Agreed. He treated Jeremy Runnells and the CES Letter with the same kind of nonchalant, gossipy arrogance and condescension. That really is the essence of Mopologetics, so it is no longer a surprise. Now had Vogel been a scholar of any other religion, Peterson would have been praising his skills to the high heavens even if he didn't become Mormon, like happened with Albright, or Neusner, etc. My suspicion is Vogel's startling competence in historical things Mormonism that spooks the Mopes, so for whatever short coming, their mentality, they short circuit into attack model automatically. Perhaps it's in honor of the dishonest war mongering idiot spiritual general Boyd K. Packer they love to imagine they are still pleasing even though the old goat is farting dust now, who knows...
I am not sure, though, that Jeremy Runnells is the best comparandum. I am sympathetic to Jeremy, but he is not the scholar Dan is, and he has not exercised the kind of care that Dan has. Dan is a rare gem in Mormon Studies, and Mormon Studies is what he is up to. He is very honest and open about his approach, but he also goes out of his way not to attack or run down others.
It bothers me when apologists complain that the CES Letter is not a "proper" scholarly document, and that Runnells does not have advanced degrees, and should therefore be ignored. Jeremy never claimed that he was a scholar writing a peer-reviewed scholarly document.
What makes me sick is the use of one alleged comment to smear a person who has a long record of being a decent and accommodating person to all. Dan Vogel is a real mensch. Attacking him and insinuating that he is some kind of evil actor are low enterprises, unworthy of anyone who would claim to hold the priesthood of God.
It’s incredibly scummy and I’m not seeing any indication that they view their behavior as “wrong.” Dan Peterson’s goal was always to legitimately *hurt* critics of the Church.
"If, 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
What makes me sick is the use of one alleged comment to smear a person who has a long record of being a decent and accommodating person to all. Dan Vogel is a real mensch. Attacking him and insinuating that he is some kind of evil actor are low enterprises, unworthy of anyone who would claim to hold the priesthood of God.
It’s incredibly scummy and I’m not seeing any indication that they view their behavior as “wrong.” Dan Peterson’s goal was always to legitimately *hurt* critics of the Church.
I suspect the hint is his saying on more than one occasion that great minds always talk about ideas, little minds people. And then he turns around and non-stop talks about people and ad hominem others who think differently and come to different conclusions than his for decades! I mean, the irony is lost on him, but the rest of us see it loud and clear.
It bothers me when apologists complain that the CES Letter is not a "proper" scholarly document, and that Runnells does not have advanced degrees, and should therefore be ignored. Jeremy never claimed that he was a scholar writing a peer-reviewed scholarly document.
And still, FAIR, last time I looked, could charge Jeremy with only a total of 44% errors and falsehoods - by their unbiased judgement, of course. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... S_Director
But, as we see, it's not that the apologists object to non-scholarly criticism - they don't necessarily respect scholarly criticism either.
If it doesn’t take advanced degrees to join a church, it should not require them to leave it either. I am not a huge fan of the CES Letter. I have only read bits of it. It isn’t my thing, but I think it has its place. Certainly it prompts people to see Mormonism through new eyes. To do so it does not need to be 90% accurate. I would say 60% is good enough. Heck, that is probably better than the apologists do, since they regularly gaslight people who are struggling with their faith.
For the hardened apologists no criticism of the LDS Church can be valid.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
Is it just me or is Dan at the point where he’s so orthodox that it isn’t enough to have a testimony, be temple worthy, and support official church policy and doctrine?
It’s as though some general authorities and members of the 12 are somehow ‘better’ than their respective peers of similar rank/status, and this because their own positions on church history and doctrine are akin to his own?
Like, who does he think he is? If he has a problem with Vogel’s respective works and argument then it’s his scholarly duty is to engage intellectually with the article and examine the strengths & weaknesses of the argument.
It’s like the Interpreter’s unfounded criticism against the Joseph Smith Papers on the Book of Abraham all over again!
Unable to engage in scholarly rebuttal at the same level, they commit instead to whisper campaigns to suggest the other scholar as insufficiently faith-promoting.
I am not sure, though, that Jeremy Runnells is the best comparandum. I am sympathetic to Jeremy, but he is not the scholar Dan is, and he has not exercised the kind of care that Dan has. Dan is a rare gem in Mormon Studies, and Mormon Studies is what he is up to. He is very honest and open about his approach, but he also goes out of his way not to attack or run down others.
It bothers me when apologists complain that the CES Letter is not a "proper" scholarly document, and that Runnells does not have advanced degrees, and should therefore be ignored. Jeremy never claimed that he was a scholar writing a peer-reviewed scholarly document.
But, as we see, it's not that the apologists object to non-scholarly criticism - they don't necessarily respect scholarly criticism either.
I'm not interested in defending the CES letter, but apologetics isn't scholarship either. Real academic scholarship is not interested in either defending or attacking a faith position.
I have no idea what Peterson is talking about. All I can say is I'm only interested in getting the history right and what happens to the church is of no concern of mine. I said as much during my interview with John Dehlin. Not all of my time is spent on controversial topics. I spend a great deal of time just studying things like the History of the Church and Wilford Woodruff. Correcting the apologists as I have done in my recent book on the Book of Abraham doesn't destroy the church; it destroys favorite apologetic arguments, which isn't the same thing--although some of them think it is. While I don't want to destroy Mormonism, which would be extremely naïve on my part, I do hope my research forces it to change.
I have no idea what Peterson is talking about. All I can say is I'm only interested in getting the history right and what happens to the church is of no concern of mine. I said as much during my interview with John Dehlin. Not all of my time is spent on controversial topics. I spend a great deal of time just studying things like the History of the Church and Wilford Woodruff. Correcting the apologists as I have done in my recent book on the Book of Abraham doesn't destroy the church; it destroys favorite apologetic arguments, which isn't the same thing--although some of them think it is. While I don't want to destroy Mormonism, which would be extremely naïve on my part, I do hope my research forces it to change.
Thanks for responding here, your comments are always worth reading! I feel bad that apologists feel the need to sideswipe your work and try to cast aspersions. They do it so often though that they have very little credibility left. No one reads these weird attacks and actually believes them, thankfully, but still, I'm sorry Peterson does this. It's not a fair reflection of your works and your research efforts.
I have no idea what Peterson is talking about. All I can say is I'm only interested in getting the history right and what happens to the church is of no concern of mine. I said as much during my interview with John Dehlin. Not all of my time is spent on controversial topics. I spend a great deal of time just studying things like the History of the Church and Wilford Woodruff. Correcting the apologists as I have done in my recent book on the Book of Abraham doesn't destroy the church; it destroys favorite apologetic arguments, which isn't the same thing--although some of them think it is. While I don't want to destroy Mormonism, which would be extremely naïve on my part, I do hope my research forces it to change.
…I’m a lil star struck right now
That’s very admiral of you, and hopefully it will change.
Out of curiosity (and you need not answer regardless) does DP still have any close patronage among the quorum of the 12?
I’m sure there are 70’s that still care about his opinion I’ve read a few things that makes me wonder if he’s now very much on the outside currently in terms of influence.
