Meeting Dan Peterson.

[_Ray A]

I'm doing this thread for the purpose of relating my personal experience of meeting Dan Peterson, the man I once mockingly called "the Great One", on ZLMB, when we were, well, hardly good friends, and that's an understatement. Some may say, "oh no, not another Peterson thread", but I don't think I could do this on MADB as personal threads aren't allowed, so I'm taking this opportunity here, as the "Good Professor" (and unlike Scratch, I actually mean it) is with us.

First some clarifications, before Scratch comes with more of his distorted "online history", without consulting the participants who were actually there. This is the first responsibility of a responsible historian - if there are protagonists alive from an event/s he/she is writing about, they should make every effort to interview them, and report their recollections and opinions, not his/her personal interpretations, especially when the historian's biases conflict with those he's writing about. Of course, not all historians are that responsible, and I don't think Scratch even claims to be a historian. Finding the history of "Z" "fascinating" is one thing. Understanding the motivations of the posters is at best difficult, if not impossible, and what people were three or four years ago may be very different to what they are to now. Ask Kevin Graham. We point the finger at those we disagree with, and dredge up the past to hail stones, and we excuse those we agree with. It's called "selective charity". Spot the difference in your enemy - ignore it in your friends.

Another clarification: I know there are people who post here who have also met DCP, and some who have considerably more acquaintance with him than I do, so I'm only relating my personal perspective.

I will make one "sordid" admission. My anger on Z was related to how I was treated by LDS posters, but my views on many things at the time were inflammatory. For example, I took LDS fiction author Anne Perry to task for her past involvement in a crime in New Zealand, when she was only a teenager. Perry totally reformed her life, and eventually converted to Mormonism, but I insisted on dredging up her past and suggesting that she should not be a writer for Meridian. Now, I feel completely ashamed for being such a bastard. But LDS posters, including Pahoran, launched into me for this, and rightly so, but at the time I felt they were "picking on me". I also accused Dan of having some "questionable" motives in an article he wrote, and this is what set us off on the downhill path. The irony is that I found nothing objectionable about this article when I first read it in 1995, but I was in a "different" frame of mind on Z.

After Dan and I had many quite sour exchanges, which included emails, we seldom interacted much more on Z, and I even acknowledged that some of his posts were witty and funny. There was no malice on his part. He was defending himself. Even after our exchanges I found his wit and self-deprecating humour endearing, and the mods on one occasion misunderstood a benign remark I made about this, thinking it was malicious, but it wasn't. Dan initiated the email exchanges, and I think I know why, because when I first went on Z my first questions were directed at him, and he has explained why he changed to the moniker of "Freethinker", which I accept. My recollection is that he originally posted under his real name, but changed his moniker, and I arrived there when he was posting under "Freethinker". My questions were directed at "Daniel Peterson", but obviously he could not reply under "Freethinker", and I believe, rightly or wrongly, this is why he began emailing me. At the time I didn't know who "Freethinker" was. But my admiration for Dan goes back to 1990, when he wrote his editorials for the FARMS Review (then known as Review of Books on the Book of Mormon). When Dan started emailing, under his real name, I immediately believed he was "Freethinker". But even then the dual personas did not bother me, but I had already started an argument with "Freethinker". I actually now find this quite funny, no doubt because of my personal biases, because I strongly admired Dan because of his writings. He was the first Mormon writer I read who was prepared to "take on the anti-Mormons", head on, and this was what bothered me for years, that no one would, nor even acknowledge people like the Tanners. Dan was criticised by some of his fellow Mormons for this, and had to defend himself in some of his editorials. I found this, to say the least, extraordinary. An LDS author was finally addressing all of the questions I had - for years!

And this brings me to another aspect of Dan's personality. He cares. If you haven't noticed, he replies to just about everyone (be it bitter or sweet), unless people become intolerable towards him. And here I quote a reply from beastie in another thread: "Thanks for taking me seriously". Yes, thanks, Dan. I wrote many LDS writers in the 1980s and 1990s, asking questions to see if I could resolve my problems, but one of the few replies I remember as being significant was from Dan Peterson (Eugene England was another, and he and Dan were the only Mormons who sent me books, free of charge, personally signed by the author). I also wrote Brent Metcalfe, who did not reply, but later acknowledged on Z that he found my old letter, and connected me with that "rebellious questioning ex-Mormon" on the Net. Now you may say that Dan has "ulterior motives" in replying, but this is not the impression I got. The impression I got is that he wanted to give his views, then let me decide. Even an exmo would do this, from the "other side", at least a more objective exmo. Dan was and is passionate about his religion - and it showed.

I went on FAIR in mid-2004, and I thought about this move long before I made it, knowing my history on Z, where I was banned, and rightly so. Ironically, one of the first posts I read on FAIR was one from Cinepro, who was there before me, who expressed his spiritual belief in the Book of Mormon, and how it had affected him! This post moved me, because I knew Cinepro was a sometime critic, but I could associate with his sentiments regarding the Book of Mormon. I finally decided to take my chances, and if necessary to "take on the Mormons", but after a while on FAIR I mellowed, and admittedly I did not receive the "cool" reaction I did on Z. I found I could express my doubts and disbeliefs much more, as long as I was not offensive. And that was the key, to appreciate that no matter what I thought, if it was posted respectfully I would get serious replies.

On FAIR I began expressing, and asking questions that I wanted to ask on Z, and I found FAIR posters much more open to debate, and much more tolerant of "respectful dissent". So that's where my deeper views of the Book of Mormon came out, which were all debated. After I was on FAIR for quite some time Dan and I started emailing again, probably around late 2004, early 2005, but this time our exchanges were much more amicable, undoubtedly because I had changed my ad hominem approach. We do have some differences on this, which I expressed in private emails, and his response was it would not be a barrier to our mutual respect. He does tolerate different opinions, what he does not tolerate is mockery or sarcasm towards him, or his religion, as he put it, he does not "suffer fools gladly". And I don't blame him.

In 2006 Dan mentioned that he would be visiting Australia on a lecture tour at various universities, and invited me to meet with him. I made it clear in an email that I would love to meet him, but that this would not influence my views about the Church, as an ex-Mormon. He fully understood that, and that our mutual interest was the Book of Mormon. After preparations, including phone calls from a leader I hadn't heard from for years, L.W, a former bishop/stake president in Adelaide, where I served as a missionary and who knew me, who now worked for the CES, we met in my flat for lunch. An elderly missionary couple drove Dan and his wife down to Wollongong, and we entertained them for about five hours with some real Aussie "quisine" - chicken and salads galore. My daughter Hannah went out and bought plates for the occasion, because I told her a "very important person" was visiting us, and she insisted that an uneducated bachelor like me should be more aware of "important guests". Dan "radioed" ahead that they were near, and I gave them directions where to go, and after 16 years, I finally met "the author of the FARMS Review". I could hardly believe I was meeting Dan Peterson - former foe, now friend. The first impression that struck me was how informal they all were. No suits, no ties, they looked like typical Aussies, and it was very informal. Dan's wife is a very down to earth person. Dan and I conversed about his past, his life growing up California, and coming from a less than fully active Mormon home, and some politics, and issues involving Islam in Australia, as he met with the Sheik in Sydney, as well as various prominent politicians from both sides of politics.

Here was what really struck me. I lived in a run-down "bach flat" at the time, and had no contact with the Church for years. Can you imagine the surprise (shock?) when Dan told them he wanted to visit an ex-Mormon in Wollongong? And that his tight travel iternary would have to accommodate this? Here was a man lecturing at universities, talking to prominent politicians, on a busy fly-by-night schedule, and he took the time to visit an "exmo" in Wollongong living in almost "squalid" conditions (which some of my own relatives would not visit). For that alone my admiration for the man skyrocketed. As I said he cares, and he knew my position on the Church. He cared in the 1990s when he replied, and he cared then. "Class barriers" meant absolutely nothing to him. He would not have cared if I was a garbage collector.

Is Dan "antagonistic" on the net? Yes, when he is attacked, and his integrity and honour defiled, and with good reason. Yet, I've never seen him go into the gutter like some exmos. He is, after all, human, with human feelings, and I, frankly, am amazed at the restraint he has exercise considering the insults, defamation, and slander he has had to endure over so many years, yet never resorted to the gutter like his opponents have. I will never believe in something because "Dan Peterson says so", but he is a human being for whom I have enormous respect, and that respect will endure regardless of whether he was a Mormon or not. He towers head and shoulders above his critics.

[_moksha]

Here was what really struck me. I lived in a run-down "bach flat" at the time, and had no contact with the Church for years. Can you imagine the surprise (shock?) when Dan told them he wanted to visit an ex-Mormon in Wollongong? And that his tight travel itinerary would have to accommodate this? Here was a man lecturing at universities, talking to prominent politicians, on a busy fly-by-night schedule, and he took the time to visit an "exmo" in Wollongong living in almost "squalid" conditions (which some of my own relatives would not visit). For that alone my admiration for the man skyrocketed. As I said he cares, and he knew my position on the Church. He cared in the 1990s when he replied, and he cared then. "Class barriers" meant absolutely nothing to him. He would not have cared if I was a garbage collector.

Thanks for sharing that. It shows a side to Dr. Peterson that is not readily apparent on the net.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for a very kind post, Ray.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Ray thanks for sharing your story. Dr. Peterson has only been kind and generous to me.

It's really hard not to take things that are said on here personally. I know I've been deeply pained by someone who tried to hurt me and succeeded. Not so much that what this person said has any credibility or any semblance of truth, rather I was just astounded at the vitriol and hatred that was spewed at me. I am not accustomed to such things and was rather shocked. As a matter of fact most of the posters in the world of LDS apologetics/critics that have been the most hateful and rude were the "gentlemen". I've forgiven these men and harbor no ill will. ***Edited to add*** I'm pretty sure these same men would not have hounded, or insulted me had they been face to face with a 5'1" 105 lb. woman in real life. :) I think some people lose their senses on here, and I am trying really hard to remember that.

I'm thankful that 10 years of my history is not online.

[Ahoody]

It's really hard not to take things that are said on here personally. I know I've been deeply pained by someone who tried to hurt me and succeeded. Not so much that what this person said has any credibility or any semblance of truth, rather I was just astounded at the vitriol and hatred that was spewed at me.

The psychology of online personas/behavior is fascinating. I've added a few popular essays on "flaming" to the selections I assign my writing classes.

Its hard not to take these things personally, even though reacting to words on a screen written by who knows who, god knows where is about as distant as it can get. Cyberspace is nothing if not intimate-seeming.

[_Blixa]

I will make one "sordid" admission...my views on many things at the time were inflammatory. For example, I took LDS fiction author Anne Perry to task for her past involvement in a crime in New Zealand, when she was only a teenager. Perry totally reformed her life, and eventually converted to Mormonism, but I insisted on dredging up her past and suggesting that she should not be a writer for Meridian. Now, I feel completely ashamed for being such a bastard.

Thanks for being so candid. Was this of particular importance to you because you're from that part of the globe?

I find Perry enigmatic. I'm familiar with her writing and her biography; I regularly use one of her novels in a detective fiction course I teach. Although I don't pursue this in class, I've always thought her work strikingly open to a psychological interpretation in terms of her treatment of gender and sexuality. One could also read her conversion in terms of that, too.

It would be fascinating to ask her directly about these connections, though I doubt she would answer and frankly, I would never be so impolite or presumptious to ask if I ever met her in person.

[_dartagnan]

I can't argue with anything said here, nor would I want to. I met Dan once and it was quite the pleaasant experience as well. Although Dan seems to think I am out to wreck his life, I have had nothing but good things to say about him as a person - online as well as offline.

[_Dr. Shades]

Here was what really struck me. I lived in a run-down "bach flat" at the time, and had no contact with the Church for years. Can you imagine the surprise (shock?) when Dan told them he wanted to visit an ex-Mormon in Wollongong? And that his tight travel iternary would have to accommodate this? Here was a man lecturing at universities, talking to prominent politicians, on a busy fly-by-night schedule, and he took the time to visit an "exmo" in Wollongong living in almost "squalid" conditions (which some of my own relatives would not visit). For that alone my admiration for the man skyrocketed. As I said he cares, and he knew my position on the Church. He cared in the 1990s when he replied, and he cared then. "Class barriers" meant absolutely nothing to him. He would not have cared if I was a garbage collector.

Great points. Those are the marks of true character.

Thanks for your post, Ray.

[_Nightingale]

Class barriers?

I am not understanding this.

Do you or did you consider yourself in a lower "class" than DCP?

I am very sorry to hear it.

[_Gadianton]

Class barriers don't go away, they just shift domains.