Featuring Dan
Peterson's Email Exchange
with the Author of the
Moroni the Alien Site
Your bit on the God of Mormonism being a space alien was astoundingly
puerile and stupid.
OK, puerile.. but why stupid?
To whom, etc.:
Since your site invited comment, I remarked that "Your bit on the God of
Mormonism being a space alien was astoundingly puerile and stupid."
In your reply, you agreed that it was puerile, but asked why it was also
stupid. I am happy to oblige with an explanation. First, permit me to
quote the passage on which I made comment:
"Mormonism is based on the opinion that an Extra -
Terrestrial Space Alien from a planet in another solar system, who
glowed, hovered and spoke English, visited a farm boy in New York,
circa 1820. The alien explained, amongst other things, about lost
tribes of Israel, told of the existence of iron smelters and money and
horses in pre-Colombian America, and illuminated other Truths."
This passage is stupid because, among other things,
(a) It seeks to score points by the use of mocking language rather than
by argument. Mormons never speak of God as either an extraterrestrial
or a space alien. That is language of your choice, clearly for purposes
of denigration. But misrepresentation of the position of your opponent
in order to make his or her position less tenable than it really is, or
to make it easier to refute, is classically known as "the straw man
fallacy." Falling into logical fallacies is stupid.
(b) It misrepresents the historical claim made by Joseph Smith and, on
his behalf, by Latter-day Saints ever since. (The straw man fallacy
again, by the way.) There is no account of Joseph Smith's "First
Vision," to the best of my knowledge, that has either the Father or the
Son say anything, even a single word, about "lost
tribes of Israel" or "the existence of iron smelters and money and
horses in pre-Columbian America."
I assume that you have the First
Vision mixed up with the visit of Moroni, which occurred some years
later. Even if that is the case, however, it is doubtful that Moroni
spoke of the things you mention. It is debatable, in fact, whether the
Book of Mormon itself speaks of them in the way you imply. Thus, your
description of Joseph Smith's experience distorts the historical
sources. And making egregious, indisputable, and easily detected
historical errors is stupid.
(c) Your apparently ironic mention of the fact that God, according to
Joseph Smith's accounts of his First Vision, was able to speak English,
scores a cheap point. But it would seem that ability to speak English
would be among the least of the capacities pertaining to any plausibly
divine being. If he can create the world, presumably he can also learn
to conjugate the verb "to be." Thus, this point is easily shown to be a
cheap shot. And making cheap shots that are painfully obvious as cheap
shots is stupid.
I am pleased that I can be of service.
Cordially,
Daniel Peterson
>To whom, etc.:
--- So? Mormon's gods ARE from outer space, are they not? You're already
not scoring points by argument. YOU have been to the planet Kolob (in the
constellation Cancer, right?) -- you ought to be able to recognize your
fellow ET's.
That is language of your choice, clearly for purposes
-- So?
> But misrepresentation of the position of your opponent
-- It's hard to make it LESS tenable, my friend. So far you score big on
pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, but I'll read on to find the meat here...
>to make it easier to refute, is classically known as "the straw man
--- B***s***. [The
Worst comments: The ugly, offensive explicative has been deleted.
This is, after all, a family site.]
>(b) It misrepresents the historical claim made by Joseph Smith and, on
--- you only CLAIM I mis-stated, you didn't say what I got wrong. Tell me,
and I'll fix it.
>his behalf, by Latter-day Saints ever since. (The straw man fallacy
--- don't blame ME if there is no account of it. If there is no account of
whatever you're talking about, then I suppose any speculation is fair game.
I assume that you have the First
--- Yes... I probably did get my visions mixed up. Sorry.
>spoke of the things you mention. It is debatable, in fact, whether the
--- an easily detected error was made by Smith -- there were no hoses, cows,
silk, iron or steel, money, etc. in pre-Colombian America. Get an education;
read a book.:) J**** c****, people like you irritate the s***
[The Worst
comments: As is the editorial policy of the Worst, the ugly
offensive explicatives have been deleted.] out of me!
>(c) Your apparently ironic mention of the fact that God, according to
--- I think even more to the point, for example, omitting viruses from the
creation would have been eaven easier. G**,
[The Worst
comments: Okay, so you get the idea.] you're a goof-ball.
>would be among the least of the capacities pertaining to any plausibly
-- thanks for writing.
>
From: Daniel Peterson
To whom, etc.
You are in worse condition than I had anticipated. And probably not
worth much more of my time. So, unless you have a cogent response to
the following, this will be my last posting to you.
You write, "YOU have been to the planet Kolob (in the
constellation Cancer, right?) -- you ought to be able to recognize your
fellow ET's."
Hostility doesn't count as an argument. And the constellation Cancer?
I'm fascinated to learn where Kolob is. You're the first person I have
encountered who claims to know.
As to my theological position, you remark, "It's hard to make it LESS
tenable, my friend."
I must have missed your arguments, evidence, and analysis. Possibly a
computer glitch.
"So far," you say, "you score big on pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook."
Sorry if I write over your head.
I wrote, "Falling into logical fallacies is stupid."
You replied, "Bullshit." A very powerful counterargument. I assume,
from what you say, that you do *not* regard committing logical fallacies
as stupid. That's an interesting position to take, but I can imagine
that it makes life easier for you.
I pointed out that your summary of the First Vision "misrepresents the
historical claim made by Joseph Smith." You respond, incorrectly, that
"you only CLAIM I mis-stated, you didn't say what I got wrong."
But I *did* say what you got wrong. I expressly noted that "There is no
account of Joseph Smith's 'First
Vision,' to the best of my knowledge, that has either the Father or the
Son say anything, even a single word, about 'lost
tribes of Israel' or 'the existence of iron smelters and money and
horses in pre-Columbian America.'
In other words, not one of the items that you mention as having been
conveyed to Joseph Smith in the First Vision appears in any account of
that vision. That's at least four errors in one sentence.
Thus, your response -- "don't blame ME if there is no account of it. If
there is no account of
whatever you're talking about, then I suppose any speculation is fair
game" is misguided. Because there *are* accounts of the First Vision,
and, although they give many details, they fail to support your claims.
So you are not free to speculate as if there were no evidence, any more
than I am free to speculate that World War II began in the nineteenth
century or that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was about microchips.
You claim that "an easily detected error was made by Smith -- there were
no ho[r]ses, cows,
silk, iron or steel, money, etc. in pre-Colombian America. Get an
education;
read a book.:)"
I *have* read a book. Have you? Because your claim here is highly
debatable, on several counts, and you don't seem to be aware of that.
It makes serious students of the subject laugh. (For which I thank
you. Life can be too dreary sometimes.)
"Jesus christ," you say, "people like you irritate the shit out of me!"
I certainly hope so. When you are finally cleaned out, it will improve
your thinking.
"God," you conclude, "you're a goof-ball."
But it wasn't clear whether your concluding comment was addressed to me,
or to God. So I don't know how to reply, or whether I am even the one
who should. And I'm not going to waste any effort on trying to figure
it out. (God will presumably reply when it suits him.)
Cordially,
Dan Peterson
>To whom, etc.
--- I claim YOU should know where your pre-existence was hatched. I'm an
earthling, and I have it on authority from Mormons that they hail from
Kolob. It's BYU's astronomy department, BTW, who puts your home planet in
Cancer. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for volunteering not to write
back. Perhaps this will have been some impetus to LOOK UP your beliefs.
--- It appears from the below, that there is no meat! (boy, am I
surprised!) Pre-Colombian iron barb with which to poke back! Nothing shows
why I'm wrong. For one who likes to throw about the word 'argument' as much
as you, you certainly haven't given one. Me, I put less weight on argument
as I do on humiliation and denigration. Argument is a waste of time with
closed-minded religionist apologists like you. God knows I've tried. Sow
me a pre-Colombian coin, for ch***t's sake! Show mw as much as a f***ing
[The
Worst comments: The ugly, offensive explicative has been deleted.]
pre-Colombian pay-lay-ale fish-hook. You're an idiot, and the really
humiliating part is that *I* am expected to pay for it all. That's because
churches get to weasel out of paying their fair share of the tax burden.
Sorry, It just irritates me. So you see -- you win, after all! But we'll
both agree ,I think, with the words of the prophet Smith, when he said, (in
Adamic): "Ette ateg legma, hunni atte smegla nu". I'd only add: "Only a
fool would have a false religion".
>As to my theological position, you remark, "It's hard to make it LESS
Ooh. You're irresistable. One more time, and then I really must give
this up.
"It's BYU's astronomy department, BTW, who puts your home planet in
Cancer. Correct me if I'm wrong."
You're wrong.
"Me, I put less weight on argument
as [than] I do on humiliation and denigration."
That's fairly obvious. But it isn't working with me. Sorry, but I can
only be humiliated by or before someone whose opinion I value.
"Argument is a waste of time with
closed-minded religionist apologists like you. God knows I've tried."
You haven't tried it with *me*. You haven't even recognized the
arguments I've supplied to you.
"S[h]ow
me a pre-Colombian coin, for christ's sake!"
Why should I? I don't believe there were any. Show me where the Book
of Mormon text says that there were. (Don't point to the
recently-added, and non-canonical, chapter headings. I mean the text
itself, as it appeared in 1830.) You know, you really are behind on the
issues. This one has been dealt with, over and over and over again.
I'm embarrassed for you.
"You're an idiot."
I assume that means you give up. I don't blame you. In your shoes, I
would too. But I think we can both agree, in the words of yet another
prophet, that "anteh himaar."
>Ooh. You're irresisti[a]ble. One more time, and then I really must give
>"It's BYU's astronomy department, BTW, who puts your home planet in
--- you're right! BYU does not even have an astronomy department. Not much
of biology, either! HA! (I made that part up. forgive me). But BYU has a
strong Business department! Everyone in that writhing waiting mating tank
is taking business and "education"! Critical thinking is right out. Tax
exemption is in, of course. Art, of course is out, as all the world learned
recently by the censorship on campus.
--- I can be humiliated by anyone whose f***ing
[The Worst comments: Of course, the
ugly, offensive explicative is deleted.]
religion I'm forced to pay for.
>
Yes, I haven't tried with you. I gave you some hooks to nibble on, but alas
no iron-clad evidence of pre-Colombian fish hooks will ever come from you,
or from anyone. It's Smith whose goofy maginations you swallow, hook, line
and sinker. Get an education; read a book, for christ's sake.
>
--- Well you should, if you're LDS. The BOM is full of iron artifacts. But
perhaps it was translated incorrectly. HA! Perhaps iron really means
salami and steel means popcorn. And Kolob, the pre-existence is not in
outer space, but in your head or up your a**
[The Worst comments: Of course, the ugly,
offensive explicative is deleted.]. I think head fish-hook and
all is up your pseudo-intellectual condescending puerile bung-hole.
>recently-added, and non-canonical, chapter headings. I mean the text
It's not my problem if the people you support have "wrapped it in a plastic
bag and turned it upside down", now, is it? Perhaps the puerile farm-boy
version was truer. Don't try to confuse me with facts -- my mind is made
up.
>
---- Hm... I see you speak Adamic. But I must really take you up on you
kind offer and ask you to PLEASE not bug me again. Or I'll turn you into a
white salamander.
This exchange is truly remarkable and worth reading to the
end. If you are among the unfortunate fraternity (or
sorority, for that matter) of humorless or humor-challenged
anti-Mormons, you may not want to read further.
From: Daniel Peterson
To: roswell@NOWSCAPE.COM
Date: Saturday, December 27, 1997 11:01 PM
Subject: Comment
From: Hi [NOW@nowscape.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 3:29 AM
To: Daniel Peterson
Subject: Re: Comment
From: Daniel Peterson
To: Hi
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: Comment
From: Hi [NOW@nowscape.com]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 1997 11:52 PM
To: Daniel Peterson
Subject: Re: Comment
>
>Since your site invited comment, I remarked that "Your bit on the God of
>Mormonism being a space alien was astoundingly puerile and stupid."
>
>In your reply, you agreed that it was puerile, but asked why it was also
>stupid. I am happy to oblige with an explanation. First, permit me to
>quote the passage on which I made comment:
>
>"Mormonism is based on the opinion that an Extra -
>Terrestrial Space Alien from a planet in another solar system, who
>glowed, hovered and spoke English, visited a farm boy in New York,
>circa 1820. The alien explained, amongst other things, about lost
>tribes of Israel, told of the existence of iron smelters and money and
>horses in pre-Colombian America, and illuminated other Truths."
>
>This passage is stupid because, among other things,
>(a) It seeks to score points by the use of mocking language rather than
>by argument. Mormons never speak of God as either an extraterrestrial
>or a space alien.
>of denigration.
>in order to make his or her position less tenable than it really is, or
>fallacy." Falling into logical fallacies is stupid.
>again, by the way.) There is no account of Joseph Smith's "First
>Vision," to the best of my knowledge, that has either the Father or the
>Son say anything, even a single word, about "lost
>tribes of Israel" or "the existence of iron smelters and money and
>horses in pre-Columbian America."
>Vision mixed up with the visit of Moroni, which occurred some years
>later. Even if that is the case, however, it is doubtful that Moroni
>Book of Mormon itself speaks of them in the way you imply. Thus, your
>description of Joseph Smith's experience distorts the historical
>sources. And making egregious, indisputable, and easily detected
>historical errors is stupid.
>Joseph Smith's accounts of his First Vision, was able to speak English,
>scores a cheap point. But it would seem that ability to speak English
>divine being. If he can create the world, presumably he can also learn
>to conjugate the verb "to be." Thus, this point is easily shown to be a
>cheap shot. And making cheap shots that are painfully obvious as cheap
>shots is stupid.
>
>I am pleased that I can be of service.
>
>Cordially,
>
>Daniel Peterson
>
[The Worst comments: Dan just has too much fun with
the ugly, offensive explicatives. So I have not edited
them out.]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 1:32 PM
To: Hi
Subject: Re: Comment
From: Hi
To: Daniel Peterson
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Comment
>
>You are in worse condition than I had anticipated. And probably not
>worth much more of my time. So, unless you have a cogent response to
>the following, this will be my last posting to you.
>
>You write, "YOU have been to the planet Kolob (in the
>constellation Cancer, right?) -- you ought to be able to recognize your
>fellow ET's."
>
>Hostility doesn't count as an argument. And the constellation Cancer?
>I'm fascinated to learn where Kolob is. You're the first person I have
>encountered who claims to know.
>tenable, my friend."
>
>I must have missed your arguments, evidence, and analysis. Possibly a
>computer glitch.
>
>"So far," you say, "you score big on pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook."
>
>Sorry if I write over your head.
>
>I wrote, "Falling into logical fallacies is stupid."
>
>You replied, "Bullshit." A very powerful counterargument. I assume,
>from what you say, that you do *not* regard committing logical fallacies
>as stupid. That's an interesting position to take, but I can imagine
>that it makes life easier for you.
>
>I pointed out that your summary of the First Vision "misrepresents the
>historical claim made by Joseph Smith." You respond, incorrectly, that
>"you only CLAIM I mis-stated, you didn't say what I got wrong."
>
>But I *did* say what you got wrong. I expressly noted that "There is no
>account of Joseph Smith's 'First
>>Vision,' to the best of my knowledge, that has either the Father or the
>>Son say anything, even a single word, about 'lost
>>tribes of Israel' or 'the existence of iron smelters and money and
>>horses in pre-Columbian America.'
>
>In other words, not one of the items that you mention as having been
>conveyed to Joseph Smith in the First Vision appears in any account of
>that vision. That's at least four errors in one sentence.
>
>Thus, your response -- "don't blame ME if there is no account of it. If
>there is no account of
>whatever you're talking about, then I suppose any speculation is fair
>game" is misguided. Because there *are* accounts of the First Vision,
>and, although they give many details, they fail to support your claims.
>So you are not free to speculate as if there were no evidence, any more
>than I am free to speculate that World War II began in the nineteenth
>century or that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was about microchips.
>
>You claim that "an easily detected error was made by Smith -- there were
>no ho[r]ses, cows,
>silk, iron or steel, money, etc. in pre-Colombian America. Get an
>education;
>read a book.:)"
>
>I *have* read a book. Have you? Because your claim here is highly
>debatable, on several counts, and you don't seem to be aware of that.
>It makes serious students of the subject laugh. (For which I thank
>you. Life can be too dreary sometimes.)
>
>"Jesus christ," you say, "people like you irritate the shit out of me!"
>
>I certainly hope so. When you are finally cleaned out, it will improve
>your thinking.
>
>"God," you conclude, "you're a goof-ball."
>
>But it wasn't clear whether your concluding comment was addressed to me,
>or to God. So I don't know how to reply, or whether I am even the one
>who should. And I'm not going to waste any effort on trying to figure
>it out. (God will presumably reply when it suits him.)
>
>
>Cordially,
>
>Dan Peterson
>
>
From: Daniel Peterson
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 8:17 PM
To: Hi
Subject: Re: Comment
From: Hi
To: Daniel Peterson
Date:
Subject: Re: Comment
>this up.
>Cancer. Correct me if I'm wrong."
>
>You're wrong.
>
>"{{{{[ I ] }}}} Me, I put less weight on argument
>as [than] I do on humiliation and denigration."
>
>That's fairly obvious. But it isn't working with me. Sorry, but I can
>only be humiliated by or before someone whose opinion I value.
>"Argument is a waste of time with
>closed-minded religionist apologists like you. God knows I've tried."
>
>You haven't tried it with *me*. You haven't even recognized the
>arguments I've supplied to you.
>"S[h]ow
>me a pre-Colombian coin, for ch***'s
[The Worst comments: Of course, the
offensive explicative is deleted.] sake!"
>
>Why should I? I don't believe there were any. Show me where the Book
>of Mormon text says that there were. (Don't point to the
>itself, as it appeared in 1830.) You know, you really are behind on the
>issues. This one has been dealt with, over and over and over again.
>I'm embarrassed for you.
>"You're an idiot."
>
>I assume that means you give up. I don't blame you. In your shoes, I
>would too. But I think we can both agree, in the words of yet another
>prophet, that "anteh himaar."
[The Worst comments:
Actually, "anteh himaar" is Arabic. For those who
simply must enjoy the irony, it means something like, "you
are an ass." And fortunately
and perhaps mercifully, the correspondence ended.]