Regarding My Dementia

[Daniel Peterson]

It's very kind and respectful of Mike Reed to worry publicly about my mental health, and, thus, I apologize that I'm only now seeing the thread that he began on the subject here (but which now seems to be locked), as well as the twin thread that he launched on at least one other message board where, as he presumably knows, I haven't posted for several years but where, as he also knows, defaming, mocking, and slandering me is a local passion.

 

I don't look in here -- or at other message boards -- as often as I once did, and, anyway, what with Education Week, several publishing deadlines, two evening plays, the endowment and marriage of a niece, the concomitant arrival of family members from out of state, and so forth, I haven't had a lot of spare time over the past few days.  Furthermore, of course, my moments of even minimal lucidity are few and far between lately, and are rapidly becoming even less frequent.  I'll need to take several pauses during the writing of this response, for example, to clean the drool from my keyboard.

 

Mr. Reed's concern about my neurological condition was triggered by this article, which appeared on Friday:

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-sibling-scandals-of-the-resurrection/#sdfootnote12anc

 

Plainly judging the rest of the article irrelevant to his professional mental health diagnosis, Mr. Reed focuses, laser-like, on footnote 12, in which I remark that "I've met very few non-Mormon scholars (at most, one or two) who have had even a nodding acquaintance with Mormon apologetic writing."

 

He regards that statement as so manifestly insane that the most likely explanation for it must surely be impaired brain function on my part.

 

What, he demands to know in a follow-up post (on this board and at least one other), about such non-Mormon scholars as "Craig Hazen, Massimo Introvigne, Richard Mouw, Jerry Root, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, Craig Blomberg, Jan Shipps, Michael Coe, Robert Ritner, Ron Huggins, Chris Smith, . . . Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe"?

 

He might have asked me directly, of course.  Professional mental health ethics, as I understand the field, typically expects that a diagnosis is only made -- to say nothing of its being published! -- after direct engagement with or examination of the patient.

 

But I'll overlook his somewhat unorthodox approach and respond to the question he raises and the examples he cites.

 

Of those he lists, I've never (to the best of my recollection) actually met Ron Huggins or Robert Ritner, and I can't recall having so much as encountered the name of Jerry Root.  (I have no idea who he is.)  I've met all of the others, though.  So that's not my defense.

 

Here it is:

 

In footnote 12, I wasn't thinking at all about scholars -- and I'll include Chris Smith, Dan Vogel, and Brent Metcalfe in that category for the sake of discussion, despite the objection some might raise that, to this point anyhow, they lack some of the usually-required union papers -- who focus on Mormonism solely or, for that matter, to any substantial degree.  I had in mind Egyptologists, American historians, biblical archaeologists, Mesoamericanists, New Testament scholars, and other such academics more generally, who work in fields where Mormon "apologists" have had something to say because Mormonism makes claims in those areas.  That there are non- and ex-Mormons who, for reasons of sectarian debate (in which, for the record, I include Messrs. Metcalfe, Vogel, and Ritner, as well as the more obvious Drs. Mouw, Blomberg, Hazen, etc.), have published on these subjects and who might even have professional credentials is so obvious that I would never dream of denying it.  

 

Moreover, although Craig Blomberg and Richard Mouw (both of whom I know and like) have read a fair amount of Mormon writing, I don't think that they follow Mormon apologetic writing very closely.  I know for a fact that Michael Coe doesn't.  Nor, absolutely, does Jan Shipps.  

 

My simple point was, simply, that non-LDS scholars generally and overwhelmingly pay no attention whatever to Mormon apologetics, and probably aren't even aware that it exists.  They scarcely know what Mormonism claims, and most likely only know Mormon ideas and doctrines vaguely or in somewhat garbled fashion and at second or third hand.

 

I would have thought that Mr. Reed would have enjoyed that "admission," as a way of pointing out the cosmic insignificance of Mormonism.  Certainly others would eagerly use it in that manner.  

 

For some reason, though, by contrast, Mr. Reed's first inclination was to suggest that I'm suffering from dementia.

 

As I say, he might have asked.  Or he might have considered what the principle of interpretive charity could suggest to his mind.

 

But he didn't.

 

Could the point of the footnote have been expressed more clearly?  Likely so.  I confess that Mr. Reed's interpretation of it hadn't occurred to me.  I thought my point fairly obvious and uncontroversial.

 

But, again, I thank him for his concern about my mental functioning.

 

And now back to trying to figure out where the heck I am.  This room looks familiar, somehow.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for the reassurance and explanation, Daniel.

And now that you mention it, Mike Reed's thread did reek of the culture of the Mormon Distortions Board, so I'm not surprised to learn it was exported from there.

 

Edited to add:

 

I have to tell you, your post reminded me of this golden oldie from the 1960s; perhaps you remember it.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

[MorningStar]

I thought his thread was offensive.  Guess I'm not amused by dementia considering my dad is losing his best friend to Alzheimers. 

[Daniel Peterson]

It was offensive, of course.

 

But they lap such things up over at that other board.

 

And yes, Scott, I remember that piece really, really well.

[3DOP]

Hey Dr. Pete,

 

Hang in there. I know there are other things to do...but if we have to accuse you of being insane to get you to make a visit, I guess we know what we have to do!. Heh. Very seriously, I appreciate your articles as well as your spicy replies to your adversaries. May your adversaries be mine, and your friends as well. God bless.

 

Rory

Edited August 24, 2014 by 3DOP

[Daniel Peterson]

Hey Dr. Pete,

 

Hang in there. I know there are other things to do...but if we have to accuse you of being insane to get you to make a visit, I guess we know what we have to do!. Heh. Very seriously, I appreciate your articles as well as your spicy replies to your adversaries. May your adversaries be mine, and your friends as well. God bless.

 

Rory

 

Thanks, Rory.  I really appreciate you, too, and always have.  God bless you, as well. 

[MorningStar]

It was offensive, of course.

 

But they lap such things up over at that other board.

 

And yes, Scott, I remember that piece really, really well.

Not sure what his deal is with you.  Didn't he also make a comment about how Brian David Mitchell could have a fair trial due to something you said?  Don't remember the details, but it was bizarre. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I lost my nana to alzheimers and my grandpa to dementia. Both are terrible diseases that corrupt the beautiful mind. I fear of getting either.

[Tacenda]

I lost my nana to alzheimers and my grandpa to dementia. Both are terrible diseases that corrupt the beautiful mind. I fear of getting either.

I lost my mom to early onset dementia. And if I post long enough, you might be asking the same question of me. I guess the only thing we can do is hope for a cure like so many other diseases out there.

[Darren10]

Iwhat with Education Week, several publishing deadlines, two evening plays, the endowment and marriage of a niece, the concomitant arrival of family members from out of state, and so forth, I haven't had a lot of spare time over the past few days. arrival of family members from out of state, and so forth, I haven't had a lot of spare time over the past few days.

Let's change "demetia" (a term John Dehlin apparently applies to President Thomas S. Monson - why else would the prophet not come to poor Dehlin's rescue?) to "determination", "dedication", or "devotion" and take Dan quite seriously.

Thanks, Dan for you post.

[Darren10]

From post #1;

"I'll need to take several pauses during the writing of this response, for example, to clean the drool from my keyboard."

Ha! That's funny!

[Daniel Peterson]

Not sure what his deal is with you.  Didn't he also make a comment about how Brian David Mitchell could have a fair trial due to something you said?  Don't remember the details, but it was bizarre. 

 

I was an "expert witness" for the federal prosecution in both Mitchell's competency hearing and, a year later, at his criminal trial.

 

There were some very negative comments about my involvement from certain critics of me and of the Church (some of whom seemed to imagine that, rather than having been asked to help in the matter by the U.S. Attorney's office, I had put myself forward out of my own never-ending quest for glory and notoriety.  And some threats were made to try to make my participation in the court proceedings an issue for the Mitchell defense.  I can't recall who made those comments and those threats.

 

They were crazy.  And I wasn't even slightly amused.  Brian David Mitchell was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Nemesis]

Well I guess this satisfies our guideline of asked and answered.