Dr. Daniel C. Peterson is no Ogre

[_richardMdBorn]

Dan was quite nice when I pointed out a mistake in Offenders for a Word. He was a class act there.

[_Ray A]

Me neither. That is, so far. Whenever I see him at MHA meetings, I go up to him to him to say hello. He is always cordial and pleasant. He doesn't seem to take things personally, and neither do I. I remember sitting with him and his wife at some banquet, and we all had a good laugh.

This is precisely the impression I got when Dan and his wife were here in Oz and visited with me and my daughter for lunch (contrary to board myth he's not a glutton and a donut-bibber). I think he just comes across much stronger on forums, but this is no real indication of his in real life persona. If you would like to get a good idea of what he's like in real life watch the DVD "Journey of Faith" (Bill Hamblin comes across as quite serious, but Dan radiates friendliness and is a captivating speaker). While I can't judge a person entirely after only a four hour meeting, I think the negative characterisations we see on boards are way wide of the mark. If any of his critics were to actually meet him I'm quite certain most would rethink the "ogre" tag, regardless of ideological differences.

I do agree that some of his posts can generate animosity and can seem curt or dismissive. If you get the whole picture you'd realise that behind this is a very different "whole person". Even when we clashed on ZLMB, after a while he just lay aside any perceived animosity and the witty comments often had me laughing. Here's a clue, if you disagree vehemently with Mormonism, you're going to disagree vehemently with Dan Peterson. If you approach Mormonism without rancour or bitterness, or obsessiveness towards its public figures such as Dan, you'll find him to be a superb representative of and a credit to his religion. I think he left a very favourbale impression on the many Australian politicians and public figures he met while here, and considering the diversity of opinion that does sometimes require tact, or what some might call "PC", but that is often the nature of public life. Every politician does it. I just happen to now be working for Muslim operator in my job, so I don't go mouthing off every negative thing I may think about Muslims. When we have to deal with this in real life we realise that some sensitivity to others' beliefs is essential if we're going to have any kind of reasonable dialogue.

[_guy sajer]

Me neither. That is, so far. Whenever I see him at MHA meetings, I go up to him to him to say hello. He is always cordial and pleasant. He doesn't seem to take things personally, and neither do I. I remember sitting with him and his wife at some banquet, and we all had a good laugh.

This is precisely the impression I got when Dan and his wife were here in Oz and visited with me and my daughter for lunch (contrary to board myth he's not a glutton and a donut-bibber). I think he just comes across much stronger on forums, but this is no real indication of his in real life persona. If you would like to get a good idea of what he's like in real life watch the DVD "Journey of Faith" (Bill Hamblin comes across as quite serious, but Dan radiates friendliness and is a captivating speaker). While I can't judge a person entirely after only a four hour meeting, I think the negative characterisations we see on boards are way wide of the mark. If any of his critics were to actually meet him I'm quite certain most would rethink the "ogre" tag, regardless of ideological differences.

I do agree that some of his posts can generate animosity and can seem curt or dismissive. If you get the whole picture you'd realise that behind this is a very different "whole person". Even when we clashed on ZLMB, after a while he just lay aside any perceived animosity and the witty comments often had me laughing. Here's a clue, if you disagree vehemently with Mormonism, you're going to disagree vehemently with Dan Peterson. If you approach Mormonism without rancour or bitterness, or obsessiveness towards its public figures such as Dan, you'll find him to be a superb representative of and a credit to his religion. I think he left a very favourbale impression on the many Australian politicians and public figures he met while here, and considering the diversity of opinion that does sometimes require tact, or what some might call "PC", but that is often the nature of public life. Every politician does it. I just happen to now be working for Muslim operator in my job, so I don't go mouthing off every negative thing I may think about Muslims. When we have to deal with this in real life we realise that some sensitivity to others' beliefs is essential if we're going to have any kind of reasonable dialogue.

Generally speaking, I think we make a mistake to infer too much about a person from his/her online persona. Like it or not, the rules of etiquette differ in the cyber world than they do in the personal world.

I've never met DCP, and I "know" (if that's what you want to call it) him only by his posts on internet BB's. I'd be willing to bet that in person he is likable, personable, and reasonably considerate.

I figure also that much of the give and take on internet BB's is an exaggerated and sporting game of one-upsmanship that should not be taken too seriously (with exceptions). DCP is a spirited jouster, and I think he deserves at least some style points for his witty reparte and pointed jabs, even if the substance underlying them can at times be vacuous.

[_Tarski]

Me neither. That is, so far. Whenever I see him at MHA meetings, I go up to him to him to say hello. He is always cordial and pleasant. He doesn't seem to take things personally, and neither do I. I remember sitting with him and his wife at some banquet, and we all had a good laugh.

This is precisely the impression I got when Dan and his wife were here in Oz and visited with me and my daughter for lunch (contrary to board myth he's not a glutton and a donut-bibber). I think he just comes across much stronger on forums, but this is no real indication of his in real life persona. If you would like to get a good idea of what he's like in real life watch the DVD "Journey of Faith" (Bill Hamblin comes across as quite serious, but Dan radiates friendliness and is a captivating speaker). While I can't judge a person entirely after only a four hour meeting, I think the negative characterisations we see on boards are way wide of the mark.

I believe you. I want to like him.

[_Dan Vogel]

I thought it was interesting that he suggested John Clark's article on Book of Mormon evidence as proof that archaeology was trending towards support for the Book of Mormon, and yet he never engaged my rebuttal of that article.

Clark's presentation is an example of the Perpetual Trend Fallacy. List cultural traits in Book of Mormon. Identify how many were known (from Mesoamerica) in Joseph Smith's day. Compare that with how many are identified today. Then argue that there is a trend and stongly suggest that those yet unidentifed will be. Obviously there is no guarantee that the trend will continue, assuming a trend has occurred.

[_Runtu]

Clark's presentation is an example of the Perpetual Trend Fallacy. List cultural traits in Book of Mormon. Identify how many were known (from Mesoamerica) in Joseph Smith's day. Compare that with how many are identified today. Then argue that there is a trend and stongly suggest that those yet unidentifed will be. Obviously there is no guarantee that the trend will continue, assuming a trend has occurred.

Of course, it helps if the cultural traits alleged to have been unknown in Joseph Smith's day were, in fact, unknown in his day. But, yes, this is an interesting, if fallacious, approach to the evidence.

[_guy sajer]

I thought it was interesting that he suggested John Clark's article on Book of Mormon evidence as proof that archaeology was trending towards support for the Book of Mormon, and yet he never engaged my rebuttal of that article.

Clark's presentation is an example of the Perpetual Trend Fallacy. List cultural traits in Book of Mormon. Identify how many were known (from Mesoamerica) in Joseph Smith's day. Compare that with how many are identified today. Then argue that there is a trend and stongly suggest that those yet unidentifed will be. Obviously there is no guarantee that the trend will continue, assuming a trend has occurred.

Blind, dumb luck ensured that Joseph Smith got some hits, but from where I sit, the misses both far outweight the hits and are of significantly greater weight.

Also, if there is such accumulating evidence of the Lehite civilizations in MesoAmerica, perhaps Clark could point us to the peer reviewed or otherwise credible journal in which they are being published?

[_Runtu]

Blind, dumb luck ensured that Joseph Smith got some hits, but from where I sit, the misses both far outweight the hits and are of significantly greater weight.

If you read my thread, it wasn't so much blind, dumb luck but rather Joseph's repeating information that was widely believed about the mound builders. If there were luck involved, it was on the part of those who created the mound builder mythology.

Also, if there is such accumulating evidence of the Lehite civilizations in MesoAmerica, perhaps Clark could point us to the peer reviewed or otherwise credible journal in which they are being published?

All it would take is one "holy crap!" discovery.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I think the mustache is cool too, but he could really hit a slam dunk with a beard combover. A beard comb over would hide his bald spot while adding some eccentricity to his intellect:

[_dartagnan]

Generally speaking, I think we make a mistake to infer too much about a person from his/her online persona. Like it or not, the rules of etiquette differ in the cyber world than they do in the personal world.

Amen to that.

I've never met DCP, and I "know" (if that's what you want to call it) him only by his posts on internet BB's. I'd be willing to bet that in person he is likable, personable, and reasonably considerate.

Well I have met him (at FAIR conference 2002) and I can say he is all of those things, and more. I teamed up with him and Midgley on the Walter Martin e-list about 7 or 8 years ago, but like you said, you don’t really get a feel for someone unless you meet them in person. I was pleased with my experience. It has been several years but I remember his humor had caught everyone’s attention at the table we were sitting at. I gave him a dozen or so copies of a book I had promised him through email.

It was difficult for me to criticize him later on, regarding Islam and Muhammad, but I managed to put aside the bias I had and treat him like he was any other scholar who was in error. But I do try to make note of his strengths when the opportunity arises. Even after we had knocked heads over Islam, I was corresponding with Daniel Pipes, informing him that Dan Peterson had expressed admiration for him. I didn’t knock Dan in that correspondence. In fact I had nothing but pleasantries to offer Pipes. As a result the two started corresponding and Pipes placed DCP on his website as a “recommended scholar” on Islam.

A couple of months ago Dan gave a presentation in Australia. I downloaded it and listened to it twice over. Dan is an excellent speaker. I think I complimented him on this numerous times at FAIR, and I also remember saying the FROB introduction was worth the price of the book because it was a joy to read his intros. Dan is definitely the force to be reckoned with in anti-Mormonism, which is why I regret that DCP is not taking the helm on the Book of Abraham issues. Those who have taken it upon themselves to steer the way, have proved to be borderline incompetent.

Having said that, I do not regret any of the criticisms I have offered over the past few years. I think scholars should be held accountable at all times, and that the best scholars are those who welcome criticism. To his credit, Dan doesn’t seem to be complaining about my criticisms.