What Gives? Is Dan Struggling With Dementia?

[Mike Reed]

Dan Peterson wrote in his recent Interpreter article, "I’ve met very few non-Mormon scholars (at most, one or two) who have had even a nodding acquaintance with Mormon apologetic writing." Hard to take this guy seriously anymore.

[The Nehor]

Yes, the halls of academia are FILLED with scholars who spend their days reading Mormon apologetics. How did he not know that?

Edited August 23, 2014 by The Nehor

[Mike Reed]

He said nothing about "FILLED." He said he only knows one or two (at the most)... who only have a "nodding acquaintance" with Mormon apologetics.  

[Darren10]

Mike Reed;

Can you name three non Mormons scholars acquainted with Mormon apologetics with whom Dan's met?

[Calm]

I assume he doesn't mean exMormons when he uses non, but never been LDS.

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed;

Can you name three non Mormons scholars acquainted with Mormon apologetics with whom Dan's met?

Just to list a few: Craig Hazen, Massimo Introvigne, Richard Mouw, Jerry Root, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, Craig Blomberg, Jan Shipps, Michael Coe, Robert Ritner, Ron Huggins, Chris Smith... and if we can thrown in Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe into the mix (as non-Mormons)... Which of these listed people (or others) does Dan consider to be the one or two enlightened souls to have a mere nodding acquaintance of Mormon apologetics?

Edited August 23, 2014 by Mike Reed

[Darren10]

Just to list a few: Craig Hazen, Massimo Introvigne, Richard Mouw, Jerry Root, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, Craig Blomberg, Jan Shipps, Michael Coe, Robert Ritner, Ron Huggins, Chris Smith... and if we can thrown in Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe into the mix (as non-Mormons)... Which of these listed people (or others) does Dan consider to be the one or two enlightened souls to have a mere nodding acquaintance of Mormon apologetics?

He has met all these people?

[Mike Reed]

He doesn't have to have met all of them.  This is about whether he *knows* of more than "one or two," and only regards the one or two as having a mere "nodding acquaintance". 

Edited August 23, 2014 by Mike Reed

[Bob Crockett]

I never take seriously hyperbole, but I guess some might.

[Mike Reed]

This seems beyond hyperbole to me.  

[Darren10]

Mike Reed. Granted this may very well be my error but I just skimmed through Dan's most recent article on Interpreter and found no evidence of him saying what you quote him of saying. I then did a Bing search of, "Mormon Interpreter: I've met very few non-Mormon scholars (at most, one or two) who have had even a nodding acquaintance with Mormon apologetic writing." The only hit for an Interpreter article was from Terryl Givens which I read a while ago. I did the exact same search on Interpreter's site with "Nothing Found" resulting.

What article from Dan Peterson at Interpreter are you referencing?

Edited August 23, 2014 by Darren10

[Darren10]

He doesn't have to have met all of them. This is about whether he *knows* of more than "one or two," and only regards the one or two as having a mere "nodding acquaintance".

Yes he DOES have to have met them. The first three words in your citation of Dan are, " I [have] met..." Therefore, if he has not met a non Mormon scholar, with or without a "nodding acquaintance" of Mormon apologetics, then he is not talking about these people.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Mike Reed;

My iPad battery is at 5%. If you have been reading this thread over the past half hour until now, you should have noticed I asked for a link / reference to the specific article you are criticizing Dan Peterson's cited comment. I would very much like to know the article before shutting down the iPad (i avoid using it while it charges).

Your thread here is about not taking a scholar seriously so it would go to your credit, especially as a published author yourself, to provide a link or cite the article you claim Dan made his erroneous statement. Whatever you can do to this end would be appreciated.

UPDATED: I see you have left this thread, Mike Reed. Perhaps later today. Take care.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Darren10

[Mike Reed]

Yes he DOES have to have met them. The first three words in your citation of Dan are, " I [have] met..." Therefore, if he has not met a non Mormon scholar, with or without a "nodding acquaintance" of Mormon apologetics, then he is not talking about these people.

Fair enough.  I know he has met more than two of these folks.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed;

My iPad battery is at 5%. If you have been reading this thread over the past half hour until now, you should have noticed I asked for a link / reference to the specific article you are criticizing Dan Peterson's cited comment. I would very much like to know the article before shutting down the iPad (i avoid using it while it charges).

Your thread here is about not taking a scholar seriously so it would go to your credit, especially as a published author yourself, to provide a link or cite the article you claim Dan made his erroneous statement. Whatever you can do to this end would be appreciated.

UPDATED: I see you have left this thread, Mike Reed. Perhaps later today. Take care.

I already cited.  It was Dan's recent Interpreter article.  The only one he authored in the most recent volume. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/journal/volume-11-2014/

[Scott Lloyd]

Fair enough.  I know he has met more than two of these folks.

And of that subset (those on your list whom you know he has met) more than two have more than a nodding acquaintance with Mormon apologetics? I wonder whether you could demonstrate that. For one thing, it's a rather subjective determination (whether or not their acquaintance with Mormon apologetics is more than "nodding").

[Mike Reed]

I'd first like to know who exactly the one or two were that he had in mind.

Someone elsewhere has suggested that perhaps Dan simply phrased this sentence poorly, and that he was speaking specifically of scholars of early Christian/new testament studies.  If so, then I hope to see that sentence edited.

[Calm]

He may also have been speaking of the entire field of LDS apologetics rather than just a particular topic. Probably looking at all the varied topics Interpreter has engaged would provide a good overview of what he was talking about. In that case his sentence phrasing would be just fine (and given that you pointed out he would be accurate in the topic of Early Christian apologetics, it would follow that would apply to being familiar with apologetics in general).

[Darren10]

I already cited.  It was Dan's recent Interpreter article.  The only one he authored in the most recent volume. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/journal/volume-11-2014/

Cited but not linked nor titled. But thank you for that link now. That's the article I skimmed through already. Is there a specific part you can point to which can lead me to read the specific portion cited?

[Scott Lloyd]

I already cited.  It was Dan's recent Interpreter article.  The only one he authored in the most recent volume. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/journal/volume-11-2014/

I just went to your link,and I don't see what you're talking about either. I read through the entire article and its footnotes, then scanned through it looking for the quote you identify. How am I missing it?

Can you quote the entire paragraph here? Perhaps the context will help me to see it.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

Don't you people ever sleep?!  And by, "sleep," I mean retiring to an actual bed ... not simply inadvertently cat-napping at your computer, waking up occasionally to delete the line of zzz's that appeared on your screen when your head accidentally hit the keyboard and wiping the drool off of it!  

[cdowis]

del 

Edited August 23, 2014 by cdowis

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Cited but not linked nor titled. But thank you for that link now. That's the article I skimmed through already. Is there a specific part you can point to which can lead me to read the specific portion cited?

 

Footnote # 12

[Darren10]

I'd first like to know who exactly the one or two were that he had in mind.

You may want to consider making a post on the articles' weblink asking Dan that question. That'll make it much more likely for Dan to read it and respond to it than making posts about it here

Edited August 23, 2014 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Footnote # 12

Thank you, I did not skim the footnotes the first time.