Outing other Exmos or exmo sympathisers

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I've met and spoke with Dan Peterson several times in several capacities and can say the man creeps me out in no way. I'm not a star witness, obviously, but Nehor hit the nail on the head. Scratch takes character assassination and unbelievably oversensitivity to a new level in her pursuit of DCP.

Good for you, LOaP! You certainly have one thing right. You are no star witness. Your incessant, petty references to Scratch by the female pronoun, as though this were some kind of insult, show exactly what kind of ignorant, minor-league twerp you are. You could say you saw Daniel walk on water, and the only thing it would prove is the profound depth of your sycophancy.

It's not intended as an insult. I really do believe Scratch is a woman. She's never corrected me on it. If Scratch said "actually I am a man." I would say "well, I was apparently wrong on that."

[_Chap]

I asked for a URL link to a list of your non-LDS academic publications. You say that there isn't one, because for some reason you have not posted a CV online. Instead you mention some pieces you are currently working on, and refer to a recent luncheon engagement in connection with editorial work you describe.

Well, if you don't want people in general to be able to form an estimate of your scholarly contribution to your chosen field in a way that is now quite common amongst academics (by looking at the range of your publications online, and reading a sample them), that is your right.

For a contrast, see for instance http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/ne ... es/ritner/. Or even http://farms.BYU.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=24

Daniel once sent me an abbreviated CV. It showed quite clearly that he does publish in his field. I don't know why we continue to revisit this subject.

Hmm. This is getting very LDS:

THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Daniel Peterson, the poster of this message, has shown unto me the abbreviated CV of which hath been spoken, which has the appearance of solid scholarship; and as many of the pages as the said Peterson has abbreviated I did view with my browser; and I also saw the publications thereon, all of which have the appearance of recent work, and of curious workmanship. And this I bear record with words of soberness, that the said Peterson has shown unto me, for I have seen and downloaded, and know of a surety that the said Peterson has got the publications of which I have spoken. And I give my anonymous nickname unto the world, to witness unto the world that which I have seen. And I lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Trevor

I don't know who 'we' are who are said to 'keep revisiting this subject'.

In response to DCP's statement that his publications 'represent a great deal of [his] life', I asked if we could see a list of his publications in his professional field, since it is pretty common for academics to put such listings online. That's the first time I have done that. It is also the first time he has told me that no such list would be forthcoming. That is, as I have noted, a marked contrast with at least two other scholars whose work and reputation have been made the subject of discussion on this and related boards, and indeed with the practice of quite a few other scholars.

But as I have said, if DCP wants to run his affairs differently, that is his right. The rest of us can, of course, take note.

[_GoodK]

I've known GoodK's father for roughly twenty years. There's no secret about GoodK's atheism; GoodK's father has been fully aware of it for a long time, as have I. That wasn't the issue. When I saw GoodK posting mocking words about his father on a public message board, though, and realized who GoodK must be (since his father had sent the same letter about GoodK's critically ill sister to me that GoodK was lampooning here), I was shocked and appalled. I went back and forth. I didn't want to add to my friend's stress, since having a daughter hospitalized at death's door was already horrible, but I reasoned that, if it were my son who was making fun of me as a superstitious fanatic and a blowhard on a public message board while my daughter (his sister) was fighting for her life, I would want to know. So, finally, after several hours of internal debate, I sent a note to GoodK's father calling his attention to GoodK's comments about him. I also apologized to GoodK's father if my action was inappropriate.

I have respect for Bishop Peterson and had hoped to move on from this, but now I feel obligated to respond to one thing which I think he has misstated.

I don't want to get sucked into a discussion on the evils of DCP, and for the record I think the Bishop is a good guy, but the "lampooning" I am accused of has simply not occurred. If anything, I was lampooning the misplaced kudos being given to the "Melchizedek Priesthood" and the holders of it who imply they have the ability (given to them by God) to rebuke diseases (also gifts from God).

I imagine it is hard for those that are not close to this situation (including Bishop Peterson) to understand the sadness I feel for my sister's illness, and the intent behind posting a critique of a letter trumpeting the powers of the priesthood in a time of tremendous worry and sorrow.

When a good friend died last year, I found myself annoyed and offended by what was nothing less than a sermon being given at his funeral. The email in question rubbed me in exactly the same way, however, I did not see it as an appropriate time to discuss it with my dad nor did I stand up at Sean Quatro's funeral and launch into a rant about the historical Jesus.

I also apologized to GoodK's father if my action was inappropriate.

But never even mentioned it to me... (I would have said something along the lines of, Don't worry about it, Bishop, or no hard feelings, big guy)

[_Trevor]

It's not intended as an insult. I really do believe Scratch is a woman. She's never corrected me on it. If Scratch said "actually I am a man." I would say "well, I was apparently wrong on that."

I guess what counts is that you just may believe this crap. Well, no, it doesn't.

[_Moniker]

GoodK, I never read your initial thread as mocking your sister. I was the first to reply and mentioned the logic, which I too question -- and have always questioned. :)

I don't think your intent was to make light of your sister's illness, or your family. I, too, understand that at times of illness it is uncomfortable when others tell me it's God's will, or mention God in this or that way somehow connected to what I view as a very human tragedy -- it is frustrating. You told me you forgave Crockett and knew him to be a good man, and you've also stated something along the same lines about Dr. Peterson at a later date, if I recall correctly. This is your deal, and if you say they had the best intentions (although I certainly wouldn't make the same choices they did) then it's good enough for me.

Again, I'm sorry about your sister and hope she's doing better now. :)

[_christopher]

Why? In your world, do children never mock their parents?

GoodK isn't a child. But no, good sons don't typically mock their fathers as superstitious fools and fanatics on public message boards while their fathers are watching over possibly dying daughters. Not in my world.

Yes, in your world certain men claim exclusivity to speak for God. They claim angels with swords command them to take women for their own. They claim blacks are inferior and cursed (you were a sustaining member prior to 1978?) Your world has huge fairly recent missing civilizations and magic stones. Your world has or does mock entire religions (protestant priest in the temple to baptism of Jews). Nice world ya got there.......

Chris <><

[_Trevor]

Hmm. This is getting very LDS:

Yes, anyone who questions the pertinence of critiquing Daniel's CV must secretly be a Mormon apologist. Good thinking, Chap.

THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Daniel Peterson, the poster of this message, has shown unto me the abbreviated CV of which hath been spoken, which has the appearance of solid scholarship; and as many of the pages as the said Peterson has abbreviated I did view with my browser; and I also saw the publications thereon, all of which have the appearance of recent work, and of curious workmanship. And this I bear record with words of soberness, that the said Peterson has shown unto me, for I have seen and downloaded, and know of a surety that the said Peterson has got the publications of which I have spoken. And I give my anonymous nickname unto the world, to witness unto the world that which I have seen. And I lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Trevor

But, this gets points for being damn funny.

I don't know who 'we' are who are said to 'keep revisiting this subject'.

Well, you caught me. I am a Mormon apologist pretending to be a critic in order to gently steer the conversation away from damning evidence against Mormonism like the quality of DCP's scholarship on Islam. You have me pegged. I only say 'we' in my pretense that you and I are operating more or less on the same side of the issue, but you realize now that this is a farce, and I do not belong among the critics.

In response to DCP's statement that his publications 'represent a great deal of [his] life', I asked if we could see a list of his publications in his professional field, since it is pretty common for academics to put such listings online. That's the first time I have done that. It is also the first time he has told me that no such list would be forthcoming. That is, as I have noted, a marked contrast with at least two other scholars whose work and reputation have been made the subject of discussion on this and related boards, and indeed with the practice of quite a few other scholars.

But as I have said, if DCP wants to run his affairs differently, that is his right. The rest of us can, of course, take note.

Yes, do take note, Chap. You see, what I was doing is informing you that I was part of a conversation in which we [not including you I am guessing] covered this territory already. I can assure you that Daniel is unlikely to get calls from the top Middle Eastern Studies programs in the country looking to have him relocate to their departments on account of his long list of prestigious publications. But that can be said for most of us. His academic record is really not germane to a debate about Mormonism. He could be a Nobel Prize winning scientist, and the founding myths of Mormonism would still be fictitious.

[_Chap]

Hmm. This is getting very LDS:

Yes, anyone who questions the pertinence of critiquing Daniel's CV must secretly be a Mormon apologist. Good thinking, Chap.

THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Daniel Peterson, the poster of this message, has shown unto me the abbreviated CV of which hath been spoken, which has the appearance of solid scholarship; and as many of the pages as the said Peterson has abbreviated I did view with my browser; and I also saw the publications thereon, all of which have the appearance of recent work, and of curious workmanship. And this I bear record with words of soberness, that the said Peterson has shown unto me, for I have seen and downloaded, and know of a surety that the said Peterson has got the publications of which I have spoken. And I give my anonymous nickname unto the world, to witness unto the world that which I have seen. And I lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Trevor

But, this gets points for being damn funny.

I don't know who 'we' are who are said to 'keep revisiting this subject'.

Well, you caught me. I am a Mormon apologist pretending to be a critic in order to gently steer the conversation away from damning evidence against Mormonism like the quality of DCP's scholarship on Islam. You have me pegged. I only say 'we' in my pretense that you and I are operating more or less on the same side of the issue, but you realize now that this is a farce, and I do not belong among the critics.

In response to DCP's statement that his publications 'represent a great deal of [his] life', I asked if we could see a list of his publications in his professional field, since it is pretty common for academics to put such listings online. That's the first time I have done that. It is also the first time he has told me that no such list would be forthcoming. That is, as I have noted, a marked contrast with at least two other scholars whose work and reputation have been made the subject of discussion on this and related boards, and indeed with the practice of quite a few other scholars.

But as I have said, if DCP wants to run his affairs differently, that is his right. The rest of us can, of course, take note.

Yes, do take note, Chap. You see, what I was doing is informing you that I was part of a conversation in which we covered this territory already. I can assure you that Daniel is unlikely to get calls from the top Middle Eastern Studies programs in the country looking to have him relocate to their departments on account of his long list of prestigious publications. But that can be said for most of us. His academic record is really not germane to a debate about Mormonism. He could be a Nobel Prize winning scientist, and the founding myths of Mormonism would still be fictitious.

Glad you liked my parody. I hope you see the point of it? If you can see DCP's publication list, why can't anybody else?

The rest of your post is a bit, well, "controlling" isn't it? The space you have taken up in rebuking me for asking if we can see DCP's publication list is a good deal more than what I took to ask my (in my view perfectly reasonable) question.

I suggest that my enquiry was in fact a proper and relevant one for a discussion board devoted to LDS matters.

BYU as an institution, and its academic hiring, retention and promotion policies are intimately bound up with the nature, mission and central policies of the CoJCoLDS, which is the broad subject to which this board is devoted. Does BYU, for instance, hire and reward academics because of their professional eminence in their slated field, or does it have a policy of rewarding them for work which is mainly devoted to LDS apologetics? That is a quite proper question for us to discuss, even if an answer to it does not bear logically on the truth or falsity of foundational LDS claims, which are by no means the only proper topic on this board.

On two bits of your post:

I can assure you that Daniel is unlikely to get calls from the top Middle Eastern Studies programs in the country looking to have him relocate to their departments on account of his long list of prestigious publications.

I think that those of us who have not seen his publication list would do better to suspend final judgment here. Although, as I have said we may note his reluctance to make his publications list public, and draw provisional conclusions from that.

But that can be said for most of us.

What is the relevance of that? My academic reputation (if I have one), or yours, plays no role in bolstering LDS apologetics. Anyone who has every looked at the MAD board can see that DCP's clearly does.

[_Trevor]

Glad you liked my parody. I hope you see the point of it? If you can see DCP's publication list, why can't anybody else?

Ask Daniel. I have no idea.

I don't really see the point of your parody, except maybe to suggest that where I don't agree with you I must be a Mormon apologist. Is that the case, or do you have another point? Please enlighten me.

Now I have a question for you: how is Daniel's publication record related to the truth or falsity of Mormonism?

The rest of your post is a bit, well, "controlling" isn't it? The space you have taken up in rebuking me for asking if we can see DCP's publication list is a good deal more than what I took to ask my (in my view perfectly reasonable) question.

Rebuking? Isn't that a little melodramatic of you?

If by controlling you mean designed to help you avoid wasting your time with pointless and irrelevant arguments, then yes, it was controlling.

BYU as an institution, and its academic hiring, retention and promotion policies are intimately bound up with the nature, mission and central policies of the CoJCoLDS, which is the broad subject to which this board is devoted. Does BYU, for instance, hire and reward academics because of their professional eminence in their slated field, or does it have a policy of rewarding them for work which is mainly devoted to LDS apologetics? That is a quite proper question for us to discuss, even if an answer to it does not bear logically on the truth or falsity of foundational LDS claims, which are by no means the only proper topic on this board.

Knock yourself out, Chap. It does seem to me, however, that straying into the question of Daniel's credentials begins to look more like an assault on him than one on Mormonism. And, to the degree it is perceived to be such, it actually is to the benefit of the apologists. It looks petty, vindictive, and irrelevant.

[_Mister Scratch]

A couple of points here:

1) I have offered, on at least a couple of occasions, a kind of "let's shake hands and let bygones be bygones" to DCP. Each time, he has essentially spat in my face. He would rather continue fighting then ever admit to any wrongdoing. But, I'll say it again: If he wants to fess up and admit to the rotten things he's done, I will permanently retire from the MB and completely delete the blog.

2) Many here are overlooking the fact that DCP contacted GoodK's father in part to whine about the criticisms he (i.e., DCP) receives from the posters here. Thus, it has long seemed to me that the principal reason behind the "meddling" was to get GoodK's father to lecture him about criticizing DCP.