Why react so strongly to Dr. Daniel C. Peterson?

[_moksha]

You may well be correct. There's different ways, I suppose, to interpret this, but as I see it, he doesn't deny the charge. His response is more like "well, duh," than "no I'm not, I'm merely a professor."

In any case, it doesn't matter all that much. I'm not interested in DCP except to the extent as to why someone so apparently full of himself cannot even manage one puny peer-reviewed pub in over 20 years.

Obviously his apologetic function has been encouraged rather than discouraged. His superiors have not told him to knock off the apologetics and stick to Arabic. Given that these apologetics occupy a great deal of time and effort, wouldn't it be unreasonable to expect the same publishing efforts that you are talking about? Couldn't those Middle East book translations as well as other publications suffice?

[_Mister Scratch]

I have to wonder why people react so strongly to Dr. Daniel C. Peterson. From the posts of his that I have read, he seems to be a likable fellow. I admit that I don't know the history some people have had with him, but without understanding their motives, such a strong reaction seems quizzical.

I suspect that he has been a lightning rod for giving out and receiving criticism simply by virtue of his position as chief apologist for the LDS Church, but why so frequent of lightning strikes?

Hi, Moksha. We have been over this before (or at least *I* have), but the reasons why he is such a "lightning rod" are quite easy to explain.
1. He is the Big Cheese of Mopologetics, and is thus a figurehead.
2. Unlike his predecessor, Hugh Nibley, Prof. P. is happy to interact with the "unwashed masses", so to speak.
3. He believes that he is engaged in an all-out war for moral superiority, which raises the stakes considerably.
4. As others on this thread have pointed out, he sometimes has an arrogant, condescending streak. In fact, I have received at least one report indicating that this condescension contributed to an apostasy.
5. He is charismatic, and just genuinely attracts a lot of attention.
6. He has drawn ire for his articles on ex-Mormonism. I.e., he attacks the critics, so the critics attack him back.

[_Bond...James Bond]

He's the face of Mormon Apologetics. I have a theory that he gains all of his magical powers by feeding on the energy of people writing about him....I'm hoping someday he'll go like Freddy Kreuger and disappear because we all forgot about him (thus rendering him powerless).

I seriously need to put my signature back to: "Everytime you mention DCP God kills a puppy".

[_The Nehor]

I disagree with the rationale. All Saints should represent well at all times, public and private. I don't think DCP is under a higher obligation than a shut-in LDS member.

He is the chief apologist of the church. The least he could do is live his religion.

I don't and haven't met an LDS who does.....or a Christian who does for that matter.

[_harmony]

I don't and haven't met an LDS who does.....or a Christian who does for that matter.

*sigh* Nehor, just from your exchanges on this board, anyone can tell you live your religion. You are kind, even when no one is watching, even to the least among us. The same cannot be said of our chief apologist. He goes out of his way to be unkind, to be condescending, to flaunt his arrogance. I may not agree with you, but you have my respect. I may not agree with Daniel, and he gave up any respect I might have for him when he made fun of people just because they don't agree with him.

[_moksha]

3. He believes that he is engaged in an all-out war for moral superiority, which raises the stakes considerably.

You had previously mentioned "High Stakes". Is this the battle for the souls of humanity we are talking about?

5. He is charismatic, and just genuinely attracts a lot of attention.

Ah, the efficacy of donuts! You are probably right about the charismatic part. He has quite a following at MAD, is influential in the Church and gets to travel all around the world talking to knowledgeable people. That would seem to be a very positive quality in his favor.

[_The Nehor]

*sigh* Nehor, just from your exchanges on this board, anyone can tell you live your religion. You are kind, even when no one is watching, even to the least among us. The same cannot be said of our chief apologist. He goes out of his way to be unkind, to be condescending, to flaunt his arrogance. I may not agree with you, but you have my respect. I may not agree with Daniel, and he gave up any respect I might have for him when he made fun of people just because they don't agree with him.

I think it's a jump to judge how I live my religion from exchanges here. For all you know I'm howling obscenities while I type..... ;) (by the way, I'm not)

I have problems. Are they worse than Dr. Peterson's? I have no idea. Never met him. Just glad Christ is around for all our sakes.

[_Dr. Shades]

You may well be correct. There's different ways, I suppose, to interpret this, but as I see it, he doesn't deny the charge. His response is more like "well, duh," than "no I'm not, I'm merely a professor."

I interpret it differently. He has gone on record many, many times, ad nauseum, to explain that he's only paid for his faculty duties at BYU as a professor of Arabic. With that, he always explains that any apologetic stuff he does is in his spare time and for free. . . "freelance," if you will.

As to his interaction with Infymus, I think it's more than clear that DCP was only playing around. He probably got tired of explaining the same thing over and over and decided to interject a little variety.

[_DonBradley]

Dan Peterson is a curious person.

From my experience with him in person and online I don't think he writes out of anger, hostility, or malice toward anyone--even those he most ridicules. He's quite sincere in his beliefs, and his personal construction of theism and of Mormonism in particular has an internal logic to it that he finds utterly compelling both rationally and morally. When I recently asked on MAD why he engages in such personal and agonistic discussion, he basically just said it was fun. I think he basically sees debate, whether online, in person, or in print, as a game. He enjoys rhetorically one-upping his critics and the critics of his faith, and sees this as both good clean fun and a way to defend his community and principles.

I think the biggest mistake one can make with DCP is to take his debating mode too seriously. To repeat: It's a game. While he certainly can engage in scholarly discourse, without the snide humor, 95% of what he writes online and much of what he writes in his introductions to the FARMS Review appears to be rhetorical play. I would suggest either ignoring him altogether or engaging him on his own ground and taking, and giving, one's lashes with good humor.

Don

[_Runtu]

Dan Peterson is a curious person.

From my experience with him in person and online I don't think he writes out of anger, hostility, or malice toward anyone--even those he most ridicules. He's quite sincere in his beliefs, and his personal construction of theism and of Mormonism in particular has an internal logic to it that he finds utterly compelling both rationally and morally. When I recently asked on MAD why he engages in such personal and agonistic discussion, he basically just said it was fun. I think he basically sees debate, whether online, in person, or in print, as a game. He enjoys rhetorically one-upping his critics and the critics of his faith, and sees this as both good clean fun and a way to defend his community and principles.

I think the biggest mistake one can make with DCP is to take his debating mode too seriously. To repeat: It's a game. While he certainly can engage in scholarly discourse, without the snide humor, 95% of what he writes online and much of what he writes in his introductions to the FARMS Review appears to be rhetorical play. I would suggest either ignoring him altogether or engaging him on his own ground and taking, and giving, one's lashes with good humor.

Don

I don't take him seriously anymore for the reasons you mention. I'm beginning to take Mormonism in general less seriously, as well.