Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _RayAgostini »

Cylon wrote: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.


I actually think there's substance to your post, and well worth thinking about. The last victim to this sort of thing was Michael J. Barrett.
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

Being vulgar is one thing. I have no issues with vulgarity.

But being fundamentally bigoted is another. For example, and I've said this over and over again, I think men and women ought to have equal rights. Period. Non negotiable.

To support someone who clearly views women as inferior is a problem, and in this election year the Mormon church is purging its ranks of extremists. Mr. Peterson is clearly viewed as a problem, and he's being marginalized prior to November.

This is Mormonism's first legitimate shot at political viability. They can't have people like Mr. Peterson representing them on the Internet, which has become the 1st choice of the population's communication mechanism.

- VRDRC
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_Cylon
_Emeritus
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:08 am

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _Cylon »

RayAgostini wrote:
I actually think there's substance to your post, and well worth thinking about. The last victim to this sort of thing was Michael J. Barrett.


Wow, that's quite the story. Thanks for posting that link, Ray. I had heard of some of the issues Bro. Barrett talks about there, but I had never read his account.

And yes, I actually do think there are lessons for the current situation. in my opinion, the fact that John Dehlin has not been excommunicated after years of airing the church's dirty laundry speaks volumes as to the change in how the leadership deals with these situations. I'm not sure if you were implying some point about DCP himself, though. Maybe you could clarify.
_Bond James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _Bond James Bond »

RayAgostini wrote: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.


C'mon. Mormon Studies and Mormon Apologetics are pretty esoteric either way.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
_RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _RayAgostini »

Cylon wrote: I'm not sure if you were implying some point about DCP himself, though. Maybe you could clarify.


Well, it's not nice going, but DCP stands for the same "fundamentals" that Barrett did, which is to tell the "Saints" the truth about the controversies.

That was one of the main purposes of The Review, to expose the "Saints" to the problems which were "unmentionable" in "official publications", and tackle them head on. The first thing DCP had to do was make them aware that there was even a controversy, and then tackle it through FARMS. He was always a step ahead, anticipating things that would trouble members in years to come, and he tackled them even before they (the Saints) realised there was a problem.

DCP had waded through all of this, years before, and realised that it would be a source of trial to his fellow members, and through The Review he tried to answer questions and provide critical reviews of books produced not only by anti-Mormons, but Mormons who were well-intentioned, but misinformed, and books which would add to and and encourage "urban Mormon mythology".
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _Kevin Graham »

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?


Yes, Jakeman is a total idiot. I said so and Dan got pissed off at me because he knew Jakeman. He was a friend. But hell even Nibley drilled Jakeman a new one. His scholarship was pathetic and deserved criticism, not praise. But Dan can never bring himself to criticize his buddies, no matter how obvious it is they're lying or just pathetic scholars.

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.


No you don't have it right. This isn't about me. I see you're playing the usual game apologists love to play, by forcing words into people's mouths so you can then justify your attacks on them. Cute, but is this really the best you have to offer here?

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


Tell us Ray, who is "jumping for joy" over this? I don't get the sense that any of us are. Again, you're making crap up to suit your own agenda, which is obviously to create a false caricature of both sides in order to make Dan some kind of victim. If we were all screaming halleleujah then that would support your view of things, right? So you just assert it as fact and hope we all go along with it. Well, you're not so lucky today.

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.


This is like the fifth dumb comment you've made in just two short posts. Who in the world has "written him off"? The guy isn't dead. He's probably more energized to attack his critics than ever before, and he'll probably get more attention from his blog comments now, which is no doubt what he always intended.

He'll keep doing what he has always been doing because he is obsessed with critics. He just can't leave us alone. He mentioned my name something like a dozen times during the six year span I was banned from MAD, but when I go over there to challenge his misrepresentations of me, he is constantly saved by the mods. Just like William Schryver, who fled the forum last year when I proved his cipher theory was bunk. He got so out of control the mods had to kick him out. He then comes back to the forum the same week I get banned again. Why? Because like Dan, he is a coward who cannot handle legitimate challenges to his pet theories. And I was banned for what? For merely refuting some of Dan Peterson's misrepresentations and point out his propensity for starting board wars for no apparent reason. He can't stop himself from reading these forums religiously even when he is out of the country spending time with his family. The man is sick.

And the fact is Dan Peterson falls flat on his face as an apologist. He debates no one. He refuses to address questions by his critics. He is an anti-truth propagandist who is only interested in diverting everyone's attention away from the real issues. That was always the purpose of the FARMS review. To get some hack to "review" some anti-Mromon work in the worst way, just to convince the sheep that they didn't need to go buy the book themselves. All he does is produce hit pieces and uses his lobbying skills to get naïve Mormons to hand over their money to him. That is the real news here. He lied about not getting paid for any of this. But now that we know from his email to Bradford that he does. His email indicates that his real value as a "force" for apologetics rests in his ability to swindle people into believing their money is somehow going towards a noble cause, when in fact all it is doing is going towards the salaries of Dan and his closest friends who operate as hit men. He probably tells them that their money is helping people keep their testimonies! LOL. In reality, the crap FARMS puts out is more likely to convince people that the apologetic enterprise is completely, intellectually bankrupt. So Dan has been operating as a con man of sorts, while padding his own wallet in the process. Way to go Dan! You sure are the victim, don't ever forget that!

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.


Who do you think you're kidding Ray? Are you just putting on a show for your buddy here, or do you really think you have a chance in hell of convincing anyone here of this nonsense? The fact is no one has spent years "maligning" Dan. Dan is the one who loves the attention and he is the one publishing crap about anti-Mormons and generalizing the lot of us in such a negative way. Dan is the one who has made his life's mission about attacking dissidents and marginalizing those he suspects are fifth columnists. He is the one who hates this place but has posted more than 11,000 times on both forums, all the while debating nothing. He's done far more damage to the lives of good people, than they could ever hope to do to him. Dan is not a victim here. Dan is the one who initiates hostilities, and then whines about it when he is shown to be a liar, coward or both.

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


So far it isn't looking good for Dan, but we should never doubt a snake oil salesman's talent.

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.


It is really beside the point since we already know for a fact that he posted something either the "C" word of something equally atrocious. I remember reading the post and getting so pissed off that I wanted to reach through the screen and strangle his puny neck. And I don't ever get that upset unless women on the forum are being attacked, which is rare. But from that mountain of evidence for Will's misogyny, that was just one example. He also called Emma Smith a bitch, remember? Of course Daniel has no problem with that, and neither do you apparently, because you're a rough-neck taxi driver who hears this stuff all the time. Therefore no one can really be a misogynist! Nice logic there Ray!

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.


You're with Dan on everything, Ray. We know. That's the only reason you're here.

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.


Last I checked, the mission statement of NAMIR says nothing about attacking suspected apostates. Dan is recreating the vision in his own image and pretending that he is the only reason the Insitutes exists.
Well, it's not nice going, but DCP stands for the same "fundamentals" that Barrett did, which is to tell the "Saints" the truth about the controversies.


That is funny, but still nonsense. Dan has never been interested in truth. Ever. He has always been interested in obfuscation, sophistry, rhetoric, and whatever other tool he could use to convince people that Mormonism has actual evidence supporting it. He doesn't bring any education to the table as far as the real controversies go. There is a ton of stuff the apologists refuse to address over the past decade, and instead of dealing with things like the KEP, they want to attack John Dehlin. I've been trying to get Dan to address the errors in his pathetic Book of Abraham piece from 1994, and he refuses to defend it. But at the same time he claims Maxwell said "no slamdunks go unchallenged." Well, the KEP has been an unchallenged slam dunk for a decade now. As well as the fact that Joseph Smith and John Taylor lied about polygamy. But these are just a couple examples of the "controversies" they don't want people to know about, so they just pretend they don't exist while diverting everyone's attention to irrelevant nonsense like the paranoia about wolves among the sheep. So please stop pretending Dan is trying desperately to inform people about these controversies. His entire FARMS agenda is to act according to whatever anti-Mormon book was recently published. They are the ones driving their agenda, and all Dan does is assign one of his hit men to "review" the book and provide such a negative review that none of his previous sheep would ever want to read it. So it is exactly the opposite of what you say. He doesn't want to educate people, he wants to indoctrinate them and instill this "us vs. them" mentality.

That was one of the main purposes of The Review, to expose the "Saints" to the problems which were "unmentionable" in "official publications", and tackle them head on. The first thing DCP had to do was make them aware that there was even a controversy, and then tackle it through FARMS. He was always a step ahead, anticipating things that would trouble members in years to come, and he tackled them even before they (the Saints) realised there was a problem.


LOL! You're killing me. So in your twisted reality, he's gone from poor victim to some intellectual muse with all this spiritual insight. Give me a break. Dan Peterson is an intellectual coward and a liar. He has lied to us over the years about not being paid to do apologetics, and here he is bitching about getting paid for what...? Apologetics!

Dan picks fights with people he perceives to be enemies in closed sessions, and when they challenge him publicly, he hides out at the MAD forum where the FAIR moderators ban anyone who dares to hold him accountable. He is very much like a manipulative politician that never answers questions but then uses the media platform to attack others behind their backs. He doesn't really do scholarship. Even with his precious METI. Is he doing the translations for that project? No. He hires other Islamic experts to do it for him. The more we learn about what he actually does, the more he appears to be nothing more than a middle-man lobbyists whose primary job is to raise money and decide how it is wasted.. er I mean spent.
_RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _RayAgostini »

Kevin Graham wrote:
Yes, Jakeman is a total idiot.... how obvious it is they're lying or just pathetic scholars.


Again, you're making s*** up to suit your own agenda,


He'll keep doing what he has always been doing because he is obsessed with critics. He just can't leave us alone. [How ironical]

The man is sick.

All he does is produce hit pieces and uses his lobbying skills to get naïve Mormons to hand over their money to him.

Who do you think you're kidding Ray? Are you just putting on a show for your buddy here, or do you really think you have a chance in hell of convincing anyone here of this nonsense? [I don't even know who's reading what I post here, and frankly, I don't give a rat's arse. Just expressing my views]

Dan is.. ...a liar, coward or both.

So far it isn't looking good for Dan, but we should never doubt a snake oil salesman's talent.

... that mountain of evidence for Will's misogyny,


Dan ... has always been interested in obfuscation, sophistry, rhetoric, ...irrelevant nonsense like the paranoia about wolves among the sheep.... He doesn't want to educate people, he wants to indoctrinate them and instill this "us vs. them" mentality.[How ironical]

Dan Peterson is an intellectual coward and a liar.

He is very much like a manipulative politician that never answers questions but then uses the media platform to attack others behind their backs.


Got anything else to say, Kev?

Do you ever wonder why DCP has chosen to no longer respond to you?:

Oh come on, Xander/Kevin.

If I had a dollar for every time you've called somebody who's disagreed with you a "liar," a "moron," an "idiot," or a "coward" -- I'll restrict myself, out of modesty, to just those four words alone -- I could take early retirement.


You haven't learned a thing, have you Kevin?
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _Kishkumen »

Equality wrote: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.


What John did would have happened sooner or later anyway. Greater blame goes to those who have cultivated and encouraged apocalyptic conspiracy thinking. Schryver has been in this business for some time. It is such thinking that has prompted the offensive against Brooks and Dehlin. It was this thinking that inspired the McCarthyesque DN article on the sons of Mosiah. There are the events, and the mentality that motivated people to engage as they did. I am interested in the latter.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _Kishkumen »

Well, I find the whole Hamblin/Agostini meltdown to be entirely predictable. Of course they will lie, painting a picture of a huge party we are having over Dr. P's setback. Any sober assessment, however, reveals a variety of reactions that fairly well represents the range of posters who come to MDB. Those of us who have watched this game longer, and think about it in more strategic terms, realize that apologetics is far from dead, and, yes, Dr. Peterson is not down for the count quite yet. We take a "wait and see" attitude about the whole thing, and rightly so.

Personally, I think the MI should continue to do apologetics. What I have recommended since the Dehlin debacle is the severing of handling apologetics against external critics, including ex-Mormons, from a more pastoral work with struggling members. You can see the first link in my signature, "An example of Kishkumen's seething hatred" (a tongue-in-cheek title), where I discuss this at some length. That was all I would liked to have seen, no matter how many times Ray or any other Mopologetic tool or brazen conspiracy theorist wants to argue otherwise. When I said this, I made it clear that I was not lobbying on Dehlin's behalf. I just noted that what the Church was doing did not seem to be working, and I recommended another approach.

I have no interest in seeing Daniel Peterson leave the MI or cease to do apologetics. None whatsoever. I do not rejoice in it. I lament it. If I were in Dr. Peterson's position, I would do whatever I could to recover my place at the MI. I also applaud his friend Hamblin assisting him. The only disagreement I have with Hamblin is in his siege mentality rhetoric in which he fancifully imagines everyone unitedly dancing on the grave of Daniel Peterson prematurely. Well, the prematurely part I can agree with. It is the celebration part that is characteristically prejudicial, unkind, and unsupported by the facts.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by _RayAgostini »

Kishkumen wrote:Well, I find the whole Hamblin/Agostini meltdown to be entirely predictable. Of course they will lie, painting a picture of a huge party we are having over Dr. P's setback. Any sober assessment, however, reveals a variety of reactions that fairly well represents the range of posters who come to MDB. Those of us who have watched this game longer, and think about it in more strategic terms, realize that apologetics is far from dead, and, yes, Dr. Peterson is not down for the count quite yet. We take a "wait and see" attitude about the whole thing, and rightly so.

Personally, I think the MI should continue to do apologetics. What I have recommended since the Dehlin debacle is the severing of handling apologetics against external critics, including ex-Mormons, from a more pastoral work with struggling members. You can see the first link in my signature, "An example of Kishkumen's seething hatred" (a tongue-in-cheek title), where I discuss this at some length. That was all I would liked to have seen, no matter how many times Ray or any other Mopologetic tool or brazen conspiracy theorist wants to argue otherwise. When I said this, I made it clear that I was not lobbying on Dehlin's behalf. I just noted that what the Church was doing did not seem to be working, and I recommended another approach.

I have no interest in seeing Daniel Peterson leave the MI or cease to do apologetics. None whatsoever. I do not rejoice in it. I lament it. If I were in Dr. Peterson's position, I would do whatever I could to recover my place at the MI. I also applaud his friend Hamblin assisting him. The only disagreement I have with Hamblin is in his siege mentality rhetoric in which he fancifully imagines everyone unitedly dancing on the grave of Daniel Peterson prematurely. Well, the prematurely part I can agree with. It is the celebration part that is characteristically prejudicial, unkind, and unsupported by the facts.


Are you speaking here as Kishkumen or Trevor?
Post Reply