DiscussMormonism.com

Chap wrote:The 'professors' in question here are of course those who profess belief in the doctrines of the sects Joseph Smith asked about joining. Smith tells us that his deity said that these people of other faiths were "corrupt", and that their hearts were far from him.

Now oxgenadam fails to say anything to reduce the obvious effect of this very strong attack by Joseph Smith on the members of several faith groups at once. Presumably therefore he feels it does not matter.

JS-H 1:19 wrote: 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Chap wrote:I don't feel the need to add much in reply to oxygenadam's comments on my post above. Some of what he says seems to be addressed to Scratch rather than myself in any case. Interested readers (if there are any) can easily guess my likely response to the points where he does address me.

It is the creeds that we find wrong. We do not subscribe to 4th or 5th century thinking about the nature of God. We claim to have firsthand knowledge of the nature of God.

Yup, the term 'abomination' makes that clear. And that point about 'first-hand knowledge' is familiar ground too.

But what about the statement, from the mouth of the LDS deity himself that

those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Now oxgenadam fails to say anything to reduce the obvious effect of this very strong attack by Joseph Smith on the members of several faith groups at once. Presumably therefore he feels it does not matter.

So does that mean that if (say) a Catholic priest was to say today that those who believe in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS were "all corrupt" and that their hearts were "far from" his deity, oxygenadam would have no problem with that? If not, there would seem to be a double standard at work.

oxygenadam wrote:You'd have to show me where Joseph Smith published a book entitled Protestant Christian Delusions and Monstrosities, or some other anti-Protestant work. He didn't. He simply wrote what God told him.

You'd have to show me where Joseph Smith tarred and feathered, slandered, and persecuted other faiths. He didn't.

So I do not accept that he was anti-other faiths.

oxygenadam wrote:Doctor Scratch, are you Lyle Slaughter, author of MormonZeitgeist.com?

Much of what I said, many others would agree, qualifies as hate in any sense of the word. No one can prove the mind of someone, but we can make an educated guess based on what they've published, how they've conducted themselves at General Conference, etc. That is why I believe the Tanners hate the CoJCoLDS (probably not the people themselves, that wasn't my claim). I mean, honestly, do they like that institution? Who would think such a thing, based on their publications?

Oh? And where's the proof? The statement from DCP?

It's much more than a statement. It is not merely correspondence on an Internet forum, or an e-mail, It's in a published document that you linked me to

The rest of FARMS, along with the Maxwell Institute as a whole, follows conventional peer review. -- Daniel C. Peterson, The Witchcraft Paradigm.

This is not the same as "because DCP said so." This proves, based on your own reference that you were wrong. FARMS/MI is a scholarly institution that, as a whole, follows conventional peer review.

Wow! Look at you erupting with anger, stooping to this sort of tactic! You must really be desperate, oxygenadam.

That wasn't anger, that was surprise that you could have missed such a claim so damning as this one.

It would show that you're genuinely interested in exploring these topics, and not just engaged in polemical warfare.

How are you going to participate in it if you're banned?

I'm just trying to have a discussion here. I know you're probably used to winning every debate on this board, because people eventually get tired of you polemics and sophistry, but I am more interested in actual discussion.

Let me ask you:

Do you think that material that is critical of the LDS faith should go uncontested?

oxygenadam wrote: I think it's morally wrong to publish an anti-any faith group book, but people are still allowed to do it. That's why we need apologetics.

If you tell me your in real life name, I'll answer your question. You need to answer here on the board, though.

There is a difference between "dislike," "have a problem with," "feel critical towards," and "hate", oxygenadam. That's what you don't seem to understand. To you, *all* of the cited material on SHIELDS is "vicious hate," which I think you'll have to concede is an extremely problematic statement

f I published DCP's comments on Matt Roper in a journal---Dialog, say---would you suddenly accept them as "proof" that Roper is a paid employee of the Maxwell Institute?

It would prove me wrong if DCP were telling the truth, but I know for a fact that he's not. The evidence, buried amidst Dr. P.'s usual equivocations, is right there in the article. I guess you must have missed it, eh? Or do you not know how peer review works?

Lol. Sure. I know that I always use larger font and flame-red text when I'm "surprised."

The same way I participate in back-and-forths with Dr. Peterson.

Then prove it: go and launch the thread on the aptly named MADboard. Don't forget to include the material I requested re: Dr. Peterson's large compensation for Mopologetics.

In general, yes. I think that, rather than fighting and attacking, the Church should instead try to address the criticism and improve itself.

ROFL! Oh, look at you go! Why limit it to a "book," oxygenadam? Why not include....oh, I don't know....emails or messageboard notes such as those posted to SHIELDS? Gee, might there be a reason you want to limit this kind of morality to books?

oxygenadam wrote:

If you tell me your in real life name, I'll answer your question. You need to answer here on the board, though.

Really? I have to tell you my in real life name for you to answer a simple yes or no question?

There is a difference between "dislike," "have a problem with," "feel critical towards," and "hate", oxygenadam. That's what you don't seem to understand. To you, *all* of the cited material on SHIELDS is "vicious hate," which I think you'll have to concede is an extremely problematic statement

It could be problematic to you, who, no doubt, feels that *all* of the apologists are more vicious than any anti-Mormon.

But if we were to take a consensus, I believe my my view would win the majority vote, and here's why:

Let's hypothetically place the late Jerald Tanner, Sandra Tanner, Bill McKeever, Ed Decker, James White, and the late Walter Martin in a room together. A room atop a high structure where everything can be seen. This structure overlooks Temple square.

Let's then hypothetically say that all of these people, witnessed at the same time, the complete and utter destruction of the institution known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No person was harmed.

What do you think would be their reaction and thoughts? I really see two choices here, perhaps you can see more:

a) They would rejoice because the non-Christian institution that they have/had tried to take down their whole lives has finally been destroyed.
b) They would be sad/angry because their publications will no longer have meaning -- in short, they will lose their jobs.

I personally believe (a) because I have read a lot of their publications and interactions with Mormons. I cannot read any of their minds, but I base this off their fruits.

Wanting to destroy something can be nothing but hatred for it.

f I published DCP's comments on Matt Roper in a journal---Dialog, say---would you suddenly accept them as "proof" that Roper is a paid employee of the Maxwell Institute?

I would accept that as a valid reference, yes. I would also accept that as as much proof as one can give without actually reviewing Matt's salary.

But again, you made the claim. Can you back it up?

It would prove me wrong if DCP were telling the truth, but I know for a fact that he's not. The evidence, buried amidst Dr. P.'s usual equivocations, is right there in the article. I guess you must have missed it, eh? Or do you not know how peer review works?

So now he's lying and telling the truth in the same article.

The part in which he is telling the truth, conveniently supports your claim, and the part in which he is lying conveniently supports your claim. Got it. You can't back it up.

The same way I participate in back-and-forths with Dr. Peterson.

How mysterious! Are you a registered and in good standing user on MA&D?

Then prove it: go and launch the thread on the aptly named MADboard. Don't forget to include the material I requested re: Dr. Peterson's large compensation for Mopologetics.

You launch it. I'm not going to do your bidding.

In general, yes. I think that, rather than fighting and attacking, the Church should instead try to address the criticism and improve itself.

Address the criticism how? Wouldn't that necessitate some form of apologetics?

I am not really sure what you're getting at. Books are one example, websites are another, personal e-mail exchanges are another. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to attack another group of people and not expect to get challenged.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Yep.

No... It's problematic because it's an inaccurate distortion on your part. Criticism from Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe is very different from criticism by, say, Ed Decker.

Similarly: the material you cited form SHIELDS is not all of a piece, and yet you branded all of it as "vicious hatred" in an unfortunate attempt to defend the "immoral" behavior of the Mopologists.

You're view is that two wrongs make a right, so I rather doubt that you'd win.

Where is your evidence that critics want to "destroy" the Church rather than change it or improve it?

But again, you made the claim. Can you back it up?
...
Lol. Gee, I don't know, can I? Why don't you look up Roper's MI bio on the MI's website. Oh, wait---I know why: because if you do, you'll have to come up with some other excuse/explanation as to how he doesn't really, "actually" get paid. He's somehow a "resident scholar," and yet I guess he supports himself on nothing. Maybe DCP and Midgley divide up loaves of bread and fish for Roper?

The part in which he is telling the truth, conveniently supports your claim, and the part in which he is lying conveniently supports your claim. Got it. You can't back it up.

No... That's not correct. I thought you said you were interested in a conversation? I recall asking you about peer review, and how well you understood the process.... Oh, well, I guess it isn't important in the long run.

The same way I participate in back-and-forths with Dr. Peterson.

I'm not permitted to post there. But you've already admitted that you can't/won't do the thread. That's fine. It says a lot, I think.

No, it would involve the General Authorities stepping up to the plate and addressing some of the problems and concerns in the Church. Take the Church's secret finances, for example. We don't need Mopologists for the Church to open up its books. An attitude of transparency and openness would immediately address this particular criticism.

Well, then, the Church deserves to be attacked, since it has been "attacking" groups of people for decades. I guess you feel that the GLBT marches against LDS temples in the wake of Prop 8 was entirely justified, and that the Church's perpetuation of "vicious hate" against same-sex couples needed to be challenged.

Around and around your argument goes; an eye-for-an-eye justice is fine and dandy right until everyone winds up blind. The bottom line is that you cannot justify the activities of the Mopologists without sacrificing your own morality and ethics. If the critics are evil and fueled by "vicious hatred," then so are the apologists.

oxygenadam wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:Yep.

How about you disclose your in real life name, if I do first?

No... It's problematic because it's an inaccurate distortion on your part. Criticism from Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe is very different from criticism by, say, Ed Decker.

Are Metcalfe and Vogel considered by you, to be "Mopologists" or is that a term you only apply to the more in-your-face style apologists?

No, it isn't. You asked for references and I gave them. You never requested that they be "all of a piece."

You're view is that two wrongs make a right, so I rather doubt that you'd win.

If justified, it is sometimes necessary. Like putting criminals behind bars. It's cruel, but necessary.

Where is your evidence that critics want to "destroy" the Church rather than change it or improve it?

Change it to what? Another of the thousands of clones of Protestant Christianity? I do not believe that is their agenda.

Please show me, on the MI biography for Matthew Roper where it says "resident apologist" or "apologist" at all. Your claim was that he got paid to be an apologist, are you saying that "Scholar" and "Apologist" are synonyms?

No... That's not correct. I thought you said you were interested in a conversation? I recall asking you about peer review, and how well you understood the process.... Oh, well, I guess it isn't important in the long run.

I have a fairly good understanding of what it means to be peer reviewed.

It's not that I can't. It's that I am not going to simply because you want me to jump through another of your hoops. You are free to start a new account there and begin such a thread.

Instead of posting on this message board, ridiculing Mormonism and LDS apologists, why don't you do something productive like write a letter to the General Authorities? Or, how about being the change you want to see in the Church?

The LDS church is allowed to stand up for what it believes in.

Please show me where members of the LDS faith heckled, harassed, or otherwise directly disturbed people with same-gender attraction.

And what is this "for decades" the proposition 8 ordeal did not last ten years.

Doctor Scratch wrote:stuff...