea: He recognizes "the positive workings of God beyond the borders of orthodox Christianity."

I've just learned something new. "Socialcam,"of which I'd never before heard, announces on facebook if you've watched something on it. I got a facebook notice earlier today that a friend had watched something that seemed . . . er, questionable. Surprised that he would watch it, but REALLY surprised that he would (as I thought) choose to ANNOUNCE that he had watched it, I watched it, too, to see if there was something funny or significant in it that would lead him to want to announce it to all of his facebook friends. (There wasn't.) And now I find that I'VE seemingly chosen to announce that I watched the same thing -- which, at least, helps me to understand what happened to my friend (but is, otherwise, slightly embarrassing and quite irritating). My apologies. I've got lots of shortcomings, but this kind of stuff isn't among them.

From: Daniel Peterson
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:18 PM
To: <[M. Gerald Bradford] xxx@xxx.xxx> [18 other recipients, redacted for privacy]
Subject: Re: Charting a new course

Dr. Bradford:

You've achieved your goal. I resign.

I resign as Director of Advancement, effective immediately. You've already fired me as editor of the Mormon Studies Review.

My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.

I realize now, too, that you've been plotting this for some time, and that, naяve fool that I am, I didn't even realize that I was playing chess before I had been checkmated.

There is nothing you can do to prevent this from being an absolutely spectacular propaganda triumph for those who oppose the Institute and despise me, so don't bother trying. As a matter of fact -- since the Institute leaks like a sieve -- I had already read today (on an apostate message board) that there was soon to be a shake-up in the editorial leadership of the Review. They know about it, and they're going to feast on this for years to come.

The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works. You could have waited a bit so that that conclusion would be less apparent, but, of course, you haven't. Frankly, I'm not surprised.

With my sacking now, and with what I presume to be the simultaneous dismissal of Lou Midgley and George Mitton and my other associate editors, which follows the utter marginalization of the scholars who once made up the board of directors and the complete ostracism of Jack Welch and, most recently, the re-alienation of Bill Hamblin, the process of driving away those who committed so much of their energy to the creation and building of FARMS and the Maxwell Institute continues apace.

You think it healthy. I do not.

And let's not pretend that the delay in this issue of the Review, or the slowness with which recent issues have appeared, is the justification for this move. You've never raised the matter with me before. In fact, your own actions have significantly contributed to the delay of this most recent issue. (It's substantially complete, though, and the Institute owes my associate editors the proper fees for their services. It's no fault of theirs that you're spiking this issue.)

I regard this as an utterly wrong-headed and disastrous decision, and will not pretend to support it. And not merely because it will subject me to enormous and quite undeserved public humiliation. It's a betrayal of Elder Maxwell, who explicitly approved of what we were doing. "No more uncontested slam dunks," he said. But now we're returning to the status quo ante, under which there were and will continue to be plenty of "uncontested slam dunks." It's a brazen repudiation of the mandate given to us by President Packer, who, when he spoke at the dinner during which we were officially entrusted with Elder Maxwell's name, praised two specific aspects of the Institute's work: the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and its apologetic efforts. It's a betrayal of the promises we made to our leading donors, who explicitly asked us to do apologetics and, in some substantial recent cases, gave us major donations based on our assurance that we would continue to do so.

You place me in an extraordinarily difficult situation, as I'm supposed to be an advocate for a Maxwell Institute that, in my view, will soon no longer exist, and to maintain good relations with donors to the Institute to whom, in my opinion, we will now prove to have flatly lied. I cannot do that. I don't know what to do about the forthcoming Development Council Turkey trip that I conceived, since several of the people who are slated to participate in it are going, at least partially, because I persuaded them to do so.

I feel obliged to try to make it a good trip and to go, but it will, I think, be my last effort on behalf of the Maxwell Institute, and I won't solicit a nickel more for the Institute from any donors. Given their interests, I think their money should go elsewhere. And, though I won't be so disloyal as to solicit funds from them for anything else during the trip to Turkey, I will feel entirely free to do so thereafter. And I'll be vocal about why I no longer regard the Maxwell Institute as an appropriate recipient of their money. I will explain my resignation, and my reasons for it, in a note to members of the Development Council after the conclusion of the Turkey trip but prior to the October PLC meeting. I do not feel that I can do otherwise and maintain my integrity. I've built up a good relationship with the members of the Smith Family Foundation; good luck in maintaining that.

I agreed to give a private tour to the Holy Land -- the trip that I'm currently on -- partially in the hope of interesting a PLC donor in giving to the Maxwell Institute. We're getting along well, but I'm not going to mention the Institute to him any more. Nursing and Athletics are perfectly adequate continuing recipients of his gifts. And I think I can safely predict that, even without my saying much, you will, with my dismissal, instantly lose one very specific annual donation.

Please note that I have not resigned as editor in chief of METI. I will not let you have that so easily. I founded it. It was entirely my idea. I brought it into the Institute. You'll have to explicitly fire me from that position in order to get rid of me altogether. And I won't take it lightly when you do.

I understand that some contract issues may be affected by my resignation as Director of Advancement. I trust that we can work those out in a civil manner. Pending my dismissal from METI, I will insist that I continue to be compensated as a director in my role, which I will now have more time for, as its editor in chief. I also expect my usual fee as editor of the issue of the Mormon Studies Review that you've killed. It was finished and ready to go.

Very seriously yours,

Daniel C. Peterson
Tiberias, Israel

There have been a lot of rumors floating around the internet recently regarding a scandal brewing at the Maxwell Institute. In order to provide a reality check and quell some of the more wild and brazen speculations of apostates and anti-Mormons on the fringes of Mormondom, I’ll provide the following summary of my understanding of the situation. Some of the details may not be completely accurate, but I have original memos or eye-witness oral sources for almost all of this information.

Last week, Gerald Bradford (bradfordmg@aol.com, 801-422-8619) Executive Director of the Maxwell Institute (maxwell_institute@byu.edu, 801-422-9229), dismissed Dan Peterson (daniel_peterson@byu.edu)--arguably the most prominent contemporary LDS apologist--as editor of the Mormon Studies Review, where he has served for twenty-three years.

This is the culmination of a long-term struggle between radically different visions for the future of the Institute. Peterson wishes to continue the traditional heritage of FARMS, providing cutting edge scholarship and apologetics on LDS scripture. Bradford wants to move the Institute in a different direction, focusing on more secular-style studies that will be accessible and acceptable to non-Mormon scholars. Bradford is especially opposed to LDS apologetics, which he wants to terminate entirely as part of the mission of the Institute. He feels apologetics should be done by FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research http://www.fairlds.org/ ) or other groups.

Throughout the past two years Bradford has censored several articles that Dan planned to publish, thereby delaying publication of theReview. Bradford finally concluded that he refuses to publish the most recent issue of the Review, which has been essentially ready to go to press for six months. He plans to seek a new editor for the Review to move it in the entirely new direction he envisions.

After Dan was fired as editor, he said that he felt he could no longer serve the Institute in good faith as Director of Advancement (i.e. fund-raiser), since the Institute was intentionally abandoning its original mission, and Dan did not support the new direction Bradford was taking the Institute. Dan was then threatened with further possible action against him to try to force him to continue raising money for the Institute that abandoned him. It’s worth noting that Bradford fired Dan by email while Dan was on a multi-week journey in the Middle East--in part raising funds for the Institute--specifically so Dan could not be in Provo to defend himself.

This event concludes a nearly decade-long struggle for the soul of FARMS and the Institute. The contemporary Maxwell Institute is something quite different from the FARMS of ten years ago. (Note that only one of the five “directors” of the current Institute is actually involved in Book of Mormon Studies: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/about/administration.php). Astute observers will note that there has been a steady decline in both quantity and quality of Institute publications over the past few years. (Indeed, more cutting-edge books on the Book of Mormon have being published in the past few years by Kofford Books, Salt Press, and even Oxford University Press than by the Institute.) They may also observe that most of the original core of FARMS scholars from a decade ago, including me, have nearly ceased publishing with the Institute, having been systematically marginalized, alienated, or ostracized by the Institute as it tried transform itself to conform with this new vision. Needless to say, most of the original FARMS scholars have been dismayed by this inexorable movement to remake the Maxwell Institute.

I have had no desire or inclination to publicly comment on this situation. However, this situation became public when an employee at the Maxwell Institute secretly leaked confidential memos concerning Dan’s firing to anti-Mormon apostates, who have posted these memos on the web, and have been gleefully slandering and ridiculing Dan on their message boards ever since. Since the situation has been made public by this leak from within the Maxwell Institute itself, I felt that Dan deserved the benefit of a fair public summary of the real situation. I also felt that interested Latter-day Saints, especially long-time supporters of the original mission of FARMS, deserved a more complete assessment of the situation, rather than being forced to rely on anti-Mormon and apostate slander and speculation. I felt Dan deserved better, much better than this.

The Institute, for its part, has gone into full damage-control and stonewall mode, refusing to make a public announcement, or even to answer emails or phone calls on the subject from their bewildered subscribers and donors who have heard rumors of the affair, many of whom have for years donated money to the Institute specifically to facilitate Book of Mormon studies and apologetic efforts such as the Mormon Studies Review.

I’m posting this summary of my understanding of the situation to alleviate further slander of Dan by apostates. Dan did not ask me to do this. I alone am responsible for this memo.

I'm sure Dan would appreciate any expressions of sympathy and support that could be emailed to him at: daniel_peterson@byu.edu (Anti-Mormons and apostates, please b****r off.) Adieu, Adieu!

You won't even condemn the actions of Will Schryver, whose behavior was so abhorrent that the authorities at the Maxwell Institute threw him off their publication schedule because they wanted nothing to do with him or his antics

I think Will Schryver has been unjustly demonized. - Aug 20, 2011

I'm aware of no real evidence for misogyny on his part - Aug 13, 2011

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

I'll repeat that: I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

None.

Perhaps you folks should reprise a few hundred of the posts that were devoted to that endlessly fascinating subject here a few months back. They didn't convince me then, and they probably won't convince me now - Aug 13, 2011

Every once in a while, Barack Obama lets something slip (e.g., during his previous presidential campaign, his comment to “Joe the Plumber” about redistributing the wealth and his dismissive remark to elite donors about how the common folk in western Pennsylvania “cling to their guns and religion”) that grants us a glimpse into his genuine core socio-political beliefs.

One of the clearest views offered by the current campaign has come with his now notorious “you didn’t build that” remark, made on 13 July in Roanoke, Virginia.

Here’s a heartfelt video response from a small businessman:

http://www.mittromney.com/embed/video...

Several more such responses are available here:

http://www.mittromney.com/videos

And here’s some good commentary from Kim Strassel, at the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000...

Conservatives like myself are acutely aware that personal success relies on a complex network of values and habits inculcated by family and faith, on solid education, on a socio-economic and political system that permits it. I wasn’t all that offended by Hilary Clinton’s famous book title, It Takes a Village, which is said to come from an African proverb declaring that “it takes a village to raise a child.” That proverb seems to me true, in a sense. My parents and my brother were crucial in my upbringing. They played an incalculably huge role in making me, for good or for ill, what I am today. And so too, to a lesser but still significant extent, did a wonderful scoutmaster, an inspiring high school German teacher, the elementary school psychologist who saw to it that I skipped a grade, a handful of influential university professors, a number of pivotal authors, some neighbors, and so on and so forth.

But it’s a giant and unjustifiable leap from acknowledging that “no man is an island, entire of himself,” to paying homage to The State as the author of all, most, or even a substantial portion of what I have and am.

I will not do so.

I am not a slave.

I am not a serf.

Mr. Obama is not my benevolent Great White Father, as presidents used to be portrayed to American Indians back in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. (And, to forestall the obvious comment, neither is he my Great Black Father, or whatever, for the sake of strict accuracy, I would have to call him.) Moreover, one has to say, to the extent that those early Indians trusted in the benevolent care of the Great White Father, look what it got them.

I’m a free man in a Republic. Not a ward of The State. Not a child to be decided for by a purportedly omnicompetent government – which, anyway, hasn’t been doing such a good job with its own proper responsibilities that it should feel justified in attempting to relieve me of mine.

Addendum: Some have claimed that, along with others, I’ve taken Mr. Obama’s words out of context. But have a look at this and then try to tell me with a straight face that he wasn’t disrespecting those who’ve built successful businesses through hard work and ability.

Our goal isn’t just to put people back to work -- although that’s priority number one -- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded.

I’ve got a different idea. I do believe we can cut -- we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently. (Applause.) Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to. And frankly, government can’t solve every problem. If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them. Parents -- we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them. (Applause.)

But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires. There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t --

... look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

There can be no question that scholars, and especially reviewers, who seek to be and behave as Christians, walk a very difficult line. And this is particularly true when the issues at stake involve religion, contentious, disputed matters of ultimate [Page viii]concern and value. Such writers must be fair, and they must not be abusive. But they must tell the truth. And sometimes the truth is that evidence has been deliberately or inadvertently misused or misrepresented, that an argument is invalid, that a thesis doesn't hold water, that an agenda is misguided, that something is poorly written. And, if a reviewer is committed to seeking and telling the truth, such things must be pointed out where they seem to occur.

It would be unrealistic, though, to expect indulgent charity toward our foibles and flaws from all those outside the church. Some will grant it, surely. But some-and particularly those residing in the "great and spacious building" of Lehi's vision (1 Nephi 8:26-28)-will certainly not.

Sometime in the Fall of 1974, I read an article in the Georgetown University newspaper about the open house for the newly built Washington D.C. Temple. I particularly remember its mockery of the temple's new president, a retired Singer Corporation executive whose hand the author had shaken during a press reception. It was a hand, the article sneered, that had undoubtedly demonstrated and sold many sewing machines in its time.

Georgetown is a Catholic school, and I recall wondering whether the article would have been as contemptuous toward Peter, whom Catholics revere as the first pope but whose hands had, undoubtedly, mended and cast a great many fishing nets in [Page v]his earlier years. Or, even, toward Jesus himself, whose youthful hands, we're told, were busy in his father's workshop.

Ironically, such smug elitism would have been quite congenial to those who eventually killed Jesus.

Another point of elite criticism focuses on Mormonism's simple teachings, sometimes dismissed as shallow, and the absence of trained theologians among its lay leaders. Listen again, however, to Peter Brown on ancient Christianity:

"Already, some writers looked down from the high battlements of their classical culture at the obscure world pressing in upon them." Yet the second-century physician and philosopher Galen "noticed that the Christians were apparently enabled by their brutally simple parables and commands to live according to the highest maxims of ancient ethics. The Christian Apologists boasted of just this achievement. Plato, they said, had served good food with fancy dressings, but the Apostles cooked for the masses in a wholesome soup-kitchen!"12

But now, with all this in mind, is there any place in the Kingdom for such a publication as Interpreter?

Emphatically yes!

Interpreter has been founded, at least in part, to ensure that that principle, of caring not merely for professional scholars and academic libraries but for ordinary Latter-day Saints and for religiously-interested outsiders, continues to be honored. Though we hope to adhere to high academic standards, we will not forget our wider audience.

How, one wonders, will they aim to accomplish this? By "dumbing down" their attacks?

Ultimately, it doesn't seem to matter, as the Editor in Chief goes on to make a bold pledge:

I was very proud of the FARMS Review and the Mormon Studies Review.

And Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture is going to be even better. As is plainly evident from this first volume, it has established a high standard for itself. We pledge that we will maintain that standard.

So, there you have it: an article that's about charity, and about how Mopologists can expect Charity from Christians, or from "elites" of Plato's ilk, and that the MI will carry out this mission of charity by writing articles suitable for Relief Society sisters in Parowan (who apparently want to read about C.L. Hansen's sexual exploits at BYU), and by continuing to do apologetics and to write reviews that will continue to be praised "for telling the truth as its authors perceived the truth to be."

I have to admit that I was blown away by this remark:

I can report that, in my sincere and serious judgment, those who wrote for [FARMS] did a very good job, through nearly a quarter of a century, of maintaining fairness and charity.

Whoa! "Metcalfe is Butthead" is the maintenance of charity? Citing authors so anti-semitic that they were kicked off the faculty of Notre Dame is maintenence of charity? Claims like this make you wonder if whatever plagued Louis "Woody" Midgley's article is contagious.

In any event, as the Emeritus B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies at Cassius University, I can't help but view this article along the continuum of Mopologetic history writ-large. So, you can imagine my surprise when I read this, in the comments section:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

T., actually, the essay was written before the recent unpleasantness at the Maxwell Institute.

Time Donations (estimated cash equivalent)
Administrative 80 hours x $50 $4000
Editing 20 hours x $50 $1000
Technology and Media 110 hours x $50 $5500

Martin Luther King was a seriously flawed man. The plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation, the adulteries, the blurring of his Civil Rights mission and his dalliance with various leftist causes in his latter years - these were and are unfortunate.

There's always "Everybody Wang Chung," I suppose. He claims to be a currently serving bishop. He also claimed that his wife surprised him with a tour to Israel this past April/May, led by me. He was, he promised, going to go and to report back to his apostate buddies on all my silly Mopologist antics there. Later, when asked, he claimed to have actually gone, and again, under prodding, promised to provide a chronicle of my ridiculousness while he was with me in the Middle East. So far as I can tell, he's never done so. Finally, just the other day, I got out a list of all of the people who accompanied me on that tour, and I had a friend who is a bishop cross check it against the Church's leadership directory. There were no currently serving bishops on that tour. I suppose Everybody Wang Chung's claim could still somehow be true, but I very much doubt it. It seems far and away most likely that he isn't a currently serving bishop, despite his assertions (he doesn't seem to believe much of anything, and is contemptuous of those who do, often in pretty foul language), and that he didn't go to Israel with me. In other words, if I had to bet, I would bet that he's a fraud.

The records of the Church are confidential, whether they exist on paper, in computers, or in other electronic media. These include membership records, financial records, notes of meetings, official forms and documents (including records of disciplinary councils), and notes made from private interviews.

Leaders and clerks are to safeguard Church records by handling, storing, and disposing of them in a way that protects the privacy of individuals. Leaders ensure that information that is gathered from members is (1) limited to what the Church requires and (2) used only for approved Church purposes.

Information from Church records and reports may be given only to those who are authorized to use it.

Information that is stored electronically must be kept secure and protected by a password (citation omitted). Leaders ensure that such data is not used for personal, political, or commercial purposes. Information from Church records, including historical information, may not be given to individuals or agencies conducting research or surveys.

In Latin, the word pontifex means "bridge builder." But the term very soon took on a much more exalted sense. This may be because bridges over the Tiber River, which runs through the city of Rome today and which was thought to be sacred and a god, were regarded as spiritually significant. They may have been thought to smooth the "bridge," symbolically speaking, between gods and men, and between this life and next. (In C. S. Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia, in a chapter entitled "The Very End of the World," at the very end of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Aslan explains that "I am the great Bridge Builder." C.S. Lewis knew his Latin and Greek well.)

There were many who thought that Brigham Young University lacked the ability and the gravitas to pull it off; one now-deceased professor at Harvard, after meeting with me, tried rather surreptitiously to launch his own series. (Friends at various universities nationwide told me about being invited to join him, which they didn't.) This was, in the early days, a very serious threat to the viability of our project, and one of my most gratifying days came when he threw in the towel and sought to be re-invited to our advisory board.

The goal was to make these texts accessible in every sense of the word, including keeping the prices deliberately low. (This once gained me a stinging rebuke from an officer of the Dutch academic publisher E. J. Brill, famous for its high prices, who excoriated me for "ruining the market." I was very pleased.)

Last month, amidst the continuing aftereffects and fallout of the events that took place within the Maxwell Institute in the middle of June 2012, seeing literally no alternative and no way to function, I finally resigned as editor-in-chief of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative.

As BYU becomes just another school, I look around and see nowhere to send my kids to college in 5-7 years. I strongly suggest you and your colleagues look for a way to turn Interpreter into a foundation that can pay for the livelihoods of faithful scholars, since it's inevitable you and any who defend the church will be pushed out of Provo by the traitors to the faith.

Let's hope and pray that BYU goes no further down that road.

There's not a question in my mind that women are, on the whole, at least the equal of men, spiritually speaking. And I have no doubt that they would administer church matters as well and effectively as men do. I can think of no earthly reason for not conferring the priesthood upon them. I would be perfectly content, even happy, if they were ordained.

The only objection that I can think of is that the Lord hasn't sanctioned, let alone commanded, the ordination of women. I have no idea why. But that seems to me a lethal objection. Moreover, I would have no interest in belonging to a church in which the decision to ordain women came as a result of committee discussions, surveys, politicking, and protests, rather than by revelation.

I can think of no earthly reason for not receiving blood transfusions. I would be perfectly content, even happy, if God allowed them.

The only objection that I can think of is that the Lord hasn't sanctioned, let alone commanded, the medical practice of blood transfusion. I have no idea why. But that seems to me a lethal objection. Moreover, I would have no interest in belonging to a church in which the decision to allow blood transfusions came as a result of committee discussions, surveys, politicking, and protests, rather than by revelation.

"This is an exceedingly strange development," wrote the late NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow, "unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth ... (But) for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; (and) as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

There is still very much to do, and it seems to me that many leaders of the Black community have lacked Martin Luther King's moral courage and, consequently, have not addressed the vast problems facing those for whom Dr. King gave his life.

By sheer chance, I ran across a statistic this morning that makes the problems starkly evident. Young black males - so it says (I've not verified it and I don't know exactly how "young" is defined) - represent 1% of the American population, but commit 27% of America's murders.

This is, I presume, connected with the well-chronicaled collapse of the Black family in America. But there's nothing intrinsically "Black" about the matter. For many years after the American Civll War, black families were more sturdy than White families. It seems that other factors - almost certainly including misguided government social policies - have intervened in more recent decades. But where are Dr. King's successors on this pressing issue?

Among the weirdest and most disingenuous performances in recent memory was Mr. Hitchens's effort, in his bestselling book god is Not Great, to portray the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King (along with the Lutheran anti-Nazi pastor and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer) as an unbeliever.

There is still very much to do, and it seems to me that many leaders of the Black community have lacked Martin Luther King's moral courage and, consequently, have not addressed the vast problems facing those for whom Dr. King gave his life.

By sheer chance, I ran across a statistic this morning that makes the problems starkly evident. Young black males - so it says (I've not verified it and I don't know exactly how "young" is defined) - represent 1% of the American population, but commit 27% of America's murders.

This is, I presume, connected with the well-chronicaled collapse of the Black family in America. But there's nothing intrinsically "Black" about the matter. For many years after the American Civll War, black families were more sturdy than White families. It seems that other factors - almost certainly including misguided government social policies - have intervened in more recent decades. But where are Dr. King's successors on this pressing issue?

You're really, really having to reach in order to demonize me on this one, Hellmut Lotz.

Apparently, not even the tiniest deviations from liberal orthodoxy are to be tolerated. To allow them to slip by would be a sign of weakness, I suppose.

Hellmut Lotz wrote:

I am actually a conservative, Dr. Petersen. Like Edmund Burke, I think that adhering to the facts is important. As a conservative, I find your unfounded accusations of civil rights leaders troubling. Why did you not google Al Sharpton's speeches before you launched those accusations?

Have you read the research on crime and race? Are you aware of the empirical studies?

Who are those disciples of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who fail to "press family values"? Whose speeches have you listened to? When was the last time, you have been in an African American church?

Nobody is demonizing you. I do expect of you, however, to consider the relevant empirical facts more carefully. Likewise, the logical implications of your argument would benefit from more critical engagement as well.

You seem not have noticed the fact that I'm not even remotely impressed by the example supplied from Al Sharpton.

Notice this: You can redefine conservatism, I suppose, and use an eccentric redefinition of "family values." But don't expect that your rhetorical ploys will go unnoticed, and don't expect me to treat your position as, by default and on the basis of your bare assertion, factually true and ethically superior.

RG wrote:

Dan, on the off chance you care about the way in which the Mormon (intellectual) community will be perceived by your actions, I ask that you refrain from posting about MLK.

RG, on the off chance that you care about being perceived as a hypersensitive and politically correct ideologue with totalitarian tendencies, I would suggest that you reconsider the wisdom of trying to silence others.

You cannot reasonably view my entry about as either racist or critical of Martin Luther King. But you can, I'll admit, do it UNreasonably.

I'm not trying to silence you, Dan. That would entail petitioning Patheos or some other power-that-be to remove your posts. I'm asking that you be more self-selective in what you write given the way it reflects on the rest of us. This isn't a question of _my_ interpretation, it's a question of how reasonable others _could_ read your post.

Take this phrase, for instance: There is still very much to do, and it seems to me that many leaders of the Black community have lacked Martin Luther King's moral courage and, consequently, have not addressed the vast problems facing those for whom Dr. King gave his life.

Why isn't it reasonable to read this as, "Dan is saying that many leaders of the Black community lack moral courage?"

I scolded nobody on racial issues. I voiced concerns about a problem that strongly affects the black community.

Your determination to treat blacks as fragile infants who must always be praised and addressed with baby talk, coos, and avuncular tickles under the chinny-chin-chin, but never with frank honesty, isn't one that I share.

And your tendency to insinuating that those who disagree with you on this are racists is flatly evil.

Your attempt to blackmail me because I'm the current president of SMPT is, thus, exceptionally inappropriate.

There is nothing in my blog post above that a reasonable person can reasonably construe as racist, and your attempt to bully me into a vow of perpetual silence (and into acquiescence to your views) is shameful.

Look. I find a number of your views objectionable, but I would never suggest that you be silent. I lack the hubris, for one thing.

Your racial hypersensitivity and preening moral superiority disqualify you from having a significant opinion on the topic, and certainly make you look ridiculous in presuming to judge another.

Go away. You have nothing of value to offer.

Some are, no doubt, wondering how I can be doing all this traveling and still maintain a job. Good question: I’m on research sabbatical. Reduced pay, obligation to produce at least two books. And half the weight that we brought with us on this family-purpose trip was books. At the moment, while others are out strolling on the beach, I’m sitting at a desk, with books scattered around me, looking at the ocean from a distance. And, if it will make you feel any better, I’m coming down with my second cold of 2014. Life is hard.

It's one thing to believe in moral principles; it's quite another to be able to justify them, to give an account of their source. And this seems to me a particular problem for atheists.

1. [premise] Human belief in morality is the result of an evolutionary adaptation.
2. [from 1] Hence, the basis of our ethical judgments doesn't lie in any part of the objective framework of the universe.
3. [from 2] So, our ethical judgments are not rationally justified despite seeming to be true. (i.e., our ethical judgment are illusory.)

1. If there is no God, objective morality and moral obligations don't exist.
2. But objective morality and moral obligations do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.