My Column in the "Mormon Times"

[_Daniel Peterson]

A bit late -- I'm on the road -- but here is last Thursday's "Mormon Times" column:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/2056 ... ter-Sunday

I leave tomorrow morning for Tel Aviv, and will be gone for more than a month. I don't know that I'll be able to keep you addicts posted with respect to my indispensable column, so you may have to fend for yourselves until I return.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

God bless, Mr. P., but I think we all realize he needs the attention to justify his, erm, job.

So, uh, good on you, Buddy. *rubs Mr. Peterson's weird head.*

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Not sure if your posting here anymore, but here's my take on your most recent article.

Perhaps the Smith's were good hard workers and some of those documents that say they were lazy are incorrect. I recall a neighbor of mine who was a good hard worker, generous, skillful and very successful. I would have never expected that what he was doing was fraudulent and his business partners, family members and his friends all payed the price. I would guess that few of his past associates would give this guy a favorable review of his work ethic or character.

Joseph Smith's name is had for both good and bad from his era all the way to this day. But even Mother Teresa has critics who can come up with something bad to say about her. I am not sure that pointing out possible problems with past critics actually tip the scales in Joseph's favor, except for those who already have the scales quite tipped in Joseph's favor already. But then again this is a Mormon Times article and you are writing it for this particular demographic and because of this I commend you on your article.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My most recent column, which appeared this morning:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/2104 ... ny-endures

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, well! Look who's back! You've got a lot to answer for, Dr. Peterson. You rather neatly managed to sidestep much of the Will Schryver/Maxwell Institute controversy, but now that you're back, I'm sure that you'll be more than happy to enlighten us on all the details.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You've got a lot to answer for, Dr. Peterson.

You're a loon.

Whenever I think of you . . . Well, I didn't think of you over the past six weeks.

And it was very nice. I enjoyed it so much, in fact, that I intend to continue not thinking about you.

You rather neatly managed to sidestep much of the Will Schryver/Maxwell Institute controversy,

Pretty clever of me, a year ago, to plan a five-week absence from the country in order to avoid commenting on Ms. Jack's thread, and then, topping it off, to have my son schedule his out-of-state wedding just before my departure from North America. Together, they got me completely off the hook!

but now that you're back, I'm sure that you'll be more than happy to enlighten us on all the details.

I don't even intend to devote the many hours it would require to read through all of the Schryverthreads on this board. I'm profoundly uninterested. Nor do I have any intention of keeping you up to date regarding all of the internal discussions at the Maxwell Institute. You have -- or, given your actual track record over the past several years, more likely don't have -- your own creepy network of anonymous "informants" for that. Go to them.

Any comments on my column? That's the topic of this thread.

[_Doctor Scratch]

but now that you're back, I'm sure that you'll be more than happy to enlighten us on all the details.

I don't even intend to devote the many hours it would require to read through all of the Schryverthreads on this board. I'm profoundly uninterested.

Oh, I bet you'll get around to at least skimming them. There were (to say the least) a few salient points you should probably be aware of. (E.g., Will's suggestion that you [well, was he referring to you?] find his misogynist behavior "funny"/"amusing." Do you?)

You have -- or, given your actual track record over the past several years, more likely don't have -- your own creepy network of anonymous "informants" for that. Go to them.

I did. One thing I was told is that you voted in favor of nuking Schryver's publication. Would you care to discuss the reasoning that went into that decision? Further, are you in any way worried about potential retaliation from Will? I tried to warn Will repeatedly about the fact that you were trash-talking him behind the scenes, and now look what's happened.

I don't know, Dan. I guess you can keep silent on all of this (Maybe "King" Welch and Bradford put a gag order on you?), but I kind of think that you ought to take advantage of your special status and position in order to help clear the air.

Any comments on my column?

I was unimpressed with it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Any comments on my column?

I was unimpressed with it.

LOL.

What a surprise.

[_Doctor Scratch]

LOL.

What a surprise.

I'm sure it's about as surprising as your attempts to dodge the Issue of the Moment.

[_stemelbow]

I liked it very much. Interesting case that John Whitmer.