"You have the temporary advantage of what, in this context, strikes me as a rather cowardly anonymity."
"My comment provoked the following fascinating response from a vocal critic of FARMS and of the church (who, ironically, posts under a pseudonym.)"
---Daniel C. Peterson
Anonymity is not dialogue with honor.
---rcrocket
As noted in a previous posting, Ray A, in very sharp contrast to his current stance, once hated DCP. The reasons for this are complex, but part of the whole backstory centers around a mysterious letter that DCP sent to Ray---a letter which, apparently, did not paint the Good Professor in a very favorable light at all. It turns out that this letter was shared with Brent Metcalfe, who was then a moderator on ZLMB, and who posted using the nom de guerre "exegete." The discussion raged for quite some time, with much speculation as to just what, exactly, this mysterious letter contained.
But we need to back up even further. For reasons which remain murky, Prof. Peterson had ceased posting on ZLMB altogether. He had stormed off the board in anger, vowing never to return, claiming that it was a "a waste of time." Nevertheless, he remained active in Mopologetics, as evidenced by his interaction with Ray A, among other people.
DCP's absence from the MB did not stop people from discussing him, however, most notably a shadowy poster called "FreeThinker," who claimed to be on close personal terms with the Good Professor. So, this was the scenario that was in place when the following went down. In a posting related to a different topic, the poster named David Wills related the following (he was attempting to clarify a point relating to whether or not Joseph Smith had "boasted" in the History of the Church):
(emphasis added)David Wills wrote:For the benefit of all concerned, I have received the following from Daniel C. Peterson:
Dear Brother Wills:
Thank you for your inquiry about the provenance of that passage regarding Joseph Smith’s “boasting” in the History of the Church. “Free Thinker” remembered that I had written something about that subject, and asked me where it had been published. I didn’t recall exactly, but I knew that I had first written something about it in a personal letter almost fifteen years ago. I still had that letter on my computer, so I copied the appropriate passage, sent it to “Free Thinker,” and told “Free Thinker” to go ahead and post it. (The passage is similar to one that later appeared in print somewhere, but not identical.) I asked “Free Thinker” to leave my name out of his discussion, since, frankly, I grew tired, a long time ago, of my own name and personality becoming an issue on the Zion’s Lighthouse board. It seems, though, that my request was pretty naïve. (I guess that not much has really changed there. Lots of personal heat, sadly little light.)
That ought to settle the matter, I think.
I hope everything is well with you. I miss Australia.
Best wishes,
Dan Peterson
I trust this will end the silliness.
The Bish
But there seemed to be some kind of subterfuge involved in this. Questions arose as to how this "letter" was still on DCP's computer, some fifteen years after the fact. Brent Metcalfe observed thusly:
exegete wrote:If anything, Dan's comments will surely ignite more flames. Based on sources that I'm not at liberty to divulge (seriously), truth be known the missive that you posted sheds a less-than-flattering light on both "DanPeterson" and "Free Thinker."
It needs to be pointed out that this remark was never fully explained, and that exegete never really clarified how/why the "missive" shed a "less-than-flattering light" on DCP and FreeThinker.
But, the plot thickens. In a separate thread, FreeThinker gives the following announcement:]
(emphasis added)FreeThinker wrote:Exciting news for anybody (there can't be many) who cares and can stay awake:
Prodded by Seven of Nine, who suspects that it will clear something or other up (or expose wrongdoing, or something like that), I asked DCP if he would be willing to post his correspondence with Ray Ago. See Seven's encouragement at:
pub26.ezboard.com/fpacume...1&stop=220
Peterson is not willing to post it. The complete file totals something like fifteen or twenty pages. And I'm not willing to spend any time to break it up into smaller bits and/or to format it for this message board.
But all is not lost.
Peterson will send it, as a Word attachment, to anybody who contacts him (at daniel_peterson@BYU.edu) and requests it. (Within reason. If demand becomes too intense, which seems highly unlikely, some other means of distribution will undoubtedly have to be found.) Every note Peterson ever sent to Ray Ago will be included; Ray Ago's side of the correspondence will not be included, but it can be reasonably well reconstructed, at least in part, on the basis of the extensive quotations from it in Peterson's letters.
There doesn't seem to be much of real interest in the correspondence, truth be told. But some may remember that these letters, according to Ray Ago, are supposed to reveal Peterson without the protection of his false mask of politeness, sincerity, honesty, and decency. So they might be fun after all. If anybody really cares. For what it's worth.
It turns out that the "false mask" is not one of "politeness, sincerity, honesty, and decency." Rather, it was one of sockpuppetry. But no one appeared to know that at the time. Here is Ray A's response to "FreeThinker":
Ray Ago wrote:What a waste of time. I didn't even bother saving my emails to him and only have about seven or eight of his. I have no idea why you are trying to stir up a storm in a teacup. You're very excitable FT. Maybe you need a cup of coffee and two disprin.
As for your mate, I have no interest whatsoever in him. As time goes on people will see what he is really all about. Eugene England picked it pretty quick.
He's already copped much citicism from members, and he's a nonentity here in Australia. Zilch. He might claim "connections", I don't know, or maybe think he's important, but everyman and his dog wouldn't know who he is, and frankly, wouldn't care. I suspect that even if you went to the ABC now and asked who he was few would know. The Australian public, en masse, are just not interested in people like him - apologists, for any religion.
When one reads FreeThinker's posts, with their references to DCP in the third person, things become curious indeed, because, you see, FreeThinker and Daniel C. Peterson are one and the same. Let us not forget DCP's many, many condemnations of anonymity. Let us not forget his many supporters---including the MADmoderating team---who have repeatedly and quite viciously derided anonymity and sockpuppetry, to the extent even that it is a bannable offense on MAD/FAIR.
Indeed, DCP's postings on ZLMB as "FreeThinker" went on, apparently, for years. Of course, many of the other people on the board eventually figured out it was him, as the style is unmistakable. But his hypocrisy in regards to anonymous posting seems quite extreme in this light. Here is another posting from him, in which he continues to refer to himself in the third person---something which MADites often refer to as "schizophrenic" posting behavior:
FreeThinker wrote:On the other hand, I don't think Peterson is very enthused about explicitly authorizing some unnamed friend or friends of exegete's to spread unspecified but clearly negative personal gossip about him here on ZLMB. (Hard to imagine why not, huh?) Of course, if such gossip is going to be spread, it will be spread anyway. (In fact, it clearly already has been, or exegete wouldn't know about it.) But there's no obvious reason why the victim himself should grant it some sort of license.
Anyways, for those interested in looking over the actual, mysterious letter, it (along with another thread), can be read here:
http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... D=47.topic
It does not seem (at least not to me, in any case) that DCP was especially rude or untoward in the letter. (He calls Paulson "stupid," but beyond that, there is nothing really out of the ordinary.)
Later, Brent Metcalfe offered up this cryptic reply:
exegete wrote:Actually, I said nothing about the content of the letter. Quite honestly, I can't clarify further without violating forum rules. If you give me permission to violate ZLMB rules as they pertain to you, I'd be happy to elucidate.
And that, in essence, ended the discussion. But what we have here is evidence of DCP's gross duplicity and subterfuge. It seems that he spent a good deal of time engaging in behavior which he now hypocritically derides, going so far even as to publish improperly cited attacks on anonymous critics in FARMS Review.
In any case, the rabbit hole of ZLMB goes deep indeed!