Mormon Times article on DCP

[_Trevor]

This guy hits on the constant criticism I have made of Dan (and for which he called me a buffoon and self-inflating gas bag, among other things), the inability (or unwillingness) to see things from other peoples' point of view, to understand what believe feel or believe and why they feel or believe it, to grant any kind of concession to any argument offered in contrary to his, or to reflect critically on his own beliefs.

One wonders if Dan will write in response to this anonymous poster (egad, Crocket now he's on Crocket's hit list too) and call him names? Maybe a 'self-inflating alternative fuel bag' (in recognition of the high cost of gas)?

I concluded essentially the same thing while I was still at BYU. I know Daniel deeply disagrees. He claims, and I have no reason to doubt it, that he has received many thanks from people whose testimonies he has saved. I think that on the balance, however, the rhetorical posture he takes, and likewise those of Midgley and other apologists, do more harm to the LDS Church than good. It was after reading several reviews written by these fellows that I found myself deeply dissatisfied with what was going on. I asked one of his colleagues about the problem, and got a largely dismissive answer back from Daniel through his friend. Now I am used to this from him, but I think it remains a problem. I doubt he will ever be convinced that this is the case, and I am no longer that interested in arguing with him about it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This guy hits on the constant criticism I have made of Dan (and for which he called me a buffoon and self-inflating gas bag, among other things), the inability (or unwillingness) to see things from other peoples' point of view, to understand what believe feel or believe and why they feel or believe it, to grant any kind of concession to any argument offered in contrary to his, or to reflect critically on his own beliefs.

One wonders if Dan will write in response to this anonymous poster (egad, Crocket now he's on Crocket's hit list too) and call him names? Maybe a 'self-inflating alternative fuel bag' (in recognition of the high cost of gas)?

I concluded essentially the same thing while I was still at BYU. I know Daniel deeply disagrees. He claims, and I have no reason to doubt it, that he has received many thanks from people whose testimonies he has saved. I think that on the balance, however, the rhetorical posture he takes, and likewise those of Midgley and other apologists, do more harm to the LDS Church than good. It was after reading several reviews written by these fellows that I found myself deeply dissatisfied with what was going on. I asked one of his colleagues about the problem, and got a largely dismissive answer back from Daniel through his friend. Now I am used to this from him, but I think it remains a problem. I doubt he will ever be convinced that this is the case, and I am no longer that interested in arguing with him about it.

I tend to think that he has "helped save the testimony" only of simpletons -- those unable or unwilling to really investigate and debate an issue. Those who scratch under Dan's arguments see the obvious holes. I'm sure Dan is an excellent scholar in his field, but I've never been impressed with his apologetics. He'll never admit this, but he simply is not very good at it. I realize he has little to work with, from an intellectual point of view, but his borderline obsession with never admitting to a mistake or weak premise ends up making him out the buffoon. Without even realizing it, he's a much greater danger to the Church than any "critic."

[_guy sajer]

I tend to think that he has "helped save the testimony" only of simpletons -- those unable or unwilling to really investigate and debate an issue. Those who scratch under Dan's arguments see the obvious holes. I'm sure Dan is an excellent scholar in his field, but I've never been impressed with his apologetics. He'll never admit this, but he simply is not very good at it. I realize he has little to work with, from an intellectual point of view, but his borderline obsession with never admitting to a mistake or weak premise ends up making him out the buffoon. Without even realizing it, he's a much greater danger to the Church than any "critic."

This raises an interesting question. I wonder which would be the more effective apologetic approach, on balance.

The standard approach, which is to act as if any and all criticisms are, on their face, invalid. Take for example, the multiple versions of the First Vision. Rather than concede the obvious, that the fact the Joseph Smith told different versions of one of the single most important events in human history creates legitimate questions about his credibility, apologists act as if it is totally unreasonable to be troubled by the apparent contradictions, that any person of reasonable intelligence and good character can easily see that there's no substance to the concerns, and in the process, offer offense to the questioner by impugning their quite reasonable concern and (in some cases ) their character.

The alternative approach would be to concede the reasonableness of the concern but then try to show how, though reasonable, the concern might be addressed this way or that. In the process, they do not offer offense, they acknowledge the person's right to be concerned and their good sense, but they show a way that the person can use the same good sense to navigate their way to an answer.

What do you think?

Dan is a practitioner extraordinaire of the first approach. No counter argument is reasonable, and no premise supporting the apologist position is unreasonable. Critics are always wrong, apologists are always right. People who raise questions don't posses good sense, they are confused or misinformed. It's about winning the argument, and destroying your opponent in the process.

I'm convinced that Dan (and some of his acolytes) suffer from some kind of strange Don Quixote complex.

[_Trevor]

I tend to think that he has "helped save the testimony" only of simpletons -- those unable or unwilling to really investigate and debate an issue. Those who scratch under Dan's arguments see the obvious holes. I'm sure Dan is an excellent scholar in his field, but I've never been impressed with his apologetics. He'll never admit this, but he simply is not very good at it. I realize he has little to work with, from an intellectual point of view, but his borderline obsession with never admitting to a mistake or weak premise ends up making him out the buffoon. Without even realizing it, he's a much greater danger to the Church than any "critic."

Since most of what the LDS Church does seems to be aimed at serving the "weakest of the saints," I am not sure they would have a problem with that.

[_Trevor]

The standard approach, which is to act as if any and all criticisms are, on their face, invalid. Take for example, the multiple versions of the First Vision. Rather than concede the obvious, that the fact the Joseph Smith told different versions of one of the single most important events in human history creates legitimate questions about his credibility, apologists act as if it is totally unreasonable to be troubled by the apparent contradictions, that any person of reasonable intelligence and good character can easily see that there's no substance to the concerns, and in the process, offer offense to the questioner by impugning their quite reasonable concern and (in some cases ) their character.

The alternative approach would be to concede the reasonableness of the concern but then try to show how, though reasonable, the concern might be addressed this way or that. In the process, they do not offer offense, they acknowledge the person's right to be concerned and their good sense, but they show a way that the person can use the same good sense to navigate their way to an answer.

I think it depends on what kind of culture one wants to foster. The former way works better in a highly authoritarian environment, wherein the authority of the leader, which is largely moral in nature, is threatened by any kind of challenge and met with a rebuttal that questions the righteousness of the questioner. The latter method works better in an environment that fosters individual thinking and creativity. In that environment, insulting the participants on moral grounds is probably seen for the dodge that it is and it is also highly resented.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

There's one paragraph in the article which I read differently than I'm sure Dr. Peterson meant it.

"I do it because I'm absolutely committed to the truthfulness of the gospel," Peterson said. "This is one way that I see that I can help build the kingdom.... This is one offering I can make."

I read this as "I'm absolutely committed to making the gospel true", whereas I'm sure he meant "I really do believe that the gospel is true".

Whatever helps you cry yourself to sleep at night, my friend.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

PS- anyone who disagrees with me is a simpleton.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

This guy hits on the constant criticism I have made of Dan (and for which he called me a buffoon and self-inflating gas bag, among other things), the inability (or unwillingness) to see things from other peoples' point of view, to understand what other people believe or feel and why they believe or feel it, to grant any kind of concession to any argument offered contrary to his, or to reflect critically on his own beliefs. It's all about winning the argument with Dan, never about a genuine search for truth or understanding.

One wonders if Dan will write in response to this anonymous poster (egad, Crocket now he's on Crocket's hit list too) and call him names? Maybe a 'self-inflating alternative fuel bag' (in recognition of the high cost of gas)?

Good point. As a brilliant scholar, I also think many ivestigators have been driven away by the bullying of DCP.

[_Scottie]

Peterson says one of the most common issues he addresses is the attempt to discredit the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

Really??? THAT is the most oft criticized issue??

While the old notion that they were dishonest or insane has "pretty much gone out the window,"

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say they were dishonest.

the modern argument contends the witnesses were unable to distinguish fantasy from reality

No, more like Joseph Smith was a VERY good con man who could get normal people to believe extraordinary claims.

[_silentkid]

I opted not to click on the "click to enlarge" link above the picture. I felt the picture was large enough as-is.