Wait, what? He can't take a punch at all, which is why he doesn't discuss Mormonism outside his carefully constructed protective bubble in which critics are censored and silenced.
If he could take a punch, he wouldn't have tucked his tail between his legs and slinked off into the swamp after he got metaphorically punched in the gut for plagiarism.
Peterson hastens to judge in order to not be judged himself, to paraphrase a certain French absurdist philosopher.
For my Festschrift moment in regards to Daniel C. Peterson, I may say he is an engaging speaker when he wants to be and puts time into it first and then presents. He does write well, and has a wicked sense of humor using irony, which some actually do miss and hence misunderstand his wry, dry humor. He is on the egotistical side, but who among us are innocent in this regard? As he passed up the time to write very good books, he has actually contributed to being an online presence for other LDS to look to in order to get some sort of bearings on the internet thrashing of all things Mormon in an unending and overwhelming tidal wave since the very nature of Mormonism from the get-go is so incredibly out on the very far side of most anything imaginable, that all things are able to be roundly criticized, and hence needs defending. True he uses ad hominem a bit much, but he is quite astonishingly well read in some areas, for the most part. Overall he is admired by those who agree with him more or less because he does have stick-to-it-iveness in taking on criticism which takes time away from going after the far more important brethren. In the long run, however, they do receive their very proper due, hence it, alas, appears almost a complete waste of his time, except, he has taken it in a literal sense, that which Joseph Campbell advocated, find your bliss and stick with it. Peterson strikes me as quite comfortable being a front man to take the hits. It is his bliss to be criticized, and hence his enjoyment is being the target lightning rod. In all, he is a valid LDS internet presence, of course. It's just too bad he is misguided. But he can take a punch and give one. It is the give and take which he thrives on, and in that, I understand as I have been in that line, and perhaps, in some ways, still am.
I agree with you Kerry, overall Dr. Peterson has a winsome quality. He suffers because he is the lightning rod for LDS apologetics, yet we should remember that he had the fortitude to have a mustache at BYU and he was not duped by Trump when other members of the LDS faith were taken in hook, line, and sinker.
Wait, what? He can't take a punch at all, which is why he doesn't discuss Mormonism outside his carefully constructed protective bubble in which critics are censored and silenced.
If he could take a punch, he wouldn't have tucked his tail between his legs and slinked off into the swamp after he got metaphorically punched in the gut for plagiarism.
Peterson hastens to judge in order to not be judged himself, to paraphrase a certain French absurdist philosopher.
I have to agree with you on this one. He controls his environment precisely because he cannot defend Mormonism. If he came here, he soon would be pushed to merely bearing testimony when cornered as we were taught to do because he would inevitably be cornered. The Early Modern English nonsense he pushes is laughable. Allowing Rasmussen to make a mockery of bayesian statistics is highly questionable for a supposed peer reviewed publication/website. Then there is the plagiarism.
Where I would perhaps give him a pass and all of the rest of the mopes is in the subject matter being defended. Sometimes a lawyer defends the guilty because the prosecutor wants the death penalty when the defendant was merely jaywalking. Prosecutors overcharge in order to force a plea bargain. Defendants need representation to get the correct outcome. Those committing financial fraud also deserve a defense to make sure that damages are appropriate. Mormonism is false and he and his compatriots give the best defense they can, knowing the brethren put them on an island because the brethren are too chicken to put themselves out there. Holland did a horrible job in the BBC interview in 2012. We don't see the brethren out there debating critics because they would lose and so they send out DCP and his buddies to do their job for them.
What's true is that what's good about Mormonism, family, etc., is true about what most people do anyway. People surprisingly do just fine without having Mormonism suffocate the lives out of them. However, DCP soldiers on, trying to justify the unjustifiable and probably not being properly thanked for doing so by those who hide behind him.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
