Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

[_RayAgostini]

This is the same guy who attacked me for calling Wells Jakeman an idiot. Once you understand what a whack-job pseudo-scholar Jakeman was, and how Dan Peterson likened him to Einstein, suddenly it doesn't come as a surprise that he has decided to bond with William Schryver. This is the same guy who considers despicable characters like Lou Midgley, close friends.

You objected to DCP chastising you for calling the "whack-job pseudo-scholar" Jakeman an "idiot", and then take a pot shot at him for being friends with "despicable characters" like Lou Midgley?

Just to make sure I have the mantra down right: Jakeman, Midgley and Peterson are "despicable characters", and Kevin Graham is a Saint who unmasks "despicable characters".

Okay, I think I have it right.

[_Equality]

I think you have really hit on something here. What we see at work here in the vestiges of FARMS that lived on in the editorial staff of the Review was a little clique of apologist-warriors who were also ideological bedfellows. As much as they are the intellectual children of Hugh Nibley, they are also the spiritual children of Ezra Taft Benson, who implicitly equated Soviet communism with the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon.

Brilliant insight, Kish. Too long to paste as a signature, but if I could, I would. Kudos, Professor.

Moreover, it is my considered opinion that, truth be told, Will Schryver did more to bring about this setback, and potential downfall, of Daniel Peterson than any other single person in his association.

Perhaps. But I think an argument could be made that John Dehlin did more to bring about this setback for the portly professor than anyone else.

[_RayAgostini]

Perhaps. But I think an argument could be made that John Dehlin did more to bring about this setback for the portly professor than anyone else.

John, as nice a bloke as he is, won't make a dent.

I don't know why many here are jumping for joy, rather than looking down the pathway.

Prematurely writing Dan off as a real force in Mormon apologetics, even if he doesn't do it through the MI, could be a serious misjudgement.

Who do you think the GAs, overall, will listen to? Dan Peterson, or John Dehlin?

[_MsJack]

Ray - Of all the people who do things on the Internet that I wouldn't do, why is it that you think I should defend Dan from Scratch, and what do you think I should be doing?

Yes, there was evidence that William called one of our female posters a c--t. People saying that they saw it before it was deleted is evidence. Where I have seen other posters using the word, I have called them out on it and asked moderators to move threads if applicable. If there is more that you think I should be doing, I'm open to suggestions.

[Guest]

Perhaps. But I think an argument could be made that John Dehlin did more to bring about this setback for the portly professor than anyone else.

John, as nice a bloke as he is, won't make a dent.

I don't know why many here are jumping for joy, rather than looking down the pathway.

Prematurely writing Dan off as a real force in Mormon apologetics, even if he doesn't do it through the MI, could be a serious misjudgement.

Who do you think the GAs, overall, will listen to? Dan Peterson, or John Dehlin?

Some may be prematurely writing him off, but certainly not everyone is. I have no doubt that he'll continue to do apologetics in some form, and I wish him well at it, but just the fact that his style of attacks will no longer be published by an official outlet of the church itself is a good thing.

As for the GA's, I doubt they care much about John or Dan personally, when looking at the big picture. It's all about what will make the church look better, and my guess is that if they agreed with Dan's approach, they wouldn't be getting rid of the FARMS old guard one by one.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray - Of all the people who do things on the Internet that I wouldn't do, why is it that you think I should defend Dan from Scratch, and what do you think I should be doing?

The fact that you asked this question, Ms. Jack, makes it apparent that you've never been in DCP's situation. Personally, I'd be tearing my hair out to be so maligned for so many years. I regret that you don't see it, nor empathise with it.

Yes, there was evidence that William called one of our female posters a c--t. People saying that they saw it before it was deleted is evidence. Where I have seen other posters using the word, I have called them out on it and asked moderators to move threads if applicable. If there is more that you think I should be doing, I'm open to suggestions.

Even if, hypothetically, Will did write that, then he had the good sense to delete it asap. If he didn't delete it, then why were the mods, or whomever, so quick to delete it, when they've left all the "C-words" from posters like Cam stand? I'm speaking hypothetically.

Listen, Ms. Jack, many years ago, when I was on 2Think, I did a post in which I called one of my opponents there a "c--t", and I felt ashamed the next day, and even afraid to open the link to the board. I did it in momentary anger. The odd thing is that if I was called a "prick", or if I'd called someone a "prick", no one would have noticed.

As for Will's "misogyny", and in spite of his posts here, I don't believe he's a "misogynist". Far, far from it. I'm totally with Dan on this.


I'm only a despicable, low-life taxi driver, and I hear the "c-word" daily, and far more crudity than most humans are subjected to, but I don't judge these people by their words and expressions.

[_RayAgostini]

Some may be prematurely writing him off, but certainly not everyone is. I have no doubt that he'll continue to do apologetics in some form, and I wish him well at it, but just the fact that his style of attacks will no longer be published by an official outlet of the church itself is a good thing.

My apologies for educating you about "style of attacks":

5 And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the truth; wherefore, no man will be angry at the words which I have written save he shall be of the spirit of the devil.
6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.
7 I have charity for my people, and great faith in Christ that I shall meet many souls spotless at his judgment-seat.
8 I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came.
9 I also have charity for the Gentiles. But behold, for none of these can I hope except they shall be reconciled unto Christ, and enter into the narrow gate, and walk in the strait path which leads to life, and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation.
10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.
13 And now, my beloved brethren, all those who are of the house of Israel, and all ye ends of the earth, I speak unto you as the voice of one crying from the dust: Farewell until that great day shall come.
14 And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.(2 Ne. 33)

That Nephi would have made a horrible and despicable editor of The Review.

Too plain, and too politically incorrect.

The "source" of Dan's character, lies in the Book of Mormon. And it will ever and always encounter fierce opposition.

[_Cylon]

How exactly does seeking to tear down John Dehlin in a scholarly journal help to testify of the Book of Mormon?

In any case, maybe you're right. Maybe Dr. Peterson is exactly the holy warrior of truth you think he is. But it's not like Dr. Bradford is alone in this. You're crazy if you think a major change in direction for the output of the MI didn't come with approval from the brethren above him. If you think they're wrong, well, that's fine, too. Just want to be clear on it.

[_RayAgostini]

How exactly does seeking to tear down John Dehlin in a scholarly journal help to testify of the Book of Mormon?

In any case, maybe you're right. Maybe Dr. Peterson is exactly the holy warrior of truth you think he is. But it's not like Dr. Bradford is alone in this. You're crazy if you think a major change in direction for the output of the MI didn't come with approval from the brethren above him. If you think they're wrong, well, that's fine, too. Just want to be clear on it.

Call me crazy, but the MI was founded on the vision of Elder Neal A. Maxwell. They were incorporated into BYU by President Hinckley (who spoke very highly of Hugh Nibley), and have been patronised by many apostles through the years, who all supported the aims of FARMS.

My prediction is that a Bradford-led MI will attract only scholars interested in, well, boring scholarship, and it will have no appeal to a wider Mormon readership. That was DCP's genius, that he could draw both scholars and "ordinary people/members" into the conversation.

[_Cylon]

How exactly does seeking to tear down John Dehlin in a scholarly journal help to testify of the Book of Mormon?

In any case, maybe you're right. Maybe Dr. Peterson is exactly the holy warrior of truth you think he is. But it's not like Dr. Bradford is alone in this. You're crazy if you think a major change in direction for the output of the MI didn't come with approval from the brethren above him. If you think they're wrong, well, that's fine, too. Just want to be clear on it.

Call me crazy, but the MI was founded on the vision of Elder Neal A. Maxwell. They were incorporated into BYU by President Hinckley (who spoke very highly of Hugh Nibley), and have been patronised by many apostles through the years, who all supported the aims of FARMS.

My prediction is that a Bradford-led MI will attract only scholars interested in, well, boring scholarship, and it will have no appeal to a wider Mormon readership. That was DCP's genius, that he could draw both scholars and "ordinary people/members" into the conversation.

And just as the MI was founded and approved of by prior apostles and prophets, I have no doubt that it is still overseen by current apostles and prophets. They just seem to have a different vision for it now than they did before, and DCP doesn't seem to be onboard with the new vision.

And you could very well be right that the new MI will only be for boring scholars, but if that's the cost of avoiding a PR debacle involving a fight between church members in an election year with a Mormon presidential candidate, they may very well consider that capital well spent.