Rommelator Lashes Out at Runtu, Ray A
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:57 am
Over on the aptly named MADboard, the stout and carbuncular young apologist known as "Rommelator" has written quite a bellicose and angry attack piece, aimed at our dear friend Runtu's recent blog posting.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=39471
This seems calm enough, right? Well, this facade simply cannot hold. It was this post, written by Ray A, which pushed the young Mopologist over the edge:
Now check out Rommelator's spittle-flecked "reply":
Yes, my dear Rommelator, I do have a comment. For one thing, the Church itself has not maintained an "unwavering" position on Book of Mormon historicity. Not terribly long ago, in fact, the Church reversed course in terms of the Lamanites being the "principal ancestors" of Native Americans. It has also (thanks to FARMS) changed its mind about the location of the Hill Cumorah. Does Rommelator not know that FARMS is busy re-organizing and re-crafting doctrine pertaining to Book of Mormon historicity?
Finally, I cannot help but note the apparently increasing frustration in Rommelator's post. It is very sad that he has headed down the "path of no return" towards apologetics. You can practically sense the bile and bitterness rising in him.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=39471
Rommelator wrote:On John W's blog the following comments were made:
I said:“And, as ought to be obvious, the written testimony of the eleven witnesses is not actually their testimony. It was written by Joseph Smith.”
What you must remember, John, is that the witnesses did not just sign a single piece of paper and then say nothing more about the subject. They talked a lot about their experiences throughout their lifetimes and consistently affirmed their testimony; even when they had everything to lose and nothing to gain by remaining true to their word. I am sure that you are familiar with Richard Anderson’s book on the witnesses, but I would also recommend Dan Peterson’s “Not so Easily Dismissed” essay in a previous FARMS Review as well as Dr. Anderson’s other works on the witnesses.
“Several witnesses left the church, several accused Smith of fraud, others vacillated.”
Which makes the fact that none of them denied their testimony in the Book of Mormon all the more impressive.
I am also glad that other historians (as well as lawyers, judges, etc.) are not as dismissive of historical and eyewitness testimony as Michael Baily is, otherwise we would know precious little of anything related to history. Because we can’t observe history, we must rely on eyewitness testimony more than in any other pursuit of historiography.
This seems calm enough, right? Well, this facade simply cannot hold. It was this post, written by Ray A, which pushed the young Mopologist over the edge:
(bold emphasis ibid)Rommelator wrote:Wherein one Ray Agostini replied:Ray A wrote:We can observe history. And the Book of Mormon reads like anything but history. Once you realise that, then you have to look for other interpretations about the Book of Mormon...
I started questioning it as history in the mid-80s, John, and as I’ve said before, I felt I couldn’t in all honesty teach it to my children as “history”. I felt like I was brainwashing them. But it wasn’t until the mid-90s that I felt I could no longer sustain it as history (confirming my doubts), after studying the pros and cons in more detail. Of course, like you, I’ve had many subsequent debates about this, and have been “open” to other viewpoints, mainly on FAIR. To put it bluntly, you’ve got to kid yourself bigtime to believe the Book of Mormon is history. Roberts caught on to this in the 1920s, but all the apologists have done is try to make him look like a “true believer”, while ignoring his most critical statements, or watering them down. SPIN.
And that’s the Sham. If they did like the Community of Christ, and left it open, I could respect that. But Book of Mormon historicity became a litmus test of “orthodoxy” in the case of scholars like David Wright, who was excommunicated because they would never, for one moment, even consider that people like Wright might have actually nailed it down. Oh no, “faith” comes first.
This is not truth-seeking. This is ecclesiastical bullying. Authoritarianism. You agree with us, or we “burn you at the stake”. The more thnigs change, the more they stay the same.
Now check out Rommelator's spittle-flecked "reply":
Rommelator wrote:I think that Ray's comments (especially about B. H. Robert's views on Book of Mormon historicity), quite frankly, are totally and utterly bogus.
He completely fails to understand the nature of B. H. Robert's "Study of the Book of Mormon" and, like other anti-Mormons, wants to paint him as the closet doubter who was brave enough to stand up to that big meanie Mormon Church and Trump's his book and ignores Robert's later affirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. SPIN!
Basically, he says that if someone affirms the Book of Mormon historically and thus disagree with him then they are 1) brainwashing their children 2) "kidding" yourself 3) "ecclesiastical bullying" 4) "Authoritarian" and 5) advocating violence, "burning at the stake".
John, in response, says:Yep. That’s how I see it.
Perhaps John could better explain his views, since I would hate to think that he actually holds to the spurious and disingenuous view that the Church's unwavering position on Book of Mormon historicity, indeed, the very foundation of the Church itself, is "ecclesiastical bullying".
Oh, and I would also like to see the evidence for the "burning at the stake" of those who do not hold to Book of Mormon historicity.
Comments?
Yes, my dear Rommelator, I do have a comment. For one thing, the Church itself has not maintained an "unwavering" position on Book of Mormon historicity. Not terribly long ago, in fact, the Church reversed course in terms of the Lamanites being the "principal ancestors" of Native Americans. It has also (thanks to FARMS) changed its mind about the location of the Hill Cumorah. Does Rommelator not know that FARMS is busy re-organizing and re-crafting doctrine pertaining to Book of Mormon historicity?
Finally, I cannot help but note the apparently increasing frustration in Rommelator's post. It is very sad that he has headed down the "path of no return" towards apologetics. You can practically sense the bile and bitterness rising in him.