My Experience With Daniel Peterson

[_MCB]

I have no bad feelings about Joseph Smith. He was a product of his dysfunctional environment. And I have always had that attitude. I do have bad feelings towards Mormons who discriminate against people for the various well known reasons. And the less well-known reasons.

Is not everyone a product of his or her environment, dysfuntional or not? I mean, that really absolves each of us of any responsibility for what we do, doesn't it?

Excellent question. Everyone has a responsibility to overcome negative environmental influences. I cannot judge, given lack of knowledge as to the opportunities others have been given. Dan P., just like Joseph Smith, is surrounded by worshipful admirers.

[_Quasimodo]

I have no bad feelings about Joseph Smith. He was a product of his dysfunctional environment. And I have always had that attitude. I do have bad feelings towards Mormons who discriminate against people for the various well known reasons. And the less well-known reasons.

I think that Joseph was a likable scoundrel. I have known and liked similar people in my life (I wouldn't lend them money, though). My feelings towards Brigham are less kind. If any evil still exists in the LDS Church, it stems from him.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's good to see the man doesn't match the moniker.

The moniker, by the way -- "Seething Cauldron of Hate" -- is a two- or three-year-old quotation from Scratch, describing me. Just for the record.

[_Jason Bourne]

Thanks for sharing that, Everybody Wang Chung. I, for one, am glad to read accounts like this, because his online behavior and FARMS writings are just a torrent of unkindness and sadistic mockery.

Scratch my friend, your hyperbole is never waning.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thanks for sharing that, Everybody Wang Chung. I, for one, am glad to read accounts like this, because his online behavior and FARMS writings are just a torrent of unkindness and sadistic mockery.

Scratch my friend, your hyperbole is never waning.

Rofl! Thanks, ol' buddy. But seriously, if even LifeOnaPlate is willing to come out and say that Dan Peterson has been needlessly "snarky," I think that's awfully telling.

[_LDSToronto]

I felt you were being a little distant and unfeeling towards me.

It's possible. I'm more busy and distracted some days than other days. And, frankly, sometimes I react negatively when people seem to be hostile or to mock things that I hold sacred. I don't mean to be unkind. If I was, I apologize.

But do you think this a fair characterization of the way I treated you: "a torrent of unkindness and sadistic mockery"

It's Scratch's over-the-top, totalizing, seemingly hate-fueled rhetoric that, quite honestly, baffles me. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who has hated, despised, and loathed me the way Scratch appears to do.

Dan, my experience of you is that you've always treated me kindly, even if I haven't returned the favour. I happen to like Scratch as well. I understand that both of you have a history, but I don't let that history colour my view of either of you.

One thing that I've learned as I've listened to some interviews of various personalities in the LDS "apologetics/critic" world is that the person behind the persona (created or assigned) is usually a genuinely decent person that is generally misunderstood on some level when interacting online. For instance, I listened to Scratch on a podcast, and the guy is genuine, has his stuff together, and has a good heart.

Dan, I've heard you speak as well, and will say the same about you - you are genuine, you have a good heart, and have a conviction in what you say.

So, while I don't want this to turn into a Dan-lovefest, I do think there is an absence of evil in your bones.

H.

[_sock puppet]

I have no bad feelings about Joseph Smith. He was a product of his dysfunctional environment. And I have always had that attitude. I do have bad feelings towards Mormons who discriminate against people for the various well known reasons. And the less well-known reasons.

Is not everyone a product of his or her environment, dysfuntional or not? I mean, that really absolves each of us of any responsibility for what we do, doesn't it?

Excellent question. Everyone has a responsibility to overcome negative environmental influences. I cannot judge, given lack of knowledge as to the opportunities others have been given. Dan P., just like Joseph Smith, is surrounded by worshipful admirers.

Thanks, I think I have a better understanding of what you are saying.

[Guest]

It's Scratch's over-the-top, totalizing, seemingly hate-fueled rhetoric....

Do you think that's a fair charcterization of Dr Scratch's writing?

Not always, no. Typically not. But, from time to time, yes. Sometimes, particularly when the subject of Michael Quinn comes up, the pretense of amicability falls away and the boiling white-hot anger is unmistakable. It still shocks me when that happens.

Usually, his tone is just relentlessly, aggressively negative, cool and methodical but also implacable. Toward me, at least.

But that passage was remarkable. And there've been three or four longer passages over the past two days that have really stunned me, even after five years as his target.

I'm puzzled at the level of hostility. I can't think of anybody toward whom I feel such animosity. Not even close. And I can't imagine maintaining it for so long.

Thanks for the elaboration. Sometimes laced together adjectives end up conveying not quite what was intended. Thanks for detangling that phrase.

[_lostindc]

The first time I met Daniel Peterson he attacked me and then proceeded to barrage me with a wall of text. Then when I told him to f*** off, he gave my personal emails to Stan Barker - without my permission. Stan Barker then posted those emails without my permission. I should have brought a lawsuit against both of them.

As I watched him over the next few years, I realized he was exactly everything I had written about him.

I still think he's a class act douche bag for the Lord, dictating policy and doctrine regardless of what his leaders say or do. I still don't think he was qualified to testify in the Elizabeth Smart trial. I still think he is a pompous, arrogant asshole.

I will always send people who are troubled with Mormon Doctrine in his direction - because I know it will hurt their testimony more than help.

I can smell his arrogance all the way from West Jordan.

I will always monitor him, always report on him, always expose him for who he is : A liar for the Mormon Cult for money.

Not sure who you are but what you wrote is quite scumbaggish. I hope you learn to roll with the punches when dealing with religious discussions and spend a little less time on Dr. Peterson and use this saved time to better yourself. I can say for myself, Dr. Peterson was far from a detriment to my testimony. Reading Church history is what caused the damage.

To call him a liar is out of line. He has proven to be a genuine person, with a good heart, and a determination to support what he believes. Not sure how this makes him a liar.

[_DrW]

Although I have never met him, I have no doubt that DCP is a likable individual in person.

What bothers me about Dr. Peterson is his extremely annoying habit of dodging the issues on which he knows that neither he, or any other LDS apologist, can prevail.

He seems incapable of understanding (or at least admitting to) the difference between possibility and probability in determining weight of evidence.

His ability (or lack thereof) to think logically and express his ideas and opinions (such as they are) in a clear concise manner is also an issue.

I see DCP and his role as analogous to that of a reasonably talented attorney who has worked himself into position of having to defend a client that is as guilty as hell, and is losing his appetite for the continued charade.

He has the additional problem that his client is being seen in an ever less favorable light by the general public because the ridiculous nature of the client's assertions and defense. The more the public finds out about the client's case, the more difficult it becomes to defend the client, and the more discomfiture the attorney experiences.

From what I have read from the writings of DCP, I would bet that he could not pass a polygraph test (and certainly not a fMRI deceptive responses test) when asked about his belief in the Book of Mormon narrative as described by Joseph Smith as he has described it on these boards, or on other troubling aspects of the LDS history and doctrine that he is obliged to defend as an apologist. (I could think of no gentler way to say this, and it is my opinion only.)

Those who would like an example of what I am talking about in general here need only read the DCP quote in my signature line. He actually wrote this. I kid you not.