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

[_DonBradley]

Senor Scratch,

Hello, and thanks for the welcome.

Let me clarify what I said before, and see if it makes more sense now. When I say "engage him on his own ground"--I don't mean his posting turf; I mean his rhetorical ground. He's not so serious about his own rhetoric. He seems to produce it somewhat whimsically, mischievously. The best way to respond to this seems to me to respond in the same spirit--that of repartee and playful rhetorical oneupmanship.

As for his seeing it as a game, I'm quite convinced he does. I'm not saying he sees everything associated with his debates as a game. He's serious about his religious convictions, but not afraid to debate them in a non-serious style. As for his having sought legal counsel, I would guess that this is because he sees some responses to his pungent jocularity as seriously defaming him.

I've not followed the DCP wars closely enough to know what, in particular, he's concerned about. But I seem to recall seeing, on Latter-day Lampoon and RfM, the pairing of DCP and some really vulgar trash.

My only suggestion, really, would be to keep things light--to recognize that DCP doesn't take his own snide and pungent remarks seriously, and that it achieves little good for others to do so. If Dan Peterson wants to use his wit to get the upper hand in discussion and debate, he should be engaged on that same ground, and given a run for his money by critics of similar wit. His scholarly work should be assessed on its own merits, and responded to accordingly. Beyond that, he should be left alone.

I know you have kind of a one-man mission to take on DCP, and I think I can understand what might have prompted this. But, without any slight on you, I think your response to the man is deeply misguided because the premises on which it's based are deeply mistaken. Dan Peterson as rhetorician would best be engaged through rhetoric that mirrors his own, and his own rhetoric is intended, not to be violent, but to be jocular and piquant. To engage him on his own ground would be to approach him in a similar spirit.

Don

[_moksha]

Could Daniel be a strawman that folks have created?

Jersey Girl

They probably went a little overboard with the stuffing.

[_moksha]

[1: I did not think the Church had a chief apologist.

My guess is that he has been set apart for this calling. Remember, the mantle is far greater than the... well, you know....

[_DonBradley]

Moksha has provided some examples of not taking DCP with godawful seriousness. He's admitted to finding the guy likeable and being perplexed at the response to him, but then he jokes on him, in a way that's obviously not intended to really demean, but just to give the razzer a bit of razzing. My guess is that Dan himself would laugh if he read that he was a strawman with "too much stuffing." After all, he is the Krispy Kreme King.

Don

[_Runtu]

Moksha has provided some examples of not taking DCP with godawful seriousness. He's admitted to finding the guy likeable and being perplexed at the response to him, but then he jokes on him, in a way that's obviously not intended to really demean, but just to give the razzer a bit of razzing. My guess is that Dan himself would laugh if he read that he was a strawman with "too much stuffing." After all, he is the Krispy Kreme King.

Don

I don't think he's a bad guy. I agree pretty much with your assessment. I'm not even all that mad that he called me a liar and refuses to apologize.

He has kind of funny sense of humor. Dare I say it, it's similar to Rush Limbaugh's barbed self-mocking that is really aimed at his opponents.

[_DonBradley]

He has kind of funny sense of humor. Dare I say it, it's similar to Rush Limbaugh's barbed self-mocking that is really aimed at his opponents.

Yeah!

Don

[_personage]

I think people react to him because he's a dumbass that many people seem to view as an intellectual, so the paradox is hard (for many) to reconcile.

The only reason I ever interacted with him was because it's always fun to act condescending toward people who like to act condescending toward... well, everyone (I often called him Danny-boy). It was actually too easy, but given his status on FAIR, it was pretty fun.

And he kept coming back for more. How could I resist?

Of course he comes back for more. You know darn well that he spends countless hours sitting on a big ol towell in front of his computer checking to see if he matters. I am sure that he is doing cartwheels over the fact that he is being discussed here.

[_Yong Xi]

Of course he comes back for more. You know darn well that he spends countless hours sitting on a big ol towell in front of his computer checking to see if he matters. I am sure that he is doing cartwheels over the fact that he is being discussed here.

Yeah, he has the letter "W" on each butt check and when he does naked cartwheels he spells "WOW MOM".

[_aussieguy55]

I have plenty of times been the target of his mocking attitude. When David B successfully had a paper accepted for publication, I observed that many LDS scholars write on topics outside from their own field of studies (Islam Egyptian studies) and write differently for the LDS audience and in apologetic writings. For example on Book of Abraham issue you have on one side Ritner (ousider) who claims the Book of Abraham is bogus while Gee (his student and insider TBM) still defends it. What I find infuriating as a layperson who can at least follow the arguments cannot undertstand why Gee holds that positon. Now I was arguing that many LDS scholars live in two worlds, the external one they avoid defending in peer reviewed journals papers that obviously would not accept Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as ancient scriptures. So I notice when you mention Ritner's work, he then states that everything has not been concluded on the matter and Ritner has not said the last word. He then comments on Gee's various presentations at Egyptogical conferences where his work is applauded (work not connected with the Book of Abraham). Its the same old lets wait and see approach. Are we to assume from this comment, so Gee is respected in the world of Egyptogical studies, so he should be treated with the same respect in the field of Book of Abraham studies? DCP spends some of his time editing, writing and defending books that have no crediblity as historical documents in the outside world. You know what I think? I think these various theories like Book of Mormon geography and Book of Abraham origins are thrown around by LDS scholars to perhaps provide some hope for the TBM member. Nothing is settled, so no decision needs to be made (the Book of Abraham is false) and everyone goes about their lives.

[_personage]

Of course he comes back for more. You know darn well that he spends countless hours sitting on a big ol towell in front of his computer checking to see if he matters. I am sure that he is doing cartwheels over the fact that he is being discussed here.

Yeah, he has the letter "W" on each butt check and when he does naked cartwheels he spells "WOW MOM".

I don't know if that "WOW MOM" joke is old or not but I have never heard it. There are not many things that I read that make me laugh out loud but that did. If that was your own creation you have a true gift.