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

[_DonBradley]

By way of reiterating and clarifying how I see Daniel C. Peterson and how I believe he should be addressed and treated, I am "bumping" this thread to the top. As explained in my previous posts on the bottom of page one and throughout page two, I see Daniel C. Peterson a an unusual, effective, and well-intentioned writer who engages in a great deal of jocularity and rhetorical play while defending his beliefs. I think his humor is intended to be harmless, but tends to cross lines that make it misunderstood as demeaning. And, as expressed at greater length above, I think the proper response to his humorous jibes is a response in kind, through repartee, NOT through serious attacks on his character or attempts to cause problems in his personal life.

I hate getting caught up in all this heaviness, though I have done it to myself. I will be leaving this board, as well as MAD for at least a few days, while (hopefully) the personal bombshells stop going off.

Don

[_Bond...James Bond]

I hate getting caught up in all this heaviness, though I have done it to myself. I will be leaving this board, as well as MAD for at least a few days, while (hopefully) the personal bombshells stop going off.
Don

See ya in a few days Don.

[_harmony]

. I think his humor is intended to be harmless, but tends to cross lines that make it misunderstood as demeaning. And, as expressed at greater length above, I think the proper response to his humorous jibes is a response in kind, through repartee, NOT through serious attacks on his character or attempts to cause problems in his personal life.

I saw one of the most successful comedians in history in concert once. I could never watch him again. I found his humor so hurtful, so negative, so offensive. And he never said a swear word, once. It was his subject matter, his delivery. He picked on people in order to make other people laugh.

Perhaps I am humor-impaired, but I do not appreciate Daniel's humor. Perhaps that is because I was once one of his targets. I can only be thankful every day that he does not deign to post here. Perhaps it's because I see his humor as hurtful, picking on people instead of their arguments, making fun of anyone he sees as less than himself.

If the man really is going to take Nibley's place as chief apologist, then he needs to figure out a way to get his point across without creating enemies. We have enough enemies without him mucking things up with more. He'd be better served were he to actually live his religion, instead of working on his comedy act.

[_DonBradley]

Hey Harm,

I've also been on the receiving end of his wit, and took it personally. In fact, it took me a while to realize that he bore me no malice but was just verbally jousting and joking. His ironic wit seems to be particularly easy to miscontrue online and in print, as opposed to in person, which is one reason I've suggested he may want to modiy his writing style a bit. In any case, I'm confident that opening wounds and bruising egos is decidedly not his intention, and that his readers, including his discussion "opponents," should take his witticisms as just that, rather than as personal attacks.

by the way, I doubt that he has any intention of becoming "chief apologist." If there is such a person at present, it is FARMS founder John W. Welch, who is probably also FARMS' most prolific author. And, for what it's worth, Welch's apologetic/writing style is quite academic and difficult to take offense at.

Don

[_harmony]

Hey Harm,

I've also been on the receiving end of his wit, and took it personally. In fact, it took me a while to realize that he bore me no malice but was just verbally jousting and joking.

Lucky you. I am not at all certain you're correct when we're talking about wazing, harmony, Blink, or serenity. I see no reason to rethink my original impression of Dr Peterson. It's been years since Josh Skains orchestrated our introduction. I'm not sure either of us would thank him.

His ironic wit seems to be particularly easy to miscontrue online and in print, as opposed to in person, which is one reason I've suggested he may want to modiy his writing style a bit. In any case, I'm confident that opening wounds and bruising egos is decidedly not his intention, ...

You'll no doubt have to cut me some slack if I tell you I am skeptical of your reading of his intent regarding harmony. If I recall correctly, one of his many comments was that he'd love to see harmony hanging from the rafters. Obviously you haven't had the pleasure of pissing him off quite as much as I have. Perhaps you think that's funny; I don't. If he'd known who I was at one never to be forgotten point, he'd have orchestrated my excommunication, if that lay within his power. He would no doubt deny it now. That's certainly his MO.

... and that his readers, including his discussion "opponents," should take his witticisms as just that, rather than as personal attacks.

Your reading is much more charitable than mine is. Somehow I doubt if he threw quite the hissy fit at you that he threw because of me. The board was literally comatose for days afterwards.

by the way, I doubt that he has any intention of becoming "chief apologist." If there is such a person at present, it is FARMS founder John W. Welch, who is probably also FARMS' most prolific author. And, for what it's worth, Welch's apologetic/writing style is quite academic and difficult to take offense at.

Don

I'm just quoting the newspaper. Perhaps I give him too much credit.

[_DonBradley]

Hi Again Harmony,

I'm not sure just how my debates (if that's the right term) with Dan Peterson would compare with yours, but for quite some time on ZLMB I regarded it as my duty to participate in his moral education by taking the kinds of digs at him that, in my perception of the time, he was taking at others. At that time I saw many of his posts as mean-spirited and genuinely disparaging of others. I took them quite seriously. We scrapped quite often, and I became a particular target of his wit. I think if you were to look back at those threads, you'd find that things got rather ugly. I do know Dan Peterson's wit. And I do know how it comes across, particularly when you are the butt of it. But I have an advantage in understanding him that you may not have. I have talked with him several times in person. In person, there really can't be any doubt that the hostility so many (including myself in the past) have found in his posts just isn't there.

I--honestly--know where you're coming from; but I think if you had the chance to talk with Prof. Peterson for a while, you'd know where I was coming from as well, and likely agree. Whether that conversation will ever occur is another matter.... Maybe you need to come to FAIR! :)

Don

[_aussieguy55]

You must be talking about a different Peterson, I just mention Wes Walters and steam shoots out the nostrils. Contrast that with Bushman's review of Inventing Mormonism and his comments about Dan Vogel in his interview on Mormon Stories. I have been banned for several days from FAIR. I think I will not bother returning. I am familiar enough with the LDS apologetics approach.

[_Dan Vogel]

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 think that's right. I haven't had any trouble with him ... so far (as I always add). If someone feels frustrated with him, then they need to examine their approach and try something else. To respond with anger just plays into his hands.

[_Dan Vogel]

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?

No matter what you think of him or his style, he's definitely not an idiot.

[_Runtu]

No matter what you think of him or his style, he's definitely not an idiot.

I've never had any issues with Dr. Peterson, other than his (thus-far) refusal to apologize for calling me a liar. I'm a little mystified as to why he hasn't even responded to my email. But, no, I don't think he's a bad guy or an idiot. I kind of like his sense of humor in a twisted way.