A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

[_3sheets2thewind]

Wow--it seems that Brant Gardner, Steve "Donkey Lips" Smoot and others have turned up in the "Comments" section an effort to chase Rev. Jackson away.

Huh. Well, they don't want to lose a new recruit to the cause. So, gotta chase away the bully who dares to respond to her "review."

They won't lose because of the response from the person she so ignorantly attacked.

She most likely has been told "see we told you how vile they are. They did it to each of us. They did it to jospeh Smith. One of us, one of us, one of us."

I am sure they told he the martyr she would become and she jumped in head first.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Here's anotjer little diddy which gives insight to "how" Ms Hedelius is, a stranger on a bus saw a picture on Hedelius laptop; here is part of convoy:

" “I [stranger]wish I could hang it up in my house, it would keep all the evil spirits away. No evil spirits get in my house with that there.”

Out of some instinct to tone down her theology a bit, I [Hedelius] corrected..."

And this

" “That's sure a nice picture. Say, isn't that a great picture?” She [stranger] hollered at the girl across the aisle from me, who seemed much more Siddhartha than Sunday School, if you know what I mean."

[_Pahoran]

In a real sense, the Mormon Interpreter's fate lies in Dr. Scratch's hands.

Yes, I'm sure that you and the rest of Scratch's claque would like to believe that.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Wow. I am so shocked that the only turd that floats to the top of the apologetic bowl to defend this nonsense is Pahoran, who will defend, well, pretty much anything connected to LDS apologetics, no matter how poor.

A bit like how you defend anything Scratch, a.k.a. Kishkumen's brain, vomits out here, no matter how spiteful and baseless?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

In a real sense, the Mormon Interpreter's fate lies in Dr. Scratch's hands.

Yes, I'm sure that you and the rest of Scratch's claque would like to believe that.

Regards,
Pahoran

Yes, I'm sure that you and the rest of the Mormon Interpreter's angry, unlettered and distinguished academics would like to believe otherwise.

Wishing you all the best,
Everybody Wang Chung

[_Tom]

Hedelius's review seems to have been rushed into print.

At a minimum, footnotes seem to be missing for the following statements:

He resorts frequently to critical works by the Ostlings, Blomberg, and others, without acknowledging that those sources have been shown to be problematic in their use of historical facts (Ostling) and presentation of LDS doctrine (both).

Reverend Jackson uncritically repeats the Ostlings’ (and hence Wesley Walters’s) conclusion that Joseph Smith was “found guilty of disorderly conduct and treasure-hunting” (p. 25), a charge that has been shown to be false.

Jackson is also confident that the Three Witnesses to the plates left the Church (p. 27), but he neglects to mention that two returned and that none of the three ever denied their testimonies of the truth of the Book of Mormon and the manner of its coming forth.

Reverend Jackson is troubled because Latter-day Saints believe that soon after the death of the original apostles there was a gradual apostasy from the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that the Church of Jesus Christ has been restored by God through the Prophet Joseph Smith. He understands this to mean that the Church of Jesus Christ “bases its absolute exclusive status on its belief that a complete and universal apostasy—a falling away from God—took place immediately following the death of the New Testament apostles” (p. 65, emphasis added). He cites no source for the “and universal” description because there is none.

None?

For example, he states the “belief in a preexistent heavenly family originates mainly in modern LDS revelation and not in the teaching of the Bible” (p. 100, emphasis supplied). The weasel word mainly hides the fact that belief in a premortal life was known among early Christians but was subsequently suppressed in the same way that deification has been rejected or ignored by most contemporary Protestants.

For some reason, Hedelius fails to provide citations to Stephen Robinson's writing when she discusses Jackson's uses of Robinson's work.

Here she channels Professor Midgley: "Who is Reverend Jackson? And, in his own opinion, what led and qualifies him to opine on Mormon things?"

[_Drifting]

Hedelius's review seems to have been rushed into print.

At a minimum, footnotes seem to be missing for the following statements:

He resorts frequently to critical works by the Ostlings, Blomberg, and others, without acknowledging that those sources have been shown to be problematic in their use of historical facts (Ostling) and presentation of LDS doctrine (both).

Reverend Jackson uncritically repeats the Ostlings’ (and hence Wesley Walters’s) conclusion that Joseph Smith was “found guilty of disorderly conduct and treasure-hunting” (p. 25), a charge that has been shown to be false.

Jackson is also confident that the Three Witnesses to the plates left the Church (p. 27), but he neglects to mention that two returned and that none of the three ever denied their testimonies of the truth of the Book of Mormon and the manner of its coming forth.

Reverend Jackson is troubled because Latter-day Saints believe that soon after the death of the original apostles there was a gradual apostasy from the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that the Church of Jesus Christ has been restored by God through the Prophet Joseph Smith. He understands this to mean that the Church of Jesus Christ “bases its absolute exclusive status on its belief that a complete and universal apostasy—a falling away from God—took place immediately following the death of the New Testament apostles” (p. 65, emphasis added). He cites no source for the “and universal” description because there is none.

None?

For example, he states the “belief in a preexistent heavenly family originates mainly in modern LDS revelation and not in the teaching of the Bible” (p. 100, emphasis supplied). The weasel word mainly hides the fact that belief in a premortal life was known among early Christians but was subsequently suppressed in the same way that deification has been rejected or ignored by most contemporary Protestants.

For some reason, Hedelius fails to provide citations to Stephen Robinson's writing when she discusses Jackson's uses of Robinson's work.

Here she channels Professor Midgley: "Who is Reverend Jackson? And, in his own opinion, what led and qualifies him to opine on Mormon things?"

Hmmm...the phrase 'slap dash' springs to mind...

[_MCB]

Reminds me of the very useful critique that Pahoran gave of my work as year or so ago.

[_Kishkumen]

A bit like how you defend anything Scratch, a.k.a. Kishkumen's brain, vomits out here, no matter how spiteful and baseless?

Regards,
Pahoran

Except, in this case, I wasn't really defending anything. I was mostly agreeing with CaliforniaKid's read of the piece. And he is right: the offal that masqueraded as a review of Jackson's book was the usual bile-filled snark we have come to expect from classic-FARMS writers. Indeed, it is so canned that it is practically self-parody at this point.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hedelius's review seems to have been rushed into print.

At a minimum, footnotes seem to be missing for the following statements:
[SNIP!]

For some reason, Hedelius fails to provide citations to Stephen Robinson's writing when she discusses Jackson's uses of Robinson's work.

Here she channels Professor Midgley: "Who is Reverend Jackson? And, in his own opinion, what led and qualifies him to opine on Mormon things?"

Yet another devastating account, Tom. The standards over there seem terribly low. Speaking of which, it seems that a couple of new comments have been added:

Michael Otterson is writing a different kind of piece. For a book review, saying things like “he’s on the attack already” and “the well thus tidily poisoned” are scarcely “uncivil” or “confrontational.”

It’s certainly not inappropriate or unchristian for a theater review, say, to comment that a play is “poorly written” or “not particularly funny” or “badly acted.” Such expressions are the coin of the realm.

They are not the "coin of the realm" in academic book reviewing, though, and I suspect that DCP would be reluctant to give up that particular descriptor.

Perhaps more pertinent to this thread, though, are Hedelius's own remarks:

Dr. Jackson, hello. A few thoughts on your various posts above:

1) I’m baffled by the claim that it was dishonorable for Interpreter to publish a review by one without “formal biblical/historical education.” Given that you state clearly the book was aimed at a “broad Christian audience,” and even more broadly, “interested non-Christians and Mormons,” such credentials are unnecessary. Furthermore, anyone who reads your book (which, despite the caveat that I don’t think it’s terribly enlightening or accurate, I wouldn’t actively dissuade) would find that it is definitely written for a non-specialist audience. I’m well-read on Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism, and I stand by my analysis.

2) If you read my review more closely, you will see that, contrary to your claim, I did indeed “address the fact that the whole book is based on Mormon sources.” I specifically mentioned your over 40 citations to Mormon Doctrine by McConkie and your many citations to LDS scripture, then noting that in addition you “resor[t] frequently” to critical non-Mormon sources. This is an accurate summary of your endnotes. And the fact that you quoted Mormon sources doesn’t lay to rest the question of whether you used them well.

3) You say: “If Mormonism is Christian as you claim, and I am a Christian, then I am simply a Christian examining a segment of Christianity. Why is that so odd?” Reverend, I think you’re a decent chap, and so I hope you just didn’t think clearly about this. Neither you nor your book anywhere affirm that Mormonism is Christian. You approvingly cite the point of view that Mormonism is a cult. You everywhere laud Evangelical Protestant (though you simply label them “Christian”) beliefs as distinct from Mormon ones. You caricature and misrepresent Mormon beliefs, despite indications that you know better. I would have no objection whatsoever to a Christian examining Mormonism as a segment of Christianity if he considered seriously Mormons’ Christian beliefs and characteristics. Even if he ended up determining that Mormons are not Christians, I would respect his sincere attempt to grapple with Mormon thought. You did not do so.

4) I decline to debate you, although I thank you for the invitation. I wish you well in your efforts to promote your book.

5) I apologize that my writing style offended you. I didn’t mean to be glib or smug, only trenchant. I tried to give a full report of your and your book’s virtues, and was honest in my portrayal of its deficiencies. It’s really much better than many dismissals of Mormonism from an Evangelical standpoint, but that’s such an overcrowded and low-quality genre that being a cut above still isn’t terribly high.

6) I wish you well, Dr. Jackson. From what I’ve seen on your resume and website, you’ve been a devoted friend to humanity and disciple of Christ. I hope that some day you will acquire a deeper understanding of Mormonism, but our differences in the meantime do nothing to lessen my admiration.

So... There you have it. A couple of thoughts:

1) Why is she chickening out of the chance to debate Jackson? Is she afraid of getting crushed?

2) Does she realize that "trenchant" can be a synonym for "biting" or "cutting"?

3) Was her post "edited" is the same manner as her "article"?

I have to say, I don't think this was a wise move for Hedelius.