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

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:48 pm

I've gotten three quarters of the way through Duffy's essay, and part of what strikes me, so far, is that apparently internet apologists like Dan and Wade really are "big names" in this arena. I always had a hard time believing that, because neither of them, from what I saw in their interactions, had a lot of substance to them. I thought they were just big names on the net due to their high profile on boards. I've just never been that impressed with what either of them produces, which is part of the reason I never understood RFM's apparent obsession with Dan. I think people like Ben McGuire and Brant Gardner, while I disagree with many of their points, are far better at presenting substance.

But maybe Dan and Wade just got mentioned because they're good examples of LDS apologists who like to fight, not because they're known for substantial apologia within the LDS community.

What do you all think? Are Dan and Wade viewed, within the LDS intelligentsia community at least, as "top tier"?

Post by **_harmony** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:03 pm

beastie wrote: Wade... "top tier"?

Wade???? Oh my. The church is going downhill fast, if Wade is considered a top tier apologist.

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:03 pm

Dan Vogel wrote: What appears to you to be so plain is not necessarily to others. While you are speculating that DCP has to know the "truth" about Mormonism, he and other apologists speculate that you must not want to see the evidence they think is so clear because you are a sinner. I think these theories about our opponents come out of frustration, and a refusal to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both positions. If you can't do that, you are going to be at a disadvantage in a debate.

Well, first off, I'm not interested in debating Mormons about Mormonism. You cannot reason with the unreasonable, and it is clearly unreasonable to believe in Mormonism. Arguing with a Mormon about their religion is like going to a chess game where all your opponent wants to do is play checkers. The rules of debate don't apply. All they need to do is invoke the word faith and the game is over, because logic and reason no longer have meaning.

As to acknowledging the "strengths" of apologists' arguments, I guess I would be at a disadvantage in a debate with them because I have yet to witness any strengths. I'd enjoy hearing a single example of a strong apologetic argument.

Post by **_moksha** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:16 pm

harmony wrote:
beastie wrote: Wade... "top tier"?

Wade???? Oh my. The church is going downhill fast, if Wade is considered a top tier apologist.

I would classify my own brand of apologetics as "bargain basement".

Post by **_Pumplehoober** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:27 pm

Pumplehoober wrote:
dartagnan wrote: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.

Do you have a link to this discussion? You have mentioned it several times, but where is the original?

Just wanted to bump this...

Post by **_dartagnan** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:40 pm

Sorry I missed the first post.

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... D=86.topic

If you notice early in the discussion someone brought up Dan Peterson and I praised him, cited him, and said I wished he would post his thoughts on that issue. Then he shows up as Free Thinker.

By the way, thanks for snagging one of my favorite monikers. Pumplehoober, as you probably know, was one of the names I went by at ZLMB. Do you know where the name comes from?

Post by **_Runtu** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:24 pm

moksha wrote:I would classify my own brand of apologetics as "bargain basement".

If that's true, mine are the bargain basement of the dollar store. Or maybe a yard sale.

I've always appreciated your comments here, price notwithstanding.

Post by **_Pumplehoober** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:07 pm

dartagnan wrote:Sorry I missed the first post.

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... D=86.topic

If you notice early in the discussion someone brought up Dan Peterson and I praised him, cited him, and said I wished he would post his thoughts on that issue. Then he shows up as Free Thinker.

By the way, thanks for snagging one of my favorite monikers. Pumplehoober, as you probably know, was one of the names I went by at ZLMB. Do you know where the name comes from?

Could you be more specific on what you think Dr. Peterson did wrong, or how you were slighted?

Post by **_dartagnan** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:23 pm

I need to explain this?

He jumped into the discussion, asked me to produce sources for my assertion, and then, upon reading the sources I provided at his request, decided he would leave the scene while hurling insults over his shoulder. A typical apologetic maneuver we've come to appreciate from the FARMS/FAIR types. He questioned my emotional, intellectual and spiritual state, and used this as an excuse for his departure. It seems clear DCP was intending to stick it out because he thought this was battle he could win. All I did was post sources at his request, and then suddenly he changes his mind and leaves.

Months later on the FAIR board he would unwittingly refer to this discussion as his "past experience" with my bigotry towards Islam. Thus, he pretty much proved to me FT was Dan.

Post by **_Pumplehoober** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:14 pm

dartagnan wrote:He jumped into the discussion, asked me to produce sources for my assertion, and then, upon reading the sources I provided at his request, decided he would leave the scene while hurling insults over his shoulder. A typical apologetic maneuver we've come to appreciate from the FARMS/FAIR types. He questioned my emotional, intellectual and spiritual state, and used this as an excuse for his departure. It seems clear DCP was intending to stick it out because he thought this was battle he could win. All I did was post sources at his request, and then suddenly he changes his mind and leaves.

This is what you perceived to have happened, but is it the full story? You have not really assessed the validity of your argument and motivations. Are you saying that you acted correctly with regards to your intellectual and spiritual argument? Was your argument intellectually and spiritually sound?

DiscussMormonism.com

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

Re: Did this happen?