Daniel C. Peterson: well-respected scholar? or not?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
gramps
God
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:43 am

Daniel C. Peterson: well-respected scholar? or not?

Post by gramps »

I thought you all might want to check out this thread I came across this morning on the RfM board. Perhaps, it is bound to become a classic.

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_recovery&key=1162193808&newest=1162259838
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Ouch. This assessment from Tal Bachman is quite brutal. Then again, Prof. P. has long been asking for it, as he has been pretty relentless in referring to Bachman as "Tal Tales". The most devastating bit is indeed the quote from Peterson's own alma mater, UCLA:

Tal Bachman wrote:And lastly, this, from the current head of the very graduate program from which the world famous Arabist got his Ph.D.:

UCLA Arab Studies Chair wrote:I'm not aware of any scholarly work of his in the fields of biblical studies or Semitic languages. I'll take your word for it that he graduated from UCLA at some point in the past...Mormons generally think their beliefs are credible. I'm not aware of non-Mormon scholars who find their beliefs credible, but that's hardly surprising".



I would be delighted to see a rebuttal from the Good Professor on this, but I won't hold my breath. What it ultimately demonstrates is that His Highness is a very small fry---no one knows who he is. And though I'm not totally sure about this, I have a feeling that Arab Studies is a relatively small field, and so Peterson's lack of noteworthiness is even more dismaying. Very, very sad, imo.

There is speculation on RfM that Prof. P.'s lack of notoriety is due to his participation on the ironically named FAIRboard, and a result of his relationship with FAIR/FARMS. If this is indeed true, then it ought to put the final nail in the coffin on the debate over whether DCP is or is not primarily an apologist. At the very least, I think we can safely say that his role as apologist is equal to, if not greater, than his role as an Arabist.

Edited to add: for what it's worth, Prof. Peterson, apparently in response to Tal Bachman's post, has altered his signature line to read:
“What is needed for Islamic philosophy is something like the Loeb Library for Greek and Latin texts where the text in the original appears on one side of the page and the English translation on the opposite page. Fortunately during the last few years Brigham Young University has embarked upon such a series in which already a few important titles have appeared.”

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present: Philosophy in the Land of Prophecy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 24.


It is a pity that the Good Professor isn't mentioned by name! A bummer that he's not being recognized by his peers! But then again, editorial work, which is DCP's bread and butter, tends not to be viewed in the same light as research.

Polygamy Porter
God
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:04 am

Post by Polygamy Porter »

As much as Danny downplays anything and everything on RfM he sure is afraid of it and probably spends more hours lurking than working.

Truth is, RfM has Denial C. Peterson scared ____.

What a waste his life has been, at least in terms of helping the cult. I for one was help out of the cult by Danny himself posting his pompus pious pontificating pokes at me on the Fboards.

Keep it up Danny you fool!

LOL he thinks he a puppet on the finger of God... LOL!!

User avatar
Pokatator
Famous Potato
Posts: 1417
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:38 am

Post by Pokatator »

“What is needed for Islamic philosophy is something like the Loeb Library for Greek and Latin texts where the text in the original appears on one side of the page and the English translation on the opposite page. Fortunately during the last few years Brigham Young University has embarked upon such a series in which already a few important titles have appeared.”


What I would like to do is study a Book of Mormon with the original Reformed Egyptian on one side of the page and the English translation on the opposite page.

Polygamy Porter
God
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:04 am

Post by Polygamy Porter »

Pokatator wrote:
“What is needed for Islamic philosophy is something like the Loeb Library for Greek and Latin texts where the text in the original appears on one side of the page and the English translation on the opposite page. Fortunately during the last few years Brigham Young University has embarked upon such a series in which already a few important titles have appeared.”


What I would like to do is study a Book of Mormon with the original Reformed Egyptian on one side of the page and the English translation on the opposite page.


LOL!!!

Innnntroooduche'ing.....

Dr. Daniel C. Peterson
Professor of Reformed Egyptian Studies

Brackite
God
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am

Post by Brackite »

But Daniel C. Peterson is really a good and well-respected scholar. Please Check out this “FAIR” Discussion Thread that Daniel C. Peterson started about two weeks ago there, where he demonstrates that he has a lot of scholarly knowledge, and that he has focused a lot on scholarly research.

[MODERATOR NOTE: FAIR has ensured that links from here to their site don't work, so clicking on the above link won't get you anywhere. Instead, copy and paste the following text into your browser's address bar:]

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=18889

User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder & Visionary
Posts: 14130
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm

Post by Dr. Shades »

Let me add my perhaps contrary opinion to this:

While I think it's admirable for Tal to actually "get his hands dirty" by doing his own research, I think it's only FAIR to ask ourselves this question: Does DCP ever go around claiming to be a world-class authority on the Near East? Has he ever put himself forward as the first and last word on the Middle East?

Now, I know he has been quite dismissive of Kevin Graham's research into Islam. But I think that's a slightly different issue (although I could be wrong). For purposes of this discussion, it almost seems like the folks at RFM are claiming more about DCPs renown than is DCP himself.

Plus, as Tal has shown, perhaps DCP isn't as widely-published in his field as other scholars are in theirs. But let's face it: How many of DCP's critics are as widely-published as they deride him for not being? Having earned merely a humble Bachelor's Degree, I think I have a good appreciation of the rigor which must be involved in earning a Ph.D. in anything. Even if one never publishes in his/her field ever again, a Ph.D. is quite an accomplishment for anyone. Let's face it: How many of us have Ph.D.s? I'll admit it: I don't. Even if I did, I probably wouldn't have any interest in publishing in my field; teaching is much more my forte.

Perhaps some of the good people at RFM occasionally lose their focus on the prime issue: DCP's actual writings, opinions, and postings, not his personal or professional life. There's plenty of the former to examine without having to resort to the latter.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Then again, Prof. Peterson has been pretty forthright in his ridiculing of Bachman's musical career. My take on everything is that Prof. P. sees some of his own failings in Bachman. After all, Tal had been posting on FAIR using nom de guerre "TruthSeeker," and when he was "unmasked," so to speak, as being Tal, DCP made a concerted effort to bring him back into the fold. Thus, my impression is that DCP sees Tal as "the one that got away."

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Mister Scratch wrote:Then again, Prof. Peterson has been pretty forthright in his ridiculing of Bachman's musical career. My take on everything is that Prof. P. sees some of his own failings in Bachman. After all, Tal had been posting on FAIR using nom de guerre "TruthSeeker," and when he was "unmasked," so to speak, as being Tal, DCP made a concerted effort to bring him back into the fold. Thus, my impression is that DCP sees Tal as "the one that got away."


I swear, Scratch... you should work for the CIA... or the SCMC.

User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder & Visionary
Posts: 14130
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm

Post by Dr. Shades »

Mister Scratch wrote:Then again, Prof. Peterson has been pretty forthright in his ridiculing of Bachman's musical career.


Mea culpa. You're absolutely right--perhaps turnabout is FAIR play in this case.

User avatar
Tal Bachman
Bishop
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:05 pm

Post by Tal Bachman »

Dr. Shades

You'll notice that I never claimed that Peterson himself claims to be a scholar of any standing. My guess is that a sense of his own mortality on this issue best explains this restraint. I submitted my post because sincere members who seem never to have contemplated critical thinking about Joseph Smith's religion for themselves, often speak of their heroes over at FARMS as just such well-respected scholars in their respective fields - that is, their misimpression seems to fuel their unwillingness to employ their own critical faculties, as in, "hey - these guys are world famous scholars - do you think they'd really get something like this wrong?". My old home teacher used to say stuff like this. Sad.

By the way, that church propagandists are not well-respected academic scholars in their respective fields, of course, does not necessarily mean that their apologetic work sucks - as it happens, their work sucks entirely independently of any scholarly reputation or lack thereof. You could have Richard Feynman over there talking about "secret cryptograms" and how "'white' doesn't necessarily mean 'white'", and it would still be completely stupid.

Lastly, my post, if it need be said, had nothing to do with whatever jokes about my career might have been made by Peterson. I actually think those kinds of comments only make obvious just how ludicrous he and the other propagandists really are, and I hope they keep on making them!

See ya,

T.

Brackite
God
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am

Post by Brackite »

Hi there,

Here is recently what the 'FAIR' Mods wrote about Daniel C. Peterson:

!ATTENTION FAIR BOARDS CONTRIBUTORS!

We are fortunate here at FAIR to have an expert such as Dr. Peterson share his insights into what is a very charged and potentially political discussion.

We are asking all posters to refrain from taking this discussion other places to debate it, and refrain from turning it into a purely political discussion on this forum. Regardless of the strength of their personal views on the subject.

If Islam cannot be discussed with as much decorum as we expect Mormonism to be discussed here (or better) we will not allow those posters who cannot refrain from politicizing the discussion to continue to post on these threads.

-Orpheus and the mod squad.

( http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=192 , Bold Emphasis Mine. )



The FAIR Mods there (such as Juliann R. and Scott Lloyd there) do make a very big deal about what a great and wonderful expert DCP is.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Tal Bachman wrote:Dr. Shades

You'll notice that I never claimed that Peterson himself claims to be a scholar of any standing. My guess is that a sense of his own mortality on this issue best explains this restraint.


Nevertheless, he did alter his signature line so that it reflected praise for the editorial work he's done.


Tal Bachman wrote:Lastly, my post, if it need be said, had nothing to do with whatever jokes about my career might have been made by Peterson. I actually think those kinds of comments only make obvious just how ludicrous he and the other propagandists really are, and I hope they keep on making them!

See ya,

T.


I for one think that your appearance here speaks volumes about your willingness to defend your perspective outside of your "home turf," as it were, of RfM. We will have to wait and see whether Prof. Peterson is willing to discuss his views on this issue outside the protection of the ironically named FAIRboard.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Dr. Shades

You'll notice that I never claimed that Peterson himself claims to be a scholar of any standing. My guess is that a sense of his own mortality on this issue best explains this restraint.


Nevertheless, he did alter his signature line so that it reflected praise for the editorial work he's done.


Tal Bachman wrote:Lastly, my post, if it need be said, had nothing to do with whatever jokes about my career might have been made by Peterson. I actually think those kinds of comments only make obvious just how ludicrous he and the other propagandists really are, and I hope they keep on making them!

See ya,

T.


I for one think that your appearance here speaks volumes about your willingness to defend your perspective outside of your "home turf," as it were, of RfM. We will have to wait and see whether Prof. Peterson is willing to discuss his views on this issue outside the protection of the ironically named FAIRboard.


Like that's ever gonna happen. The man knows when he's strayed too far from his protection.

User avatar
Tal Bachman
Bishop
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:05 pm

Post by Tal Bachman »

Hey Senor Scratch, thanks for the welcome. It's not that I'm interested in arguing - I get the impression ideologues are all-but-incorrigible even under the most favourable circumstances (like when their livelihoods don't depend on their continued adherence to the ideology) , so that arguing with them is rather like mud-wrestling with pigs - but I can't abide forums like FAIR. If the big brave church defenders over there had any guts, they'd tell their moderator to stop spiking all the stuff that most effectively calls them on their BS, and expose themselves to any and every question. After all, it is Mormon apologists, just like apologists for any religion or ideology, who bear the burden of proof in showing why theirs is really "the only one true way"...Perhaps it's me, but Mormon apologists seem to be doing as well in that task, as are Scientologist apologists, Moonie apologists, communist apologists, and eco-freak apologists in theirs (of course, within their own minds, they have "answered every charge!" and "resolved this issue long ago!" and they "have their opponents on the run!", etc...).

RFM I cut a break for, because it's for people who are trying to put their lives back together after what inevitably is a traumatic experience. It's the last place you want to hear cult loons talking about how some rock with NHM on it helps prove Joseph Smith never lied (even though a number of his lies are chronicled quite satisfactorily in church material itself), or alleging that "you never had a testimony" and all the stupid stuff we ourselves used to say.

User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder & Visionary
Posts: 14130
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm

Post by Dr. Shades »

Tal Bachman wrote:Dr. Shades

You'll notice that I never claimed that Peterson himself claims to be a scholar of any standing. . . I submitted my post because sincere members who seem never to have contemplated critical thinking about Joseph Smith's religion for themselves, often speak of their heroes over at FARMS as just such well-respected scholars in their respective fields[.]


You know, you're absolutely right. Now that you put it that way, it should've been obvious. Sorry about that!

Lastly, my post, if it need be said, had nothing to do with whatever jokes about my career might have been made by Peterson.


Sounds good to me.

I hope I didn't offend or step on any toes with that last post of mine. If so, I apologize.

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

Tal Bachman wrote:You could have Richard Feynman over there talking about "secret cryptograms" and how "'white' doesn't necessarily mean 'white'", and it would still be completely stupid.


The wrong mathematician for your analogy.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

Tal Bachman wrote:Hey Senor Scratch, thanks for the welcome. It's not that I'm interested in arguing - I get the impression ideologues are all-but-incorrigible even under the most favourable circumstances (like when their livelihoods don't depend on their continued adherence to the ideology) , so that arguing with them is rather like mud-wrestling with pigs - but I can't abide forums like FAIR. If the big brave church defenders over there had any guts, they'd tell their moderator to stop spiking all the stuff that most effectively calls them on their BS, and expose themselves to any and every question. After all, it is Mormon apologists, just like apologists for any religion or ideology, who bear the burden of proof in showing why theirs is really "the only one true way"...Perhaps it's me, but Mormon apologists seem to be doing as well in that task, as are Scientologist apologists, Moonie apologists, communist apologists, and eco-freak apologists in theirs (of course, within their own minds, they have "answered every charge!" and "resolved this issue long ago!" and they "have their opponents on the run!", etc...).

RFM I cut a break for, because it's for people who are trying to put their lives back together after what inevitably is a traumatic experience. It's the last place you want to hear cult loons talking about how some rock with NHM on it helps prove Joseph Smith never lied (even though a number of his lies are chronicled quite satisfactorily in church material itself), or alleging that "you never had a testimony" and all the stupid stuff we ourselves used to say.

What I find hilarious about this thread is that its participants will undoubtedly chant the standard mantra that LDS apologetics is all ad hominem personal attacks.

Earth to Shades and acolytes: what do you think this thread is?

Regards,
Pahoran

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

Pahoran wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Hey Senor Scratch, thanks for the welcome. It's not that I'm interested in arguing - I get the impression ideologues are all-but-incorrigible even under the most favourable circumstances (like when their livelihoods don't depend on their continued adherence to the ideology) , so that arguing with them is rather like mud-wrestling with pigs - but I can't abide forums like FAIR. If the big brave church defenders over there had any guts, they'd tell their moderator to stop spiking all the stuff that most effectively calls them on their BS, and expose themselves to any and every question. After all, it is Mormon apologists, just like apologists for any religion or ideology, who bear the burden of proof in showing why theirs is really "the only one true way"...Perhaps it's me, but Mormon apologists seem to be doing as well in that task, as are Scientologist apologists, Moonie apologists, communist apologists, and eco-freak apologists in theirs (of course, within their own minds, they have "answered every charge!" and "resolved this issue long ago!" and they "have their opponents on the run!", etc...).

RFM I cut a break for, because it's for people who are trying to put their lives back together after what inevitably is a traumatic experience. It's the last place you want to hear cult loons talking about how some rock with NHM on it helps prove Joseph Smith never lied (even though a number of his lies are chronicled quite satisfactorily in church material itself), or alleging that "you never had a testimony" and all the stupid stuff we ourselves used to say.

What I find hilarious about this thread is that its participants will undoubtedly chant the standard mantra that LDS apologetics is all ad hominem personal attacks.

Earth to Shades and acolytes: what do you think this thread is?

Regards,
Pahoran


There seems to be a hugely odd obsession on this board with Daniel Peteson. I find it rather peculiar and telling.

Jason

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

I don't know that this thread started as an ad hominem attack. Rather, I think Tal's point was a valid one: People appeal to Peterson's authority as a respected academic, when it turns out that (a) he isn't as respected as we thought and (b) his academic expertise really doesn't have much to do with the validity of his opinions on Mormon scripture.

But, yeah, there has been too much personal attack.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

Tal Bachman wrote:Hey Senor Scratch, thanks for the welcome. It's not that I'm interested in arguing - I get the impression ideologues are all-but-incorrigible even under the most favourable circumstances (like when their livelihoods don't depend on their continued adherence to the ideology)

That is certainly true, as your dedication to your own anti-Mormon ideology so clearly demonstrates.

so that arguing with them is rather like mud-wrestling with pigs - but I can't abide forums like FAIR. If the big brave church defenders over there had any guts, they'd tell their moderator to stop spiking all the stuff that most effectively calls them on their BS, and expose themselves to any and every question.

Just like if you had any guts, you'd stop beating your wife. Since what you describe doesn't actually happen on the FAIRBoards, there is nothing to tell anyone to stop.

Tal Bachman wrote:After all, it is Mormon apologists, just like apologists for any religion or ideology

Including anti-Mormonism, for which particularly vile hate ideology you have made yourself a high profile apologist,

Tal Bachman wrote:who bear the burden of proof in showing why theirs is really "the only one true way"...Perhaps it's me, but Mormon apologists seem to be doing as well in that task, as are Scientologist apologists, Moonie apologists, communist apologists, and eco-freak apologists in theirs (of course, within their own minds, they have "answered every charge!" and "resolved this issue long ago!" and they "have their opponents on the run!", etc...).

Ah. Damnation by association.

Thus proving that Canadian rock musicians can be demagogues too.

Tal Bachman wrote:RFM I cut a break for,

Of course you do. And I don't need to waste any time with your ridiculous excuses for privileging Scumbag Central.

Regards,
Pahoran

Post Reply