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

[_Runtu]

Link, Runtu? I'm wanting to read that myself.

Your wish is my command: Defending the Kingdom

[_Blixa]

Link, Runtu? I'm wanting to read that myself.

Your wish is my command: Defending the Kingdom

Well, I'm almost through reading it (all but the sidebars) and I've taken a lot of notes. I found it very interesting; I disagree with some points and agree with others, but overall found the essay (especially material contained in the footnotes: almost always the place I mine the richest scholarly gems) highly useful to my own thinking.

Has the essay been discussed here before? Do you think others would find a separate thread on it useful as well? If so, I'll write up my reactions. Although, that would be helpful for me, I don't want to necessarily assume my interests are everyone's.

I want to post something in the Porter Rockwell thread first, then I'll come back to finishing up my thoughts on the Duffy essay. (Is he still at the U of U does anyone know?)

[_Tom]

He's working on his PhD at UNC at Chapel Hill.

JC Duffy

[_Blixa]

Thanks Tom!

[_Runtu]

Well, I'm almost through reading it (all but the sidebars) and I've taken a lot of notes. I found it very interesting; I disagree with some points and agree with others, but overall found the essay (especially material contained in the footnotes: almost always the place I mine the richest scholarly gems) highly useful to my own thinking.

Has the essay been discussed here before? Do you think others would find a separate thread on it useful as well? If so, I'll write up my reactions. Although, that would be helpful for me, I don't want to necessarily assume my interests are everyone's.

I want to post something in the Porter Rockwell thread first, then I'll come back to finishing up my thoughts on the Duffy essay. (Is he still at the U of U does anyone know?)

It's been discussed over on the other board, but that was the first time I'd read it. Interesting the response he got over there (he's unfriendly, no sense of humor, etc.). I think his analysis is pretty good in a lot of places.

[_Yong Xi]

Well, I'm almost through reading it (all but the sidebars) and I've taken a lot of notes. I found it very interesting; I disagree with some points and agree with others, but overall found the essay (especially material contained in the footnotes: almost always the place I mine the richest scholarly gems) highly useful to my own thinking.

Has the essay been discussed here before? Do you think others would find a separate thread on it useful as well? If so, I'll write up my reactions. Although, that would be helpful for me, I don't want to necessarily assume my interests are everyone's.

I want to post something in the Porter Rockwell thread first, then I'll come back to finishing up my thoughts on the Duffy essay. (Is he still at the U of U does anyone know?)

I have not finished Duffy's essay yet. What I have read, however, has struck me as interesting, if not sobering. I would be interested in discussion on a separate thread.

[_moksha]

Here is a delightful example to show the lighter side of Mormon apologists and Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Reptilian Aliens Busting Loose In Slc, Who is this Juliann???

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=25343

Oh yeah, there is also a reference to Kevin in it.

[_Dan Vogel]

No matter what you think of him or his style, he's definitely not an idiot.

Well, I've read that an idiot is defined as someone with an IQ less than 30, so I suppose I wouldn't argue with you on this point. However, given the things he's willing to believe despite all of the evidence to the contrary he's been exposed to, he can't be particularly bright either. The other possible explanation is that he's an utter liar, or has a financial motivation to make up outrageous apologetic arguments.

So... I don't know... take your pick. Maybe it's just a simple case of him being a belligerent dick. I mean... maybe. I don't know him personally. All I have to go on is what he's posted, and that's not been very flattering.

One thing that's apparent about him is that he is incapable of acknowledging when he's wrong about something, even when it's obvious he's made a mistake. How smart do you have to be to recognize that it's better to admit a mistake then to argue on the side of something idiotic? Again... not very bright. If this is one of the best minds that Mormonism has to offer, that's a sad commentary on its membership and the religion itself (I don't think he is one of the best minds Mormonism has to offer, but it seems people over at MAD do... oddly enough).

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.

[_richardMdBorn]

No matter what you think of him or his style, he's definitely not an idiot.

Well, I've read that an idiot is defined as someone with an IQ less than 30, so I suppose I wouldn't argue with you on this point. However, given the things he's willing to believe despite all of the evidence to the contrary he's been exposed to, he can't be particularly bright either. The other possible explanation is that he's an utter liar, or has a financial motivation to make up outrageous apologetic arguments.

So... I don't know... take your pick. Maybe it's just a simple case of him being a belligerent dick. I mean... maybe. I don't know him personally. All I have to go on is what he's posted, and that's not been very flattering.

One thing that's apparent about him is that he is incapable of acknowledging when he's wrong about something, even when it's obvious he's made a mistake. How smart do you have to be to recognize that it's better to admit a mistake then to argue on the side of something idiotic? Again... not very bright. If this is one of the best minds that Mormonism has to offer, that's a sad commentary on its membership and the religion itself (I don't think he is one of the best minds Mormonism has to offer, but it seems people over at MAD do... oddly enough).

I'm far from a DCP defender, but I pointed out on ZLMB a mistake in Offenders for a Word and he agreed that it was wrong (the mistake's on page 188). He was very classy about this.

Richard

[_Pumplehoober]

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?