DCP phones in Paley

[_EAllusion]

I like how it starts off with a quote from (i) Paley, then (ii) Plato and (iii)Cicero get vaguely referenced, then (iii) Darwin gets some attention, which leads into (iv) Dawkins, which circles back to (v) Russell, then the mentioning of a book by (vi) James Gardner, oddly conjoined with a quote from (vii) Heinz Pagels, then (viii) Fred Hoyle, and lastly Paul Davis (viii).

8 people get invoked in a periodical that is less than 800 words.

One of Dr. Peterson's favorite arguments, if not the overriding theme of his apologetic career, is to argue that respectable, intelligent people believe something, so we too can trust what they think is intellectually respectable. This is best read as part of that genre.

[_Philo Sofee]

One of Dr. Peterson's favorite arguments, if not the overriding theme of his apologetic career, is to argue that respectable, intelligent people believe something, so we too can trust what they think is intellectually respectable. This is best read as part of that genre.

Spot on. I honestly don't know, but based on the pattern for years I have seen in his writings, he quotes people from ancient times, and medieval times, and current modern times, scientists, atheists, sociologists, economists, other religious leaders than Mormons, Mormons themselves, and tries to cover a range from 6,000 B.C. from many ancient cultures, Islam, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Spain, wherever, and ties it all together (mere snippets of a couple sentences out of sometimes multiple hundreds of page books mind you, hardly representative of the over-arching point of any book he ever uses), and says or assumes, hey look at the parallel here with some Mormon doctrine, or speculation (er.....revelation) of Joseph Smith! Isn't that interesting that the ancients all over the place and time also had that thought, therefore there has been a divine restoration! Joseph Smith is a prophet, let us genuflect....... er fast and pray. And his reading is only ever on a specific side, with specific assumptions, and with only ever always, without fail, with only ever possibly (this cannot possibly in any imagination be over exaggerated) conclusion, the one he always begins with......ever, that Mormonism is accurate, and a divine restoration because hey in some obscure text on page 432, paragraph 3, sentence 6, it mentions cureloms, or what-have-you, therefore Joseph Smith was right since he could never have known that! Nibley's flawed methodology will haunt him for the rest of his life.

There is only one reason Dr. Peterson writes or is interested in anything whatsoever. Mormonism is right.
1. To give hope Mormonism is right.
2. To give hope God is real.

From these two assumptions, all of his writing is guided into a pre-ordained conclusion, and his blinders keep him on the "stalwart" "faithful" "loyal" "valiant" path of truth via Mormonism. If it weren't for that, he wouldn't have enough interest to care. The only reason he loves Islam is it supposedly gives him nifty little insights into Book of Mormon culture (as he interprets it), and because Nibley said once in class Arabic! Study Arabic no one is doing anything in it, and it's a gold mine for us.

Reality of what science has discovered is truly just not even cared about, unless it can reflect on some facet, some aspect, of Joseph Smith's cosmological, historical, doctrinal, or theological/philosophical claims. Otherwise, he probably would have ended up being a busboy or something.

[_Lemmie]

good points, philo, but I would disagree with you in only one minor area...

the one he always begins with......ever, that Mormonism is accurate, and a divine restoration because hey in some obscure text on page 432, paragraph 3, sentence 6, it mentions cureloms, or what-have-you, therefore Joseph Smith was right since he could never have known that! Nibley's flawed methodology will haunt him for the rest of his life.

You'll notice I highlighted your example of "page 432."

I have noticed that when DCP quotes a book, he almost exclusively quotes from either the roman numerals found in the Introduction of books, and/or the book pages one through nine. I recall only rarely seeing him quote from any double or triple digit pages, unless it is from an essay printed as a chapter in someone else's book, or unless he lifted the reference from someone else's work he is plagiarizing.

Like I said, this is extremely minor, but I really get the impression DCP doesn't actually read any of the books he quotes from, at least not beyond the first few pages. Maybe this is why he can't resist plagiarizing, he really doesn't know the material.

[_Philo Sofee]

I have noticed that when DCP quotes a book, he almost exclusively quotes from either the roman numerals found in the Introduction of books, and/or the book pages one through nine. I recall only rarely seeing him quote from any double or triple digit pages, unless it is from an essay printed as a chapter in someone else's book, or unless he lifted the reference from someone else's work he is plagiarizing.

Like I said, this is extremely minor, but I really get the impression DCP doesn't actually read any of the books he quotes from, at least not beyond the first few pages. Maybe this is why he can't resist plagiarizing, he really doesn't know the material.

Very good eye Lemmie! Heck I never even thought of that, I have been looking at the ideas, not the actual numbers. Yet another probability evidence seeming to favor the theme we all have noticed about his writings.

[_Tom]

I like how it starts off with a quote from (i) Paley, then (ii) Plato and (iii)Cicero get vaguely referenced, then (iii) Darwin gets some attention, which leads into (iv) Dawkins, which circles back to (v) Russell, then the mentioning of a book by (vi) James Gardner, oddly conjoined with a quote from (vii) Heinz Pagels, then (viii) Fred Hoyle, and lastly Paul Davis (viii).

8 people get invoked in a periodical that is less than 800 words.

The column's structure is similar to a column he published five years ago. He started off with a quotation from (i) Paley's Natural Theology, then characterized the impact of (ii) Darwin (2018: "But then Darwin’s own theory of evolution hit western thought like a freight train, seeming to eliminate any need for a designer — and Darwin himself apparently died a sometimes rather tortured and despondent agnostic"; 2013: "But Darwin's theory of organic evolution -- his "Origin of Species" was published in 1859 -- dealt natural theology a serious (and, some think, fatal) blow. Neither design nor a designer seemed necessary any more to account for the complex variety of the natural world"), which led into (iii) Dawkins, and then turned to (iv) Hoyle, (v) Dyson, and (vi) McGrath.

[_Tom]

... then the mentioning of a book by (vi) James Gardner, oddly conjoined with a quote from (vii) Heinz Pagels

I have noticed that when DCP quotes a book, he almost exclusively quotes from either the roman numerals found in the Introduction of books, and/or the book pages one through nine. I recall only rarely seeing him quote from any double or triple digit pages, unless it is from an essay printed as a chapter in someone else's book, or unless he lifted the reference from someone else's work he is plagiarizing.

Like I said, this is extremely minor, but I really get the impression DCP doesn't actually read any of the books he quotes from, at least not beyond the first few pages. Maybe this is why he can't resist plagiarizing, he really doesn't know the material.

I noticed that the quotation from Gardner is from page 8 of Biocosm and the quotation from Pagels is found on page 6 of the same book.

[_Maksutov]

What was true of Nibley often seems the case with Peterson:

As noted in BYU:A House of Faith, by Bergera and Priddis, pg 362

"As a former BYU history professor observed in 1984, '[Nibley] has been a security blanket for Latter-day Saints to whom dissonance is intolerable.... His contribution to dissonance management is not so much what he has written, but that he has written. After knowing Hugh Nibley for forty years, I am of the opinion that he has been playing games with his readers all along.... Relatively few Latter-day Saints read the Nibley books that they give one another, or the copiously annotated articles that he has contributed to church publications. It is enough for most of us that they are there.'"

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What was true of Nibley often seems the case with Peterson:

As noted in BYU:A House of Faith, by Bergera and Priddis, pg 362

"As a former BYU history professor observed in 1984, '[Nibley] has been a security blanket for Latter-day Saints to whom dissonance is intolerable.... His contribution to dissonance management is not so much what he has written, but that he has written. After knowing Hugh Nibley for forty years, I am of the opinion that he has been playing games with his readers all along.... Relatively few Latter-day Saints read the Nibley books that they give one another, or the copiously annotated articles that he has contributed to church publications. It is enough for most of us that they are there.'"

Man, ain't the truth. If you were to remove all their copy pastas, and in Peterson's case his plagiarisms, you might, YOU MIGHT, come away with an average Sunday fast and testimony meeting witness.

- Doc