Dan'S Dismissal Is Official

[wenglund]

It is good to see you posting once again. Your wit and knowledge, particularly in esoteric matters, has been missed. :thumbs up:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[blackstrap]

Dr. Peterson writes from Lauterbrunnen, Switzerland.

A little too close to Reichenbach Falls for comfort.

Let's see....Holmes and Moriarty ... pray tell ,whom is whom?

[blackstrap]

I predict a 6 months cooling off period before Dr. B is promoted.

[wenglund]

Let's see....Holmes and Moriarty ... pray tell ,whom is whom?

Whom was intent on taking out whom? Elementary my dear Watson.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 24, 2012 by wenglund

[Pepcigirl]

So does that mean they will no longer review Anti-Mormon writings?

[Mark Beesley]

I sometimes questioned Dr. Peterson's approach to controversy. Sarcasm is probably not the best face to put on the editor in an institution that wants to be seen as a scholarly endeavor. Dr. Peterson's history on the internet forums, while entertaining, was also probably beneath the dignity the Maxwell Institute aspires to for its editor. While I certainly do not know enough of the backstory to critique the method in which the Institute changed directions, I cannot say that I am surprised at the shift.

Good Luck to Dan and all others involved.

[William Schryver]

I sometimes questioned Dr. Peterson's approach to controversy. Sarcasm is probably not the best face to put on the editor in an institution that wants to be seen as a scholarly endeavor. Dr. Peterson's history on the internet forums, while entertaining, was also probably beneath the dignity the Maxwell Institute aspires to for its editor. While I certainly do not know enough of the backstory to critique the method in which the Institute changed directions, I cannot say that I am surprised at the shift.

Good Luck to Dan and all others involved.

Thus sarcasm has been elevated to the 8th deadly sin.

And here I thought it was the foremost of virtues ...

[Aliwe]

Thus sarcasm has been elevated to the 8th deadly sin.

I will treasure this teaching forever.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thus sarcasm has been elevated to the 8th deadly sin.

And here I thought it was the foremost of virtues ...

Yes, if the prophet Elijah had not shown unseemly sarcasm with the priests of Baal, maybe they would have come around.

(Oops, there I go being sarcastic.)

[Mark Beesley]

Thus sarcasm has been elevated to the 8th deadly sin.

And here I thought it was the foremost of virtues ...

Right, that's exactly what I said; there was no context, simply a rule to cover everyone, everwhere, all the time . . .

[why me]

I sometimes questioned Dr. Peterson's approach to controversy. Sarcasm is probably not the best face to put on the editor in an institution that wants to be seen as a scholarly endeavor. Dr. Peterson's history on the internet forums, while entertaining, was also probably beneath the dignity the Maxwell Institute aspires to for its editor. While I certainly do not know enough of the backstory to critique the method in which the Institute changed directions, I cannot say that I am surprised at the shift.

Well, I don't know. Joseph Smith was certainly a character too. I do believe that if he were alive today and working as editor for the Maxwell Institute, he would have been fired by email and told to get lost because he showed anger and jovial behavior all in the wrong places.

[why me]

Thus sarcasm has been elevated to the 8th deadly sin.

And here I thought it was the foremost of virtues ...

Mark would have understood the firing of Joseph Smith too. Anger issues, jovial behavior etc all would have worked against him. Heck, some members wanted to fire him and left because of his behavior. But he soldiered on...doing life as he saw fit.

[why me]

Thus sarcasm has been elevated to the 8th deadly sin.

And here I thought it was the foremost of virtues ...

Of course the critics get a free ride in their sarcasm of Dan. Poor Dan has been persecuted over and over again by the critics. And why? Because he did a good job defending the church.

[Calm]

Of course the critics get a free ride in their sarcasm of Dan.

If you are suggesting Mark has made any excuses for critics attacking Dr. Peterson, I would suggest you are wrong and ask for references.

[William Schryver]

Well, I don't know. Joseph Smith was certainly a character too. I do believe that if he were alive today and working as editor for the Maxwell Institute, he would have been fired by email and told to get lost because he showed anger and jovial behavior all in the wrong places.

I have long believed that, were Joseph Smith alive today, he would encounter many more "William Law" types in the Church now (percentage-wise) than there were in Nauvoo in 1844.

Edited June 24, 2012 by William Schryver

[why me]

If you are suggesting Mark has made any excuses for critics attacking Dr. Peterson, I would suggest you are wrong and ask for references.

Is Mark a critic? Did I address Mark? I made a general comment to Will that is all.

[Calm]

Is Mark a critic? Did I address Mark? I made a general comment to Will that is all.

But who is giving the critics all these free rides? Certainly not you, Will or even me. So how can it be a "general comment"?

Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

I have long believed that, were Joseph Smith alive today, he would encounter many more "William Law" types in the Church now (percentage-wise) than there were in Nauvoo in 1844.

For sure. And Brigham wouldn't have fared well today either. What is amazing is that critics call the lds faithful morgbots. And yet, when members act human with emotion and personality, they can criticize the members. Joseph would not have fared well today and many would leave the church today over his behavior if he had the same personality as yesteryear.

[why me]

But who is giving the critics all these free rides? Certainly not you, Will or even me. So how can it be a "general comment"?

As a veteran of the other board, I can assure you that the critics get a free ride while the faithful don't. At least that is my observation from that board. And I think that many here who have defended the church and who have experienced that board doing so would back me up.

[Calm]

As a veteran of the other board, I can assure you that the critics get a free ride while the faithful don't. At least that is my observation from that board. And I think that many here who have defended the church and who have experienced that board doing so would back me up.

That's fine, but that is not a "general statement" and no one had been talking about the other board so if you were specifically talking solely about the other board it was completely out of the blue and therefore prone to misunderstanding and therefore should be corrected to be more precise so that people know you are not criticizing Mark in any way even if you did say in another post "Mark would have understood the firing of Joseph Smith too".

[why me]

That's fine, but that is not a "general statement" and no one had been talking about the other board so if you were specifically talking solely about the other board it was completely out of the blue and therefore prone to misunderstanding and therefore should be corrected to be more precise so that people know you are not criticizing Mark in any way even if you did say in another post "Mark would have understood the firing of Joseph Smith too".

Since mark understood the firing of Dan, I would assume that he would understand the firing of Joseph Smith because of his behavior. But in general, critics get a free pass from other critics when it comes to mocking, sarcasm, bashing and attacks as long as it is against past and current leaders and against lds apologists.

[Pahoran]

Being in the forefront of the battle is a dangerous place and Dan was in the forefront of the battle.

Yes he was, but he might reasonably have expected that his enemies were in his front, and not in the rear.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I don't think anybody is saying that apologetics is necessarily contentious. What they are saying is that Peterson's vision for, shall we say, provocative apologetics, is in fact contentious;

The assertion that Dan has such a "vision" is a notorious canard and has no connection with the truth.

As you know, of course.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mark Beesley]

Since mark understood the firing of Dan, I would assume that he would understand the firing of Joseph Smith because of his behavior. But in general, critics get a free pass from other critics when it comes to mocking, sarcasm, bashing and attacks as long as it is against past and current leaders and against lds apologists.

The circumstances between Joseph Smith's jovial attitude, the period in which he lived, and the audience he reached and was accountable to are so radically different from those which Professor Peterson dealt with as to make your supposition silly. And no, I do not give critics a pass . . . I ignore them for the most part; but, I do expect more elevated behavior from a disciple of Christ.

[Rich Hansen]

I have read the article. It does not contain a single ad hominem element in its 100+ pages.

It is a very important article that ought to have been published yesterday.

Do you believe that no person having authority to approve or kill the publication read the article? I define "authority" as the individual who had immediate control and/or any of those above him/her. Surely, I would think, someone with some level of authority read the article and pronounced it unworthy for publication. Maybe Bill Hamblin can comment on this if it has not been covered.