Peterson promises to ignore Mormon Discussions Board

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Moore:

So you *did* wind up donating money, despite the fact that the agreement had been violated? I hope you didn't give him the entire 10 grand! It seems to me that you have every right to feel like you were ripped off.

[_Dr Moore]

Yes, as I have reported before, Dr. Peterson and I reached a private agreement after the public "wager" failed. In that private agreement, details of which I've shared a few times in other threads, my commitment was to send a lesser, one time amount to Interpreter, in exchange for nothing but Dan's good word. He eagerly accepted, saying that "I keep promises." Therefore, you can understand why I am not backing down from vocally calling Daniel Peterson a liar who acted and continues to act in bad faith. Documentation of this contract is far from libelous. Engaging in a fund raising contract of this nature was not coerced upon Dan whatsoever. His utter and intentional failing to provide value for value received is, in my view, an impeachable offence. That he did so as a representative of BYU, using BYU's email server, should not be understated as he searches a convenient "out" from his own commitment to, literally, NOT say mean things about this forum.

Say what you will about the advisability of me making this deal -- it was my decision too, and I had my reasons -- but Dan made the covenant and since then he's pretended to be "trying" when the record shows he has only tried to be just as much an ass while giving lip service to good faith. Which is also known, among good people, as acting in bad faith.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You are absolutely right, Dr. Moore. I wonder if the Mopologists have been privately laughing about this? E.g., "Ha ha ha! What a sucker! He actually thought we'd follow through! LOL! Now, let's go get us some Chik-fil-a!"

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow, look at this:

In addition, Professor Peterson, back in October 2019, had me provide the list of those nine essays that constituted one of his more active blog posts. He did so precisely because he indicated that someone had mocked my scholarship on the Maori on your board. And this began a long series of clashes I subsequently had with the one who joined your board in August, who posts on your board as Dr. LOD, and elsewhere as Dr. Velho Burrinho, which means Little Old Donkey in Portuguese. You must be aware of all of this, since you watched, and approved, Dr. Scratch do a dress rehearsal for what took place on January 1-2, 2000 on your very own board, and then you also watched and approved, as I have demonstrated, all that rubbish that your own inmates posted on Gina Colvin's "Kiwi Mormon" Patheos blog.

(underlined emphasis added).

I see that DCP's email to you is dated October 22. So, that means that, right around the time that he happily pocketed your money (and is there any proof that it did actually go towards Interpreter, and not into Peterson's personal bank account?), he was busy egging Midgley on behind the scenes.

[_Dr Exiled]

Yes, as I have reported before, Dr. Peterson and I reached a private agreement after the public "wager" failed. In that private agreement, details of which I've shared a few times in other threads, my commitment was to send a lesser, one time amount to Interpreter, in exchange for nothing but Dan's good word. He eagerly accepted, saying that "I keep promises." Therefore, you can understand why I am not backing down from vocally calling Daniel Peterson a liar who acted and continues to act in bad faith. Documentation of this contract is far from libelous. Engaging in a fund raising contract of this nature was not coerced upon Dan whatsoever. His utter and intentional failing to provide value for value received is, in my view, an impeachable offence. That he did so as a representative of BYU, using BYU's email server, should not be understated as he searches a convenient "out" from his own commitment to, literally, NOT say mean things about this forum.

Say what you will about the advisability of me making this deal -- it was my decision too, and I had my reasons -- but Dan made the covenant and since then he's pretended to be "trying" when the record shows he has only tried to be just as much an ass while giving lip service to good faith. Which is also known, among good people, as acting in bad faith.

Incidentally, don't worry if Dan threatens a defamation lawsuit as truth is an absolute defense in Utah and pretty much everywhere else. Brehany v. Nordstrom, Inc., 812 P.2d 49 (Utah 1991)

[_Dr Moore]

Hence why, in our emails, I observed at the time that I bore the all risk of Peterson making me look the fool for trusting him. He has.

But while I had hoped for a "good" outcome from all of this, at the very least I can say that I handed Daniel Peterson enough rope to hang himself -- clearly he is committed to showing the world that he absolutely cares more about trash talking his critics than he cares about keeping his word.

My only recourse, assuming his behavior doesn't change radically, is to bring his duplicity out into the light. I've posted nothing but factual information, verifiable by anyone with authority to access BYU's email servers.

The check fulfilling my obligation in our contract was ordered on 10/3/2019, mailed on 10/10/2019, made out to "Interpreter Foundation", at PO Box 970542, Orem, UT 84097, for the purpose of "Wherever it is needed most." The check cleared on 10/23/2019. I assume it was deposited into an account bearing that name. The gift was made anonymously through a Schwab Charitable donor advised fund. This was the second donation I made last year to Interpreter, the first being requested on 9/11/2019 in fulfillment of my "apology challenge" to Peterson, who technically did apologize for calling me a liar.

It's all just such a shame. I think the ambition of Interpreter is noble, even if the scholarship at times warrants the criticism it receives. I still care about the academic debate surrounding Mormonism and I've heard there are some really wonderful people involved in the Interpreter project. I personally know two people who have authored papers in Interpreter, and while we disagree about plenty, I love those guys and think they are terrific human beings.

As I told Dan, it was my hope to use this transaction as a launching point for a longer relationship in which I would be a future donor to Interpreter. By his subsequent bad faith decisions, Dan tells the staff at Interpreter that he cares more about insulting his critics at MDB than he cares about a sustained donor relationship.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The check fulfilling my obligation in our contract was ordered on 10/3/2019, mailed on 10/10/2019, made out to "Interpreter Foundation", at PO Box 970542, Orem, Utah 84097, for the purpose of "Wherever it is needed most." The check cleared on 10/23/2019. I assume it was deposited into an account bearing that name. The gift was made anonymously through a Schwab Charitable donor advised fund. This was the second donation I made last year to Interpreter, the first being requested on 9/11/2019 in fulfillment of my "apology challenge" to Peterson, who technically did apologize for calling me a liar.

Thanks so much for filling in the details in such a concrete way, Dr. Moore. This really has been quite revelatory, in my opinion. And Peterson's email to you, which you quoted above, is also absolutely fascinating. Look at what he says:

It seems that your promised donation to the Interpreter Foundation has arrived. (Precisely how long ago it arrived, I don’t know. It’s been a while since I’ve been to the P.O. box.)
Thank you!

So, basically, there is a P.O. box in Orem to which checks can be mailed. Who has the key to the P.O. box, though? Peterson? Is the idea here that they get so few mailed checks, that they only bother to go to the P.O. box once or twice a month? DCP says that he doesn't know "Precisely how long ago it arrived," though we can safely guess that it was sitting in the mailbox for around a week or so. Is Kent Flack, the Interpreter's Treasurer the one who holds the key to this mailbox? Or is it Jann E. Campbell, their person who oversees "Donor Relations"? (Maybe an email to Campbell is in order, Dr. Moore?)

I really can't get over how revealing this all has been--I daresay it's a "watershed moment" because of how downright blase DCP seems about all of this. He is the *President* of the Interpreter Foundation, and he's pissing away thousands of dollars in donations so that he can fling insults at MormonDiscussions.com? Is that why he feels so confident that he can get away with it--i.e., because he's the President? (And can he be *removed* as President if the Board of Trustees votes to do so? Or if others in the organization revolt?) I wonder if there is a case to be made that he should be "impeached" due to his bad-faith handling of donations.

Finally: I will note, once again, that no one has supplied any evidence whatsoever that the money actually went into Interpreter's coffers, and not the President's pocket.

[_Dr Moore]

In a brief follow up, someone flagged an ongoing comment exchange between Peterson, Kiwi57 and Moksha. I will address Dan directly here, on this development.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4973455827
16 hours ago

I would very much like to see this happen.

Over at the Shades board, where every day begins afresh with a new and fervent declaration of war against me and all my works (and, lately, against Louis Midgley), my integrity is yet again being dragged through the mud because, despite having given my word that I would try to tamp down the expressions of indignation against that board here in the comments section of Sic et Non, I haven't succeeded in doing so.

I've come to regard the continued participation here of certain regular posters from that board, and their continued representation here of themes and complaints typical of that board (but irrelevant to my actual blog entries), as the principal factor in keeping things here stirred up on the subject. In that light, until I saw the proposal above I had decided a few hours ago simply to ban them all for a period of at least one week and perhaps two weeks. The hypothesis to be tested was just this: I expect rather confidently that, if they were not posting here, mention of their message board in these comments would be sharply reduced if not altogether eliminated. (Derogatory mention of me, this blog, the Interpreter Foundation, Louis Midgley, the Witnesses film project, and etc., will, of course, remain a major staple of the daily diet over there, but that evidently seems completely wholesome and salutary, even necessary, to the folks who participate on the Shades board.)

Anyway, I will watch for a while to see how this experiment goes. I wish it well.

Now, if Dan is merely taking thought to introduce an intermediate step, like a short term civility experiment to preserve maximum liberty at SeN, while also encouraging the additional benefit of improved person-to-person tone at SeN, then I applaud that move. I wish him well with that. Seriously.

Dan's additional idea/threat to ban perceived agitators for 1-2 weeks after a warning should be taken at face value, and I hope he succeeds wildly by taking this much-needed moderation step. If that's "what it takes" to succeed in fulfilling our deal, painful as it may be, he should be encouraged in that direction. Personally I prefer his model of a 1-2 week "timeout" vs a perma ban, because his blog (SeN) is still one of the few places where folks talk openly about controversial ideas about Mormonism.

I worry, however, about the bolded text (my emphasis) above, which suggests a possible "out" being established to avoid taking responsibility for past and future bad faith on fulfilling our contracted agreement. That "out" being the age old finger pointing excuse -- "I know I'm not supposed to hit, but he hit me first!"

Shades, Moksha, LOD, Exiled and anyone else who tread over to SeN represent NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES. None of those people brings up the MDB forum in their comments, EVER. None of them represents anyone but his or her self. He/she may make certain comments that agitate Dan or his loyal board members -- heck, maybe intentionally (I don't know, I've never asked any of them about their motives). What we do know is that it is ALWAYS Dan, Louis or Kiwi57 who bring up MDB, and that has remained a daily default response. Like some kind of umbrella insult to push the unwanted interlocutor away. And that would be perfectly fine, except for one thing: delivering that umbrella MDB insult is THE ONE AND ONLY THING DAN PETERSON PROMISED NOT TO DO when he agreed to our Interpreter fund raising settlement agreement.

So to be perfectly clear: no, overlapping users of SeN and MDB are NOT the "principal factor in keeping things here stirred up on the subject." The "principal factor" for Dan's failure to "tamp down expressions of indignation against [MDB]" is that Dan and his friends CHOOSE to respond to individual comments at SeN with blanket insults aimed at this forum, rather than addressing those people as individuals.

Dan: engage, ban, ignore -- that's entirely your call. Defend at all costs when someone attacks you directly -- per our many long emails, that is all FAIR GAME in our contract. As I recall, you reserved the right to directly address an INDIVIDUAL when defending yourself against specific libel or slander. Go for it! But for the sake of your good name, please do "whatever it takes" to fulfill your side of our agreement.

Dan, if you cannot or will not do that, kindly and promptly say so. Upon seeing your concession, I will happily name a worthy charitable cause to which you and your colleagues at the Interpreter Foundation may remit the entirety of my October 2019 Interpreter donation, thus relieving you of any future burden in our agreed upon deal.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Boy, they weren't able to hold it in for even 24 hours. Midgley posted this less than 10 minutes ago:

Without any desire at all to summon anyone from the Dark Side, I just noticed that Dr. Shades never did respond to my explanation above. So I am still wondering why Dr. Shades wanted me to provide him with access to what I have published on the faith of Maori Latter-day Saints. And what exactly he makes of the opinions set out by Dr. LOD on his own board, and by the same one who posts as Dr. Velho Burrinho elsewhere.

[_Lemmie]

Dup