Revisting a Classic: The DCP / McCue Smackdown

[_Mister Scratch]

Once upon a time, the stage was set for a great, "Rumble in the Jungle"-type confrontation. Two heavyweights in the world of Internet Mormonism were all set to square off against each other in a battle of epic proportions. On one side, Professor Daniel C. Peterson, the "Krispy Kreme King," legendary FARMS apologist and FAIR/MADboard regular. On the other side, was Bob McCue, a Canadian lawyer and a pundit of sorts who had become well-known for his lengthy analyses of Mormon-related things, and his frequent contributions to RfM.

So it was on a bright shiny day early in 2006, Bob McCue sent an email to DCP, challenging His Highness to a verbal duel.

You are aware that I have been critical of statements you made at a conference a while ago (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.daniel%20peterson.pdf). I understand that you take exception my position, as would be expected. I also understand that what I write is too long for your taste (an odd position for someone who reads and writes as much as you do), and that you think I am unwilling to engage in public debate. [...]

However, I have a proposal that may satisfy your taste you seem to have for some interaction with people like me. It is the same one I made well over a year ago to someone you know - Dr. David C. Wright - who used to teach at BYU and is now at the University of Calgary. I wrote an essay (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%20s ... 20true.pdf) in response to an article Wright published in a Calgary newspaper. At the end of that essay, I suggest to Wright that he and I publicly debate the question, "Was Joseph Smith trustworthy?" In polite email correspondence, he declined. His interests, he said, do not run along those lines.

I make the same invitation to you. I can arrange sometime during the next year to be in the Salt Lake area. I would like the debate to be in person, in a neutral forum. I am sure that someone off the BYU campus would host us. Or perhaps it could be done in a radio studio. We would use a moderator and some form of the usual debate rules, agreed upon in advance. The debate would be recorded for podcast, if not broadcast live.

And so thus the gloves were off! McCue had made his bid. Of course, all of us are well aware of how fond Prof. Peterson is of making idle threats and of tossing out blithe dismissals from the cozy confines of his safe-haven at FAIR/MAD. Thus, it was refreshing for many to see Bob McCue call him on it---on the Professor's home turf no less!

Almost immediately the MB was abuzz with interest:

...anxiously awaiting Daniel's response...

I am sure this will not be necessary but consider this a warning pretending to be a reminder. High profile posters who post under their own names will not be used for target practice on this board. Do not use this thread to start brawls. Do not go off-topic.

Addendum: I do realize that Mr. McCue was insulting. Do not take the bait. We also know that scholars tend to be very disinterested in "debates" so this does not need to be repeated. Keep this discussion focused on the merits of the topic for debate or the idea of debate itself. Do not discuss Mr. McCue personally.

Am I wrong, or did juliann commit the same crime (i.e., personal attack) that she was warning against? Anyways, it seems that Dunamis's warnings were prescient indeed:

post deleted by moderator

This post has been edited by Dunamis: Feb 28 2006, 11:13 AM

Here is our own beloved Why Me, who apparently failed to carefully read McCue's OP:

Why would Daniel want to to respond to Bob? First I am very suspicious of a public announcement like this one. Why not send Daniel a personal email? It sounds to me that Bob wants to take the high ground on this one. Such requests should be made in private between the two individuals involved and not on public forums. Also Bob's tone doesn't seem to be a humble request.

Also to debate or discuss was Joseph Smith Trustworthy is not easy to do. I don't believe that both Bob and Daniel knew the man personally.

Just my thoughts....

Next is a very peculiar post from julainn (in sockpuppet form):

I am leaving this thread open so that the topic brought up by McCue can be discussed in this forum. If he is not going to participate in his own thread there is no reason to take an invitation to debate seriously. I am sure Mr. McCue is capable of making an appropriate personal invitation if that is his desire. I am just as sure that Dr. Peterson would consider it a complete waste of time as does FAIR. We consider publication to be a far more reliable and effective means of communication.

But we can discuss the debate points here with or without Mr. McCue. It should give us some good discussion. Why pass it up? Go to it.

(bold emphasis added)

The portion I have bolded is crucial. Far too often, it seems, LDS apologists use publication as a kind of shield to hide behind. How convenient it is that DCP would "consider publication to be a far more reliable...means of communication," especially since he is the one who edits the publication in question! Does anyone else see a conflict of interest here? It is also worth noting that this is yet more evidence of juliann's infatuation with status and qualifications---something which got her into a major-league pot of hot water during the whole Bromley/Defining-an-apostate debacle. She attempted to hide behind "publication" in order to support her biased views, and wound up getting burned. Finally, notice the assuption that McCue is doing a "hit-and-run" style post, something which he immediately corrects:

Look folks, as the note above indicates, the message I posted here was sent to Dan this morning. This was the direct result of his suggestion here (as it was conveyed to me) that he did not think people like me are prepared to engage in public discussion. My disinclination to spend time here has nothing to do with that, as I hope is now clear. I wanted people here as well as at RFM where similar things have been raised from time to time to understand that.

If you wish to discuss the issues I have raised, go ahead. I will check back in from time to time to see what develops, and perhaps participate to some degree. But I did not start the thread for that purpose.

Make no mistake about the invitation to debate - it is is sincere. I made it to David Wright and was dissappointed when he did not wish to pursue it. The question of Smith's trustworthiness is an important issue, and if Dan wants to engage on that basis, I am happy to oblige. I have no interest, however, in discussing most of the other issues that hold the attention of the crowd here. At some point, diminishing educational returns do not justify the effort required to participate.

best,

bob

(Notice that he also corrects Why Me's misreading of the OP.)

Here is "Single Girl," responding to juliann/Dunamis's claim that McCue was "insulting":

I read Mr. McCue's post three times, and I don't see how he was being insulting. Perhaps I missed it.

Next is an intriguing post from a TBM regular:

Honestly, while I enjoy reading posts by Dr. Peterson and watching him thrash whomever he is up against, I think he has much more important things to be dealing with in his professional life. Id rather see his scholastic abilities put to good use in other areas than debating issues such as these.

Huh? He is in favor of the debate, but is providing DCP with an excuse to weenie out of it? Why?

Anyways, finally, after much anticipation, which many readers glued to their computer screens, The Krispy Kreme King steps into the ring:

You are aware that I have been critical of statements you made at a conference a while ago

Yes, I'm aware.

I skimmed through your comments and concluded, preliminarily, that you were responding, consciously or (more likely) not, to a caricature of my position, on the basis of a dogmatically held position of your own. I didn't find any of it particularly interesting or significant.

I've been meaning to go back through what you wrote more carefully, but I haven't gotten to it yet and, frankly, I may not.

A strange, evasive reply! DCP claims from the outset that McCue doesn't understand him! This has got to be one of the cheapest, weakest replies in the entire apologetic repertoire. Surely the King can come up with something better that this!

I have no interest in spending time at the on-line fora you frequent. I used to be a regular at such places, but eventually realized that I was arguing too much and not learning enough to justify that use of time. The same would be the case if I hung out with Young Earth Creationists, JWs or any of many other groups who are as sure that they have the truth as are you and your friends.

You judge the Recovery board, I take it, to be a significantly superior and less dogmatic learning environment?

And what to make of this?

I make the same invitation to you. I can arrange sometime during the next year to be in the Salt Lake area. I would like the debate to be in person, in a neutral forum. I am sure that someone off the BYU campus would host us. Or perhaps it could be done in a radio studio. We would use a moderator and some form of the usual debate rules, agreed upon in advance. The debate would be recorded for podcast, if not broadcast live.

I'll think about it. However, I have to say, candidly, that I'm rather disinclined. I've done a lot of debating -- in high school and, a few times, since then (e.g., with Mr. James White on a radio program, as well as with Dr. William Lane Craig and a group of his associates at an academic conference), and, although I'm reasonably good at it (I think quickly on my feet, etc.), I've never found it overly satisfying. As a method of getting at the truth, as opposed to demonstrating glibness, I think it considerably overrated. I prefer written publications (as in print).

(emphasis added)

Of course he prefers "written publications (as in print)" since he has complete and total control over said publications. This is absolutely crucial. DCP could have easily debated McCue online--after all, juliann/Dunamis was on the scene right from the get-go, and the messageboard format allows for composed, measure response. (Later, the FAIRmods would establish the Pundits Forum precisely for the purpose of scholarly debate.) So why did DCP decline?

I'm also rather uninterested in debating you, personally, for the simple reason that I have not seen much ability or willingness on your part to interact acccurately [sic] with the positions I've advocated. I quickly grow weary of having to say, over and over again, "that's not what I said," "that's not what I believe," "that's not my position."

But that is the point of debate, is it not? Clarification? Elucidation? Again, this seems awfully weaselly and unpersuasive, to say the least. "I refuse because you do not understand me." Is this not a variation on the caricature/straw man that DCP claimed McCue was crafting of him? Frankly, I think the Good Professor would have been better of simply quoting Bartelby, "I prefer not to."

This was my experience, right here on FAIR, with your fellow RFM star-poster, Tal Bachman, and I have to say that it was one of the most puzzling and frustrating experiences that I have had with such encounters. He is indisputably a bright fellow, but, from my perspective, that only equipped him to generate unusually creative misreadings of virtually every sentence I wrote. He is now, I understand, convinced that I'm somehow psychologically defective and incapable of rational thought, even (to use his words) a "sociopath" and "nuts." And truly, if I believed what he attributes to me and argued as he claims I do, I would probably deserve some such evaluation.

Your verdict, I think, is less extremely formulated and less obsessively repeated than Mr. Bachman's, but does not strike me as fundamentally different.

I'm willing to defend my position, but I'm not interested in defending positions that I don't hold. Nor am I interested in explaining my position over and over and over and over again to somebody who cannot be troubled to get it right because he is already convinced that I hold my position owing to mental or psychological failure rather than as the result of a serious and reasonable consideration of the evidence. (Some of the questions you formulate clearly suggest that you would follow that same line of socio-psycholological reductionism in your proposed debate with me.)

Here is another peculiar tactic I have noticed DCP use again and again: he accuses his opponent of harboring ill thoughts. This is a weird variation on the Straw Man tactic, wherein DCP himself is not crafting a straw man; rather, he is claiming that his opponent has crafted a Straw Man before the opponent has even said anything... I.e., DCP will say, "You must think I'm a liar." Or, "You are accusing me of being insane," even though nobody has said any such thing. It does seem to be an effective means of shutting down the conversation (or of attracting moderator intervention).

The question "Was Joseph Smith trustworthy?" cuts to the core of many foundational Mormon issues.

I've written a considerable amount on that and related topics, and I have several more substantial items relevant to that subject in the works. I don't know whether you're familiar with much of what I've published (though I'm aware that you've denigrated my ability to reason and my capacity for "objective" judgment).

I'm much more interested in a written debate -- not a formally organized one, but one that proceeds in terms of publications and responses. This is where I intend to concentrate my energies. It's where I have concentrated my energies.

How odd. Anyone who has taken a gander at DCP's posts on FAIR/MAD will see that this is categorically untrue. He devotes quite a bit of time to reading and writing on various LDS-related messageboards.

You're entirely welcome (obviously) to respond to materials that I publish, as is anybody else, and I'm free to respond, should I feel so inclined, to the responses. I do ask, however, that people who respond to me assume, at least provisionally, that I'm neither deliberately deceptive, nor insane, nor emotionally crippled, and it would be really helpful if the positions they attribute to me could be positions that I'm capable of recognizing as my own.

So... That is basically it. DCP refused to engage McCue in debate for reasons which... Well, I guess it is not very clear why DCP declined. He seems aware of this, and addresses it in a later post:

I realize that my lack of enthusiasm for formal public oral debate, and, in particular, for debating with Bob McCue, opens me to accusations of cowardice. etc. In fact, I suspect that that was pretty much the point of issuing the challenge publicly. It would be a win-win situation (from a particular point of view), in which I either agreed to the debate (from which Mr. McCue is, no doubt, confident that he would emerge the clear victor) or, failing that, I would be revealed as a craven coward. Here are a couple of comments made on Mr. McCue's home message board even prior to my response above:

Subject: Oh Snap! Danny, did someone just get called out?
Date: Feb 28 13:11
Author: South
Mail Address:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is precisely this type of confrontation that makes cowards like Dan run for the hills.
Yellow.
He knows he's all talk. He knows he can't bring it. But just like every schoolyard bully who gets worried his [expletive deleted] will be kicked, he'll talk about how he doesn't have time for you, Bob.
Dan is a small, small fish in an uninteresting backwater lagoon.
Prepare to be underwhelmed.

There's something of a pre-adolescent "double-dog dare ya" quality to this sort of thing, if it isn't actually reminiscent of British soccer fans after a binge, which is one of the reasons why I don't see such debates as particularly well-suited venues for serious intellectual inquiry.

Finally, we get Bob McCue's sign-off:

Dan,

Thanks for responding.

I am sorry you are not interested in the kind of interaction I proposed. If you let me know where you have published (or publish in the future) relative to the questions I raised, I will have a look and may respond.

A number of the things you said above don't make sense to me. But I doubt that dealing with them would advance the ball, so I won't.

best,

bob

How sad! This was the great smackdown that never was. I remain disappointed to this day that DCP did not accept the challenge. And all, apparently, due to his belief that McCue would "misunderstand him." About this, our very own Rollo Tomasi said:

This still does not avoid the problem pointed out by Dan of misrepresenting his positions and having to waste time correcting it (having it in writing is no guarantee this isn't going to happen as should be obvious from Dan's example.)

Perhaps, but the reader can decide (i.e., whether one is misrepresenting the other) by comparing their statements side by side. I think such a debate would be excellent, and deserving of its own thread that only Dan and Bob can access for posting purposes but that we can all view (like the threads at the top of the first page of the FAIR bb's). I hope Dan reconsiders.

An excellent point. Anyways, that was that. This one shall go down in the annals of FAIR history as perhaps the most provocative instance of DCP cowering before a critic.

A postscript: Bob McCue went on to post several more times on FAIR, and he may hold the record for having the highest percentage of his threads shut down by the mods: 11 out of 14. And of course each of those threads contained the de rigueur TBM complaints about the length of his posts, etc.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Once upon a time, the stage was set for a great, "Rumble in the Jungle"-type confrontation. Two heavyweights in the world of Internet Mormonism were all set to square off against each other in a battle of epic proportions. On one side, Professor Daniel C. Peterson, the "Krispy Kreme King," legendary FARMS apologist and FAIR/MADboard regular. On the other side, was Bob McCue, a Canadian lawyer and a pundit of sorts who had become well-known for his lengthy analyses of Mormon-related things, and his frequent contributions to RfM.

So it was on a bright shiny day early in 2006, Bob McCue sent an email to DCP, challenging His Highness to a verbal duel.

I was really hoping they would debate, but DCP always had one excuse or another for declining to participate. I thought my suggestion was doable, but I don't think that DCP ever seriously considered debating Bob -- Bob was simply too formidable an opponent, as DCP was well aware.

[_Mister Scratch]

Once upon a time, the stage was set for a great, "Rumble in the Jungle"-type confrontation. Two heavyweights in the world of Internet Mormonism were all set to square off against each other in a battle of epic proportions. On one side, Professor Daniel C. Peterson, the "Krispy Kreme King," legendary FARMS apologist and FAIR/MADboard regular. On the other side, was Bob McCue, a Canadian lawyer and a pundit of sorts who had become well-known for his lengthy analyses of Mormon-related things, and his frequent contributions to RfM.

So it was on a bright shiny day early in 2006, Bob McCue sent an email to DCP, challenging His Highness to a verbal duel.

I was really hoping they would debate, but DCP always had one excuse or another for declining to participate. I thought my suggestion was doable, but I don't think that DCP ever seriously considered debating Bob -- Bob was simply too formidable an opponent, as DCP was well aware.

I was disappointed as well. Of course, McCue's account is still open on MAD, so he could always try again....