Our Dr. Daniel Peterson On Mormon Stories

[Ariarates]

I listened to the first two parts today and found the interview to be a bit stale so far. Some scratching at the surface but nothing more. The interviewer is way too careful, imo. DP deserves better.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Ariarates

[Craig Paxton]

I'm reliably informed that Peterson is very arrogant in the podcast.

Big surprise.

Can't stand the man, myself.

Just like the puppeteer in the movie “Being John Malkovich”, I feel like I’ve just found the secret portal into the mind of Dr. Daniel Peterson. While I’m only ¾ of the way through your interview I do have some initial thoughts based on what I’ve heard so far.

01. Prior to listening to the pod-cast I imagined you as a self-absorbed, pompous arss. I mean come on…you did after all choose as your aviator the Flash Gordon character “Ming the Merciless”, the equivalent of a 1930’s Darth Vader. But after listening to the pod-cast, I’m happy to publically state (if posting here is considered public) that I was wrong. Dr. Peterson comes across as a warm, fuzzy, loving, compassionate, teddy bear, Ok I’m exaggerating but I am willing to modify my admitingly pre-conceived impression. ..I now see Dr. Peterson as a knowledgeable, confident, sincere defender of a religion he deeply believes to be all it claims to be…who is also somewhat self-absorbed. ..but that’s not a bad thing.

Being who you are and doing what you do (as the face of church apologetics) I think you need to have a super ego and be completely confident in who you are and what you believe. There is no room for you to ever show any sign of doubt or question. In your world the church can only be one thing…TRUE. If you didn’t have this confidence in your beliefs and in yourself, your critics would smell the blood in the water and have a field day. I should add that you also come across as articulate, knowledgeable and with an uncanny ability to shape shift Mormonism into something almost believable…well at least for some…and hay isn’t that what you were hired to do?

02. I thought many of your comments were very refreshing and insightful, such as admitting that church apologists start with the conclusion….and work back words to support that preformed conclusion. In other words you don’t let the facts drive your conclusions, you begin with the conclusion and make the facts fit your pre formed conclusion. It was refreshing to hear you admit something that is quite obvious to an outside observer. I should add…that were I in your position I would do the same exact thing. I think it is only obvious that a church apologist MUST start with the premise that the church IS true and find ways to support that proposition. Although this wasn’t a revelation to me it did help me better understand how horses become tapirs and chariot’s become travious.

03. Listening to you on the pod- cast has given me a new found appreciation and respect for you. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to be interviewed on Mormon Stories (although I think John would have asked tougher questions and held your feet to the fire more than Dan did) I believe that you represented the church well and gave me reason to once again bang my head against the wall. Ouch!

PS: I just finished the rest of this pod-cast interview. I have come away with a new appreciation for Dr. Daniel Peterson. He was more pragmatic in his beliefs than I could have ever imagined. I got the sense that he is a very sincere, human,caring and compassionate individual. As someone who has at times been called a church critic, I want to thank Dr. Peterson on doing this interview.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Mortal Man]

The interviewer is way too careful, imo.

Dan Wotherspoon reminds me of Chris Farley.

[cinepro]

Dan Wotherspoon reminds me of Chris Farley.

I would love to see Dr. Peterson interviewed between two ferns...*

(*Little bit of language)

Edited August 22, 2011 by cinepro

[Pahoran]

Just like the puppeteer in the movie “Being John Malkovich”, I feel like I’ve just found the secret portal into the mind of Dr. Daniel Peterson. While I’m only ¾ of the way through your interview I do have some initial thoughts based on what I’ve heard so far.

01. Prior to listening to the pod-cast I imagined you as a self-absorbed, pompous arss. I mean come on…you did after all choose as your aviator the Flash Gordon character “Ming the Merciless”, the equivalent of a 1930’s Darth Vader. But after listening to the pod-cast, I’m happy to publically state (if posting here is considered public) that I was wrong. Dr. Peterson comes across as a warm, fuzzy, loving, compassionate, teddy bear, Ok I’m exaggerating but I am willing to modify my admitingly pre-conceived impression. ..I now see Dr. Peterson as a knowledgeable, confident, sincere defender of a religion he deeply believes to be all it claims to be…who is also somewhat self-absorbed. ..but that’s not a bad thing.

He has previously used a picture of Jabba the Hutt as his avatar. Dan has something called a "sense of humour." He's capable of laughing at himself and at the same time caricaturing the caricature of him that anti-Mormon propagandists peddle for gullible people to swallow.

Being who you are and doing what you do (as the face of church apologetics) I think you need to have a super ego and be completely confident in who you are and what you believe. There is no room for you to ever show any sign of doubt or question. In your world the church can only be one thing…TRUE. If you didn’t have this confidence in your beliefs and in yourself, your critics would smell the blood in the water and have a field day. I should add that you also come across as articulate, knowledgeable and with an uncanny ability to shape shift Mormonism into something almost believable…well at least for some…and hay isn’t that what you were hired to do?

No, actually. He wasn't.

He was hired, IIRC, to teach Arabic and Islamic studies at BYU. That is still his actual job. His "apologetic" activities are a hobby for him just as much as they are for anybody, and he is not paid therefor.

Permit me also to congratulate you for your uncanny ability to put together a tissue of insults and accusations, and tart them up as some kind of compliment. That requires real talent and takes smarminess to a whole new level.

Keep working at it though Craig. Maybe you'll be able to "shape shift" yourself into someone almost respectable... well at least for some.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 23, 2011 by Pahoran

[Craig Paxton]

He has previously used a picture of Jabba the Hutt as his avatar. Dan has something called a "sense of humour." He's capable of laughing at himself and at the same time caricaturing the caricature of him that anti-Mormon propagandists peddle for gullible people to swallow.

No, actually. He wasn't.

He was hired, IIRC, to teach Arabic and Islamic studies at BYU. That is still his actual job. His "apologetic" activities are a hobby for him just as much as they are for anybody, and he is not paid therefor.

Permit me also to congratulate you for your uncanny ability to put together a tissue of insults and accusations, and tart them up as some kind of compliment. That requires real talent and takes smarminess to a whole new level.

Keep working at it though Craig. Maybe you'll be able to "shape shift" yourself into someone almost respectable... well at least for some.

Regards,

Pahoran

Ummm...ok...what I was trying to do in my post(obviously unsuccessfully) was to show that the impression I had of the Daniel Peterson I've come know through his online presence and the Daniel Peterson that I heard interviewed were two completely different images. My image of internet Daniel was that of a mega-uber-nazi, know everything, pompous arss who is more interested in winning an argument than in building bridges of understanding. And to be fair, I think at times, the same could be said of my internet presence. What the interveiw did (at least for me) was to show a side of Dr. Peterson I had not allowed myself to see. I saw a very sincere, pragmatic, human being who is a very capable defender of his faith. He is doing the same exact thing that I believe I am trying to do...make sense of the world we find ourselves in.

While I seriously doubt Dr. Peterson needs you to come to his rescue', I was not trying to be smarmy or insincere. It's simply that my impressions of Daniel Peterson are in flux. I still hold to some of my previous, impressions while allowing for the fact that on others I merely over simplified this very complex man.

With respect to his choice of avatar...don't worry...despite your insinuation of my naïvety...I'm very capible to capturing the nuance of Dr. Peterson's humor through his choice of avatars.

Now I need to reinterperate my image of you...

Edited August 23, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Libs]

I listened to the first two parts today and found the interview to be a bit stale so far. Some scratching at the surface but nothing more. The interviewer is way too careful, imo. DP deserves better.

I think he was just trying to be respectful. In that, he succeeded.

[Pahoran]

Ummm...ok...what I was trying to do in my post(obviously unsuccessfully) was to show that the impression I had of the Daniel Peterson I've come know through his online presence and the Daniel Peterson that I heard interviewed were two completely different images. My image of internet Daniel was that of a mega-uber-nazi, know everything, pompous arss who is more interested in winning an argument than in building bridges of understanding.

Of course it was. That is the legend the apostate clique have been working relentlessly to build, and you seem to quite uncritically accept everything they say.

And to be fair, I think at times, the same could be said of my internet presence. What the interveiw did (at least for me) was to show a side of Dr. Peterson I had not allowed myself to see. I saw a very sincere, pragmatic, human being who is a very capable defender of his faith. He is doing the same exact thing that I believe I am trying to do...make sense of the world we find ourselves in.

While I seriously doubt Dr. Peterson needs you to come to his rescue', I was not trying to be smarmy or insincere. It's simply that my impressions of Daniel Peterson are in flux. I still hold to some of my previous, impressions while allowing for the fact that on others I merely over simplified this very complex man.

Here is what you said:

I should add that you also come across as articulate, knowledgeable

Apparent compliment. If you'd stopped there it would have been fine, but it looks a lot like an attempt to "sweeten" what follows:

and with an uncanny ability to shape shift Mormonism

IOW, he's being intentionally deceitful, representing Mormonism as something it is not.

into something almost believable…

And the deception almost works...

well at least for some…

Finish the sentence, Craig. For some... who are gullible enough, right?

Could you be more patronising if you tried? I mean, really?

and hay isn’t that what you were hired to do?

This is the giveaway line, incidentally. The persistent falsehood of Dan as a "paid apologist," "mercenary hack" etc. who only says, writes, thinks or believes what he is paid to, is one that is assiduously peddled by a notorious gang of internet liars. That you have apparently chosen to swallow their lies is consistent with other things you have announced about yourself.

Now I need to reinterperate my image of you...

Reinterperate away. Whatever that might mean.

Incidentally, since the thread on which you introduced the topic is now closed, permit me to disabuse you of yet another lie you have apparently accepted. The notorious "Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon" dichotomy is a false one and has been utterly discredited. It started life as nothing more than a glib attempt to poison the well against informed defenses of the Church, its leaders and teachings. AFAICT, it has never really progressed beyond that, although it has evolved in one direction: it has made its assertions about what constitutes an "Internet Mormon" increasingly immeasurable and hence unfalsifiable.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

Incidentally, since the thread on which you introduced the topic is now closed, permit me to disabuse you of yet another lie you have apparently accepted. The notorious "Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon" dichotomy is a false one and has been utterly discredited. It started life as nothing more than a glib attempt to poison the well against informed defenses of the Church, its leaders and teachings. AFAICT, it has never really progressed beyond that, although it has evolved in one direction: it has made its assertions about what constitutes an "Internet Mormon" increasingly immeasurable and hence unfalsifiable.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Given the number of people in Church last week using pad computers to reference the lessons and scriptures on line during Sunday School I am of the opinion that the Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons are converging rapidly. That is of course if you believe they were actually reading the scriptures and not just trying to defeat the evil pigs on level three of angry birds.

[Craig Paxton]

Of course it was. That is the legend the apostate clique have been working relentlessly to build, and you seem to quite uncritically accept everything they say.

Here is what you said:

Apparent compliment. If you'd stopped there it would have been fine, but it looks a lot like an attempt to "sweeten" what follows:

IOW, he's being intentionally deceitful, representing Mormonism as something it is not.

And the deception almost works...

Finish the sentence, Craig. For some... who are gullible enough, right?

Could you be more patronising if you tried? I mean, really?

This is the giveaway line, incidentally. The persistent falsehood of Dan as a "paid apologist," "mercenary hack" etc. who only says, writes, thinks or believes what he is paid to, is one that is assiduously peddled by a notorious gang of internet liars. That you have apparently chosen to swallow their lies is consistent with other things you have announced about yourself.

Reinterperate away. Whatever that might mean.

Incidentally, since the thread on which you introduced the topic is now closed, permit me to disabuse you of yet another lie you have apparently accepted. The notorious "Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon" dichotomy is a false one and has been utterly discredited. It started life as nothing more than a glib attempt to poison the well against informed defenses of the Church, its leaders and teachings. AFAICT, it has never really progressed beyond that, although it has evolved in one direction: it has made its assertions about what constitutes an "Internet Mormon" increasingly immeasurable and hence unfalsifiable.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Drat...foiled again...of course you have me completely pegged...you've exposed my evil designs and have recognized that I am a mere dupe completely malleable to the influences of the apostate clique...Ohhhh woe is me...why did I ever think I could sneak past the watchful eye of Pahoran...who stands guard over M D & D. Oh that I could be like Dr. Peterson and have someone like Pahoran to run to my recue' with each smarmy remark thrown my way...but alas...I am a mere sycophant of the apostate clique and must stand alone in my own defense...is there anyone more cursed and miserable than I.

Fortunately Pahoran was here to uncover my true motivations...and expose my evil designs...only he was able to recognize my sinister intentions, only he could see through my confession that my views of Dr. Peterson were changed by his interview and see the insincerity of my post. Oh that I might have sensed his sherlockian skills (unrecognized by me till it was too late) and saved myself the humiliation of having my evil purposes frustrated and thwarted due to the masterful skills of our dear arbiter of truth and all that is righteous, brother Pahoran.

[Minos]

This thread should be about the content of the podcast not anyone's personal traits. It is on the fast track for closure.

[SeattleGrunge]

Prior to listening to the pod-cast I imagined you as a self-absorbed, pompous arss....But after listening to the pod-cast, I’m happy to publically state ...that I was wrong. Dr. Peterson comes across as a warm, fuzzy, loving, compassionate, teddy bear,...I now see Dr. Peterson as a knowledgeable, confident, sincere defender of a religion he deeply believes to be all it claims to be...Listening to you on the pod- cast has given me a new found appreciation and respect for you. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to be interviewed on Mormon Stories ... I just finished the rest of this pod-cast interview. I have come away with a new appreciation for Dr. Daniel Peterson. He was more pragmatic in his beliefs than I could have ever imagined. I got the sense that he is a very sincere, human,caring and compassionate individual...

I think the above selected comments are the desired results and one of the two initial purposes of Mormon Stories, that is to help people with issues by getting to know people on the other side. I love the result that comes with getting to know others better. <cheese> If we all knew each other we would all love each other much more than we do and therefore a lot of our issues would be less severe or intense. </cheese>

I enjoyed the interview as well. I wish there could be another that shows how the previous interviewee had so much out dated information on BOM archeology. This didn't do much of that, but that is ok because we couldn't have gotten to know DP if it had been done that way.

[cinepro]

I enjoyed the interview as well. I wish there could be another that shows how the previous interviewee had so much out dated information on BOM archeology. This didn't do much of that, but that is ok because we couldn't have gotten to know DP if it had been done that way.

I'm sure they could do such a podcast, but it would be a very short one.

[Rivers]

I've been waiting for this interview for a long time. This proves just how mean and arrogant Dr. Peterson really is.

I enjoyed the way he addressed the issue of Joseph's polygamy/polyandry. You can't simply dismiss everything good about a person after leaning some confusing or negative aspects.

I'd like to see a direct response to Michael Coe's interview soon.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Rivers