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

[_Dan Vogel]

Good. Because it's not worth getting worked up about. It's not like you need his permission to believe and think what you want. I think people dislike him out of frustration, because he tries to make them look bad. And no one wants to look bad. But this usually happens when someone overstates their case to begin with, which makes it difficult for them to back down. And that's where he gets them. With each round, he tightens his grip. It's very painful to watch. Then, he decapitates them, puts their head on a pole, and then parades through the community making jokes to the delight of his jr. apologists. But there are ways of avoiding that.

He's never gotten me worked up about anything. I had wanted to engage him in my thread about Book of Mormon Evidence, as he was the one who recommended Clark's article to me, but oh, well. I don't ask his permission to post what I want, and he's under no obligation to respond. I don't see him as the ogre some people do. I do think that when he "decapitates" opponents in the way you describe (and that's exactly how I see it), he sometimes crosses the line into cruelty. It's quite easy to forget that there are actual people on the receiving end of such treatment. I've done the same kind of thing myself, so I'm not exactly one to criticize him for it.

It's easier to cross the line when souls are at stake.

[_Dan Vogel]

I think people dislike him out of frustration, because he tries to make them look bad. And no one wants to look bad.

He uses his position to belittle people he deems are his inferiors. He rarely engages an argument, instead focusing on the person. When he's backed into a corner, he whines to the mods that he's going to leave if they don't stop his opponent. Who exactly is he making look bad? Himself or the LDS church?

But this usually happens when someone overstates their case to begin with, which makes it difficult for them to back down. And that's where he gets them. With each round, he tightens his grip. It's very painful to watch. Then, he decapitates them, puts their head on a pole, and then parades through the community making jokes to the delight of his jr. apologists.

And this is the person who is epitomizing the LDS church to the public? This is the behavior of our chief apologist? This is the kind of thing someone does who actually lives this gospel? Holy smokes, we do indeed have a different idea of appropriate behavior by the Lord's employees.

But there are ways of avoiding that.

Yes. Avoid MAD. Hope to heaven he never comes here. Count our lucky stars he has vowed to never post here.

I think that outside his small apologetic circle, Dan's on-line behavior is shocking to other LDS members. But I was hoping to explain why some critics get entangled with him and finally get banned.

[_Dan Vogel]

When I've used my wit to engage Peterson on the same ground, the moderators at MAD haven't seen it that way. So I leave him alone and to remind myself, I have him on ignore. Bill Hamblin too. I would love to engage them with my wit, but the MADmods won't have it.

Probably the best thing about the recent Gee/Graham falderal is that the mods over there explicitly stated that MA&D is not a level playing field. Critics are not given the same leeway as apologists. People who believe that the rules should apply equally tend not to last long.

Good comment.

[_Alter Idem]

I'd say Dr. Peterson is definitely Chief Apologist on the Internet--I don't know about in the rest of the world--there are lots of apologists "out there".

Dr. Peterson uses self-deprecating humor--I guess it's his way of handling the constant criticism he reads about himself. I'm always surprised at the critics who take everything he says so seriously--no sense of humor I guess...or they dislike him so much, they refuse to cut him any slack and are always looking for ways to be offended by him.

[_dartagnan]

I don’t get offended at his humor. You’ll find all kinds of flattering comments I have made about Dan over the past couple of years, even long after we had started fighting. On one blog he was accused of lying, and I went there uninvited to defend Dan from this charge. Whenever people call him a liar I usually step in and disagree. Incidentally, you’ll find no comparable compliments coming from him.

But the self-deprecation gets annoying sometimes. He frequently usesit as a back-door method to brag about his or his friends' credentials. SOme of his posts are nauseating the way he goes on and one about how his week was filled with one academic event after the other, whereby he was called to give presentations in different countries, rubbing elbows with prolific figures, etc. And then after all this he'll make some kind of "humorous" comment about how his critics think he is unscholarly, in spite of his day to day business.

You can hardly find a post of his that is completely serious, and when you do, that is when you find back-handed swipes at his critics. In these cases it isn’t humorous, and if it is intended to be, it is designed to make his disciples laugh, nobody else.

Recently CK brought up an interesting Sunstone article about LDS apologetics. It was written by a professor from the University of Utah. Dan was referenced throughout the article as the kind of apologist we need to avoid. Dan responded that the author was a weirdo who never shook hands with him unless he had no choice. Others chimed in to say this particular person was too serious and always moody. All in all, I suppose the idea here is that his criticism of Dan is somewhat mitigated because he is perceived to be a “humor impaired” loony. Certainly this author would be offended if reading Dan's comments. Was this intended to be tongue-in-cheek? No.

Dan claims he wants nothing to do with me, yet he can’t seem to stop himself from bringing my name up. I don’t generally get offended at anything he says, even though nothing he says about me is pleasant. I mainly get offended when he isn’t trying to be humorous, and insults our intelligence. I get offended when he expresses “moral outrage” if I criticize an LDS scholar to any degree. I get offended when he tells me I cannot “pretend” to be offended just because he thinks I offended him first (yes, he actually said this). I get frustrated because he is always given the freedom to wail and moan about me in the worst way, in my absence, whereas I am never allowed to offer a response. The reasons the people there hate me so much is because of Dan’s expressed “moral outrage” every time I am mentioned. It isn’t funny and it isn’t intended to be. Contrary to popular belief, my rejection there has little to do with my unpopular views of Book of Abraham apologetics. The rift between me and the moderators started a few years ago when Dan and I had our first bout. After that he avoided me like the plague but we would be occasionally reminded how he despises me and that seemed to have done it for the veteran FAIRites. After that it was only a matter of time before I was tossed out of their little club. Now that I cannot respond to his comments, he tends to mention me whenever someone brings up anything that reminds him of me (i.e. Islam).

Anyway, I think it is wrong to think Dan’s offensive comments are always intended to be tongue-in-cheek. The man picks battles he knows he can win, and avoids everything else like the plague. If he thinks he can win a battle, and then realizes he can’t, he’ll abandon the discussion immediately while hurling condescending remarks over his shoulders. The worst example of this was during our very first argument. He was hiding as “Free Thinker” at ZLMB. He and I were fairly decent friends (or good acquaintances at the least) at that point so I was surprised when I later found out that it was him trying to make me out to look stupid.

The issue was the Prophet of Islam. I said Muhammad was no saint, and he condoned the raping of women and the slaughter of their husbands before their own eyes. He challenged me to produce a source. So within an hour I produced about a half-dozen sources. Dan, posting as “Free thinker,” then fled the scene, but not before offering a dramatic send-off, whereby he declared my “spiritual” and “intellectual” state too inferior and too deficient to be worth his time. There was nothing humorous about this, nor was it intended to be. It was insulting, as it was intended to be.

Shortly afterwards I found out it was Dan Peterson and my image of him changed forever.

[_CaliforniaKid]

To be fair to Dan, I'm certain that John-Charles Duffy would find your style still more objectionable than his.

[_Some Schmo]

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

Well, I've read that an idiot is defined as someone with an IQ less than 30, so I suppose I wouldn't argue with you on this point. However, given the things he's willing to believe despite all of the evidence to the contrary he's been exposed to, he can't be particularly bright either. The other possible explanation is that he's an utter liar, or has a financial motivation to make up outrageous apologetic arguments.

So... I don't know... take your pick. Maybe it's just a simple case of him being a belligerent dick. I mean... maybe. I don't know him personally. All I have to go on is what he's posted, and that's not been very flattering.

One thing that's apparent about him is that he is incapable of acknowledging when he's wrong about something, even when it's obvious he's made a mistake. How smart do you have to be to recognize that it's better to admit a mistake then to argue on the side of something idiotic? Again... not very bright. If this is one of the best minds that Mormonism has to offer, that's a sad commentary on its membership and the religion itself (I don't think he is one of the best minds Mormonism has to offer, but it seems people over at MAD do... oddly enough).

[_dartagnan]

To be fair to Dan, I'm certain that John-Charles Duffy would find your style still more objectionable than his.

It is possible but I doubt it. And that is hard to say, especially since I wasn't mentioned in his article while others like Wade Englund and Michael Ash were.

Would anyone like to explain to me what my style is? While Dan insults virtually anyone who comes across his path as a critic- all the while using the humor element as an excuse - there are only a handful of individuals I have really reamed into to, and it is generally because they have insulted the living hell out of me. Whether Juliann, Bokovoy, Dan, Bill or William Schryver, I can provide the original cause of the friction between us and sit in full confidence that objective onlookers will understand that I have been acting in self-defense.

Perspective is everything. Do you think Duffy would have objected to my recent inquiry to Robert Ritner, which has pretty much reinforced everyone's negative image of me as a Hitler? Somehow I doubt it.

I know you objected to me calling Bokovoy an idiot, but that is eaiser for people to say when they are not the ones insulted left and right. The guy is now over on the MAD forum trying to create an entire discussion about apologists turned critics due to vanity; obviously I am the case subject. He didn't leave any room for the possibility that his pet theory was in error, he simply asked the people to take his statement for granted and elaborate on it.

Dan is currently fostering more hate and resentment towards me all the while justifying it because he thinks he is a victim to my "campaign" that intends to get him sued. Don Bradly asked a wonderful question when he challenged Dan on the proof he had that this was my purpose for emailing Ritner. Dan admitted he didn't have proof, but that he was certain the motive was "malicious"!

Juliann is taking advantage of my absence as usual by drudging up old discussions and falsely accusing me of lying about things via ommission. She is ignoring crucial parts of the discussion so she can accuse me of lying, and it has all gone unchallenged. All of this just so she can tell the forum I have a "history" of lying about emails, which is absurd.

This is a concerted "campaign" against me if there ever was one. The jets are scrambling and the talking heads over there are looking as stupid as ever. Juliann, Dan and Bokovoy are all three desperately trying to blacken my reputation more than they already have, and Ritner sees this too, which only reinforces his suspicion that this was the purpose of teh rumors about him.

So I don't know how anyone can say with confidence that Duffy finds my style more objectionable.

And by the way, sometimes people really are idiots. Sometimes people really are lying. I call it as I see it and I do so with evidence. I don't back down because people threaten me with lawsuits or banishment or whatever. Incidentally, I think you should have stood your ground when you rightly said Gee had lied. Of course he lied. We know he lied. He knows he lied. Everyone looking at this from a non-apologetic vantage point knows he lied.

[_Runtu]

Just read the Duffy piece. Now that's the Wade Englund I remember. :-)

[_Blixa]

Link, Runtu? I'm wanting to read that myself.