Apologists and Critics at War?

[_Runtu]

As for the OP, no, it's not a war. Some people would like to think it is, as the serious nature of things means they can justify their hateful behavior. But in the end, Mormonism is not a matter of life and death. All it is is a way of life that people can choose to their good or to their detriment.

[_Ray A]

So, Ray, are you saying that Pahoran is justified in his tactics? This is where we disagree, if that is what you are saying.

If Pahoran only acted on the defensive, I would agree with you, but that is not how Pahoran works. He often attacks when there is no need for an attack to happen. He anticipates it.

Also, what is disappointing about Pahoran (and, for the record, I am not saying anything here that I have not said directly to him in various conversations) is that in spite of his gospel knowledge, he stoops to personal insults. There have been occasions on MAD when he had effectively proven his point, and went on to attack his opposer even when he really didn't need to. I never have been able to get a straight answer out of him as to why he does this.

I was under direct attack from Pahoran on Z., Liz. I know what it's like to feel the sting of his venom. He does insult, and I think it may be fair to say that he even enjoys it at times. I think he's an aggressive defender, and very opinionated, and, as the once target of his barbs, I feel I can say I understand now how he feels. He does sometimes view criticism as attack, which is why I say he's an aggressive defender. He is, in a sense, the real "Porter" who does the dirty verbal work others won't. But I've also seen a side of Pahoran others may not have seen. He can also be understanding, and even kind, once he knows you are not out to ridicule him or his religion. He disagreed at times, but never attacked me on FAIR/MAD. In fact, his attacks stopped on Z.

As far as personal insults are concerned, surely you can't argue that Pahoran's are any worse than the personal insults we've seen here against Mormons, and individual Mormons? Isn't that kind of looking at it from one point of view? When people write "F*** Christ, F*** Joseph Smith, F*** Mormonism, and post ridiculing cartoons of the prophets, what do you expect people like Pahoran to do, lie down and die in the gutter?

[_Yoda]

As for the OP, no, it's not a war. Some people would like to think it is, as the serious nature of things means they can justify their hateful behavior. But in the end, Mormonism is not a matter of life and death. All it is is a way of life that people can choose to their good or to their detriment.

I love this! Wise words, my friend! It's my new signature! :)

[Guest]

I was just musing on something that Nehor mentioned on another thread. He made a reference to "this little war".

When I asked him what war he was referring to, he blithely said, "the war between apologists and critics."

Is that how many of you really feel? Do you feel that we are at war with one another? Is that where the vehemence and the disdain comes from on both sides at times?

Is this why the MAD apologists become so "up in arms" if they suspect a troll?

It's an unfortunate side effect from people whose own world view is based on dogmatism and absolutism, whether it be people who hold to literalistic fundamentalist Christian beliefs, or those unfortunate Latter-Day Saints who don't have the common sense to wake themselves up from a self-imposed sense of Mormon fundementalism of thought.

People of any faith who view those who would research and discuss historical or doctrinal matters as the implicit enemies, as the agents by which "faith" is undermined as sorely mistaken. It simply means they haven't learned to pull their own heads out of their own theological asses and let good research and history shine light on un-truth.

The so-called "critics" here that "apologists" think they are at war with are thoughtful individuals from a variety of backgrounds both LDS and non-LDS, secular and religious. Discussing and analyzing these things, even if the conclusions that are drawn and the facts that are displayed isn't anti-Mormonism, a jingoism that so-called apologists love to bludgeon people over the head with. Anti-Mormonism, as a dangerous political sentiment is what is on display from so-called Christian circles as everyone falls over themselves to discredit Romney by air LDS dirty laundry and dumping it on the heads of the prejudiced and the uninformed.

I feel bad for Romney's plight and for the first time in my life feel genuinely offended by what I can honestly call anti-Mormonism. Believe in it or not, Mormonism is a valid strain of religious thought and one that shouldn't be wielded for political gain. I think Critics here would agree with that for the most part. Critics, to which I would count myself, do not despises Mormonism "right" to exist in the realm of American religious thought. I see all believers and many non believers as fellow brothers and sisters in the gospel, whatever your life and experiences and beliefs might otherwise lead you to believe or opine on, regardless of how literally you interpret such teachings.

This "war" you perceive isn't between those who believe and those who do not. It is actually between those who actually believe that Mormonism is damnable heresy. and invention of the devil, blah blah blah blah blah. Anti-Mormonism as a political movement is nothing more than part of the culture war between old-school Christian absolutists, the rich WASPs and ignorant Bible Thumping hicks who think that they should bring their disdain for Mormons and Mormon religious thought in to the political sphere and civil arena.

And this discussion board, this whole new Mormon/LDS online discussion culture is not "THAT." We here exist to discuss and compare, debate and dissect. But I would hope that none of us here would be anti-Mormon in the sense that our disagreements in theology are something to be wielded as political weapons.

Apologists are just as guilty of doing the exacting same thing, engaging in what is little more than anti-analysis. If there is something wrong with LDS thought that the apologists don't "get" is that no one, including them, gets to enforce and define orthodoxy. They don't get to define what it means to be Mormon and more that Gordon B. Hinckley can shut our the FLDS from the Mormon umbrella. They certainly aren't LDS in the mainstream sense, but Mormon isn't a term that members or believers get to own at the excclusion of those who disagree. I think apologists forget this. They perceive a war because it is a war of ideas, a war in which some of apologists bad ideas and bad arguments fall flat in the cleansing light of fact, knowledge and reasoned, inspired debate.

[_Runtu]

I was under direct attack from Pahoran on Z., Liz. I know what it's like to feel the sting of his venom. He does insult, and I think it may be fair to say that he even enjoys it at times. I think he's an aggressive defender, and very opinionated, and, as the once target of his barbs, I feel I can say I understand now how he feels. He does sometimes view criticism as attack, which is why I say he's an aggressive defender. He is, in a sense, the real "Porter" who does the dirty verbal work others won't. But I've also seen a side of Pahoran others may not have seen. He can also be understanding, and even kind, once he knows you are not out to ridicule him or his religion. He disagreed at times, but never attacked me on FAIR/MAD. In fact, his attacks stopped on Z.

As far as personal insults are concerned, surely you can't argue that Pahoran's are any worse than the personal insults we've seen here against Mormons, and individual Mormons? Isn't that kind of looking at it from one point of view? When people write "F*** Christ, F*** Joseph Smith, F*** Mormonism, and post ridiculing cartoons of the prophets, what do you expect people like Pahoran to do, lie down and die in the gutter?

Ray,

I deplore the profane attacks against Mormons, individual and collective, that we see too often. But what I've never understood was the unwillingness to follow Christ's teachings about how to treat our enemies. Christ didn't tell us to lie down in the gutter and die, but he did teach us to turn the other cheek and do good to those who despitefully use us. I've always tried to follow that teaching, and I don't understand how a self-proclaimed follower of Christ could fail to do likewise. In my judgment, the vicious attacks (I think you're being too charitable in describing them as aggressive defense) do far more damage to the church in driving people away than anything Porter or Mercury or Infymus have posted. Just something to think about.

[_Yoda]

I was under direct attack from Pahoran on Z., Liz. I know what it's like to feel the sting of his venom. He does insult, and I think it may be fair to say that he even enjoys it at times. I think he's an aggressive defender, and very opinionated, and, as the once target of his barbs, I feel I can say I understand now how he feels. He does sometimes view criticism as attack, which is why I say he's an aggressive defender. He is, in a sense, the real "Porter" who does the dirty verbal work others won't. But I've also seen a side of Pahoran others may not have seen. He can also be understanding, and even kind, once he knows you are not out to ridicule him or his religion. He disagreed at times, but never attacked me on FAIR/MAD. In fact, his attacks stopped on Z.

First of all, just to make things clear, I have never actually been personally attacked by Pahoran. I have simply seen what he has done to others I care about. And yes, I think that he DOES enjoy it, which is exactly my point. At least PP ADMITS that he enjoys it. I'm not justifying his behavior, either. I'm just saying that whatever you want to say about PP, hypocritical is not something you can label him as. He makes no bones about where he stands and why.

As far as personal insults are concerned, surely you can't argue that Pahoran's are any worse than the personal insults we've seen here against Mormons, and individual Mormons? Isn't that kind of looking at it from one point of view? When people write "F*** Christ, F*** Joseph Smith, F*** Mormonism, and post ridiculing cartoons of the prophets, what do you expect people like Pahoran to do, lie down and die in the gutter?

No, I don't expect that. But let me address a couple of points. First of all, Pahoran has done very little posting here, on this board. Most of his posting is on MAD. On MAD, critics don't post comments like F*** Joseph Smith, etc. That might, indeed, be their sentiment, but that is not how they phrase things. And Pahoran has proven that he is capable of effectively thwarting opposing arguments solely based on his gospel knowledge.

If you are having a scholarly discussion with someone, is it, or is it not, more effective to stick to the topic at hand, and win the argument based on your knowledge, rather than by stooping to personal insults?

Is it wrong for me to hold Pahoran to a higher standard...the same standard I hold myself to as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? I don't think so.

[_ozemc]

In a sense the exmo anger is like a cantankerous divorce...

I wonder if this makes Mormon anger like a cantakerous marriage, a cantakerous celestial marriage which never ends (and keeps trying to add more partners)?

I believe Mormon anger is a response to attacks on them. I've often said that Pahoran is a "Mormon Terminator", and he has one message to critics - leave us alone. If people insist on constantly ridiculing and attacking Mormonism, of course they are going to respond, and sometimes in anger as well.

Not to beleaguer the point, but if someone came to your door to talk about religion, and you, being the friendly person you are, let them in, and they proceeded to tell you that your religion is apostate, and they have the only one true church, don't you think that, people being who they are, the defenses are going to go up, and you end up with a "well, so's your old man" type of response?

[_Ray A]

Ray,

I deplore the profane attacks against Mormons, individual and collective, that we see too often. But what I've never understood was the unwillingness to follow Christ's teachings about how to treat our enemies. Christ didn't tell us to lie down in the gutter and die, but he did teach us to turn the other cheek and do good to those who despitefully use us. I've always tried to follow that teaching, and I don't understand how a self-proclaimed follower of Christ could fail to do likewise. In my judgment, the vicious attacks (I think you're being too charitable in describing them as aggressive defense) do far more damage to the church in driving people away than anything Porter or Mercury or Infymus have posted. Just something to think about.

Runtu, I made this very point on one thread I did on Z. I don't recall a single Mormon replying, because I quoted directly from the Book of Mormon only. To reply would have been to contradict the Book of Mormon itself.

I agree with you. But one point I must make. Unbelievers can use "the teachings of Christ" as a weapon also, while giving themselves complete leeway to continue attacking in a manner they say Mormons shouldn't. Remember too that Christ was not always mild, he called the scribes and Pharisees "vipers and serpents", and Herod "that fox". Overall, I think his message was one "turn the other cheek", but he was not backward when he needed to be explicit. This is not a justification, because I think the Book of Mormon is a lot clearer in this regard. But to expect perfection in others, while continuing to attack them on the basis that they "should be good Christians", is, in my opinion, a double standard.

Yes, perhaps the counter-attacks from Mormons do more damage than Porter or Mercury or Infymus can do. This is what I felt on Z, hence my reaction, and the resulting thread. FAIR was a different matter. There I learned to open my mind more to the Mormon viewpoint, and also to see a more human side, and not expect perfection in every word. I think it's rather callous to hold people to a standard - them attack them for it.

[_karl61]

what about that old Christian saying - agree with your enemies and do good to those who use you. I guess that's a different form of Christianity - the apostate type.

[_Ray A]

Not to beleaguer the point, but if someone came to your door to talk about religion, and you, being the friendly person you are, let them in, and they proceeded to tell you that your religion is apostate, and they have the only one true church, don't you think that, people being who they are, the defenses are going to go up, and you end up with a "well, so's your old man" type of response?

Happens all the time. I'm talking to JWs at the moment, purely out of interest, because I find them fascinating, and why they believe. I had a JW lady in the early '90s who came by every two weeks, for two years. In the end she gave up on me and told me I was going to hell, literally. I shook her hand, and wished her peace. I felt no animosity to her, because for a start I didn't believe I was "going to hell".