Hajicek, by the way, is in intriguing and mercurial figure: he refers to himself, on his website, as "a sort of “Indiana Jones” of American religious history, always on a quest to discover some legendary relic said to be sacred." He also maintains the site, "Mormonism.com," and he is evidently enough of an authority that he was cited more than once by the SL Trib after the Church paid $35 million for the printer's MS of the Book of Mormon.John Hajicek wrote:Daniel: I don't often criticise you, but this new curriculum vitae doesn't mention your bigoted writings on James Strang. I am a member of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" at Voree, Wisconsin, which settled there in 1835 and stayed there in 1844 when Joseph Smith was killed. We are the last 19th century church still identifying as Mormons, since your church has disavowed that they are Mormons. There are enough unkind things in your article on James Strang to make you one of the more purposefully hateful and deliberately aspersion-casting anti-Mormons writing today about Mormon witnesses.
Nearly every unquoted fact in your article (on James Strang) was factually inaccurate, and the rest of the article was a carefully orchestrated collection of anti-Mormon quotes designed to malign a minority Mormon and the witnesses to his scriptures. Your writing in-between the fake facts and mean-spirited quotes has subtle differences from your writing on Joseph Smith, such as writing "James Strang started his own sect." You don't write that way about Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Imagine reading one-sided hit-piece in this language about Joseph Smith and his witnesses, in a modern newspaper.
You spent so much effort to attack a minority faith, a faith so small it probably seemed harmless to you. Political correctness says do not bully large minorities -- but small minorities can still be bullied because they are defenseless.
There is so much more to be said about Brigham Young than you can say about James Strang.
https://www.deseret.com/2011/6/9/203732 ... d-his-sect
Well, what does one do when the Indiana Jones of American Religious History accuses you of "bigoted writings on James Strang"? See for yourself:
Why does he always refer to people by their full names like that? In any case, there is sort of an apology here: if "civil rights violations or bullying or violence" happened, then he's sorry. If it was mere offense though? Then Hajicek, presumably, can blow it out his ass. And the conversation goes on:Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm sorry that you so disliked the article, John Hajicek. I relied, in writing it, on the best scholarship that I knew. Incidentally, I bear absolutely no ill will toward your group. My purpose in writing the article was to defend my own beliefs. If any civil rights violations or bullying or violence resulted from my column, you have my apologies. I intended nothing of the sort.
Hajicek wrote:Daniel Peterson, at first this looked like an apology, and then I realized it was not. I could write a worse article about Brigham Young, or even Joseph Smith, for that matter, if I picked and chose the worst quotes from scholars and put them all into one article. Your facts are wrong, dates are wrong, other numbers are wrong, and you say things like "James Strang started his own sect" when you would never say "Joseph Smith started his own sect." You would never write about racist Oliver, unstable Martin, or the apostate Whitmers the way you do the witnesses of Strang's plates. You would wince if someone wrote about your witnesses the way you write about mine.
To be honest, this seems a lot more sincere and authentic. *This* I can understand: it's a scholar who did his best, but still managed to piss people off. He's sorry that he angered some of the readership, and, if he revisits the topic later, he pledges to do better. All fine and good, right? Except that Hajicek isn't buying it:Peterson wrote:I didn't pick "the worst quotes from scholars," John Hajicek. I went to the best scholars of whom I was aware and chose passages that were relevant to my point. That's it. There was absolutely no malice. I don't even have any special INTEREST in your group. I was making an argument about something else. I understand that you're angry with me. I'm sorry about that. And, of course, if there is better scholarship of which I should be aware, I'll have a look at it before I write on the topic again -- which I may or may not ever do.
John Hajicek wrote:[T]here is plenty of original material in scholarly and research libraries. Dan quoted from sources who were contemporaries (and friends) of Fawn Brodie, to put it into perspective. Strang doesn't have a BYU to refute all the falsehoods from people like Dan quoting a 1930 Milo Quaife, and I don't have time, either. You can out [sic] together a pile of quotes from scholarly books against any important Mormon figure. He did it as a one-sided hit job. I mean, how did he write an entire article about the 11 witnesses Strang had, without ever quoting from one of their two joint testimonials or many private testimonials? Yet, he relies on rumor and hearsay. And he wrote the whole article without a mention of the witnesses who stayed faithful to Strang to the end, more notably than any of the three did for Joseph. And for what purpose was the [sic] Dan's deception? Proving the Book of Mormon true, by deceit? Whatever it is, it reads to a member exactly like an anti-Mormon article. Like, why attack Joseph Smith with a one-sided hit piece about the Book of Mormon witnesses? You'd say that was hate. And his facts are just wrong with dates and numbers. It grates like when someone says "John Smith's first edition of the Book of Mormon was 625 pages long and was printed in 1832, and he invented his own cult with cardinals and priests." Aren't we better than that?
Very interesting! You have to wonder if the Mopologists are suffering from selective memories. Speaking of memories, I was reminded of a related thread authored by the invaluable commentator "Tom," on a very similar subject. It's worth pointing out that this also attracted the attention of Jeremy Runnells, of "CES Letter" notoriety.DCP wrote:"Deception," John Hajicek? "A one-sided hit job"? You're being quite unjust.
When you take all of this into account, it's no wonder that Moksha and Dr. Shades were banned. This whole notion--i.e., that the Mopologists are disrespectful to others' faith--has metastasized into a full-blown, legitimate issue. I wonder: How does the "new" Maxwell Institute publicly feel about others' faith traditions and claims? If they take others' claims and beliefs seriously, does that mean--per the Mopologists--that they're allowing "uncontested slam-dunks"?