I know there is a tendency to play pin the tail on Dr. Peterson, but he is no ogre or donkey. He is merely a person working in a job that has the responsibility of trying to provide an apologetic defense of the church. As far as I know he doesn't have the luxury to say, "well yes I agree that this doctrine or this past practice was untrue, unwise or harmful". He must defend the whole shebang. As far as I know, he believes everything he writes.
To some of you that may make him an adversary, but I would like to think he could still be an adversary deserving of respect and dignity. It would help to at least acknowledge some of his winsome qualities. He is smart, well educated and has a fun sense of humor. He has a mustache, which by itself distinguishes him from the average LDS male. I like him for that. Perhaps you too could find something redeeming about him as well.
Anyway, I wondered what your thoughts on the issue of showing some respect to Dr. Peterson might be. Personally, I would very much like to see him post over here.
moksha wrote:Dr. Peterson. . . is merely a person working in a job that has the responsibility of trying to provide an apologetic defense of the church.
That's not quite true. He doesn't get paid for his apologetic efforts.
But to address your point, you're perhaps unnecessarily broad-brushing. I myself just listed four reasons why DCP is more qualified to lead the LDS church than any of the current crop of General Authorities.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
moksha wrote:I know there is a tendency to play pin the tail on Dr. Peterson, but he is no ogre or donkey. He is merely a person working in a job that has the responsibility of trying to provide an apologetic defense of the church. As far as I know he doesn't have the luxury to say, "well yes I agree that this doctrine or this past practice was untrue, unwise or harmful". He must defend the whole shebang. As far as I know, he believes everything he writes.
To some of you that may make him an adversary, but I would like to think he could still be an adversary deserving of respect and dignity. It would help to at least acknowledge some of his winsome qualities. He is smart, well educated and has a fun sense of humor. He has a mustache, which by itself distinguishes him from the average LDS male. I like him for that. Perhaps you too could find something redeeming about him as well.
Perhaps it is a result of his years of dealing with various opponents, but too often on the MADB, I find him to be dismissive and glib. Even when he substantively responds to a post, he often (note I'm not saying always) injects personal jabs and barbs, which in my mind devalues what he says. I can see that he has a deep knowledge base, but his presentation on that board leaves much to be desired. I can understand that he has personal grudges and such (and some are no doubt deserved), but he's quite good at both playing the victim and rolling around in the mud with his detractors. Nonetheless, I believe that he should be treated fairly, as should anybody who wishes to participate in discussion.
With that being said, i can also confess that sometimes his more good natured zingers can make me chuckle.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
moksha wrote:Dr. Peterson. . . is merely a person working in a job that has the responsibility of trying to provide an apologetic defense of the church.
That's not quite true. He doesn't get paid for his apologetic efforts.
But to address your point, you're perhaps unnecessarily broad-brushing. I myself just listed four reasons why DCP is more qualified to lead the LDS church than any of the current crop of General Authorities.
My four reasons:
1. he's younger than 65.
2. his wardrobe includes clothes other than dark suits and white shirts.
3. he isn't afraid to be mean.
4. he obviously enjoys a good meal.
I see no reason to be overly hateful toward Dr. Peterson.
Here is the way i see it.
He is enchanted by a fanciful religion that has some beautfic qualities in the same way that many fantasies do.
He bends his intellect to the needs of this enchantment. Surely I have done the same at some point and this is a variation on a human failing that I am sure I share with respect to other things.
He has a right to his beliefs and they are no worse than many other religious beliefs.
We know he isn't stupid. In fact he is intelligent and well educated. I think of him as one of those people that Shermer was talking about when he wrote the article "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things".
Everyone has a down side (me included). The down side on him that I see is the following:
1. He seldom takes on a really strong argument on FAIR or MAD (like mine for instance :)). However, I think he could.
Rather, he swoops in on easy prey. He says that he doesn't want to engage these serious challenges (especially scientific ones) on a messege board and occasionally promisses an article or book on the topic. But then why show up at all? I actually wish he would engage some of the issues that I think are telling. - I think he would get a better and more respectful reception from the more intelligent posters than he thinks.
2. He can occasionally comes on too strong in the sense that he comes accross with a sort of insulting and condescending tone--usually in short quips. He has gotten me really pissed a couple of times.
Now those complaints don't make him someone to be totally disrespected. Now if you have personal issues with him then that's different--I can't speak to that. Maybe he was an a$$ to you (he was to me a couple times).
Jersey Girl wrote:Tarski asks regarding Daniel Peterson, "But then why show up at all?"
Does it occur to anyone that Daniel may simply enjoy his participation on the board?
Jersey Girl
I am just saying he should participate more fully in certain ways. I have some specific things in mind.
I've seen many times where Daniel was presented with a chance to debate someone and had to go out of town or some such thing like that. That really bugs me. However, do you really think that any of us have a right to say what Daniel should or should not be doing on boards? Hell, I'm certainly not a PhD but even I could write more detailed posts on boards like this about various topics but I already have a job and this isn't it. It would be great to see Daniel really dig into a topic but isn't he allowed to just hack around and have fun on boards?
Jersey Girl
(Daniel if you happen to be reading here, yes, I just called you a hack poster! ;-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Tarski wrote:I am just saying he should participate more fully in certain ways. I have some specific things in mind.
Oh my! Thatt sounds so . . . diabolical.
Say, as one who no longer believes in that the church is true, doesn't that make you a villan? If there's one thing I've learned from all my years of watching cartoons, it's that villans are required to divulge their nefarious schemes. So, what exactly DO you have in mind for Dr. Peterson?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Tarski wrote:I am just saying he should participate more fully in certain ways. I have some specific things in mind.
Oh my! Thatt sounds so . . . diabolical.
Say, as one who no longer believes in that the church is true, doesn't that make you a villan? If there's one thing I've learned from all my years of watching cartoons, it's that villans are required to divulge their nefarious schemes. So, what exactly DO you have in mind for Dr. Peterson?
Giant sparks climb in zig zag patterns in my lab where I have a metal helmet waiting for him! bwa ha ha!
No seriously, I would like him to give us his reconsiliations of evolutionary theory and biology with LDS theology *(just as you have sometimes done).
He said he had ideas but then declined to put them on the table. I had no plans of mocking him or otherwise ruining the discussion.
I still hope he explains it sometime.
