A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

[_RayAgostini]

Good critics engage in good scholarship.

Did Jesus engage in "scholarship" with the scribes and Pharisees? Oh yeah, I can just see it. Jesus' "problem" was that he could see pretentiousness and hypocrisy a mile off.

Chris Smith, for example. Some critics are complete morons. Ed Decker and Bill Schnoebelen, for example.

Is that your best examples? Even the Tanners could see through Decker and Schnoebelen.

As I stated before, there are many things I hope for. That there is a loving God who has provided a plan for us to become like him and live together with our families is a wonderful idea and I hope it is true. At this point in my life the "rational" part of my brain prohibits me from stating I *believe* these things. Nevertheless I hope it, or perhaps even something better, is true. There is one thing I feel very strongly about and that is I believe in a loving God. I do so because there are several rational arguments I feel compelling and thus I am able to choose to believe.

But, in the meantime, do continue to tell us how "apologists" are evil and misguided, and not among the "us", you know, those who "hope" Jesus was resurrected, and present themselves as the "face of modern Mormonism", when this is totally contradictory to what Joseph Smith taught. And indeed, what the Book of Mormon teaches.

I speak for anyone who believes honesty, fairness, charity, and kindness are virtues to be pursued. I believe most members of the Church pursue these virtues.

So you're a kind of "humanitarian". Did Jesus preach "humanitarianism"?

Did he come to earth to live and die to further the purpose of "humanitarianism"? What was his sacrifice in Gethsemane and on the cross? For "humanitarianism"? He had to die for that?

Many members are fortunate to possess belief and knowledge. I believe in God. This is my starting point.

And your finishing point. You want Mormonism to be "just another religious philosophy". Among many. Don't you. You want it shaped in your vague image of "God", rather than what it actually claims.

I think you are in full on self deception, Seth, and setting yourself up as a judge of what is "good", "right", "humanitarian" and "acceptable" in Mormonism.

[_3sheets2thewind]

They pick out absolutely irrelevant details that have nothing to do with the author's thesis and then write page after page about what a dope the author is/was.

That is pahoran to a T, thank you for so eloquently describe his diatribes

[_Drifting]

...you have no rebuttal against CK's accurate characterization of Hedelius' review or Dean Robbers' demonstration of exactly how distorted her caricature of Jackson's book was.

These are the salient issues. This thread contains criticism of a piece of bad apologetic writing. Can you defend it? Or will you persist in throwing out distractions?

Bump for Ray...

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, are you a Mormon?

Based on your questioning posters here on their qualifications to claim the title of Mormon, I assume you reject the concepts of a Jack Mormon, or a NOM or a Cultural Mormon.

No, I don't reject them at all. I just reject the idea that they can "speak for all Mormons", judge others who don't hold their NOM (or whatever) views as being "out of step with Mormonism", and so on. Seth refers to "us". Who is "us" Mormons? Those who doubt or reject the resurrection of Jesus?

Know your place, and your limitations - and stay there. No NOM has a right to speak "on behalf of all Mormons", or to judge what is "acceptable apologetics" in behalf of Mormonism.

How hard is it to understand that?

[_Drifting]

Know your place, and your limitations - and stay there. No NOM has a right to speak "on behalf of all Mormons", or to judge what is "acceptable apologetics" in behalf of Mormonism.

How hard is it to understand that?

Actually, if the human race 'knew their place and limitations and stayed there' we wouldn't be exploring the frontiers of science, space, medicine etc. It is pushing out beyond our perceived limitations that mean we enjoy the lives we do.

It is also non doctrinal to accept the status quo and not constantly strive to improve ourselves, to go beyond our comfort zone, to grow to become Gods ourselves.

Every person has a right to speak on any subject they wish, every person has a right to judge - it's called freedom of speech. You yourself in the very post I quote show yourself to be 'telling' others what they can or can't do.

[_Kishkumen]

No, I don't reject them at all. I just reject the idea that they can "speak for all Mormons", judge others who don't hold their NOM (or whatever) views as being "out of step with Mormonism", and so on. Seth refers to "us". Who is "us" Mormons? Those who doubt or reject the resurrection of Jesus?

Know your place, and your limitations - and stay there. No NOM has a right to speak "on behalf of all Mormons", or to judge what is "acceptable apologetics" in behalf of Mormonism.

How hard is it to understand that?

But you don't reject the idea that hardline crazies can speak for Mormonism, as they do without hesitation or reflection.

I hate to tell you this, Ray, but just because you capitulate to such folks does not obligate the rest of us to do so.

You should listen to Greg Prince's Mormon Stories interview in which Prince talks about "owning your own religion." In that interview he relates an exchange between Brigham Young and a prominent Mormon over a business deal gone bad.

Brigham said to this man, "So, I guess you'll apostatize now?"

The man replied, "I would if this were your church, but it is not your church. It is my church as much as it is yours."

I am actually paraphrasing here. But you get the idea. The prophet was told that the church was not his. Sethpayne and a sizeable minority of other folks stake out the same position. They refuse to allow Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Daniel Peterson, or Greg Smith to tell them that they should bugger off.

In that regard I admire Lavina Fielding Anderson. Having been excommunicated formally, she has continued to attend her local meetings on a regular basis.

Now, sethpayne's ideas may be less than mainstream on certain issues, but he owns his own religion, he is honest about his position, and he does not demand that everyone else think as he does. What he does ask, and I think he has every right to do this, is that people who undertake to represent Mormonism to the world and argue on its behalf, especially those who have not been called to do so, behave in a manner that reflects well on the Christian ethics and integrity of the membership as a whole.

That said, he is not misrepresenting the people with whom he disagrees. Their words condemn them. Gadianton has shown that Hedelius deliberately misrepresented Jackson. You have not, because you cannot, defend this lapse in scholarly integrity.

Oh, but that it were only a lapse!

Instead it represents an ingrained practice of studied and deliberate obfuscation and deception that operates on an "ends justifies the means" basis. Hedelius will excuse herself for lying because she holds her cause to be so important. In this she compromises the entire reason for having the cause in the first place.

Many people don't buy into the apocalyptic and chauvinistic parochialism that is driving a lot of this apologetic drivel and the questionable ethics that undergird it.

But, you seem to, and the argument you offer to back up your case is that you have agreed with your opponents in defining yourself out of Mormonism. Well, that's your decision, Ray. But there is no reason it has to be sethpayne's decision.

[_sethpayne]

And your finishing point. You want Mormonism to be "just another religious philosophy". Among many. Don't you. You want it shaped in your vague image of "God", rather than what it actually claims.

I think you are in full on self deception, Seth, and setting yourself up as a judge of what is "good", "right", "humanitarian" and "acceptable" in Mormonism.

Ray,

I like you. We've always gotten along and I'm really surprised that you are 1) putting words into my mouth and 2) accusing me of ulterior motives. I don't appreciate it. I try to be open and honest about who I am, what I believe, and what I hope for. That you are using my own words -- expressed in an effort to be sincere -- to try and ascribe to me certain unstated motives and characteristics is disappointing. You are trying to make this about *me* rather than the *issue* on which I commented. Let me make something abundantly clear:

Criticism of specific unsavory polemical tactics used to dismiss authors who write about Mormonism is, in reality, a defense of Mormonism.

Please go back and read my post again. You will notice that I mention, by name, several individuals who discuss Mormonism and its critics in a respectful, kind, and honest way.

Richard Bushman, Teryll Givens, Kathleen Flake and others like them have done more to produce good will towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than any nonsensical polemical tirade ever has or ever will.

Again, I like you Ray and I hope we can continue on with mutual respect. I would be very sad indeed if my use of the word "us" has made me an enemy in your eyes.

Seth

[_sethpayne]

Good critics engage in good scholarship. Chris Smith, for example.

I know you intended this as a compliment, and I thank you. I do hope, though, that I can someday shed the "critic" label.

My apologies, Chris. In an effort to quickly respond to Ray I used imprecise language and I should have been more thoughtful and careful.

Frankly, I hate the label "critic." It is divisive and unnecessary. You are a fair and honest scholar.

[_MCB]

Labels divide. And we are all just human beings.

[_Kishkumen]

Criticism of specific unsavory polemical tactics used to dismiss authors who write about Mormonism is, in reality, a defense of Mormonism.

Bingo.

Beautifully stated. This is sig worthy stuff. In fact, it should be the thesis of a blogpost somewhere.

I wonder where that would be...