Corrections To Some Of Xander/Kevin'S Latest Falsehoods

[Daniel Peterson]

Sorry. I know that this irritates some of you. Still, I feel that, since Xander/Kevin continues (along, occasionally, with some others) to post flat untruths about me, I need to respond. And since I won't post on the Xander/Kevin/Stalker board -- been there, done that; it's reminiscent of Uncle Remus's tar baby (the more you try to fight it, the more entangled you become), and posting there even once threatens to drag one down into an endless round of perpetually hostile nonsense -- I think it appropriate to do so here. I just want the truth to be on public record, on line, somewhere. You don't have to read it.

1.

Xander/Kevin has started a new thread entitled "Richard Mouw -- DCP's New Target?" Richard Mouw is a distinguished Evangelical theologian of Calvinist leanings who serves as president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.

I read through Xander/Kevin's quotation from an article about Mouw, and couldn't see anything in it that would make Mouw a target of mine. But, then, Xander/Kevin added this:

"Incidentally, Dan Peterson used to be one of those Mormon scholars who met up with Mouw at Fuller for whatever inter-faith dialogue activity they had going on at the time, but later Dan expressed his strong disappointment in Mouw, calling him an anti-Mormon, when he made an appearance in a Book of Abraham video produced by IIR."

To which, some comments:

(1) I've participated only once in those still on-going Mormon/Evangelical talks, but never at Fuller. (I think it was at a conference in Boston.)

(2) Richard Mouw once told me that he thought I should participate regularly in those talks, but I haven't.

(3) I participated in a Mormon/Evangelical debate once, in Denver, that Richard moderated. (He was a genial and even-handed moderator.)

(4) He and I had a pleasant chat the following day, during which he apologized for some rather slight incivility on the part of a member of the Evangelical side in that debate.

(5) I can't remember Richard appearing in a Book of Abraham video. Maybe he did, but I don't recall it.

(6) I can't believe that I've ever called Richard an "anti-Mormon." Anything's possible, I suppose, but I don't remember it and I don't regard him as one. In fact, I've praised him publicly and privately for his fair-mindedness. I like him very much, and respect him.

Xander/Kevin continues:

"Little does Mouw know, that those people who have this 'war' mentality are the very same people he is trying to reach out to. It isn't just the Evangelicals who enjoy such arrogance. Dan is clearly the old guard "choose ye this day" type apologist who goes out of his way to generalize about anti-Mormons and frequently, and knowingly misrepresents them."

It's amusing, in a sad sort of way, to be accused by Xander/Kevin (!!!!!!!) of "misrepresenting" people and of having a "war mentality." But it's not amusing at all to watch him try to poison my good relationship with a good and admirable man.

2.

Xander/Kevin is claiming that I derived my notion that taxes are, ultimately, collected at gunpoint (which I expressed on my blog) from a radio talk show host named "Neal Boortz." I had never heard of Neal Boortz until Xander/Kevin mentioned him, at which point I looked Mr. Boortz up on Google.

I didn't get the idea from Neal Boortz, to whom I have never listened and from whom I've never read a line. I derived it from Mao's famous and insightful dictum that "political power flows from the barrel of a gun," which I happen to think is true. What distinguishes governments from non-governmental authorities is that governments have a legal monopoly on the use of force. And behind every government decree, at least in principle, is, ultimately, the power to coerce.

This seems to me so obvious, so self-evident, as to be beyond reasonable dispute.

***

Xander/Kevin is telling other falsehoods about me as well, some of which I don't recall off hand, and he's probably telling still others that I haven't seen. But these are two pretty clear untruths that are easy to correct and beyond reasonable dispute.

.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Storm Rider]

Dan,

I think you are in a difficult situation; you feel that you are damned if you do respond to this drivel and damend if you do not. What is absolutely clear is that you are dealing with an espèce d’humain that is less than honest and anything but honorable. Frankly, I don't know what i would do in your situation.

You are playing with a tar baby and nothing more; Br'er Rabbit learned his lesson and we might all learn from him. One possibility is that I would conclude that this is the caliber of conversation that only ends in getting tar on you. Come out with a flat statement that you will ignore all comments that this twit individual has to say because he lies, creates stories from whole cloth, and creates contention that is beneath you and all other individuals that value worthwhile conversation. After doing so, never engage this individual in a conversation again; you must turn completely apathetic toward him and his ilk.

He is the type of troll that is only strengthened when fed. He is someone to be pitied; all I can do is shake my head at his reported antics (I ignore him completely).

I realize it is difficult and frustrating, but this troll should be starved. Again, I don't know how I would react were I in your shoes. My advice is given from a great distance and with only limited knowledge and understanding. I am less than worthy to give such advice because I am a so far from being enlightened or Christ-like. My initial, knee-jerk response would be to to visit the idiot's man's house and knock the peewadden out of him (violent responses have always been my initial temptation - they are a quick solution and I can then leave it alone). God, and what we call "civil society", has taught me that this type of reaction is unacceptable.

However, I think caning like that done in Singapore serves a wonderful purpose and would illeviate the need of any personal violence toward another. In Singapore they take the bloke out, immediately after having been caught being a liar, and cane the absolutely crap out of him. Then let him go back to his home to heal. It is all done quickly and without too much mess and forgotten. The indiividual learns not to lie or defame another or he runs the risk of a much stiffer caning....the kind where they are unable to walk away from and voilà we have a new,reformed man ready to tow the line of civil society. Oh well, I digress greatly.

Keep your chin up; reconsider your choice of action, and if you continue on this path I will stand by you and keep my unworthy advice to myself. Then just hope we can begin caning people in the USA soon. Just think how quickly this whole situation could be remedied. Yes, I am most certainly a terrestial man.

[CASteinman]

I don't know... I think it is appropriate that someone in Daniel Peterson's position, respond to these things. I think it is almost called for.

But at the same time, I am sure it feeds the troll.

What can you do? I would not worry about anti-Mormons, their feelings or how they will react. It is a guarantee that until they see some light, they will always use things to fight the Saints of God. This is to be expected and should not be a factor in the decision.

[Calm]

Unfortunately trolls aren't fed only by their targets, but by their audiences as well. As long as there is an audience for what they are peddling, trolls will exist, no troll has to tighten his or her belt solely because the target ignores them these days with the potential of an international audience out there just a few clicks away. One sees it in politics enough.

For me the only question is if unresponded to, will an accusation possibly affect a reputation or a relationship.

Edited May 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

This sort of nonsense is all too common.

On YouTube by “MormonWitness,” there is a 10.21 min video, uploaded March 28, 2011 (all sources from utlm and mrm), online at

.

On that video a former Mormon, Shawn McCraney speaks as follows:

Joseph had a seerstone that he used prior to any religious ties to Mormonism or anything, with his dad, and they would go out to farms and he would pretend to look and see buried treasure, and then he would tell guys where to dig, and then they would dig there and they would like strike a root and he’d “say that’s the top of the treasure box!” And then they would dig, dig, dig, and then he would say “Oh, wait, the demons moved the treasure!” And this is all Church history. I’m not making this stuff up. So he was caught, and in a court of law they convicted him of “money digging.” That was the term for it. Tried and convicted. And it was using the rock, and he admitted to his father-in-law that it was a scam. O.K.?

Well, later on he gets the Book of Mormon and he brings it home secretly after all these years, seven years of saying the plates were there, seven years, he comes in, he puts the plates on the table, and he spends time with these plates under this thing, pretending to dictate those. And he does it just by supposedly looking at em. And that lasted not long. Then he said, well, “I have a better way of translating those.” And I think the guy, he just got tired of pretending to look at this fake box of plates. So he put his seerstone in a hat, and he put his face in the hat, and the sentences would come out of what the scribe was supposed to write, and he would dictate those sentences, and him being very smart (he could have had a photographic memory), he could have had the script in the hat that he was reading. I don’t know. Or maybe a demon was telling him. I don’t know. But he did for the most part of the Book of Mormon, put the stone in the hat and do it. He got tired of doing that too. And then he finally translated the Book of Mormon just by talking. Just by saying, O.K., “This is it.”

Now, Richard Bushman, who is a historian for the LDS Church and LDS, says that that was how Joseph Smith learned to become a seer, by first going to the plates directly, then using the seerstone, that God was training his mind to learn how to receive revelation. And finally he got so good at it, he didn’t even need it and he could just stand there and it would come to him. But that is exactly the process. Church history proves it. The LDS Church will admit to it. That seerstone is still in the First Presidency’s office of the Church today.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Storm Rider]

The thing is that McCraney knows better and still chooses to lie, deceive, twist, defame. Yes, and he wants to tell me he knows Jesus. This is where people should open their bloody eyes, look at his fruit, and judge accordingly.

People with black hearts, the spawn of wicked spirits, will always lie. It is beyond them to tell the truth, to be honest not only with others, but with themselves. Only those with similar hearts listen and believe; they have itching ears and are desparate that others support them in their choices. Yup, and they say they follow Jesus! I feel ill.

[J Green]

I agree with CASteinman on this issue. Dan's in a fairly unique position as a prominent scholar, church member and apologist. I asked him once to keynote a Military Intelligence conference dinner and speak to a bunch of spooks (essentially) about his view on the state of Islam. The next day, several non-LDS civilian analysts from various intelligence agencies told me that they knew of and respected Dan because of their shared background in the Middle East, but they also told me that they had seen some of his LDS apologetic efforts online. He has chosen to be fairly public in his efforts, and he is a visible representative of BYU. If I were in his position I would likely also want to set the record straight when I felt others misrepresented me or my views.

Incidentally, those who routinely manufacture alternate personas of Dan don't seem to coordinate their efforts very well. On the one hand he is portrayed as someone who doesn't care about what others think to the point that he is intentionally offensive, arrogant, and demeaning. Yet on the other hand, he is portrayed as someone who cares so much about what others think that he has to respond to every hint of accusation out there. Well, which is it, and will the real online Dan please stand up?

The answer, of course, is that neither caricature is true. I'm not in the habit of contradicting every single thing on the internet with which I disagree, and Dan certainly doesn't need my assistance in this or any other matter. (If anything, I'll likely make matters worse.) But I think I'm in a unique position here. I've known Dan IRL for over three decades. I've been in wards and branches with him from Ma'adi, Egypt to Orem, Utah. I've known him socially and discussed a variety of issues with him. He was one of the first people to whom I introduced my wife, and I consider him to be a sort of spiritual godfather in the sense that he was with me when I took out my endowments as I was preparing to serve a mission. So when I've followed discussions online for the past two decades, I'm in something of a position to know the nuances of meaning and emotion behind Dan's words. In fact, I can often hear the cadence of his voice or see his smile when I read something of his online.

I only share this to make this point: I often see an exchange where I smile at the humor behind Dan's words only to see his interlocutor accuse him of being angry. And yet I know with over 30 years of experience that he is not in fact angry. So what's going on here? For starters, there are the usual issues of understanding human emotion through the constructs of e-mail and other written media where voice and body language donn't accompany the message. But this is compounded by Dan's very visible profile in apologetics. There are online personas of Dan that run through various boards, and over the years I see people join these boards and start interacting with the persona of Dan rather than the actual Dan. (In the past I've compared this to Borges' theme in "Borges y yo".) And there is an attendant letitmotif that accompanies this ritual that goes something like this: "Dan is the nicest person IRL, but online he is nasty." Well, I suppose this can be true in some instances, like for most drivers in Utah who are the nicest people out of their cars. But I'd just like to say publicly for the record that this leitmotif about Dan is simply not true. He is the same online as he is in person. Trust me, this is over thirty years of experience talking.

Okay, the Sunday sermon is over. Back to your regularly-scheduled programming.

Regards

[Calm]

In fact, I can often hear the cadence of his voice or see his smile when I read something of his online.

The same thing happens for me. He has a very distinctive style that is consistent between his speech and his posting.

[why me]

But at the same time, I am sure it feeds the troll.

I think that it mainly gives the bullies some power. The more that dan feeds them by responding to them, the more powerful they feel.

[Calm]

I think those telling Dan that he is giving power to the trolls by responding to them are giving more power to the trolls than he is.

[why me]

I think those telling Dan that he is giving power to the trolls by responding to them are giving more power to the trolls than he is.

I wouldn't call them trolls but bullies. And there is a difference. A troll posts to stir the pot. But a bully puts a much more personal touch to it by harassing someone in a very personal way. And this is what is happening to dan. He is being bullied. How to respond to bullies?

[Daniel Peterson]

1.

First of all, I appreciate J Green's kind remarks above. I've always been mystified -- and, candidly, a bit disheartened -- at the notion, peddled with remarkable enthusiasm in certain circles, that "Peterson may be a pleasant enough fellow in person, but he's a mean-spirited, unscrupulous, and vicious bully in his writing and on-line." First of all, such a Jekyll-and-Hyde scenario seems rather unlikely on the face of it. But, more importantly, I'm unaware of any significant disconnect between my manner in face-to-face interactions and the way I write.

However, it seems that at least somebody is trying to narrow that gap from a direction that I hadn't foreseen (i.e., by seeking to undercut the unhelpful perception that I'm even a decent chap in real life). I've been looking in on the strangely-named "Recovery" board over the past twenty-four hours or so, watching a curious new poster there. While there a few minutes ago, though, I ran across this:

"I had a forgettable experience with Peterson while I was on my mission in Rome, he stayed at the Villa for a few days while doing 'research' at the Vatican Library. He was arrogant and devoid of logical thinking. He may have a PHD but it is demeaning to all of the legitimate scholars in the world to allow him to use the title Dr."

It was posted anonymously, of course.

But it's fraudulent.

While I've been to the Vatican Library several times, have met there with the Prefect of the Library and with the Cardinal in charge of both the Vatican Library and the Vatican Archives, etc., I've never done "research" at the Vatican Library.

I've never stayed in a "villa" in Rome. I've always stayed in normal, commercial hotels.

If this anonymous poster is referring to the Rome mission home, I've never even been there, let alone stayed in it.

I've never, to the best of my recollection, interacted with any LDS missionaries in Rome.

In other words, the story that provides this anonymous poster's revelation about my in-person arrogance and irrationality whatever authority it has is pure and absolute fiction.

Anonymously posting bogus personal recollections about people one probably hasn't even met is child's play, of course.

2.

Some say here, and many have said elsewhere for years, that if I stopped feeding these trolls by reacting to them they would stop posting about me. This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, it's been demonstrated to be untrue. I seldom react to them. (There are new items about me at various points on the web, and presumably far more than I'm aware of, every day.) I haven't posted on the Xander/Kevin/Stalker board for roughly a year now, for example, and the pace at which new threads are launched to attack me there hasn't, so far as I can tell, discernibly slowed. I never, ever, post on the oddly-named "Recovery" board, either. But they routinely post about me. (As in the item just above.)

.

[Senator]

Xander/Kevin is telling other falsehoods about me as well, some of which I don't recall off hand, and he's probably telling still others that I haven't seen. But these are two pretty clear untruths that are easy to correct and beyond reasonable dispute.

Ok..

[volgadon]

While I've been to the Vatican Library several times, have met there with the Prefect of the Library and with the Cardinal in charge of both the Vatican Library and the Vatican Archives, etc.,

Wasn't part of that for METI?

[Daniel Peterson]

It was for what we call CPART, the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, a department of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. I used to be the director of CPART.

We digitized a set of Syriac manuscripts in the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana.

And, for that matter, we're still involved with the Library there. Future projects are in the works.

.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[volgadon]

It was for what we call CPART, the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, a department of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. I used to be the director of CPART.

We digitized a set of Syriac manuscripts in the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana.

And, for that matter, we're still involved with the Library there. Future projects are in the works.

.

That's what it was, I remember seeing an article somewhere. I thought it was an incredible project and still do.

[Storm Rider]

2.

Some say here, and many have said elsewhere for years, that if I stopped feeding these trolls by reacting to them they would stop posting about me. This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, it's been demonstrated to be untrue. I seldom react to them. (There are new items about me at various points on the web, and presumably far more than I'm aware of, every day.) I haven't posted on the Xander/Kevin/Stalker board for roughly a year now, for example, and the pace at which new threads are launched to attack me there hasn't, so far as I can tell, discernibly slowed. I never, ever, post on the oddly-named "Recovery" board, either. But they routinely post about me. (As in the item just above.)

Dan, I don't know what the right choice is. Part of me thinks that silence may be the best choice. I certainly do not condemn your choice to respond to some of what is written. The one thing that I am clear about is that the world is full of all kinds of people. There are absolute pigs and liars. There are those that are wolves who dress in sheep's clothing. There are those that lie in wait to deceive. It is evident that because of your position and because of your interest in putting your flame on a hill that all can see where Zion can be found you will naturally attract those who work on behalf of the Evil one either consciously or unconsciously.

They will always post about you whether you respond to them or not. You will always be a focus for these types of people. Until that great day when every knee will bow I promise that you will be a lightening rod for these people. I know that it is hard, frustrating, and a burden. Thank you for being that focus and for all that you do to build the Kingdom of God. I hope you can always find a way to laugh at their antics. Today we will laugh, but in the future there will be many tears and pain for these are they that fight against Zion and their fall will be terrible to behold.

I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.

[Stargazer]

Personally, I like it when Dan posts in response to these jerks. Keep it up -- full speed ahead and Damn the Kevins -- I mean Torpedoes!

It's just that Dr. Peterson's posts are very informative and entertaining, for the most part, and if he wants to write stuff, I say hooray go for it.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Stargazer

[why me]

Dan, I don't know what the right choice is. Part of me thinks that silence may be the best choice. I certainly do not condemn your choice to respond to some of what is written. The one thing that I am clear about is that the world is full of all kinds of people. There are absolute pigs and liars. There are those that are wolves who dress in sheep's clothing. There are those that lie in wait to deceive. It is evident that because of your position and because of your interest in putting your flame on a hill that all can see where Zion can be found you will naturally attract those who work on behalf of the Evil one either consciously or unconsciously.

This problem has been going on for years. The bullies are relentless. But I think that the problem began years ago when Dan was responding to them and to what they were saying about him or he was starting threads about what was said about him. But dan could not have known that by doing so, he was creating a lifetime of abuse from these posters.

Dan's main problem comes from a poster who claims to have an informant who seems to spend all his or her working hours spying on dan and what he says at the MI. He or she then reports the information to the contact in charge of the informant. If this is true, this informant must be J. Edgar Hoover's twin because he or she seems to be an expert at it.

If this informant is not a product of the imagination then this informant is actually breaking the law by being a stalker. But i would think that it is all in the mind of the poster who claims to have an informer. The MI is not that big and eventually the informer would have been caught out. But then who knows...the informer could be for real.

Either way, how to respond to bullies? They are not trolls but bullies. And dan needs to recognize that they are bullies.

Edited May 28, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

But I think that the problem began years ago when Dan was responding to them and to what they were saying about him or he was starting threads about what was said about him. But dan could not have known that by doing so, he was creating a lifetime of abuse from these posters.

I don't buy that it was Dan who "created a lifetime of abuse". You might as well suggest that a woman who is abused by her husband or boyfriend created that abuse because she responded to him in a way that angered him.

And I am quite certain that Dan knows exactly what those who attack him are. He is much more familiar with their tactics than anyone else here, after all.

PS: I am not equating the verbal abuse that Dan gets to any physical abuse that victims of domestic abuse get...I am just saying in any form of abuse, it is the abuser who is responsible for "creating" the abuse, not the victim.

PPS: And go into any school and see if they agree that the best way to handle bullies is to ignore them. Look at any program dedicated to decrease of bullying in school and I highly doubt that "ignoring them so they will go away" rates anywhere on the suggestion list.

Edited May 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

The notion that I somehow created these people, or turned them into monsters, is both historically false and laughable.

How is it supposed to have worked? Half a dozen people or so were innocently frolicking on the Web until I came cruising along, chose them, and, purely arbitrarily, decided to antagonize them and to goad them into devoting (apparently) the rest of their lives to attacking me?

Yes, they're bullies. And they project their characteristics (mean-spiritedness, implacable personal hostility, obsessive holding of grudges, etc.) on to me. I'm very well aware of it. How could I not be?

[why me]

I don't buy that it was Dan who "created a lifetime of abuse". You might as well suggest that a woman who is abused by her husband or boyfriend created that abuse because she responded to him in a way that angered him.

I never said that Dan is responsible. However, for an emotional bully, knowing that they are getting to their victim is extremely important. The point of a bully is to gain emotional or physical control over the victim and when they see that they are accomplishing their objective, they keep up the abuse. It becomes a drug for them: a high because it gives them power.

Now Dan did not know this when it all began. But this is what happened. What should Dan do now is the question.

[why me]

Yes, they're bullies. And they project their characteristics (mean-spiritedness, implacable personal hostility, obsessive holding of grudges, etc.) on to me. I'm very well aware of it. How could I not be?

But the question is: what to do about it now? You see, Dan, even this thread gives the bully power and they relish in it.

[Daniel Peterson]

But the question is: what to do about it now? You see, Dan, even this thread gives the bully power and they relish in it.

They will, I guarantee, continue to post the same sorts of malicious untruths about me whether I respond to them or not.

This is a demonstrated fact.

Incidentally, Xander/Kevin has responded, after a fashion, to my opening post here.

Don't worry. I'm not going to bother -- or to annoy people here -- with a point by point back-and-forth with him. It would serve no purpose, would only exasperate me, and wouldn't prevent him from doing essentially the same thing over and over and over again in the future.

He continues to insist, though, that my comment about government authority being derived, ultimately, from government's ability to coerce comes from somebody named Neal Boortz, of whom I had never heard until Xander/Kevin identified him as my supposed political guru, rather than, as is documented already in a paper that I wrote back in 1976, from a dictum of Mao Tse-Tung and from my generally libertarian understanding of politics and economics, which is of ancient date.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[rpn]

Why don't we all just NOT post when Bro. Peterson needs to defend himself. That way he has an avenue to defend himself, and others get no new ammunition and no addition pleasure out of the response.