Mister Scratch wrote:What "serious" charges are you referring to?
Scratch, Dan has been over this many times. You have considered him an inveterate liar, a dishonest person, and without referring to the archives, also as a psychopath. I can go over the archives to verify this, but I'm inclined and think my memory here is accurate. For nearly two years now you have scrutinised him, analysed his motives, followed as many of his posts as you can, and commented voluminously and obsessively on him. Anyone who cares to check the archives will see this. Nothing Peterson does or says, here or on MADB, has escaped your attention or commentary. I can only describe this as stalking, and obsessively so. How would you feel if someone anonymous did this to you? I have no doubt you'd feel very unsettled. You also don't accept the answers he gives you, but you plough and pursue until you get the answers
you want to hear. Nothing innately wrong with this to a point, but barring hard evidence, not hearsay conversations or imaginary conversations, a matter has to be dropped until the "prosecution" has that hard evidence. On the evidence that you have, you would have no chance of convicting Dan Peterson in any court, yet you still go after him.
I get the point about the questioning on Quinn, and payments for apologetics, but I doubt Michael Quinn would himself wish to pursue this to the extent you have. In fact, I'm certain of it, because it smacks of a witch hunt. I'll remind you further of the little "episode" that occurred between myself and Dan on ZLMB. I decided to pick at Dan for something he wrote in the
FROB in the mid-90s, and I hounded him over this, because I felt he insinuated some things about Signature scholars, in particular Brent Metcalfe. I didn't consult with Brent before I launched this crusading thread, one thread. Brent never once accused Dan, and midway through the thread he asked me, privately by email, to drop it, and I did. It was "old news", and it bored Brent. Yet it is
not as old as the events you hound Dan about. You're digging up skeletons here. If Quinn was the one questioning Dan, that would be an entirely different matter, or if you had Quinn's blessing to do this. But how would we know, when we don't even know who you are? Quinn never struck me as cowardly. One of my first encounters with Church critics, was reading of Michael Quinn in a
Newsweek article c.1979 (I read it in 1985), where he said that blindly following Church leaders "bordered on idolatry". I was stunned, because this was coming from a Mormon Historian, and these thoughts were fairly new to me at the time. Later I read his article on post-1890 plural marriages, and that left me in shock at the time. But I believed him, and his sources were meticulous. From that point on I read everything about him I could find. If Quinn had written all of this under a pseudonym, I would have
totally ignored him! And even called him a "goofball". I felt disgusted and even betrayed that we weren't told all this by the more timid apologists and historians, who were always apologising rather than telling us the truth. Others have made very commendable efforts, like Tom Alexander, and even Arrington, but Quinn never pulled any punches, and stood out by a mile.
Posting, and accusing anonymously, has benefits and liabilities. The benefit is that you are protected from the same scrutiny you put Dan Peterson under, which you've been doing for almost two years now. If you are a member of the Church in good standing, you are also protected from leadership scrutiny. This doesn't strike me as particularly courageous. Certainly not in the mould of Lavina Fielding Anderson (excommunicated for speaking out), David Wright (excommunicated for his views and writings on the Book of Mormon), the September Six (all excommunicated for their viewpoints and writings), Michael J. Barrett (excommunicated for writing letters to editors), Tal Bachman, Steve Benson, and many more. Disagree as I might with them, I don't view
any of them as cowards. I cannot imagine any of these people anonymously criticising the Church, much less an
individual church apologist - for two years. No, I'm sorry, but it really makes me feel an inner disgust. And so it should any fair-minded person. I don't believe any anonymous poster here has done what you have, to the extent you have.
The other liability is that anonymity leaves us totally in the dark as you who you are. Those who do know you privately, and I believe it was Gad who said he does (correction if necessary), are able to form more holistic views of your personality, and
positive ones. You may have a very interesting personal history, for all I know, and one that could win my empathy, but I will never know, will I? In spite of what you've written about Dan Peterson, I've seen some good points about you. I don't think, at heart, that you are a malicious person in real life. In cyber-space you look totally unreal. I wouldn't know who Gad is from a bar of soap, but I've read his posts for five years now, and from those posts I can put a picture to the man. Beastie has told us a lot about her personal life, as has Truth Dancer, who has three blogs. These are critics all open to some kind of assessment, and to understand where they're coming from. It is much easier to understand their criticisms when you understand their background. We know next to nothing about you, and that, in my opinion, is a great liability for you. I don't even need to know your real name, or where you live, to form a more wholesome picture of you.
Again, I do think you make some interesting points, and I am sympathetic to some of your views, and I'm not going to pursue this anymore. I have more than had my say. To me Dan Peterson is a real person, with real feelings, with a real family, a bishop who has a flock to tend, and disagree as I might with him on some issues, for me he is no anonymous cyber-space entity. Maybe if you met him in real life you would have more respect for him. Shades has, and I don't see Shades incessantly picking on him, though his views are 180 to Dan's. There's something called respectful disagreement.
Incidentally, in a total contradiction, let me say I wouldn't want you to disappear from cyber-space, because in some areas I see a sharpness in your observations and I know you're no fool, but I think you can definitely exercise some more charity, particularly since you post anonymously.