DiscussMormonism.com

Happy holidays, everyone! How are you spending this lovely Sabbath morning? Over at "Sic et Non," Dr. Peterson is boasting about how he successfully picked a fight with several of his fellow Latter-day Saints on a Facebook discussion page:

Sic et Non wrote:Every once in a while, I have a disheartening encounter online with a virulently anti-Islamic person. It’s especially discouraging when that virulently anti-Islamic person is a Latter-day Saint.

I had such an online encounter just now, this evening, with two very ardent critics of Islam. It occurred on some sort of LDS-oriented “constitutionalist” Facebook page belonging to a woman named Lisa H. Smith, who was one of those involved in the discussion that concluded just a few minutes ago.

I was invited to the discussion by a third person. The other of the two anti-Islamic folks, Daniel Cox, responded to that invitation before I arrived by describing me as “a hack that denies the realities of Islam” and declaring that he “really question[s] [my] motivations.”

He’s obviously a very perceptive fellow. Maybe my extreme anti-Mormon critics are wrong in thinking that I earn my living by lying about the claims of the Restoration, either via gold bullion from the Church or from the donations of gullible supporters of the Interpreter Foundation, or from some combination of the two. Maybe I actually earn my living by lying about Islam! Perhaps I’m on the payroll of the Muslim Brotherhood or of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In any event and whatever the case, I’m plainly a lying mercenary hack. Clearly, there’s common ground here.

This last bit is interesting, no? I.e., that all critics are pretty much the same? And that Dr. Peterson has critics in just about all camps? Why is it, I wonder, that he has such difficulty getting along with people?

One answer might lie in the fact that he seems to lack empathy, or that he has a tin ear when it comes to understanding or responding to others:

Daniel Peterson wrote:Sister Smith further explained that she had nearly been raped by a Muslim once, and said, if I understood her correctly, that he had cited a religious justification.

I responded that, while I regretted that she had been obliged to endure such an experience, she should not generalize from it to the entirety of Islam, Islamic civilization, and the Islamic world.

She demanded to know whether I had ever been sexually assaulted in the name of someone’s god. I indicated that I had not, but that many FLDS women apparently have — and that their horrible stories no more reflect on the Restoration than her story, as such, reflects on Islam as a whole.

She answered that I was discounting her experience, and then she shut the exchange down and blocked me from viewing her Facebook page.

I had not discounted Sister Smith’s experience. But she plainly discounted mine. I don’t claim that my decades of study and teaching about Islam, and my years of residence in Islamic countries, and my numerous visits to the Islamic world, my many visits in mosques and with Islamic leaders, and my knowledge of the principal Islamic languages, and my intensive study of the Qur’an, and so forth, make me infallible on those or any other subjects. But — and perhaps this is sheer arrogance on my part — I think that maybe they should count for something when the topic of discussion is Islam.

Whoa! So we have an LDS woman who was sexually assaulted, and DCP basically said, "Gee, bummer for you! But you still have bad logic! Shut up and listen to me, Sister: *I* am the expert here." Yeah: that's not very empathetic at all. And to put icing on the cake: not only does DCP not seem to get why this would be upsetting to the woman, but he flips the whole thing around into a story about how downtrodden and "wounded" *he* is because they didn't bow down to his scholarly knowledge! Lol. Classic Mopologetic move there. Yeah: in the moral calculus of experience, I don't really think that failing to have your butt kissed is even in the same ballpark as getting sexually assaulted.

Perhaps not surprisingly, claims that Peterson had distorted the events emerged almost immediately:

Mrs ENFP wrote:At least HALF if not more of this article is twisted and made up and totally falsified. I know - I witnessed this conversation which took place in a Facebook group about the LDS last days prophecies. He didn't even get the type or name of the group right let alone a great many details.

But the truly interesting revelation was this one:

Mrs. ENFP wrote:Where he is going with this is slandering the two people who dared to disagree with him in a conversation on his favorite topic. As a witness to the conversation in question, I can say that nearly all of what he says took place is fabricated to make himself look good and his facts are twisted in the extreme. He was angry that the conversation ended without praise to his specialty and instead in civil disagreement.

Basically this is a tantrum fit after he didn't win a discussion on the topic and persuade anyone. He's been removed from multiple Facebook groups because of how he speaks to people and the tantrums he throws just like this one. He didn't feel he had another recourse since the individuals he names and whines about would no longer converse with him so he wrote this as a means to get back at them. Read it again and look for the substance of which he is writing... where is the point other than to slander people who didn't agree with his view of things?

Why is he lying about the conversation that took place or even the name or type of group it was located within? Some tough questions to ponder.

(emphasis added)

Whoa! Kicked off of multiple Facebook groups? What is with this guy? I'm sure there are plenty of folks here who remember how he had to be censured on the old "World Table" message board because he couldn't keep things civil. Old habits die hard, I suppose.

Sounds like him. I can believe that he can be delightful in person, but it is easy to lose empathy online, especially when you believe you have some special monopoly on truth.

Mr Scratch, your puzzling post led me to feel serious sensations of sympathy for Dr Peterson. I find that an odd sensation as I have felt the jab of his sharp tongue and do not list him as a person I am a big fan of.

If I were a psychologist, I would love to analyze DCP. He seems to exhibit a lot of psychopathic characteristics

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0

Right, it's technically poor logic to conclude an entire religion is bankrupt just because a fanatical adherent nearly killed you in the name of faith. However, suppose that an investigator newly tracted out by the missionaries read and prayed about the Book of Mormon and felt good about it, and from that generalized the entirety of the religion, from Joseph Smith to Russell M. Nelson is true. Would this similar generalization be a problem for an apologist?

Gadianton wrote:Right, it's technically poor logic to conclude an entire religion is bankrupt just because a fanatical adherent nearly killed you in the name of faith. However, suppose that an investigator newly tracted out by the missionaries read and prayed about the Book of Mormon and felt good about it, and from that generalized the entirety of the religion, from Joseph Smith to Russell M. Nelson is true. Would this similar generalization be a problem for an apologist?

Yes, and did you notice this?:

I indicated that I had not, but that many FLDS women apparently have — and that their horrible stories no more reflect on the Restoration than her story

Many "regular," Brighamite Mormon women apparently have, too, which actually would have made his point even more effective, and yet he dodges the issue in this way.

Daniel Peterson wrote:I don’t claim that my decades of study and teaching about Islam, and my years of residence in Islamic countries, and my numerous visits to the Islamic world, my many visits in mosques and with Islamic leaders, and my knowledge of the principal Islamic languages, and my intensive study of the Qur’an, and so forth, make me infallible on those or any other subjects. But — and perhaps this is sheer arrogance on my part — I think that maybe they should count for something when the topic of discussion is Islam.

Are we supposed to care a lot about what DCP thinks on this matter?

There is an interesting sitcom entitled, “Haters Back Off,” in which every character is incredibly unlikeable and unsympathetic. It is as though the writers decided to experiment to see whether they could hold an audience despite the awfulness of every last character. Reading the OP reminded me a little of that show. Every person cited or mentioned in the post is unsympathetic. I am left to wonder why I keep watching the train wreck, and yet I do. I am sure it speaks poorly of me.

As Daniel C. Peterson nears the exit of his career, I think it would behoove us all to examine what went so terribly wrong with his career in the hope of preventing another young academic from following in his footsteps and wasting their time, energy and talents on such a misguided venture as Mopologetics.

It's often said at most major universities that publishing a book or academic paper is not a major event, it's expected. Publish or perish is the saying. Outside of lectures and seminars, faculty members are expected to further intellectual dialogue within their specialty through the publication of academic research. And, one of the most important roles professors fulfill is to research, write and to be engaged with other people in their field.

Unfortunately for BYU, the Church and every tithe payer, Peterson decided to take his 30 year "career" on the road less traveled. It's unfortunate that road less traveled Peterson chose happened to be a dead-end called "Mopologetics."

Many of you will remember that a few years ago, Peterson took a paid sabbatical for the purpose of publishing two books. Peterson even posted a couple of articles where he boasted about his sabbatical and soon to be published books. However, Peterson has since deleted any and all of his articles that mentioned his upcoming books or sabbatical.

Notwithstanding, thanks to Cassius University and its extensive archive of all things Mopologetic, Peterson's articles have all been preserved for posterity. Because those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Peterson wrote:Some are, no doubt, wondering how I can be doing all this traveling and still maintain a job. Good question: I’m on research sabbatical. Reduced pay, obligation to produce at least two books. And half the weight that we brought with us on this family-purpose trip was books. At the moment, while others are out strolling on the beach, I’m sitting at a desk, with books scattered around me, looking at the ocean from a distance. And, if it will make you feel any better, I’m coming down with my second cold of 2014. Life is hard.

For your enjoyment, here is the list of DCP's entire published works during his 30 year "career" (not including his two souped-up seminary manuals he "published" as editor of FARMS, and his various hit pieces): Peterson, Daniel C. (2007), Muhammad, Prophet of God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Walmart. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ISBN 0-8028-0754-2. For those of you who have read this book, there is absolutely nothing groundbreaking or even an original thought in the entire book. It's simply a rehashing and amalgamation of numerous other books on Muhammad's life.

Obviously in retrospect, Peterson was pulling a "Schryver" and had no intention of working on or publishing the books while on sabbatical. Some possibilities: 1. He wasn't really on sabbatical or writing books, but rather on leave of absence and BYU asked him to tone down his litany of complaints; 2. spend his sabbatical interviewing at other universities or retire for good; or 3. His "sabbatical" was funded by the Interpreter donors, and in return for their funding of a year of constant world travel, he told them he'd write the two most amazing hit pieces on Gerald Bradford and Kevin Worthen. He later decided that wouldn't be the wisest course of action.

In any event, I think it's fair to say that during Peterson's tenure at BYU he managed to not only make many enemies in and out of the Church, but also wasted a substantial amount of time, resources and goodwill on Mopologetics. If we can salvage anything good or praiseworthy from this sad cautionary tale, it's that pride, anger and jealousy can destroy a career faster than you can say, "Metcalf is a Butt-head."

Peterson was never working on any "books." Will Schryver will be published long before Peterson's "books" see the light of day. So much wasted talent. Hopefully, we can all use Peterson's career as a cautionary tale and avoid the many pitfalls in which Peterson so easily fell.

ETA Out of the several hundred professors at BYU, Peterson ranks in the bottom 4% as rated by his students. Shameful: https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRa ... id=1362547

TrashcanMan79 wrote:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I don’t claim that my decades of study and teaching about Islam, and my years of residence in Islamic countries, and my numerous visits to the Islamic world, my many visits in mosques and with Islamic leaders, and my knowledge of the principal Islamic languages, and my intensive study of the Qur’an, and so forth, make me infallible on those or any other subjects. But — and perhaps this is sheer arrogance on my part — I think that maybe they should count for something when the topic of discussion is Islam.

Are we supposed to care a lot about what DCP thinks on this matter?

PERRRRRRRRRRRRRFECT!