10 Questions for Dan Peterson

[_aussieguy55]

http://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions ... -peterson/

Interesting interview from a sympathetic site.

[_Philo Sofee]

That was interesting. Thanks for sharing the link.

[_Maksutov]

DCP:

We who have been blessed with the Gospel should never think that that blessing, in itself, proves us better than others. It certainly grants us no license to be unchristian or uncharitable. We’ve been given a magnificent divine gift, and we should be humble about it.

Debates about religion can very quickly become ego-driven games of one-upmanship. (It’s noteworthy, I think, that relatively few women are involved in apologetics. While religious truth is surely at least as important to women as to men, I worry that discussions about where it is to be found are too often aggressively male-driven and competitive, perhaps because they’re too often testosterone-fueled.)

Apologetics should not become combative, let alone exclusive and hateful.

The goal isn’t to defeat enemies, but to defend and commend truth.

.........

[_Dr Exiled]

DCP:

We who have been blessed with the Gospel should never think that that blessing, in itself, proves us better than others. It certainly grants us no license to be unchristian or uncharitable. We’ve been given a magnificent divine gift, and we should be humble about it.

Debates about religion can very quickly become ego-driven games of one-upmanship. (It’s noteworthy, I think, that relatively few women are involved in apologetics. While religious truth is surely at least as important to women as to men, I worry that discussions about where it is to be found are too often aggressively male-driven and competitive, perhaps because they’re too often testosterone-fueled.)

Apologetics should not become combative, let alone exclusive and hateful.

The goal isn’t to defeat enemies, but to defend and commend truth.

.........

Consiglieri was wise to call him out. This is yet another case of deception, self-deception. It could, however, be his way of giving an apology for his style but of course that isn't what is going on. He doesn't apologize as his master church never apologizes.

[_Kishkumen]

An interesting and revealing passage:

My father had been raised a Lutheran, but never attended either Lutheran or Latter-day Saint services after he left his home in North Dakota. As I grew up, though, and began to find the Gospel compelling, I wanted my father to be baptized. So we began to talk about the claims of the Restoration.

Later, after his baptism, he told me that it was his reading of Hugh Nibley that began to plant the notion in his mind that, in fact, Mormonism might actually be true.

[_consiglieri]

I found the following response interesting:

Kurt Manwaring: What is the role of saying, “We don’t know,” in apologetics? Are there benefits associated with openly identifying the limits of research? Dangers?

Daniel Peterson: I enjoy speculating as much as anybody, and I’m happy to suggest and to hypothesize.
But we should be aware of what we don’t actually know — which is considerable; in this life, we “see through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12) — and, where appropriate, we should candidly acknowledge it.

That’s not only the right thing to do, but prudent policy: If we’re open and straightforward, we build credibility.

[_deacon blues]

Exactly. Dan Peterson would have enhanced his credibility if he would have said something about the removal of the pages containing the 1832 account of the First Vision from Joseph Smith Letterbook #1. He would have enhanced his credibility if he had related that the 1832 clearly tells of Joseph Smith determining all the sects were wrong before having the First Vision. One could call Peterson's article, canny, or guarded. But I don't believe one could call it unbiased, open, or objectively credible.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It seems to me that it's been a long time since DCP gave an interview like this. I appreciated his apparently candid remarks, especially this, which may be unprecedented:

Kurt Manwaring: Are there ways in which apologists approach their efforts that can result in the unintended effects of turning off members of the Church while angering those of other faiths?

Daniel Peterson: Absolutely.

And unfortunately.

Religious claims are controversial, and it’s all too easy for discussions concerning them to become, in Book of Mormon language, contentious.

We who have been blessed with the Gospel should never think that that blessing, in itself, proves us better than others. It certainly grants us no license to be unchristian or uncharitable. We’ve been given a magnificent divine gift, and we should be humble about it.

Debates about religion can very quickly become ego-driven games of one-upmanship. (It’s noteworthy, I think, that relatively few women are involved in apologetics. While religious truth is surely at least as important to women as to men, I worry that discussions about where it is to be found are too often aggressively male-driven and competitive, perhaps because they’re too often testosterone-fueled.)

Apologetics should not become combative, let alone exclusive and hateful.

The goal isn’t to defeat enemies, but to defend and commend truth.

On the one hand, this just sounds so idealistic. I guess it's a positive on one level that DCP has "recovered" to this extent, and yet it's striking that he is actually admitting that Mopologetics "absolutely" has "turn[ed] off members of the Church." Stunning! Can you recall how many times this sort of thing was put right in front of the Mopologists' faces? "Hey, you guys are doing things that are turning people away from the Church." And do you remember what they would say? "Prove it! There's not a single person you name who's ever left the Church because of Mopologetics!" We even said, ad nauseam, that it was precisely the Mopologists tactics--what DCP here calls "exclusive and hateful"--that was driving people away. This is like deja vu, in a sense: no doubt this is....yes, I am going to say it: a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics!

Who ever would have thought that we would see a post-MI DCP actually cheerful and "changed" enough to admit (or come as close as possible as it is for these people to admit) that his past endeavors drove people out of the LDS Church? Incredible, but I take it as a positive sign--as something worth following, since it seems like a new direction may very well be in the works....

[_Polygamy-Porter]

My only question for Danny is, How many of your children left the Mormon church?

[_Lemmie]

We who have been blessed with the Gospel should never think that that blessing, in itself, proves us better than others. It certainly grants us no license to be unchristian or uncharitable.

So Peterson is blogging without a license?