Daniel C. Peterson: well-respected scholar? or not?

[_Tal Bachman]

Dr. Shades

You'll notice that I never claimed that Peterson himself claims to be a scholar of any standing. My guess is that a sense of his own mortality on this issue best explains this restraint. I submitted my post because sincere members who seem never to have contemplated critical thinking about Joseph Smith's religion for themselves, often speak of their heroes over at FARMS as just such well-respected scholars in their respective fields - that is, their misimpression seems to fuel their unwillingness to employ their own critical faculties, as in, "hey - these guys are world famous scholars - do you think they'd really get something like this wrong?". My old home teacher used to say stuff like this. Sad.

By the way, that church propagandists are not well-respected academic scholars in their respective fields, of course, does not necessarily mean that their apologetic work sucks - as it happens, their work sucks entirely independently of any scholarly reputation or lack thereof. You could have Richard Feynman over there talking about "secret cryptograms" and how "'white' doesn't necessarily mean 'white'", and it would still be completely stupid.

Lastly, my post, if it need be said, had nothing to do with whatever jokes about my career might have been made by Peterson. I actually think those kinds of comments only make obvious just how ludicrous he and the other propagandists really are, and I hope they keep on making them!

See ya,

T.

[_Brackite]

Hi there,

Here is recently what the 'FAIR' Mods wrote about Daniel C. Peterson:

!ATTENTION FAIR BOARDS CONTRIBUTORS!

We are fortunate here at FAIR to have an expert such as Dr. Peterson share his insights into what is a very charged and potentially political discussion.

We are asking all posters to refrain from taking this discussion other places to debate it, and refrain from turning it into a purely political discussion on this forum. Regardless of the strength of their personal views on the subject.

If Islam cannot be discussed with as much decorum as we expect Mormonism to be discussed here (or better) we will not allow those posters who cannot refrain from politicizing the discussion to continue to post on these threads.

-Orpheus and the mod squad.

( http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=192 , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

The FAIR Mods there (such as Juliann R. and Scott Lloyd there) do make a very big deal about what a great and wonderful expert DCP is.

[_Mister Scratch]

Dr. Shades

You'll notice that I never claimed that Peterson himself claims to be a scholar of any standing. My guess is that a sense of his own mortality on this issue best explains this restraint.

Nevertheless, he did alter his signature line so that it reflected praise for the editorial work he's done.

Lastly, my post, if it need be said, had nothing to do with whatever jokes about my career might have been made by Peterson. I actually think those kinds of comments only make obvious just how ludicrous he and the other propagandists really are, and I hope they keep on making them!

See ya,

T.

I for one think that your appearance here speaks volumes about your willingness to defend your perspective outside of your "home turf," as it were, of RfM. We will have to wait and see whether Prof. Peterson is willing to discuss his views on this issue outside the protection of the ironically named FAIRboard.

[_harmony]

Dr. Shades

You'll notice that I never claimed that Peterson himself claims to be a scholar of any standing. My guess is that a sense of his own mortality on this issue best explains this restraint.

Nevertheless, he did alter his signature line so that it reflected praise for the editorial work he's done.

Lastly, my post, if it need be said, had nothing to do with whatever jokes about my career might have been made by Peterson. I actually think those kinds of comments only make obvious just how ludicrous he and the other propagandists really are, and I hope they keep on making them!

See ya,

T.

I for one think that your appearance here speaks volumes about your willingness to defend your perspective outside of your "home turf," as it were, of RfM. We will have to wait and see whether Prof. Peterson is willing to discuss his views on this issue outside the protection of the ironically named FAIRboard.

Like that's ever gonna happen. The man knows when he's strayed too far from his protection.

[_Tal Bachman]

Hey Senor Scratch, thanks for the welcome. It's not that I'm interested in arguing - I get the impression ideologues are all-but-incorrigible even under the most favourable circumstances (like when their livelihoods don't depend on their continued adherence to the ideology) , so that arguing with them is rather like mud-wrestling with pigs - but I can't abide forums like FAIR. If the big brave church defenders over there had any guts, they'd tell their moderator to stop spiking all the stuff that most effectively calls them on their BS, and expose themselves to any and every question. After all, it is Mormon apologists, just like apologists for any religion or ideology, who bear the burden of proof in showing why theirs is really "the only one true way"...Perhaps it's me, but Mormon apologists seem to be doing as well in that task, as are Scientologist apologists, Moonie apologists, communist apologists, and eco-freak apologists in theirs (of course, within their own minds, they have "answered every charge!" and "resolved this issue long ago!" and they "have their opponents on the run!", etc...).

RFM I cut a break for, because it's for people who are trying to put their lives back together after what inevitably is a traumatic experience. It's the last place you want to hear cult loons talking about how some rock with NHM on it helps prove Joseph Smith never lied (even though a number of his lies are chronicled quite satisfactorily in church material itself), or alleging that "you never had a testimony" and all the stupid stuff we ourselves used to say.

[_Dr. Shades]

Dr. Shades

You'll notice that I never claimed that Peterson himself claims to be a scholar of any standing. . . I submitted my post because sincere members who seem never to have contemplated critical thinking about Joseph Smith's religion for themselves, often speak of their heroes over at FARMS as just such well-respected scholars in their respective fields[.]

You know, you're absolutely right. Now that you put it that way, it should've been obvious. Sorry about that!

Lastly, my post, if it need be said, had nothing to do with whatever jokes about my career might have been made by Peterson.

Sounds good to me.

I hope I didn't offend or step on any toes with that last post of mine. If so, I apologize.

[_rcrocket]

You could have Richard Feynman over there talking about "secret cryptograms" and how "'white' doesn't necessarily mean 'white'", and it would still be completely stupid.

The wrong mathematician for your analogy.

[_Pahoran]

Hey Senor Scratch, thanks for the welcome. It's not that I'm interested in arguing - I get the impression ideologues are all-but-incorrigible even under the most favourable circumstances (like when their livelihoods don't depend on their continued adherence to the ideology) , so that arguing with them is rather like mud-wrestling with pigs - but I can't abide forums like FAIR. If the big brave church defenders over there had any guts, they'd tell their moderator to stop spiking all the stuff that most effectively calls them on their BS, and expose themselves to any and every question. After all, it is Mormon apologists, just like apologists for any religion or ideology, who bear the burden of proof in showing why theirs is really "the only one true way"...Perhaps it's me, but Mormon apologists seem to be doing as well in that task, as are Scientologist apologists, Moonie apologists, communist apologists, and eco-freak apologists in theirs (of course, within their own minds, they have "answered every charge!" and "resolved this issue long ago!" and they "have their opponents on the run!", etc...).

RFM I cut a break for, because it's for people who are trying to put their lives back together after what inevitably is a traumatic experience. It's the last place you want to hear cult loons talking about how some rock with NHM on it helps prove Joseph Smith never lied (even though a number of his lies are chronicled quite satisfactorily in church material itself), or alleging that "you never had a testimony" and all the stupid stuff we ourselves used to say.

What I find hilarious about this thread is that its participants will undoubtedly chant the standard mantra that LDS apologetics is all ad hominem personal attacks.

Earth to Shades and acolytes: what do you think this thread is?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey Senor Scratch, thanks for the welcome. It's not that I'm interested in arguing - I get the impression ideologues are all-but-incorrigible even under the most favourable circumstances (like when their livelihoods don't depend on their continued adherence to the ideology) , so that arguing with them is rather like mud-wrestling with pigs - but I can't abide forums like FAIR. If the big brave church defenders over there had any guts, they'd tell their moderator to stop spiking all the stuff that most effectively calls them on their BS, and expose themselves to any and every question. After all, it is Mormon apologists, just like apologists for any religion or ideology, who bear the burden of proof in showing why theirs is really "the only one true way"...Perhaps it's me, but Mormon apologists seem to be doing as well in that task, as are Scientologist apologists, Moonie apologists, communist apologists, and eco-freak apologists in theirs (of course, within their own minds, they have "answered every charge!" and "resolved this issue long ago!" and they "have their opponents on the run!", etc...).

RFM I cut a break for, because it's for people who are trying to put their lives back together after what inevitably is a traumatic experience. It's the last place you want to hear cult loons talking about how some rock with NHM on it helps prove Joseph Smith never lied (even though a number of his lies are chronicled quite satisfactorily in church material itself), or alleging that "you never had a testimony" and all the stupid stuff we ourselves used to say.

What I find hilarious about this thread is that its participants will undoubtedly chant the standard mantra that LDS apologetics is all ad hominem personal attacks.

Earth to Shades and acolytes: what do you think this thread is?

Regards,
Pahoran

There seems to be a hugely odd obsession on this board with Daniel Peteson. I find it rather peculiar and telling.

Jason

[_Runtu]

I don't know that this thread started as an ad hominem attack. Rather, I think Tal's point was a valid one: People appeal to Peterson's authority as a respected academic, when it turns out that (a) he isn't as respected as we thought and (b) his academic expertise really doesn't have much to do with the validity of his opinions on Mormon scripture.

But, yeah, there has been too much personal attack.