DiscussMormonism.com

Over on the fittingly named MADboard, DCP has launched what another poster has rightly labeled a "personalized thread" in which he is complaining about his treatment regarding the Simon Wiesenthal blog post:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I've been involved in an, um, conversation about posthumous baptisms over on a Jewish blog. (David Bokovoy also put in an appearance there.) When some of my rather obsessive fans at the oddly-named "Recovery" board discovered this, they lost no time in scurrying over to reveal the sordid truth about me, the Church, and Mormonism:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID ... 8329603513

Now, some of them are predicting that my arrogantly boorish ranting and raving there will get me fired, and they're daring each other to "out" me to the BYU administration. (I would save them the trouble and "out" myself, if I thought that anybody in the BYU administration would be even slightly interested. Anybody here is free to do it, as well.) One in particular, who goes by "Grape Nephi a.k.a. William," whom some will recognize as the Northern Arizona University "Mormon anthropologist" from the Living Hope Ministries propaganda film The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon, is positively salivating at the thought of my losing my job.

Question: Should I be fired, or excommunicated, or both? Apart from the merits, will I be fired, or excommunicated, or both? Feel free to communicate your views to BYU President Cecil O. Samuelson, as well. I'm sure he'll treasure them.

He really seems to be flailing around in real desperation here. Honestly, I cannot recall having ever seen him so bent out of shape over something. There are plenty of people over on MAD who are offering moral support, as it were, but it seems that he has made an inescapable PR blunder in this instance. The poster called "Pantsman" assesses the situation with a fair amount of levity:

Pantsman wrote:I don't know about BYU's policies or anything, and while personally I don't find anything you said offensive, it would appear that one poster did show that you made statements in apparent opposition to the 1995 agreement the LDS Church made with the Jewish people to not perform proxy baptisms. I don't know if that can get you in trouble or not, and a lot of those guys seem to well hate you frankly and no doubt they'll be giving that link to those in charge at BYU.

That said as a professor at BYU you are held to a higher standard I think. Going toe to toe on blogs with bitter angry people probably doesn't represent you or BYU in the best light. No matter who acts which way, or who is charitable at the end of the day anyone involved in internet arguments ends up looking immature and foolish.

A very good comment, in my opinion. What this all adds up to, no doubt, is another horrible embarrassment for the good Professor. The fact that he issued an apology on the original blog thread basically cements his guilty into place, as far as I'm concerned, since the only other time he did this was when his Mike Quinn gossipmongering was made public. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if he was advised---be it professionally or ecclesiastically---to curtail his posting activities.

Well said Mr. Scratch. It has been an explosive few days for Daniel as I've watched both sides of the community.

I think, personally, Daniel needs to cut this short and walk away before it really blows up.

There is some talk that Daniel's comments have been sent to all news orgs. Here in Utah, but I'm doubtful of that. It would be interesting to see what the COB response would be to some of the comments Daniel made on that Jewish blog. I'm pretty doubtful they would really care unless it reached the level where it would be an embarrassment to the Church (i.e. higher forms of media).

For now, Daniel is licking his wounds and falling back behind the shoulders of his fans – and they are patting his back. Give it a few days to blow over and he will be back to his usual level of verbosity.

As always I find your posts insightful.

Cheers ;

It is interesting to see the differences in perception we each have of Dr. Peterson's posts as quoted above. What I saw as an unworried and lighthearted jab at the folks at RFM, others see as a near melt-down by DCP. Fascinating!

Anyway, even though there was an active thread here on the subject, it didn't warrant a mention by DCP. I wonder what that means in terms of level of interest and importance he may places on certain participants and the goings-on here? If he is only mildly amused and entirely unconcerned with the RFM bruhaha, imagine how miniscule an impression some people here must have made on him.

I suppose this reality may be somewhat disconcerting to some here given how obsessed they seem to be with the good Dr. So much time and energy has been devoted to him, only to yeild a big ziltch.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I find no joy in his embarrassment but it illustrates the oft resurgent Mormon hubris.

As most of us know: they are their own worst enemies.

I have been following DCP's meltdown. It's as though he went into a crowded elevator with his worshippers and farted. His worshippers just stay on the elevator with him despite the foul smell while everyone else gets off.

by the way, first time poster here. I hope I did this right.

wenglund wrote:It is interesting to see the differences in perception we each have of Dr. Peterson's posts as quoted above. What I saw as an unworried and lighthearted jab at the folks at RFM, others see as a near melt-down by DCP. Fascinating!

Oddly enough I saw it as both. Some times he came across sincere, but he feel back to his normal jabbing comments.

I find it interesting to see that you feel he was "lighthearted".

Could your view of his comments be as biased as exmo's?

Hi there,
I think and believe that Daniel C. Peterson should just now basically stick to Posting his Messages on the MA&D Board, where he gets special treatment and special protection from the Moderators (such as Juliann and Dan G.) there. When Daniel does ever dig himself in a hole on the MA&D Board, there are always the moderators (such as Juliann and Dan G.) there, who will come in and swoop in to save and rescue Daniel from himself and from any of the "evil" critics there.

Brackite wrote:Hi there,
I think and believe that Daniel C. Peterson should just now basically stick to Posting his Messages on the MA&D Board, where he gets special treatment and special protection from the Moderators (such as Juliann and Dan G.) there. When Daniel does ever dig himself in a hole on the MA&D Board, there are always the moderators (such as Juliann and Dan G.) there, who will come in and swoop in to save and rescue Daniel from himself and from any of the "evil" critics there.

Daniel is his own worst enemy.

wenglund wrote:It is interesting to see the differences in perception we each have of Dr. Peterson's posts as quoted above. What I saw as an unworried and lighthearted jab at the folks at RFM, others see as a near melt-down by DCP. Fascinating!

Anyway, even though there was an active thread here on the subject, it didn't warrant a mention by DCP. I wonder what that means in terms of level of interest and importance he may places on certain participants and the goings-on here?

Good question. I, for one, don't know how much "importance"---if any---he places on "certain participants and the goings-on here," although I do know that:
---He uses a quote from me in his sig line
---He has called me, with insufficient evidence, a "brazen liar"
---He spent a great deal of time reading, and responding to, via FAIR, recent threads dealing with GA remuneration and peer review at FROB
---He regularly monitors RfM, KG's board, and this board
---He has lobbed "water balloons" from the safe confines of FAIR/MAD at myself, Harmony, Rollo, Vegas, and others
---He demanded that I be "called on the carpet" and confess to doing things I didn't do
---He sent GA-like emails of condemnation to Rollo after the Mike Quinn gossipmongering incident

So, again, I don't know how much "importance"---if any---he places on folks and goings-on here. Do you know?

If he is only mildly amused and entirely unconcerned with the RFM bruhaha, imagine how miniscule an impression some people here must have made on him.

Huh, yeah, gee. I dunno. I guess it made a large enough impression to merit a rule-violating, personalized thread on the fittingly named MAD board.

The hole for Professor Peterson is getting deeper, as he is being taken to task by Yong Xi:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Yong Xi wrote: @ Dec 21 2006, 01:19 PM) *
Nobody is.

That's rather a fundamental aspect of Christian belief.
I don’t know what this has to do with Jews. Unless, of course your intending to Christianize them.[/quote

It points out that our belief that salvation is only through Christ applies to Buddhists, atheists, Jains, Catholics, and ourselves, as well as to Jews. That is standard-issue Christian theology. If Rabbi Hier finds the central doctrine of Christianity sacrilegious -- which, of course, may not be what he really intended to say -- that's certainly his right. But he can hardly expect all of Christendom to abandon its foundation and raison d'etre because he's chosen to be offended by it.

Obviously, it is not a two-way street for Professor Peterson. And how lovely that he is throwing down the "Bednar Card," as it were.

Anyways, here's another interesting quote---interesting in light of the topic, at any rate:

Daniel Peterson wrote:Not at all. What Catholics and Jews believe is their business. Mormons have no right to dictate their theology to them. Likewise, what my faith community chooses to believe is it's own business. We're under no obligation to take our doctrinal marching orders from rabbi, pope, imam, or guru.

Unless "them" gets offended proxy baptism, right? In that case, nothing has been "dictated"; rather "them" has merely chosen to be offended.

Next, Yong Xi manages to get Prof. P. to admit that the Church is playing the "victim role" in this whole debacle:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Yong Xi wrote: @ Dec 21 2006, 01:19 PM) *
Helen Radkey hates the Church, and is always seeking to do it damage.
I don’t know that this is relevant. The fact that she can incite anger over this issue speaks perhaps, more to the issue than anything else. Why bring this up? It makes you look like a victim.

We are victims of Helen Radkey's on-going campaign against the Church. I don't think it a bad thing for people to understand where she's coming from and what her history is. Are you perhaps suggesting that some knowledge just isn't useful, and that those who know it ought to suppress it and keep it from the public?

This last comment from him makes no sense. Since Ms. Radkey's work involves exposing flaws in the IGI, what's the problem? What is he talking about here? He goes on:

Daniel Peterson wrote:As I understand it, from a very sober and generally reliable source, the Church actually even approached Helen Radkey and asked for her help in devising a more effective way of screening for names of Holocaust victims and survivors. She refused to help, but went straight to the Wiesenthal Center. And, of course, she's preparing some big media release.

If this is true -- and I'm inclined to believe my friend -- it says quite a bit both about her motives and about the Church's willingness to be sensitive and helpful on this issue.

All I see it saying is that she does not trust the Church. I am wondering if the Church followed up with the Wiesenthal Center, or if the matter was just dropped, thus indicating that it was merely a token gesture meant to temporarily placate angry Jews.

Later, His Highness goes on with a bit of name-dropping of all the higher-ups from the Middle East that he hangs out with. I'm not going to give him the pleasure of listing that stuff here.

Also noteworthy in the thread, David Bokovoy has "outed" a poster over there, labeling him an "anti-Mormon," and declaring in full public view that this person "...clearly does not like Mormons." Prof. Peterson swooped right in to high-five Bokovoyt declaring what he was doing to be "funny." I don't get this. After all the uproar over the blogs in this site and etc., after "Mr. Itchy"---who may very well be Allen Wyatt---why would someone as high profile as Bokovoy be doing this? What does he accomplish by "outing" this poster, who, so far as I can tell, has been alarmed enough at the "outing" to have flown the coop of MAD? Very ugly goings-on indeed.