DiscussMormonism.com

Just a quick comment.

I've always found Dr. Peterson to be polite and honest in his posts. I seldom agree with his point of view, but that's what makes him an interesting read.

Quasimodo wrote:Just a quick comment.

I've always found Dr. Peterson to be polite and honest in his posts. I seldom agree with his point of view, but that's what makes him an interesting read.

Yea, I agree.

At first, I thought to myself "who is Daniel Bashing?"

But I add my voice and commit to stop bashing Dr. Peterson.

Milesius wrote:Scratch & company would be better served by aiming their criticisms at Ira Fulton, not Professor Peterson.

I wouldn't disagree with that. But riddle me this: Would Fulton's comment have been possible without the "work" that was done by apologists?

Kishkumen wrote:You're creating a real bind for us, Daniel. We are afraid to lose you, and you tell us that treating you nicely may be the easiest way of chasing you off.

Yes, it's more than a bit ironic.

Truth be told, I'm trying seriously to wean myself of participation on message boards. Not absolutely, but to a large extent. They can and often do consume far too much of the day, day after day, and I have lots of things that I want to do before I run out of time.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Would Fulton's comment have been possible without the "work" that was done by apologists?

I've met Ira Fulton on several occasions, and spoken with him at length on one. (And no, it wasn't about Mike Quinn.) I have zero reason to believe that he has ever read a line in the FARMS Review, and none to believe that he is familiar with any other apologist or apologetic publication. In fact, I'm fairly confident that he hasn't and isn't.

Do you have anything to suggest otherwise? Something that would justify your innovative attempt here to blame me and my friends for Ira Fulton's supposed villainy?

Can someone give me a quick synopsis of what Fulton did that was so horrible? Forgive my ignorance.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:You're creating a real bind for us, Daniel. We are afraid to lose you, and you tell us that treating you nicely may be the easiest way of chasing you off.

Yes, it's more than a bit ironic.

Truth be told, I'm trying seriously to wean myself of participation on message boards. Not absolutely, but to a large extent. They can and often do consume far too much of the day, day after day, and I have lots of things that I want to do before I run out of time.

That is totally understandable, Dan.

Consider cutting back just a little and splitting your time at least 50/50 between MDB and MDD. :)

Although, I must say it seems a little pointless for you to spend any time at all on MDD. Please consider retiring from that board completely and spending 100% of your board time here. Even better, pass off MST to one of your grad students. That would give you even more time to discuss everything Mormon, with us.

What do you think about Los Hermanos? I went there on a few dates during my BYU days and it might bring back some nice memories.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:Would Fulton's comment have been possible without the "work" that was done by apologists?

I've met Ira Fulton on several occasions, and spoken with him at length on one. (And no, it wasn't about Mike Quinn.) I have zero reason to believe that he has ever read a line in the FARMS Review, and none to believe that he is familiar with any other apologist or apologetic publication. In fact, I'm fairly confident that he hasn't and isn't.

Do you have anything to suggest otherwise? Something that would justify your innovative attempt here to blame me and my friends for Ira Fulton's supposed villainy?

Dan, I asked a question. Are you capable of simmering down for two seconds and just thinking/discussing the topic? Or is this going to turn into another episode of "As the DCP Turns," where you list of a litany of exaggerated offenses as a means of deflecting legitimate questions?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Fulton's attitude was influenced my Mopologetic work. I mean, there are really only a couple of ways of interpreting what he said: (a) he's a homophobic bigot and hates Quinn for being gay; (b) he hates Quinn because Quinn was ex'ed; (c) part of his attitude has been influenced by apologists' painting of him as an "untrustworthy" historian. So take your pick.

liz3564 wrote:Can someone give me a quick synopsis of what Fulton did that was so horrible? Forgive my ignorance.

As I understand it, according to a newspaper account, he once described Mike Quinn as "a nothing person," which isn't very nice.

And, if I'm not mistaken, he's supposed to have spoken out against Arizona State's hiring Quinn for a position in the History Department, or some such thing. And, since he's been a huge donor to Arizona State, that is supposed to have nixed Quinn's hiring.

Of course, whether Quinn would have been hired had Ira Fulton not criticized him has not been established, so far as I'm aware.

Quinn hasn't, as a matter of fact, been hired at any other history department in America, either. And, in my opinion, the reasons are not far to seek:

His publications have been entirely or almost entirely focused on Mormon history, and that is a pretty narrow specialty. Not many schools would be interested. If they have only one hiring possibility, it's not clear that they're going to spend it on a Mormon specialist rather than, say, a historian of medieval China or an expert on the American Civil War.

Moreover, his publications have come very largely from Signature Books, which is not an academic press and may or may not -- I don't know -- have even a minimal peer review process in place. (I notice with curiosity the fact that those here who mistakenly attack the Maxwell Institute for its alleged lack of peer review seem serenely indifferent to the situation at Signature.)