Peterson: Still lying, still a coward

[_sock puppet]

I think the real Dan is both, and I suspect even more sides to him. We are each multi-faceted. That's why it is odd to lump someone entirely into the 'good guy' or 'bad guy' categories. For example, I sort of like Will Schryver's pony tail and what it might hint about some aspects of him that his online Kaiser Sose act does not show (of course, his disdain for Kurt Cobain knocks him down several notches in my book). Wade Englund, that he uses as his avatar a picture (I assume of him) in a kayak crossing still waters suggests he appreciates serenity in a way that his posting style does not suggest.

Those of us who engage Dan online over Mormonism have just his online Mormon apologist facet to deal with. When other posters, such as myself, complain about or describe in disparaging ways Dan, Will, Wade, etc., we are not judging the person as a whole (I'll leave that to religionists who believe there will need to be someday such judgments). As I only know Dan from his online posting and what I've read that he's written, when I might say "Dan is not genuine", it of course is said in the context of his online persona. Since I am posting it online, it is the online aspect of Dan about which I am commenting.

If someone posted online that something to the effect that Dan's entire existence is a sham, a negative, a screed, etc., then I think it would justifiably provoke those who know different sides to Dan and have a different opinion of him to post their in real life perspectives of Dan. But unless an online post is by its terms broadened to indict and judge the man beyond his online persona, I don't see how that is needed or even appropriate. His online persona wreaks of being disingenuous. If Dan wants to give off a different sense to online readers he can begin posting differently. But his online posting style hasn't changed perceptively much over the years, so he probably glories in it.

Maybe we could have an MDB standing statement: All posters are real people that have others in their life, do charitable things for others, etc. Here online, a poster's persona and image is what he or she has made it, through his or her own postings. Here, to readers and other posters, we are the sum total of our posts.

[_Yoda]

Maybe we could have an MDB standing statement: All posters are real people that have others in their life, do charitable things for others, etc. Here online, a poster's persona and image is what he or she has made it, through his or her own postings. Here, to readers and other posters, we are the sum total of our posts.

I understand what you are saying here, Sock Puppet.

However, I guess, and maybe this is why I don't often have a thick enough skin for online exchanges, I never really view a poster as merely an online persona. I probably should...but I just can't get past the fact that there is a real person with a real family, job, etc. on the other side of the computer.

In speaking about Dan Peterson, in particular...

I have never met Dan face to face. However, I have "known" him via the Internet for about 5 years now. We have had many email exchanges, chat exchanges, as well as exchanges online. I am not denying the fact that he can, at times, be snarky. I have also gone on record challenging his attitude at times.

ETA--By the same token, there have certainly been times when I have been snarky. I think that most of us at one point or another have.

However, even though we have not met face to face, I do feel that I have a good picture of what the "whole" Dan Peterson personality is, and not only do I like him, but consider him a friend.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Daniel Peterson shows his true face on the Internet.

There's no question about that.

- VRDRC

[_Shulem]

Hello,

Daniel Peterson shows his true face on the Internet.

There's no question about that.

- VRDRC

But he won't be showing his sorry face around here anymore. I think he's learned his lesson.

Heck, I'm not even a school teacher and can outsmart him. His quotes are no good and outdated.

Have a donut, Danny-boy.

Paul O

[_Dr. Shades]

I don't know Dan personally but I do know a lot of people who do. I've asked a few of them: "Is Dan as mean spirited as he can come across on message boards and in some of the polemical articles he writes?"

The answer is always no and that Dan is actually a pretty great guy in real life.

I'll have to second that. In real life, a more stand-up guy you couldn't possibly meet.

It's been my observation that he'll typically post in the same tenor as the post to which he's responding was, uh, posted. If you lash out at him or at the church, then he'll respond in similar fashion (if he chooses to respond at all). If you ask him a sincere question out of genuine curiosity, then he'll respond respectfully--I know this for a fact because he has to me on a couple of occasions.

It's pretty plain that his view of Mormonism is diametrically opposed to my own, and I have on occasion vehemently disagreed with things he has written, but allow me to suggest an experiment: The next time you start a thread with the title, "Questions for Dr. Peterson," instead of typing things like, "How on earth can you act like such a(n) _____; don't you know you're just a(n) _____," post something like, "I noticed that you wrote _____; that varies from what I understood to be LDS teachings, so how do you reconcile it with the common understanding of _____?"

Then watch what happens.

[_Willy Law]

To the OP's point; when you have prophet after prophet and apostle after apostle stating from the pulpit and in church publications that there is one hill cumorah located in NY and then you try and claim the church has no position? If that's not lying, it's at least disingenuous...or delusional.

Peterson may be the coolest cat in Provo, but he is not being honest with himself and, more importantly, members of the church.

[_Joey]

Back in 2004 when Peterson and Hamblin took to discredit the 1990 letter from the Office of The First Presidency, the two of them went to great lengths to get me banned from the MADD/Fair board because I challenged their claim that a "second Watson letter ever existed or was received by Hamblin to support his FARMs article attacking Luke Wilson. They were incredibly deceitful and about the existence and authenticity of this supposed letter and accused me of calling the two great Provo Pundits "liars".  As I continued to press for a logical reason, explanations and evidence of their claims, they eventually got the mods to ban me to avoid having to come clean.

I pushed them on why Watson would suddenly do a 180 on the 1990 letter issued at the request of President Hinckley.  What new information came into existence for the Office of the First Presidency to reconsider between the 1990 letter and this supposed 2nd letter?  All question the avoided until they could get me banned.

Here is the archived thread still kept on the MADD site:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/517 ... e__st__100

It may be soon deleted as a result of this post though!

Provo's memory was quite clear on this supposed letter - he swore that he saw it, touched it and read it.  This went on for years.  Even on this board, where Provo couldn't control the mods and run for cover until he quit here. He continued to lie about this supposed "Second Watson Letter" when I again challenged him on his truthfulness and it's existence back in 2008.  Here is his response to me in an exchange on July 28, 2008 where he again tries to convince everyone that this letter actually existed in very distinct detail:

Letter #1 was a letter written by the individual named Michael Watson, writing in his capacity as secretary to the First Presidency on stationery of the Office of the First Presidency, to an individual identified as "Bishop Brooks."

Letter #2 was a letter written by the individual named Michael Watson, writing in his capacity as secretary to the First Presidency on stationery of the Office of the First Presidency, to an individual generally known as Professor William J. Hamblin.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6994&start=105

So a this second letter was from Watson, and on letterhead from the Office of the First Presidency - just like the 1990 letter.  And in Watson's own words!!!   IT NEVER EXISTED!

Well Provo and Hamblin got caught in their lie when the fax from Carla Ogden was produced.  It wasn't even sent to Hamblin but to some guy at FAIR. And what was in the fax??? A cut and paste from the FARMS authored "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" that they already had!  And it also existed at the time of the 1990 letter and would have been able to refer to if it was the Church's position.  Why didn't Hamblin just make reference to this source in his Wilson rebuttal article in the first place?  Why did he need it on a fax from some Carla Ogden??  These two went to great lengths of avoiding the truth and honesty to protect FARMS and deceive everyone else.

And now, in the Meldrum/2nd Watson Letter thread over at MADD, when a recent convert to the church starts asking questions about the 1990 "actual and real" letter from The First Presidency's Office, Provo and Hamblin jump in and immediately start insulting and criticizing this individual for asking the obvious questions all over again.

But what was really despicable was when Peterson gets called to the carpet by Brent Metcalfe, who reminded him about the source for Hamblin's footnote claim coming from the Ogden fax, not from any letter, that was just a cut and paste from an unofficial FARMS authored publication.  Provo suddenly has a loss of memory and says:

It's been roughly nineteen years, and it wasn't all that dramatic a thing when it happened. But whether it was a letter with Michael Watson's signature on it or a fax sent by Carla Ogden....

See page 5&6 of this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/565 ... e__st__100

A convenient time to attempt to spin towards the truth!!


A liar and coward?  He's more than welcome to come here and defend himself if he's not!

[_Willy Law]

A liar and coward?  He's more than welcome to come here and defend himself if he's not!

I don't know, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and he may be a great guy like others have indicated, but this sounds like lying to me. He may feel it justifiable (lying for the Lord) since he is defending the one true church, but it is completely dishonest. If there is another way of looking at this someone please enlighten me.

[_Buffalo]

I think he was probably being dishonest regarding the Watson letter fiasco, but I don't think that makes him a dishonest person in general. Occasionally he lies. Who doesn't?

[_Chap]

I think he was probably being dishonest regarding the Watson letter fiasco, but I don't think that makes him a dishonest person in general. Occasionally he lies. Who doesn't?

Channel whyme much?

What is a liar other than a person, who when push comes to shove, will resort to a lie rather than admit they are in the wrong?

We are not talking about misleading a maniac with an axe in order to save life, or any of the other excuses usually brought forward in such a connection. Just plain cheating to win.