Who’re you going to believe? Anonymous Critic X or your lying eyes?

 

 

Several of my critics have been mocking me as a coward for many months now, because I refuse to engage criticisms of my views.  A clear example of my cowardice is the fact that this blog doesn’t allow comments.

 

Feel free to comment.

 

 

Print Friendly

  • Adrian T

    Dan P. I think you are a crazy dude but this is funny!!!! Well played sir!

  • http://www.TheYoungLionsServant.com גּוּר אַרְיֵה יְהוּדָה

    Not to worry, Dan. I don’t care to refute/argue/agree/disagree with anything you say or do, I’m merely here to uproot your religion, and the method whereby this is accomplished is not through reason but through emotion. Remember, people don’t change (convert) based on logic, they convert based on emotion, and with this same method, I’ll ensure that my efforts are “felt’ more than you can possibly imagine. Remember, the cousin of Sigmund Freud … you know, good old Edward Bernays? Well, if you don’t let me leave you with a few of his most important quotes:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.”

    In other words, “you’re doing it wrong”. In other words, I’m refuting any and all your arguments without refuting any of your arguments, or as in the words of Edward Bernays, “It is sometimes possible to change the attitudes of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.” Your arguments may or may not be valid, but at the end of the day, I’m focusing on the “millions”, who, according to Harold B. Lee’s 1973 article in the Ensign, are “gullible”.

    If you didn’t already know, Joseph Smith didn’t convert a single person through logic, nor has any other Prophet or Apostle since his time, and using this same method, I’m doing the reverse. In fact, I’m already partly responsible for your “losing the presidential election” and your “non-existent” “Mormon Moment”. You see, you are dealing with a force that is unstoppable–I know very well the ways and methods whereby humans are manipulated and I will continue to use those methods to achieve my ends. I’ll leave you with the following excerpt from the book “Luciferianism or Satanism in English Free Masonry, An Essay, Part 2″:

    “The Magic Triangle of the Pagan Theosophties is the celebrated … (for diagram, see: http://www27.us.archive.org/stream/cihm_05662/cihm_05662_djvu.txt) … to which they ascribed extraoridnary virtues, and which they figured in an equilateral triangle [as depicted in the diagram in the link listed above]. Number of letters 66 = 6 plus 6 = 12 = 3 x 4 – 6 plus 6 plus 7 = 18 = 9 [; i,e.,] 666. This combinations of letters if the Key of the Pentagram. The initial A is repeated in the single word five times and reproduced in the whole figure thirty times. which gives the elements and numbers of the two figures No. 5 and No. 6. The isolated A represents the Unity of the first principle, or of the Intellectual or Active Agent. The A united with the B represents the fecundation of the Binary by Unity. The R is the sign of the Ternary, b, because it hierographically represents the effusion that results form the union of two principles. The number of letters int eh single word (11) adds on (Unity) of the Initiate to the denary of Pythagoras; and the whole number of all the letters added together is 66. Kabalistically 6 plus 6 forms the number 12, the number of a sqare whereof each side is the Ternary 3, and consequently the mystic quadrature of the Circle. The author of the Apocolypse that–of the Christian Kabala has made up the number of the Beast, that is to say of Idolatry, by adding 6 to the double senary (66–making 666) of the Abracadabra, which Kabalistically ( 6 plus 6 plus 6) gives 18, the number assigned to the Jarot to the hieroglyphic sign of the Night and of the Profane. The Moon with the towers, the Dog, the Wolf, and the Crab,–a mysterious and obscure number, the Kabalistic Key of which is 9, the number of initiation … On this subject the sacred Kabalist says: ‘Let him who has understanding (that is to say, the Key of the Kabalistic numbers) calculate the number of the Best, for it is the number of a Man, and this number is 666′. (Rev. xiii, 18). This is in fact the decade of Pythagoras multiplied by itself, and added to the sum of the triangular Pentacle of the Abracadabra; it is therefore the summary of all magic in the ancient world; the entire programme of the human genius, which the divine genius of the Gospel wish to absorb or supplant.”
    Source: “Luciferinism or Satanism in English Freemasonry An Essay”; L. Fouquet, O.M.I; Part 2; Montreal Cadiuex & Dermoe, 1603 Rue Notre Dame, year 1898; pages 71 & 72.

    I’ve been called by a higher power to cleave the last “6″ from “666″ thereby sending back to hell the “divine Genius” that Joseph Smith tried so hard to restore.

    So, “Who’re you going to believe? Anonymous Critic X or your lying eyes?” … The time for argument is over, the time for critics is finished, the separation of the “wheat from the tares” will continue despite your arguments, and unfortunately for yourself and your religion, you ended up on the side of the tares.

    The pentagram will be restored to it’s proper position, the Circle restored to it’s perfect form, and Mormonism’s attempted restoration of the “Kabalistic Key” and initiation rights will be thrust down to hell from where they came.

    Mormonism is a cancer, and I’m the cure

    וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי אֶחָד מִן־הַזְּקֵנִים אַל־תִּבְכֶּה הִנֵּה נָצַח הָאַרְיֵה אֲשֶׁר הוּא מִשֵּׁבֶט יְהוּדָה שֹׁרֶשׁ דָּוִד לִפְתֹּחַ אֶת־הַסֵּפֶר וּלְהַתִּיר שִׁבְעַת חוֹתָמָיו
    – חזון יוחנן, 5, פסוק 5, בתרגומו של

    • danpeterson

      Great stuff!

    • Rodney Ross

      And YOU think Daniel Peterson is wacko? Whew.

    • Jason Covell

      Thank you, o Lion of Judah, for clarifying matters in that way.

      Well played, sir, well played. Oh, and the quoting of Revelation in the original Hebrew was a nice touch, a good display of your bona fides. Can Dr Peterson himself claim to have ever done as much? I thought not.

      (Even better was the leaving in of the translator’s credit at the end – very noble and/or selfless.)

      • Ginger Westinghouse

        Why thank you, I always like to contribute whenever and wherever I see fit.

        Oh yes, and here’s missing “translator” information that I forgot to include in my original post:
        *translated by Franz Delitzsch

        I figured that, given Joseph Smith’s love for the “correctness of the German language”, I should use translations from a German Lutheran, Biblical Scholar who lived in the 1800s.

        Oh yes, and since it’s necessary to follow each and everything your beloved Joseph Smith spewed forth from his bowels, here’s a link to Franz Delitzsch works: (I mean he’s German Biblical Scholar, Joseph Smith claimed that the German Bible and writings were the most correct, so it follows that Franz Delitzsch’s works must be more correct than non-German works)

        http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Delitzsch%2C%20Franz%2C%201813-1890

        In addition, and as concerns the art of “argumentation”, remember (yes, it’s a rash judgment on my part that you’d remember anything of intellectual worth; so in your case you can ‘try to remember’, is that fair?) that during the first part of the last century, a great man by the name of Bertrand Russell discovered a very interesting paradox in mathematics; let’s see what Russell had to say:

        “An analysis of the paradoxes to be avoided shows that they all result from a kind of vicious circle. The vicious circles in question arise from supposing that a collection of objects may contain members which can only be defined by means of the collection as a whole. Thus, for example, the collection of propositions will be supposed to contain a proposition stating that “all propositions are either true or false.” It would seem, however, that such a statement could not be legitimate unless “all propositions” referred to some already definite collection, which it cannot do if new propositions are created by statements about “all propositions.” We shall, therefore, have to say that statements about “all propositions” are meaningless.… The principle which enables us to avoid illegitimate totalities may be stated as follows: “Whatever involves all of a collection must not be one of the collection”; or, conversely: “If, provided a certain collection had a total, it would have members only definable in terms of that total, then the said collection has no total.” We shall call this the “vicious-circle principle,” because it enables us to avoid the vicious circles involved in the assumption of illegitimate totalities.”(Whitehead and Russell 1910, 37)

        Now, after you so-called “academics” read through Russell’s own words about 1,000 times (you might need to read through it 1,500 times, it’s a tough read, and academics who study religious subjects aren’t the most “astute” persons when it comes to rational thinking) , then consider the following (and keep in mind, to this day, Russell’s paradox has NOT be resolved or solved … yes, this paradox creates quite a few problems when one attempts to establish categories of broad generalizations):

        -Mormonism claims to encompass all truth. This belief is a generalization, and as explained by Russell, this generalization cannot be true. Why? Well, if one defines Mormonism as encompassing all truth then by virtue of Mormonism being a truth, in and of itself, then Mormonism must be defined by the “master-set” of Mormonism; that is, Mormonism must contain itself, and since Mormonism cannot contain itself, either Mormonism doesn’t exist or statements about generalizations about Mormonism are paradoxical, and therefore false. Fortunately, well fortunately for this discussion, yet unfortunately for “real life”, Mormonism does exist, therefore, and as demonstrated above, we must accept that statements about generalizations about Mormonism are false. … Therefore Mormonism DOES NOT encompass all truth–it can’t and never will.

        I can go on for days and days, but this comment alone, will required more than a few hours for you so-called “academics to digest. When all is said and done, your “logical arguments” are, well, LOL. No matter what logical arguments you make, you will be required, by default, to create some sort of generalization, and it’s this process of generalizing, wherein a paradox is created, that your argument is destroyed.

        Believe me, I’d love to “argue” about your subject material all day long, however, the subject material is not the problem (well, it is a problem, but it’s not the root of the problem), the problem is, if you will, your inability to understand “logic” to the point of understand that “logic” breaks down when creating “encompassing theories” about anything.

        I sure do love you guys, you make my life very entertaining, but not nearly as entertaining as the results I see, on a daily basis, from my “emotionally-charged”, and yes, very much illogical, argumentation methodologies.

        If you don’t understand anything I’ve written, then please, at least try to understand this: I’m better than you … and I’m winning this war.

        • danpeterson

          Cory Kazoo:

          As you see, I haven’t silenced you. But I’m guessing that I probably will, eventually. (And perhaps fairly soon.)

          If you plan to post lots of interminable and largely incomprehensible essays, you’ll need to start your own blog, or something of that kind, rather than use mine as a platform.

          With best wishes,

          Daniel Peterson

        • Kiwi57

          Cory/Ginger announced:

          “If you don’t understand anything I’ve written, then please, at least try to understand this: I’m better than you … and I’m winning this war.”

          I don’t know what “war” that might be, unless it’s the “war” to establish who has the most inflated ego.

          In which case, I unconditionally surrender. Your ego is bigger than all the rest of ours put together.

          And your word games would be mildly entertaining if they weren’t so verbose.

  • nealqr

    Well, now they are just going to say that you just barely enabled comments (though I have seen comments here before, so that is obviously not true). You perhaps would have been better off letting them believe that you don’t allow comments…

    Also, I find is ironic that anyone would accuse you, an apologist – or, in other words, someone who constantly engages criticisms – of not engaging criticisms.

    • danpeterson

      I know. I know. Weird.

      Anyway, if anybody wants to claim that I’ve only just now enabled comments, he or she is entirely welcome to read through some of the several hundred comments already here. (I put them all up tonight, of course. No. Wait. This is better: The world was just created three minutes ago, and all of the comments, and all of our memories, were created then, too. Or something like that.)

  • b_nu

    hehe

  • Craig

    How dare you to not allow people to comment! Oh, wait . . . uh . . . well now I feel as silly as a Dan Peterson critic.

  • http://www.google.com Jamison

    Oh, I did comment, in fact, I commented immediately after you made this post, Dan; however, you refuse to post my comment … why’s that Dan? You called me out, and I responded immediately. Now it’s your turn to post what I wrote, and yes, my post is quite serious and shouldn’t be taken lightly. Anyway, I’ve made my intentions clear, I’m here to uproot Mormonism from the inside out. Anyway, there’s no arguing needed, my methods are not your methods, and my methods actually work,–again, you need to look no further than Mormonism’ s failed “Mormon Moment”.

    • danpeterson

      I’m guessing that you must be our logorrheic little Hebrew-dropping friend, above.

      Here’s something you’ve got to understand, Jamison, prior to your next grandiloquent oration regarding my injustice to you:

      Sometimes comments here are approved by somebody or other connected with Patheos. On the other hand, sometimes I do it.

      Evidently, the person from Patheos — I have no idea who it is — hasn’t been around this evening. (It’s Saturday night, after all, and some of us actually have lives.)

      I myself was out for dinner and a play with my wife and some friends. I’m afraid that it just never occurred to me that I should stand them up in order to wait around on the off chance that you might post something here.

      Patience! Sometimes your brilliance might have to wait a few hours for public display. In fact, it’s not inconceivable that it might have to wait for as much as a day or two, because I travel a lot and don’t always have access to (or a hankering for) the Internet.

      Anyway, your essay’s up now.

      So sorry.

      • HarryHenderson

        Understood, and thank you for clarifying. I too can’t spend every waking hour performing my duties as a “Mormon critic”.
        Your #1 Fan,
        Kore Kosmou

  • Marwan

    Wow – this is funny. Hebrew dude is high on crack or some other stimulant. But all great people have been thought to be such. (Freud was a Coke addict. I’m sure many of his theories and his brothers included lines of Coke and whores hips. Now that is a source of inspiration!) I’m hoping to touch the hem of his garment and be healed. He’s sort of his own prophet or god. The cure to “Mormon cancer”. Hahaha. So logical and reasoned. Its funny how self described keepers of “reason” and “logic” have such religious fervor. I typically don’t like listening to crazy megalomaniacs who think they can “rid the world” of this or that by any means especially by logic. In the end we are feeling creatures and it is impossible to affect millions without taping into the emotions that connect the millions. Isolated mental or real masturbation just won’t do it. So good luck dude – I’m glad someone believes in you, that’s a start. Now getting those millions to do so might take a miracle of sorts. Hebrew characters are too arcane I’m afraid to connect with the common man. A new strategy might be employed. Like a free give away or something. Come back to me with another offer and maybe I might be opened to becoming one among of the masses of your enlightened followers. For now Dan frankly, I think is much better company anywhere, anytime than a bi-polar delusional cancer researcher.

  • Lucy Mcgee

    Hunter S. Thompson once wrote, “it was weird, really weird, but not weird enough for me”. It seems as if Dr. Peterson’s Patheos blog has gone to a darker place. Not sure what purpose this kind of challenge serves except to unearth some latent hatred from some readers of this blog. It doesn’t feel like the many online readers are going to gain much from such a challenge except to read “stuff” as written by Jamison, the self indulgent end all and ultimate authority.

    I’m hoping Dr. Peterson will offer up his knowledge to forward positive communication of people seriously interested in solving the problems we all face. This may require a bi-partisan approach.

  • Mark Jasinski

    Please, Dr. Dan…go back to your old policy of not allowing comments.

  • danpeterson

    You can see why, in the old days, I didn’t. But Patheos prefers comments.

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson

    I don’t think the megalomaniacal comments are from a real person. They read rather like a random text generator that was cooked up by an undergraduate computer science student to demonstrate that computer software with no self-awareness, let alone common sense, can simulate the appearance of a real human being, albeit an extreme one, as a candidate for passing the Turing Test. Not that the software is that good, it is just that real human discourse, ala the internet, is such a debased form of communication that it need have no rational content whatsoever.

    • danpeterson

      LOL!

  • http://aimeessunshineblog.blogspot.com Sunshine

    It’s the Getarounda principle.
    1. Loudmouth critic boasts he’s won, but is being silenced, so nobody can tell.
    2. Adherent gives critic the floor.
    3. Critic takes the floor and issues forth things that don’t earn him a win.
    4. Viewing public all can see this.
    5. Critic updates boast to how he is going to getarounda winning eventually.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X