Scott Gordon speaks out about events involving Mormonthink

[_Kishkumen]

All that said, if you want to hate on Scott Gordon why bother trying to conjure all the possible scenarios?

A NYT reporter writes that Gordon sent along materials regarding Twede to SLC. If anyone is "concocting scenarios" it is Gordon, who now says the reporter was somehow in cahoots with Twede and lying about Gordon's role for some unfathomable reason.

[_Kishkumen]

Although I have been inactive for about 20 years now I well remember that 'anti-mormon' is a cue to active members for 'Satanic' and 'don't even go there'.

I honestly don't find that helpful and I wish Scott could get through that. Dan P once argued that 'anti-mormon' is a specific term that is used in a scholarly way, and that is fine. But that's not how the average member interprets the term and I think Scott would know that. It's not helpful.

Isn't there anyway to get above this? Bart Ehrman is not anti-christian because he takes a more nuanced view of christian origins. James Tabor isn't anti-christian because he is willing to go where the evidence leads on the original church and the family of Jesus.

The loose use of the word "anti-Mormon" does bother me. It is clearly used to prejudice people against folks like Twede and members of the LDS Church who post on this board and it is used for rhetorical effect. It probably works in scaring off the unwary. More to the point, those who misuse the term reveal themselves for the sophistical bigots that they are.

In any case, I have no trouble saying that MormonThink is a site that is designed to show people a Mormonism that is not faith promoting. We all know that the presentation of facts is an important element of swaying people. MormonThink is, I would say, presenting information in such a way that it depicts Mormonism, overall, in a negative light.

I don't really care for that, personally. I prefer Saints without Halos, which has a more straightforward, factual approach. It comes much closer to letting the facts speak for themselves, and ends up presenting the reader a Mormonism they probably did not know existed. I have benefited much more from this site than MT.

So, I don't see anything wrong with calling MormonThink a faith-demoting website. But to call it "anti-Mormon"? I don't think so. Those who call it such are either being lazy or unscrupulous, or they are the kind of people who think that anything diverging from the Correlation message is anti-Mormon. I would say that the apologists probably fall into the latter category. These are the zealots who pay a kind of fealty to ecclesiastical leaders that borders on cultish--like Danites.

[_LDSToronto]

For those who've been following events surrounding Mormonthink and David Twede, Scott Gordon published a statement about the Mormonthink events in the Sept. Fair journal. I thought some here might be interested in reading it.

On one I was called a “rat fink pool of vomit.”

THAT WAS ME!!! I've never been quoted in a press release before. I just wish he'd used my name....

H.

[_Mary]

Kish said:

I don't really care for that, personally. I prefer Saints without Halos, which has a more straightforward, factual approach. It comes much closer to letting the facts speak for themselves, and ends up presenting the reader a Mormonism they probably did not know existed. I have benefited much more from this site than MT.

I like that site too.

So, I don't see anything wrong with calling MormonThink a faith-demoting website.

I've never seen MormonThink that way, as faith-demoting. If there is a tone there then I guess I ignore it. I can only say that in answering questions with some of my friends I have consistently found it useful in terms of source evidence around some of the major issues that they tend to have problems with. I guess there is an argument for saying that FAIR is the most faithful on offer, and MormonThink the least faithful, with other sites in between. Even with that categorization it still serves a useful purpose in my opinion.

If the editorial board listen to people like Ray, who want to see more balance in tone on certain subjects then that can only be a good thing.

For me Mormon Apologetics as represented by Scott is still too partisan and too stuck in an 'us and them' 'good and evil' mind set. It's not the 19th century anymore and no one (as far as I know) is out to kill Mormons or put them in concentration camps. I wish there was more on line evidence of attempts at seeing through to a shared commonality.

[_cinepro]

For me Mormon Apologetics as represented by Scott is still too partisan and too stuck in an 'us and them' 'good and evil' mind set. It's not the 19th century anymore and no one (as far as I know) is out to kill Mormons or put them in concentration camps. I wish there was more on line evidence of attempts at seeing through to a shared commonality.

That's not "Mormon Apologetics". That's Mormonism in general. There was a "war" in heaven, and that battle has continued here on Earth. The object isn't to find common ground and friendship with Satan, the object is to defeat him and those who follow him. And anyone who would intentionally lead people out of the Church is definitely an enemy.

There are good guys and bad guys, winners and losers.

We might not like it, but that's the world (and universe) as the Church sees it. We shouldn't be surprised if its defenders follow in that mindset.

As for David Twede, from what I can tell he's already "excommunicated" himself. The meeting with the SP and high council would just have been a formality.

[_Mary]

That's not "Mormon Apologetics". That's Mormonism in general. There was a "war" in heaven, and that battle has continued here on Earth. The object isn't to find common ground and friendship with Satan, the object is to defeat him and those who follow him. And anyone who would intentionally lead people out of the Church is definitely an enemy.

There are good guys and bad guys, winners and losers.

We might not like it, but that's the world (and universe) as the Church sees it. We shouldn't be surprised if its defenders follow in that mindset.

As for David Twede, from what I can tell he's already "excommunicated" himself. The meeting with the SP and high council would just have been a formality.

Maybe you are right.....which is probably one of the many reasons I don't bother to attend any more. But, having listened to Kristine Haglund, Charles Randall Paul and Dan Wotherspoon over on Mormon Matters discussing the problems of exclusivity and the one true church, I remain faintly hopeful.

http://mormonmatters.org/2012/09/30/128 ... ue-church/

They discuss some truly exciting ideas from Mormon Theology that would argue against exclusivity and 'one true way'. Worth a listen to. I shared it with a very active TBM friend, who loved it.

[_Yoda]

For those who've been following events surrounding Mormonthink and David Twede, Scott Gordon published a statement about the Mormonthink events in the Sept. Fair journal. I thought some here might be interested in reading it.

On one I was called a “rat fink pool of vomit.”

THAT WAS ME!!! I've never been quoted in a press release before. I just wish he'd used my name....

H.

Congratulations! The classless piece of crap has utilized a rat fink pool of vomit!

[_Kishkumen]

I agree with the thoughts of Mary and cinepro about the problems of an "us versus them" mentality. It is very strongly expressed in apologetics, and it is there in LDS theology. I would add, however, that the construction of theologies is all about choosing to emphasize certain aspects of the tradition over others. Apologists act on a divisive narrative, while liberal Mormons tend to prefer more inclusive narratives, which are also available in the Mormon mythos. For those who continue to desire to be Mormon in an inclusive way, the task is theirs to formulate compelling visions of the inclusive that re-contextualize divisive narratives and relegate them to a less central place in the tradition.

[_Infymus]

The loose use of the word "anti-Mormon" does bother me. It is clearly used to prejudice people against folks like Twede and members of the LDS Church who post on this board and it is used for rhetorical effect. It probably works in scaring off the unwary. More to the point, those who misuse the term reveal themselves for the sophistical bigots that they are.

You can be termed an anti-Mormon simply by quoting past Mormon Apostles and Prophets. My 1992 copy of "Gospel Doctrine" on CDROM would be labeled as anti-Mormon today as it has the original JOD, Doctrines of Salvation 1-3, and a lot more that are considered "forbidden", "speaking as a man" or "misinterpreted", Ad infinitum.

As I've always said, I'm not anti-Mormon - I'm pro truth.

[_Fence Sitter]

That's not "Mormon Apologetics". That's Mormonism in general. There was a "war" in heaven, and that battle has continued here on Earth. The object isn't to find common ground and friendship with Satan, the object is to defeat him and those who follow him. And anyone who would intentionally lead people out of the Church is definitely an enemy.

There are good guys and bad guys, winners and losers.

We might not like it, but that's the world (and universe) as the Church sees it. We shouldn't be surprised if its defenders follow in that mindset.

As for David Twede, from what I can tell he's already "excommunicated" himself. The meeting with the SP and high council would just have been a formality.

I do not disagree with you on a theological level but on a practical level this is not how I see the Church promoting itself in the last ten to fifteen years. The "We are Mormons, just like everyone else" campaign is clear evidence that the Church is trying to distance itself from an image of exclusivity within the religious community. In reality they should be running a campaign that says "We are Mormons, the only ones with all the answers and God's authority."