Will DCP Keep His Promise To BYU?

[Doctor Scratch]

I have not looked into this, to see how DCP's publishing record measures up against other BYU faculty of his tenure. If you are correct, DCP might be a prime example of seeming rather than doing or being.

Sock Puppet,

Welcome back!! It’s great seeing you again. I hope you’ve been well.

Yes, absolutely! Very nice to see that Prof. Puppet has rejoined the faculty!

[Symmachus]

I would go a little bit farther than Dr. Shades and say that criticizing what apologists do in their apologetics is kinda what we are all about, but finding fault broadly and in a personal way is unhealthy. My two cents.

Yes, this is sensible.

I'm not very good at holding firmly to positions, though, because I see the point that Gadianton has raised. What has been Peterson's published apologetic theme? It's hard to say, because I think his public personality and his apologetic style—"he fights," you might say—is the substance of his apologetic. That is why plagiarism etc. is basically irrelevant as an object of substantive attack. I contrast that with people like Brant Gardner, Brian Hales, Brian Stubbs, Royal Skousen, John Gee, and so many who have published in The Interpreter: I know a great deal about their positions, some from my own study (as in the case of Stubbs and Gee), but mostly from reading the responses written by others here and elsewhere. Sure, there are some barbs and occasionally mean things said (and there's also some posters who seem, well, just unhinged in general, but this is the internet), yet one of the reasons I think we don't see long threads about even John Gee all that often, let alone the others, is that their apologetics involve actual written claims that take time to examine and dismantle. Peterson just requires an emotional outburst, because eliciting that his is technique. I have yet to see Peterson actually advance an original or even derivative apologetic; the most you get from him is a kind of a personal commentary usually expressed in such a way as to press people's buttons ("for the 354th straight week, we've published yet another article in the Interptreter—they said it couldn't be done, but we still here destroying the scientistic critics, who are actually crypto-Catholics according to a fascinating new book, Das wissenschaftliche Krypto-Christentum, which, sadly, hasn't yet been translated into Englisch but which I read in Bucharest I en route to Jordan, where I was invited by a government minister (I can't say which, of course) to examine new evidence, found in Wadi Feynan, one of my favorite areas of this part of the middle east, of pre-Columbian exchange with the Levant that will, undoubtedly, make critics very uncomfortable once it's published in a few years." Cue long thread here. So I guess my question is: subtracting his personality—which is to say, his style—what apologetic is there left to engage with at all in his case?

I would add, by the way, that Peterson has actually has published a great deal, though it seems to be mostly apologetic commentary of this sort and very little original apologetics, certainly little to nothing in his academic field unless it is connected with Mormonism somehow. But there were structural incentives for that when he joined BYU in the 1980s, and those incentives don't appear to have been adjusted until the 2010s (I remember Bill Hamblin's shock around that time on learning that his Book of Mormon scholarship wouldn't count towards promotions and salary increases). Given that BYU is also a teaching university—which is a genuinely good thing, and I wish more universities emphasized teaching rather than the nearly 100% of garbage publication done in the United Stages every year—it is not accurate to characterize Peterson as having done nothing. He did what was expected of him.

The valid criticism should be not the gap between accomplishment and expectation (there is no gap) but between accomplishment and his self-presentation (the gap is wide).

[Lem]

... I have yet to see Peterson actually advance an original or even derivative apologetic; the most you get from him is a kind of a personal commentary usually expressed in such a way as to press people's buttons ("for the 354th straight week, we've published yet another article in the Interptreter—they said it couldn't be done, but we still here destroying the scientistic critics, who are actually crypto-Catholics according to a fascinating new book, Das wissenschaftliche Krypto-Christentum, which, sadly, hasn't yet been translated into Englisch but which I read in Bucharest I en route to Jordan, where I was invited by a government minister (I can't say which, of course) to examine new evidence, found in Wadi Feynan, one of my favorite areas of this part of the middle east, of pre-Columbian exchange with the Levant that will, undoubtedly, make critics very uncomfortable once it's published in a few years."

You channeled him perfectly.

That is why plagiarism etc. is basically irrelevant....

I would argue that your paragraph I initially quoted is exactly why his plagiarism is relevant. He has no original ideas, so he plagiarizes. Plagiarism, by count, is his most common form of publishing.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

; the most you get from him is a kind of a personal commentary usually expressed in such a way as to press people's buttons ("for the 354th straight week, we've published yet another article in the Interptreter—they said it couldn't be done, but we still here destroying the scientistic critics, who are actually crypto-Catholics according to a fascinating new book, Das wissenschaftliche Krypto-Christentum, which, sadly, hasn't yet been translated into Englisch but which I read in Bucharest I en route to Jordan, where I was invited by a government minister (I can't say which, of course) to examine new evidence, found in Wadi Feynan, one of my favorite areas of this part of the middle east, of pre-Columbian exchange with the Levant that will, undoubtedly, make critics very uncomfortable once it's published in a few years."

... but between accomplishment and his self-presentation (the gap is wide).

THIS IS GOLD, JERRY. GOLD I TELLS YA!

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

The more I think about DCP the more I think he would have been better suited to have been Daniel C. Peterson, Esq. white collar criminal defense attorney. He has spent his career defending Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. So why not get paid by similar individuals? I think he would have made a fine lawyer, given the how he is quick witted and the amounts of bs he's come up with to change the subject or the meaning of words to defend the guilty.

However, even in the law, where we spend our days quoting judges, trying to fit the facts into various legal boxes, we have to properly attribute sources. Plagiarism is definitely not allowed.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

By way of admission, the person who drives me to distraction, and probably should not, is actually John Gee. I really don't get that guy, and his attacks on Robert Ritner and others make me see red. That said, I try not to let this consume too much of my life.

Kish,

DCP has been very malicious in his attacks against Robert Ritner. Robert Ritner was even contemplating suing DCP.

Remember this post from Kevin Graham:

“Most of you who have kept up with the Book of Abraham debate over the past few years know how Robert Ritner has criticized his former student, John Gee. The only real response by the likes of Dan Peterson is to tell the story about how Ritner was thrown off Gee's dissertation committee after Gee made some kind of complaint about him. Here are just a few examples from DCP on the MAD board (There are others on the ZLMB board, but I didn't want to go looking for them).

The fact is that Professor Gee went on to earn a doctorate from Yale in Egyptology after successfully petitioning for the removal of Professor Ritner, his appointed advisor, from his doctoral committee. (Aug 2 2006, 10:45 AM)- http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Perhaps you're unaware that Professor Gee (successfully) petitioned his department at Yale to have Professor Ritner replaced as chairman of his doctoral committee. Such requests are not commonly made. And they are not commonly granted. Do you think they're best buddies? (Jun 10 2006, 04:56 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Professor Ritner was once Professor Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale University, until he was removed from that position and replaced by another professor. There is a personal history here (of which I was aware as it played out, since Professor Gee had been a student of mine before he went off to graduate school at Berkeley and then Yale. (Mar 22 2006, 08:43 PM) - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

As I've said, various substantive responses are in the works. Whether the personal side of this will ever come out is unknown to me. I wish it would, but I don't think that's my decision to make. (Sep 29 2004, 01:26 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...

Peterson provided an email from John Gee which included the following:

"I also will not comment on his removal from my dissertation committee other than to note that it was the department's decision to do so. There is much more to the story than what Professor Ritner has chosen to tell." (Mar 23 2006, 07:47 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/inde...
So Dan has been propagating this notion for YEARS. He said he wishes the details would be brought out in the open. His wish just might come true, but it is doubtful it will be a good thing for LDS apologetics. If what Gee and Peterson have been saying for years is in fact false, then just think of the credibility blow this would be.

I recently emailed Robert Ritner about this subject. To my astonishment, he seemed oblivious that these kinds of comments had been floating around in Mormon apologetics. I would have thought that someone would have emailed him about this over the years. His response to me is as follows.

Dear Mr. Graham,

Thank you for the kind and informative note. My response to Gee's relevant academic output will be contained in the book edited by Brent. Gee has been increasingly visible, but not increasingly respected, at meetings. I do not know Mr. Peterson, nor how he would have any knowledge of my involvement with Gee's dissertation (except through misrepresentations by Gee himself), but I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work, and I signaled many errors in his work as a reason. If Mr. Peterson continues to make false allegations, I may have to consider a slander or libel lawsuit. In any case, whoever he is, he is neither competent nor legally authorized to discuss the private matter. I have retained my dated correspondence and may put it on-line if such misrepresentations continue.

Sincerely, Robert Ritner


Wow. So Ritner says he has proof that what Dan and Gee are saying is false? Gee maintains that he was the reason Ritner left and Ritner says this is not true. Just think if Ritner decides to present his proof!

Ritner sent me a very long and detailed email this morning.

In it he accepted my apology, didn't seem concerned at all about the gay rumor, and further explained his position. I will provide a few points he made, but it should be perfectly clear to those who read it that his concern is on Peterson's alleged slander and not on anything I have done to offend him. Sorry David, Juliann and everyone else who wished to dictate the terms of Ritner's concerns. He disagrees with you:

1 - Ritner "explicitly disowned" Gee because of his apologetics pretended that "these non-Egyptological writings had the stamp of scholarly accuracy and my own personal approval as his teacher."

2- "There is no negative, personal 'history' between us, as his class grades would reveal."

3- "I probably shall post on-line mycorrespondence with him (which is my unrestricted intellectual property) urging him to find a new advisor at Yale." [emphasis mine: If true, then this is huge, as it would prove that Ritner was the one who suggested Gee find another advisor!]

4- "Despite Mr. Peterson's remarks, such changes are not at all unusual or problematic, particularly as I initiated thesuggestion and detailed many changes regarding the accuracy of his work that would be needed for him to continue writing under my direction."

5- "It is my understanding that the offer of a job at BYU spurred the need for a fast conclusion to the dissertation, which required an advisor more willing to accept what I noted as severely problematic." [Wow. This makes sense, because Gee did get a job at BYU almost instantly]

6- "Under the circumstances, it is not extraordinary that Gee followed my suggestion." [contra Peterson]

7- "I was not in any way faulted or reprimanded" ["removed" according to Peterson]

8- "I was fully in agreement with the change that I had urged." [It was Gee's idea, not Ritner's, according to Peterson]

9- "To be blunt, any insinuation that there was a forced removal because the Department accused me of improprieties is false, and the spread of such a lie is being done only to discredit my reputation, as you note."

10- "I am shocked that Peterson, as a professor, would improperly hint at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members). This is disgraceful."

11- "It is my wish to let the matter rest after the publication of Brent's volume."

12- "...if my writings have been of assistance to you or others in seeing the reasonable problems with the Abraham text and the actual content of the papyri, then any personal attacks are a minor issue, easily forgotten and forgiven."

[Philo Sofee]

I remember when Kevin posted that. It was HUGE, and actually, still is. I hope Kevin is doing ok, haven't seen him for a while. I miss his sporty postings......

[DrW]

As to DCP and his failure to produce the promised books, his primary hindrance seems to be a florid case of NPD. From my foxhole, he spends too much time on vanity writing and self-promotion to get much real academic work done. His shining example on the internet as a Mormon academic* is but one among many reasons why I no longer identify as Mormon and have as little to do with the LDS Church as possible.

When writing books, just as when writing review papers or even publishing original research, the best approach in my opinion is to form a team. Interested and qualified individuals, involved in the chosen field, who are motivated to contribute something substantial to the literature can make a big difference in the quality and timeliness of technical books. For such projects, in my line of work, it always seemed best to have a at least one academic on the team.

Our teams would meet as a working group, in person, for two or three days, away from our normal workplace at a retreat or even on a boat. A few hours of free time each day would be spent on other than than work activities. Work time was used to think and discuss the aspects of our work and how best to describe it to the intended audience. We would come to agreement on an overall objective, the scope and a rough outline, elect an editor or two among the group, make writing assignments, and go our separate ways to work.

As the work began to take shape, we made arrangements with a publisher, set milestones, exchanged drafts often, and had some friendly competition. When the time came, we would involve a good professional copy editor before final submission. With this approach, many hands made light work. The product of this process reflects a variety of view points, and when done right, conveys a well rounded treatment of the subject matter.

Forming up in different teams, colleagues and I have written half a dozen such books. Our premier work, published in 1990, became a best seller for a technical book, was purchased by certain concerns in case lots, led to a few nice consulting jobs, was eventually published in paperback, and is still available (and apparently still selling occasionally) on Amazon 30 years later.

Although these books were multi-authored, the academics we worked with valued them as career boosting publications. What they also valued was the experience gained in working closely with comparatively well funded government researchers. We felt likewise working with them. And our work got read and cited.

All this is to claim that if one enjoys their research and believes that it is important, then publication to let others know what one has discovered, and to help others in the field along, can be a real pleasure - as well as a duty. Some of the most enjoyable days at work were spent writing books. If DCP ever did take such a attitude toward his work, it seems to have vanished a long time ago.
____________________________

*There are several BYU professors with whom I have worked and for whom I have a great deal of respect and even admiration. A few of these individuals are internationally well respected, and one is recognized as peerless in his field. None of these accomplished individuals spend their time bragging about their lives on on the internet or trying to be internet influencers. Their reputations are built on hard work, peer-reviewed publications, classroom teaching, and active participation in their professional associations.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What a great post by Dr. with. It really makes you think about how isolated an academic might be if they can't develop a collaborative effort in order to publish something from their field. I mean, it's not like the man is expected to world build a la J.K. Rowling. Why wouldn't he be able to cobble together a few hundred pages? Surely DCP could even do a sort of travelogue book intertwining his 'trips fantastique' with plagiarized wiki entries? He could be a sort of Mormon Bill Bryson walking us through a gluttonous adventure as he eats his way through NY, IL, MO, and UT. C'mon, Dan. Chop chop. The clock is ticking.

- Doc

[DrW]

Thanks, Doc.

Since BYU Professor Peterson is referred to on this thread in a negative light, I was thinking about whether or not it would be appropriate to put a more positive spin on the things by naming a few of the BYU professors I admire. I decided against it - except for the peerless one; Professor Terry Ball.

Although sort of related to Dr. Ball, and acquainted with his daughter, I have never actually met the man. As with Dr. Peterson, I know Dr. Ball by reputation, and by the light he cast over our work in the Middle East. He is well recognized there for his knowledge of the archeology and botany of the region in general, and especially of desert flora, which was a great help in our assignments. Once his name was mentioned in the context of an identification or decision, local debate ended. In his area of expertise there, one could justifiably say he was peerless.

Imagine my surprise when I looked up my newly discovered favorite botanist on Wikipedia and found that a guy who is considered an American hard science rock star in the Middle East was a professor of ancient scripture at BYU.

-- "Ball holds a bachelor's degree in botany and education (1979), a master's degree in Ancient Near Eastern Studies (1990) and a Ph. D. in archeobotany (1992), all from BYU. After receiving his doctorate, Ball became a Professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU in 1992."

The similarities between Dr. Ball's position at BYU (Ancient Scripture) and that of Dr. Peterson (Islamic Studies), especially in the context of the Middle East, and the stark differences in their respective influence and legacies in the world, has not escaped my notice. One pretends to be a Renaissance man and one most probably is.