Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by Kevin Graham »

Last year I challenged Daniel to rebuke Schryver's antics over at the MAD forum:

You won't even condemn the actions of Will Schryver, whose behavior was so abhorrent that the authorities at the Maxwell Institute threw him off their publication schedule because they wanted nothing to do with him or his antics


Dan responds with a perfect exhibition of denial:

I think Will Schryver has been unjustly demonized. - Aug 20, 2011

I'm aware of no real evidence for misogyny on his part - Aug 13, 2011


In case you're wondering whether Dan had actually seen the mountain of evidence proving William's bigotry towards women, Dan made it clear that he had read through the thread posted by MsJack, documenting William's long history of disgusting remarks.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

I'll repeat that: I've seen no serious evidence that Will Schryver is a misogynist.

None.

Perhaps you folks should reprise a few hundred of the posts that were devoted to that endlessly fascinating subject here a few months back. They didn't convince me then, and they probably won't convince me now - Aug 13, 2011


I remember specifically predicting this would eventually come back to haunt him, Pahoran, and the others who refused to denounce Schryver's despicable antics. In hindsight, it really isn't surprising that the powers that be came to the realization that Dan Peterson was more of a liability than an asset.

Incidentally, this is the same guy who has for years tried to label me a bigot for simply stating facts about Mormon and Islamic doctrines. Of course, his argument is that it doesn't really matter what William Schryver says on the internet and it doesn't really matter how horrible his comments are, because according to Dan, he met Schryver's wife and daughter and he saw no evidence of "abuse." So that means Schryver must have been "unjustifiably demonized" by the rest of us. This is like saying a child molester mustn't be a child molester if he doesn't molest his own kids.

According to Dan Peterson's logic, calling a woman a C---T or accusing apostates of engaging in sodomistic orgies, is perfectly fine and shouldn't bear on the question of whether or not an organization named after a Mormon apostle should publish him.

But at the same time, folks like me, MsJack, Brent Metcalfe, Mike Reed, and a number of other internet personalities, must be maligned or ignored simply because of their disagreements with his views.

This is the same guy who attacked me for calling Wells Jakeman an idiot. Once you understand what a whack-job pseudo-scholar Jakeman was, and how Dan Peterson likened him to Einstein, suddenly it doesn't come as a surprise that he has decided to bond with William Schryver. This is the same guy who considers despicable characters like Lou Midgley, close friends.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 21832
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by moksha »

Kevin Graham wrote:Dan responds with a perfect exhibition of denial:

I think Will Schryver has been unjustly demonized. - Aug 20, 2011

I'm aware of no real evidence for misogyny on his part - Aug 13, 2011




This use of apologetics, on Dr. Peterson's part, may simply have been a reflex action.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by Kevin Graham »


This use of apologetics, on Dr. Peterson's part, may simply have been a reflex action.



That's what I thought at first too, but even still, so what? I remember MsJack asking him point blank what he thought of the evidence against Schryver and he responded by saying he saw no evidence of misogyny.

It is a classic example of irrationality taking over when you've blinded yourself to reason based on nothing more than loyalty to your friends. If he is willing to be this irrational to defend his friends, then it shouldn't really be surprising that he would do the same to defend his religion. I've seen this from Dan ever since I've known him. I've confronted him in the past with examples of some truly disturbing comments from his friends, and his response was always to attack me for bringing it up. Even in private email exchanges where there wasn't an audience, he simply didn't want to hear anything negative about anyone he called friend.

So Lou Midgley and Roper's various ambushes at conference talks? It doesn't happen in his world, no matter how many witnesses were there. John Gee lying and misrepresenting the KEP? Nope, didn't happen in Peterson's world. Hamblin's notorious "Metcalfe is Butthead" acrostic? No problem, it was just an inside joke. Midgley asking the Tanners, "are you still publishing that queer" (Quinn)? No problem, that's not bigotry at all.

But the first time I made a comment about Islam and its founder encouraging slavery of non-Mulsims, suddenly I was a spiritually deficient bigot who deserved to be put on permanent ignore. The only consistency with Peterson is his willingness to shift the goal posts to a staggering degree, whenever the object of criticism is a fellow LDS loyalist.

User avatar
MsJack
θεά
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by MsJack »

I don't believe Dan's release as editor of the MSR is the result of any one factor. I'm sure it is something that has come over a long period of time as a result of a lot of different factors. That said, I have wondered whether or not his continuing support for and sponsorship of William Schryver, even after my misogyny thread, was one of those factors. The leaked e-mail from Dan indicated that the cancellation of Schryver's publication was a point of conflict between the two men.

Kevin Graham wrote:According to Dan Peterson's logic, calling a woman a C---T or accusing apostates of engaging in sodomistic orgies, is perfectly fine and shouldn't bear on the question of whether or not an organization named after a Mormon apostle should publish him.

In fairness to Dan, I believe he indicated somewhere that he did not believe that William had called harmony a c--t. He seemed to buy into William's insistence that this was a lie on the part of his detractors.

However, there were plenty of other sexist things William said which Dan apparently sees as "not misogynist." An example that EAllusion used:

EAllusion wrote:Will didn't just use sexist epithets. That'd be easier to ignore. Will habitually insulted female posters by going after their sexual attractiveness to him. He continually engaged in hoary gender stereotyping and the language of sexism because he knew it would upset the female posters.

Take this thread I brought up as an example recently.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9756&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

In it, Will is busy arguing that natural selection is a tautology, among other ignorant things about evolutionary theory. The Dude, JSM, and myself are mainly the people replying. Beastie chimes in some posts as well. How does Will respond to her?
William Schryver wrote:You’re in completely over your head here, baby. You don’t have a freaking clue what is even going on. You’re just here for what you believe is a circle-jerk pile on, with me as the target.

But if you’d like to attempt to disprove my assessment, feel free to restate, or even directly quote, those instances where anyone has demonstrated that "natural selection" (absent the influence of external forces, such as described above) amounts to anything more than "those who reproduce best are selected." I’m quite confident you cannot do it. The best you can hope for is to play cheerleader for someone else who might try. So grab your pompoms, beastlie baby, and cheer on your boys.

I am convinced that no single group of humans can be more wilfully blind and dogmatic than is the overwhelmingly majority of LDS apostates. Fortunately, catastrophic events, such as the one presumed to have deselected the dinosaurs, can forcibly bring reproduction to an end. That’s what will happen to apostates at the second coming. And, believe me, deselection will never have come more deserved.


That's sexist as all get out, and a dime a dozen post from his history. That's Will. It's not just him occasionally calling someone a b-word.

Back when I initially got the news that William's publication had been pulled, I had hoped that Dan had been part of the nixing. Dan had always said in public that he was not a fan of sexual humor (which William swims in), and he seemed to have been very consistent on that. He had also never struck me as misogynist himself (and I'm still not calling him that). I had hoped that, somehow, in spite of his high degree of posting here, Dan had been honestly unaware of his friend's bad behavior. I was so very wrong.

This time two years ago, there was so much about Dan on which I was naïve. I've crossed a long way from being the freshman who sat with him in a room in the FARMS building, recorder in hand, and interviewed him for a paper I was writing, turning off the recorder to swap personal stories on our background. I see so much more clearly now, and it's a view that fills me with sadness.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter

RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by RayAgostini »

Will Schryver is a "disgusting misogynistic character" who should be disowned by all decent-minded people, but a six year campaign to slander and defame Dr. Daniel Peterson is, well, nothing worthy any serious attention.

I'd rather be called a c--t, or a prick (I have, actually), than be subjected to what he has. And you're right, Ms.Jack, there's zero evidence that Will used that word (though you seem to think otherwise?), even though it was used several times by other posters here, who get off with a slap on the wrist.
Last edited by RayAgostini on Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 20969
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by Kishkumen »

Kevin Graham wrote:This is the same guy who attacked me for calling Wells Jakeman an idiot. Once you understand what a whack-job pseudo-scholar Jakeman was, and how Dan Peterson likened him to Einstein, suddenly it doesn't come as a surprise that he has decided to bond with William Schryver. This is the same guy who considers despicable characters like Lou Midgley, close friends.


I think you have really hit on something here. What we see at work here in the vestiges of FARMS that lived on in the editorial staff of the Review was a little clique of apologist-warriors who were also ideological bedfellows. As much as they are the intellectual children of Hugh Nibley, they are also the spiritual children of Ezra Taft Benson, who implicitly equated Soviet communism with the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon.

Moreover, it is my considered opinion that, truth be told, Will Schryver did more to bring about this setback, and potential downfall, of Daniel Peterson than any other single person in his association. As others tried to pull Dr. Peterson forward into the current times and the expedience of dialing it back a few notches, Will, as he boasts, was filling Dr. Peterson's head with conspiracy theories and parables about the modern sons of Mosiah. You see in all of this a bunker mentality, one that reflects Schryver's own paranoia and narcissism.

Doctor Scratch may have been a clearinghouse for information on the Maxwell Institute, but it is Schryver who held forth day after day on Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board, spinning his tales of betrayal, turncoats, enemies, conspiracies, and secret actors working against Mormonism. All of this helps bring along the disastrously ill-timed attack on John Dehlin, and the paranoid backlash of the Deseret News piece (which Schryver takes credit for). I might add that Peterson was not the only victim of Schryverology; he was merely the most prominent one.

Of course, all of this will be laid at the feet of the alleged external enemies as it usually is. But any objective observer will see in Daniel's blog and his posts over the past month on Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board a growing anxiety and paranoia filled with images of Obama the anti-christ and Dehlin, son of Mosiah. He is the victim of his own apocalyptic scenario, which, much like other apocalyptic scenarios, is usually most disastrous for the people who indulge in them (Waco, Jonestown, etc.). Others look on in amazement wondering how this person could go off the rails so spectacularly, but I think the signs are all there. And Schryver was the evil genie spurring him on for his own selfish purposes.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by RayAgostini »

Kishkumen wrote:I think you have really hit on something here. What we see at work here in the vestiges of FARMS that lived on in the editorial staff of the Review was a little clique of apologist-warriors who were also ideological bedfellows.


And you, of course, are not an "ideological bedfellow" with anyone. You're totally objective and independent.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 20969
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by Kishkumen »

So, Kevin, who is on the Schryver hitlist of personal/Church enemies. They are, after all, almost identical, aren't they?

Blair Hodges?
David Bokovoy?
Brian Hauglid?
John Dehlin?
Don Bradley?

I know these are some of the people he has run down over at Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board. But have they all made his suspect list for this awful reversal?

Are these the people that Schryver blames?

I know that the emails I have been fielding from BYU mention John Dehlin, calling him individually, particularly, and repeatedly, with plenty of venom attached, "despicable" and "reprehensible."

He must be at the top of the list.

But perhaps the Bushmans make the list too?

Maybe Terryl Givens?

The apostle who intervened on Dehlin's behalf?

Exactly who is in this long list of so-called "fifth columnists" who do not belong to the one and only true church of Schryverology?
Last edited by Kishkumen on Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by RayAgostini »

Kishkumen wrote:I know that the emails I have been fielding from BYU mention John Dehlin, calling him individually, particularly, and repeatedly, with plenty of venom attached, "despicable" and "reprehensible."

He must be at the top of the list.


Maybe they got brainwashed by the MI and the despicable editor of The Review? Maybe Dan emailed them all and told them, "I order you to think like me!"

Plausible.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 20969
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by Kishkumen »

By the by...

I thought you all might enjoy my response to the BYU email that spoke of Mr. Dehlin in such a Christian manner:

Dear XXXXXXX:

I view the verbal savaging of one's coreligionists in quasi-academic publications to be a despicable and reprehensible activity. Notice the difference. Hate the sin and love the sinner. You hate the sinner.

Good day,

XXXXXXXXXX
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by RayAgostini »

Kevin Graham wrote:This is the same guy who attacked me for calling Wells Jakeman an idiot. Once you understand what a whack-job pseudo-scholar Jakeman was, and how Dan Peterson likened him to Einstein, suddenly it doesn't come as a surprise that he has decided to bond with William Schryver. This is the same guy who considers despicable characters like Lou Midgley, close friends.


You objected to DCP chastising you for calling the "whack-job pseudo-scholar" Jakeman an "idiot", and then take a pot shot at him for being friends with "despicable characters" like Lou Midgley?

Just to make sure I have the mantra down right: Jakeman, Midgley and Peterson are "despicable characters", and Kevin Graham is a Saint who unmasks "despicable characters".

Okay, I think I have it right.

User avatar
Equality
God
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:44 am

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by Equality »

Kishkumen wrote:
I think you have really hit on something here. What we see at work here in the vestiges of FARMS that lived on in the editorial staff of the Review was a little clique of apologist-warriors who were also ideological bedfellows. As much as they are the intellectual children of Hugh Nibley, they are also the spiritual children of Ezra Taft Benson, who implicitly equated Soviet communism with the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon.


Brilliant insight, Kish. Too long to paste as a signature, but if I could, I would. Kudos, Professor.

Kishkumen wrote:Moreover, it is my considered opinion that, truth be told, Will Schryver did more to bring about this setback, and potential downfall, of Daniel Peterson than any other single person in his association.


Perhaps. But I think an argument could be made that John Dehlin did more to bring about this setback for the portly professor than anyone else.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo

RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by RayAgostini »

Equality wrote:Perhaps. But I think an argument could be made that John Dehlin did more to bring about this setback for the portly professor than anyone else.


John, as nice a bloke as he is, won't make a dent.

I don't know why many here are jumping for joy, rather than looking down the pathway.

Prematurely writing Dan off as a real force in Mormon apologetics, even if he doesn't do it through the MI, could be a serious misjudgement.

Who do you think the GAs, overall, will listen to? Dan Peterson, or John Dehlin?

User avatar
MsJack
θεά
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by MsJack »

Ray - Of all the people who do things on the Internet that I wouldn't do, why is it that you think I should defend Dan from Scratch, and what do you think I should be doing?

Yes, there was evidence that William called one of our female posters a c--t. People saying that they saw it before it was deleted is evidence. Where I have seen other posters using the word, I have called them out on it and asked moderators to move threads if applicable. If there is more that you think I should be doing, I'm open to suggestions.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter

User avatar
Cylon
2nd Counselor
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:08 am

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by Cylon »

RayAgostini wrote:
Equality wrote:Perhaps. But I think an argument could be made that John Dehlin did more to bring about this setback for the portly professor than anyone else.


John, as nice a bloke as he is, won't make a dent.

I don't know why many here are jumping for joy, rather than looking down the pathway.

Prematurely writing Dan off as a real force in Mormon apologetics, even if he doesn't do it through the MI, could be a serious misjudgement.

Who do you think the GAs, overall, will listen to? Dan Peterson, or John Dehlin?


Some may be prematurely writing him off, but certainly not everyone is. I have no doubt that he'll continue to do apologetics in some form, and I wish him well at it, but just the fact that his style of attacks will no longer be published by an official outlet of the church itself is a good thing.

As for the GA's, I doubt they care much about John or Dan personally, when looking at the big picture. It's all about what will make the church look better, and my guess is that if they agreed with Dan's approach, they wouldn't be getting rid of the FARMS old guard one by one.
Last edited by Cylon on Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by RayAgostini »

MsJack wrote:Ray - Of all the people who do things on the Internet that I wouldn't do, why is it that you think I should defend Dan from Scratch, and what do you think I should be doing?


The fact that you asked this question, Ms. Jack, makes it apparent that you've never been in DCP's situation. Personally, I'd be tearing my hair out to be so maligned for so many years. I regret that you don't see it, nor empathise with it.

MsJack wrote:Yes, there was evidence that William called one of our female posters a c--t. People saying that they saw it before it was deleted is evidence. Where I have seen other posters using the word, I have called them out on it and asked moderators to move threads if applicable. If there is more that you think I should be doing, I'm open to suggestions.


Even if, hypothetically, Will did write that, then he had the good sense to delete it asap. If he didn't delete it, then why were the mods, or whomever, so quick to delete it, when they've left all the "C-words" from posters like Cam stand? I'm speaking hypothetically.

Listen, Ms. Jack, many years ago, when I was on 2Think, I did a post in which I called one of my opponents there a "c--t", and I felt ashamed the next day, and even afraid to open the link to the board. I did it in momentary anger. The odd thing is that if I was called a "prick", or if I'd called someone a "prick", no one would have noticed.

As for Will's "misogyny", and in spite of his posts here, I don't believe he's a "misogynist". Far, far from it. I'm totally with Dan on this.


I'm only a despicable, low-life taxi driver, and I hear the "c-word" daily, and far more crudity than most humans are subjected to, but I don't judge these people by their words and expressions.

RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by RayAgostini »

Cylon wrote:
Some may be prematurely writing him off, but certainly not everyone is. I have no doubt that he'll continue to do apologetics in some form, and I wish him well at it, but just the fact that his style of attacks will no longer be published by an official outlet of the church itself is a good thing.


My apologies for educating you about "style of attacks":

5 And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the truth; wherefore, no man will be angry at the words which I have written save he shall be of the spirit of the devil.
6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.
7 I have charity for my people, and great faith in Christ that I shall meet many souls spotless at his judgment-seat.
8 I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came.
9 I also have charity for the Gentiles. But behold, for none of these can I hope except they shall be reconciled unto Christ, and enter into the narrow gate, and walk in the strait path which leads to life, and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation.
10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.
13 And now, my beloved brethren, all those who are of the house of Israel, and all ye ends of the earth, I speak unto you as the voice of one crying from the dust: Farewell until that great day shall come.
14 And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.(2 Ne. 33)


That Nephi would have made a horrible and despicable editor of The Review.

Too plain, and too politically incorrect.

The "source" of Dan's character, lies in the Book of Mormon. And it will ever and always encounter fierce opposition.

User avatar
Cylon
2nd Counselor
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:08 am

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by Cylon »

How exactly does seeking to tear down John Dehlin in a scholarly journal help to testify of the Book of Mormon?

In any case, maybe you're right. Maybe Dr. Peterson is exactly the holy warrior of truth you think he is. But it's not like Dr. Bradford is alone in this. You're crazy if you think a major change in direction for the output of the MI didn't come with approval from the brethren above him. If you think they're wrong, well, that's fine, too. Just want to be clear on it.

RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by RayAgostini »

Cylon wrote:How exactly does seeking to tear down John Dehlin in a scholarly journal help to testify of the Book of Mormon?

In any case, maybe you're right. Maybe Dr. Peterson is exactly the holy warrior of truth you think he is. But it's not like Dr. Bradford is alone in this. You're crazy if you think a major change in direction for the output of the MI didn't come with approval from the brethren above him. If you think they're wrong, well, that's fine, too. Just want to be clear on it.


Call me crazy, but the MI was founded on the vision of Elder Neal A. Maxwell. They were incorporated into BYU by President Hinckley (who spoke very highly of Hugh Nibley), and have been patronised by many apostles through the years, who all supported the aims of FARMS.

My prediction is that a Bradford-led MI will attract only scholars interested in, well, boring scholarship, and it will have no appeal to a wider Mormon readership. That was DCP's genius, that he could draw both scholars and "ordinary people/members" into the conversation.

User avatar
Cylon
2nd Counselor
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:08 am

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by Cylon »

RayAgostini wrote:
Cylon wrote:How exactly does seeking to tear down John Dehlin in a scholarly journal help to testify of the Book of Mormon?

In any case, maybe you're right. Maybe Dr. Peterson is exactly the holy warrior of truth you think he is. But it's not like Dr. Bradford is alone in this. You're crazy if you think a major change in direction for the output of the MI didn't come with approval from the brethren above him. If you think they're wrong, well, that's fine, too. Just want to be clear on it.


Call me crazy, but the MI was founded on the vision of Elder Neal A. Maxwell. They were incorporated into BYU by President Hinckley (who spoke very highly of Hugh Nibley), and have been patronised by many apostles through the years, who all supported the aims of FARMS.

My prediction is that a Bradford-led MI will attract only scholars interested in, well, boring scholarship, and it will have no appeal to a wider Mormon readership. That was DCP's genius, that he could draw both scholars and "ordinary people/members" into the conversation.


And just as the MI was founded and approved of by prior apostles and prophets, I have no doubt that it is still overseen by current apostles and prophets. They just seem to have a different vision for it now than they did before, and DCP doesn't seem to be onboard with the new vision.

And you could very well be right that the new MI will only be for boring scholars, but if that's the cost of avoiding a PR debacle involving a fight between church members in an election year with a Mormon presidential candidate, they may very well consider that capital well spent.

RayAgostini

Re: Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

Post by RayAgostini »

Cylon wrote:And just as the MI was founded and approved of by prior apostles and prophets, I have no doubt that it is still overseen by current apostles and prophets. They just seem to have a different vision for it now than they did before, and DCP doesn't seem to be onboard with the new vision.

And you could very well be right that the new MI will only be for boring scholars, but if that's the cost of avoiding a PR debacle involving a fight between church members in an election year with a Mormon presidential candidate, they may very well consider that capital well spent.


I actually think there's substance to your post, and well worth thinking about. The last victim to this sort of thing was Michael J. Barrett.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Temp. Admin. and 24 guests