The Interpreter Radio Show

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Lemmie »

Reading back through this thread was fun. Where else would I have come upon this delightful definition of feminism and who can speak about it than in the Interpreter Comment section?

Feminism in its broadest sense is just looking at things from the perspective of women, which are after all 50% of all humans. Julie is a woman, so she is likely to give that perspective.

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 34086
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Jersey Girl »

Lemmie wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:28 pm
Reading back through this thread was fun. Where else would I have come upon this delightful definition of feminism and who can speak about it than in the Interpreter Comment section?

Feminism in its broadest sense is just looking at things from the perspective of women, which are after all 50% of all humans. Julie is a woman, so she is likely to give that perspective.
Oh lord.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Tom wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:00 pm
Rest in peace, Grindael.

I happened to catch a recent broadcast of the Interpreter radio program. Here are the most significant moments:
Tom:

I cannot thank you enough for bringing all of this to our attention. Very valuable. If I may, I'd like to comment on a few things...
A guest notes that she and Dr. Peterson once crash-landed together in a hot air balloon in Turkey. Host Martin Tanner remarks, "Remind me not to climb into a hot air balloon with Professor Dan Peterson."
When I first read this (I admit that I was scanning over it in an arguably hasty way), I read it as, "Remind me not to climb onto the hot air balloon that is Professor Dan Peterson."
The same guest says she calls Dr. Peterson the "Street Fighter of Apologetics" and "Our Intellectual Porter Rockwell."
I'm sure that this was the highlight of his entire year. That, and getting to stick it to the CDC by defying their rules!
During a discussion of the Witnesses project in the second hour, Dr. Peterson notes that they were looking at, probably, the summer of 2021 for the dramatic film's release. He said they've interviewed about ten scholars for the documentary and wanted to interview ten more.
If that's the case, then why did they recently have a "gathering" of 50+ people in an enclosed space during the pandemic?
Dr. Peterson says he has heard reactions to the film that the actor playing Joseph Smith looks too young. Dr. Peterson says he responded, "Do you know how old he's supposed to be in that scene? . . . 23. Guess how old [the actor] is? He's 23." I would guess that the actor is actually older than 23.
The main, rather mean criticisms of the actor that I've heard have had to do with his (mostly moving-violations-related) criminal record--not his age. But okay.
Dr. Peterson wants to put up a simple website at some point featuring all of the documents related to the witnesses.
Oh, I have little doubt that it will be "simple." LOL!
Mr. Tanner, discussing his practice of inviting listeners of his own radio show to pose any questions they want: "“Even if they ask something I don’t know anything about, if you drill down far enough, eventually—even if the surface looks bad—it will be a faith-promoting experience. I truly, truly believe that, and the more I look into it, the more it kind of has to be [a faith-promoting experience], because the church is true, so how could it be anything else?”

Dr. Peterson: "I find that, in terms of the church, too, the pushback I'm getting now is more from secularists, ex-Latter-day Saints who become atheists, who've lost all of their faith. And so that is one of the reasons why I'm interested in doing this other project, you know, my series of books. I've described it occasionally--I hate to always have this combative rhetoric--but I've described it as 'my little hand grenade to be tossed into the camp of the unbelievers.' Or, to put it another way, to cause them doubts about their doubts. I would like them to scratch their heads and say, 'you know, this is really odd. I don't know how to explain this. Maybe there's some truth to this.' Just get them to think. I don't think I can--or anybody can--give you faith with a book. You have to get it for yourself."
Okay. Then why bother with the book? Not exactly a very convincing endorsement, is it?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

Tom
God
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Tom »

I must confess that I am concerned that the Street Fighter of Mopologetics is not getting substantive feedback at the film’s various showings. Has anyone commented on Joseph using the sacred plates as a weapon against the ruffian? Has anyone criticized the inaccuracies in the translation scene or the silliness of the courtroom scene? I would attend one of these showings to offer some constructive criticism, but I’m not about to sit in a theater with 50 other people, including a number of senior citizens who are highly vulnerable to the virus. It’s probably safer to attend one of Kwacovid’s NCMO lap-dance parties featuring the hottest hits of 2010. (Speaking of Kwacovid, he’s putting on a “Mask-Querade Dance Party” tonight. I am not making this up.)

User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:03 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by malkie »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:41 pm
Daniel C. Peterson
-I hate to always have this combative rhetoric--but I've described it as 'my little hand grenade to be tossed into the camp of the unbelievers.' Or, to put it another way, to cause them doubts about their doubts. I would like them to scratch their heads and say, 'you know, this is really odd. I don't know how to explain this. Maybe there's some truth to this.' Just get them to think. I don't think I can--or anybody can--give you faith with a book. You have to get it for yourself."
Yawn! Boring..........same old Kool Aid, which I quit drinking a loooooooong time ago....... his hand grenade :lol: won't even hold a candle to a mere firecracker........all noise, no damage.
I don't know, Philo.

Doesn't every atheist you know feel as if a hand grenade had been tossed into their camp when they find something they can't explain.

It's so easy for a believer: "goddidit" - end of story.

But to an atheist - it is totally devastating.

Remember the bad old days when we couldn't explain thunder, or rain, or the retrogade motion of the planets? Thanks to the god-whose-existence-we-deny, there was religion to help us out so that our intellectual worlds didn't explode.

Perhaps DCP is onto something.
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21271
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Kishkumen »

"I find that, in terms of the church, too, the pushback I'm getting now is more from secularists, ex-Latter-day Saints who become atheists, who've lost all of their faith. And so that is one of the reasons why I'm interested in doing this other project, you know, my series of books. I've described it occasionally--I hate to always have this combative rhetoric--but I've described it as 'my little hand grenade to be tossed into the camp of the unbelievers.' Or, to put it another way, to cause them doubts about their doubts. I would like them to scratch their heads and say, 'you know, this is really odd. I don't know how to explain this. Maybe there's some truth to this.' Just get them to think. I don't think I can--or anybody can--give you faith with a book. You have to get it for yourself."
Cause them to doubt their doubts?!?!?!

In the present context I think “owning the libs” would be a better comparison. I can’t think of any successes he has had at getting atheist ex-Mormons to “doubt their doubts.”
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10194
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Res Ipsa »

Kishkumen wrote:
Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:48 am
"I find that, in terms of the church, too, the pushback I'm getting now is more from secularists, ex-Latter-day Saints who become atheists, who've lost all of their faith. And so that is one of the reasons why I'm interested in doing this other project, you know, my series of books. I've described it occasionally--I hate to always have this combative rhetoric--but I've described it as 'my little hand grenade to be tossed into the camp of the unbelievers.' Or, to put it another way, to cause them doubts about their doubts. I would like them to scratch their heads and say, 'you know, this is really odd. I don't know how to explain this. Maybe there's some truth to this.' Just get them to think. I don't think I can--or anybody can--give you faith with a book. You have to get it for yourself."
Cause them to doubt their doubts?!?!?!

In the present context I think “owning the libs” would be a better comparison. I can’t think of any successes he has had at getting atheist ex-Mormons to “doubt their doubts.”
Comments like that convince me that Peterson has neither the experience nor the empathy to understand what it's like to be an atheist. I suspect that the vast majority of us interpret the world through some form of rational skepticism. For a rational skeptic, doubting is as ingrained as breathing. The rational skeptic understands that her conclusions are probabilistic judgments that are subject to change depending on changes in the facts.

Rational skeptics feel no obligation to "explain" everything. They understand that there is evidence we can't access and may never be able to access. They understand that the response to questions they cannot answer is "I don't know," and not "it must be something supernatural." For a rational skeptic, Peterson's hand grenades don't explode. The response is: "I don't know -- let's look at the evidence and see if we can figure it out.

I fully understand the god of the gaps argument. No volume of questions I can't answer is going to persuade me that the best way to respond to unknowns is to make up something supernatural to fill the gap. Doing so has a very poor track record in answering questions about the world.

Doubt your doubts is a cute little thought-stopping phrase. Maybe it's comforting to LDS folks who have doubts but don't want to. To me, it's not an invitation to think. It's an invitation to not think.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3560
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Dr Exiled »

He's clearly speaking to the faithful. As Res Ipsa points out, no atheist, if any, will doubt their doubts and go back to believing fairy tails, regardless of anything Dr. P says online or in any book. He is messaging the faithful that the battle is joined. They can take comfort in knowing that Dr. P is on the wall, looking for targets for his grenade(s), with his trusty senior warrior Midge by his side and Kiwi57 there to bring water to the troops. Their defense to the indefensible probably causes more damage than good if the questioning members actually read what the defenders say. However, there is power in being able to point to a book here or a website there that has "answers" even if the "answers" are poor answers.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

Most High
Nursery
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:41 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Most High »

I listened to the interpreter radio show: https://interpreterfoundation.org/inter ... t-30-2020/

Most of the show was like listening in to a bunch of Trumpist discussing conspiracy theories combined with the participants cheering on Dan as their "spiritual Porter Rockwell".

What suprised me was that Dan Peterson shared some insights regarding the Joshia Stowell (unintended early "golden plates" witness) encounter with Joseph Smith jr on the eve of his return with the golden plates. In Dans comment he showed that not only does he conflate a series of different and contradictory reports of the event into one seemingly coherent story, but he also showed that he has not read the actual source documents resulting in him promulgating historical errors.

The accounts that he conflates are the written statement from the 1830 court case, Lucys statement and Tiffany and Campbells later third hand recollections.

The most serious mistake he makes is where he claims with fervent voice that "Stowell had claimed to see the golden leaves and characters on the leaves" in the encounter.

While wishful thinking, this is a blatantly false statement based on a superficial glance of the source documents.

This is what Stowell actually describes (not very faith promoting in my eyes):

"..witness saw a corner of it; it resembled a stone of a greenish caste; should judge it to have been about one foot square and six inches thick..".
(http://user.xmission.com/~research/early/court1830.htm)

Then is added in the text:

"..it was unknown to Smith, that witness saw a corner of the Bible, so called by Smith; told the witness the leaves were of gold; there were written characters on the leaves.."

It is JSjr that tells Josiah Stowell that there were leaves with characters, Joshia only saw the corner of a greenish stone wrapped in cloth.

Dan Peterson wants to include what Joseph Smith jr told Joshia Stowell about the plates, as if Joshia Stowell himself said that.

While others claim that Peterson has no integrity, I think that he does, and I am sure that he will clear up this little misunderstanding in his next radio show.

Post Reply