I guess the important question for you is whether it is really worth it. From my perspective it most definitely is not. But, hey, that's me.
Well, it isn't costing me any money. It hasn't taken much of my time. And many people have thanked me for educating them on this topic where Dan has provided politically correct fluff.
It does somewhat trouble me to see a person of your obvious intelligence grind obsessively on the same topic all of the time.
The "topic" is Islam, not Dan Peterson. Occasionally he and I will bangs heads over other issues, but for the most part it is about Islam. Since he is the only LDS spokesperson on the subject, it isn't coincidence that he and I have crossed paths.
After 9-11 I immersed myself in the study of things Islamic and after coming away with some carefully drawn out conclusions, I shared them on the forums and backed them up with documented scholarship. Dan Peterson was called in to "handle" me. Of course, he and I were friends at the time, which might explain why he felt it was necessary to use a pseudonym. He essentially called me a bigot, attacked me for demonstrating less than stellar intellectualism and spirituality. I blew it off at first until I was later informed that it was Dan.
He started this scuffle between the two of us.
And what exactly have I said that is so horrible? If my observations are valid, then I think that alone justifies making them. Aren't you for education on any given topic? If people have been led astray to believe X is true, and someone comes along with proof that X is false, don't you think it is worth mentioning it? The question should be, are my criticism valid? Thus far nobody has indicated that they are not.
I guess another issue is the Ritner email scandal. Dan likes to view this as nothing more than my efforts to smear his name, but the fact is Dan was the one who spent several years propagating this atrocious rumor about Ritner. All I did was email Ritner to confirm it. The fact that nobody seemed to get Ritner's viewpoint on the situation, after so many years of blindly accepting the FARMS version, didn't bode well with me. My only crime was, again, researching the subject to verify the claim. I had absolutely NO IDEA that Ritner would say what he said. I thought that maybe he would give a slightly different rendition of what happened, but I never thought he would come right out and accuse Dan of libel. In any event, to say the least, I was immediately attacked for "obsessing" over Dan Peterson.
What's more, I kind of like you (not that this should matter to you), and it does mystify me why Peterson should continue to be such a concern for you.
He isn't. You have to appreciate that I am a recently deconverted apologist. I have been shunned from the LDS side and my credibility and motives are always being questioned. Dan's was instrumental in seeing me permanently marginalized from the FAIR crowd. In private emails he would indicate that he and I agreed more than it might see, but he would never say this on the forums. He couldn't afford to. He had to play the PC game and attack me for being a bigot, simply because I said Islam is the most intoelrant religion on the planet. Incidentally, he had a debate with Robert Spencer who authored, "Muhammad, the Founder of the World's most Intolerant Religion." Yet he never once criticized Spencer for its title. In fact, he practically agreed with every single thing Spencer had to say. It boggles the mind.
Anyway, I am sick and tired of people saying I left apologetics simply because I didn't get the attention I wanted, or because Dan and Gee merely disagreed with me, or whatever else they can think of. I want to explicate exactly why I no longer find FARMS trustworthy, and I cannot do that without including names like McGregor, Hauglid, Gee, Hamblin and Peterson. My passion isn't them. My passion is the truth.
If most LDS people I know never knew much about Nibley, then I am sure even fewer of them know anything about Peterson. Are these the people we are trying to dissuade from trusting him?
If I am right and Dan is not properly educating his audiences, then shouldn't we try to dissuade everyone from trusting him? I expect people will make up their own minds. All I am doing is providing the real meat of the matter. The clear examples where Dan Peterson says X when the fact is Y.
What would really interest me is to see an article by Kevin Graham in Dialogue, Sunstone, The Journal of Mormon History, etc. Something on, oh, I don't know... the Book of Abraham maybe?
If I ever get around to it. There are a number of subjects I would like to write about, including the acceptance of the Book of Mormon as a bunch of ahistorical, inspired stories. I think this was the subject you appreciated most when you and I first started chatting a couple of years ago.
I can tell you that I don't give a tinker's damn about further dissecting why I don't get a whole lot out of Daniel Peterson's commentary and reviews. I am not telling you that you must agree with me. I am being a horrible, officious buttinski and telling you that I think your time is better spent in other pursuits.
I understand, but I am not sure you appreciate the difference here. I am not merely saying I don't get much from Dan. I am saying that Dan literally teaches falsehoods on the subject of his expertise. If I am right, then why wouldn't this be worth sharing?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein