DiscussMormonism.com

Doctor Scratch wrote:Hi there, Oxygenadam. Once again, you're dodging the issue here (plus, you're hauling in this idea of criticism being "vicious," without having ever established that any of the criticism on SHIELDS is, in fact, "vicious").

You'd have to be a hardcore apologist to see these two passages as simple "niceness," Oxygenadam. In both instances, DCP and Hamblin are establishing "set up." Their goal here isn't to have a nice, respectful conversation, since neither of them is capable of doing that with critics. Instead, their just setting up what will become a session of baiting and needling and ultimately an all-out smear war.

I have noticed that the LDS folk tend not to get "nasty" until the person with whom they're corresponding get's "nasty".

No. The behavior of the individuals involved is genuinely sickening and degenerate. It's the behavior of people who have so given themselves over to the Adversary that they can no longer recognize right from wrong.

Maybe you could provide some examples. Have you actually read any of these items? Pointing out logical and factual inconsistencies tends to get anti-Mormons all wound up, because they realize they are wrong.

Do you condone the hate ministries and their actions? I promise you, there would not be a SHIELDS if there weren't viral hate speech about my faith.

"Helpful" in what sense? You've still never explained why you or anyone else "needs" apologetic websites that are primarily aimed at attacking, smearing, and aggressively assaulting Church critics.

Helpful in that people like me, 10 years ago, can realize that this hate speech is wholly unfounded and sometimes just plain stupid. I suppose you're right, in that they are not "needed" but they are indeed helpful.

But many of the "answers" are smear-fests. I mean, come on, Oxygenadam. What "genuine answer" did you find in DCP's endless onslaught of insults against James White? I sincerely would like to know.

This thread is not about DCP. Here is a very small snippet of what I learned from the correspondence with Hamblin and White.

Hamblin wrote:Jim,

In light of our discussion on the radio Sunday night, I'd like to see your interpretation of Psalms 82. The following is my translation, upon which you may comment as you like. I am attempting to be as literal as possible.

1 Elohim stands/presides in the council/assembly ('adat) of El In the midst of the elohim he governs/passes judgement/enacts laws:

I note that you have claimed the Bible never mentions a council of the gods. It certainly seems that this is exactly what is being described here. (see, further, E. T. Mullen. The Assembly of the Gods Harvard Semitic Monographs 24 (1980)). I pose to you the following question, to which I will give what seems to me to be the obvious answer. What is the council of El? It is a group of gods/elohim. Who are these elohim, in the midst of whom elohim stands? They are (in v. 6) the sons of Elyon. How is the first elohim different from the second elohim? He presides in the council. He is the ruler of the other elohim. Why does the Hebrew use precisely the same word to describe them? Because they are the same.

It's not rude at all.

Oh, I agree. SHIELDS was the "gateway" because you needed aggressively combative and hostile Mopologetics to smear the reputations of critics. *Then* you were able to move on, but the fact remains that polemics was the Savior of the day for you.

"Mopologetics" is not a word. Hate ministers like James White do not have a "reputation" to smear, other than their un-Christian hate towards the Latter-day Saints. Do you condone such hate?

No, that's not quite what I mean. Matt Roper actually gets paid to do apologetics. The same was apparently true of John Tvedtnes (now a SHIELDS "associate"!) when he worked for FARMS.

How do you know this information? Are you simply speculating to get your point across?

The poster called "Infymus" had his private correspondence with Dr. Peterson posted to SHIELDS, and this resulted in him missing out on job opportunities. DCP needled him into getting angry, and when he finally did, Dr. Peterson posted the private emails to SHIELDS as an act of revenge.

I sincerely am sorry that an internet discussion caused someone to lose out on job prospects. But really... who's choice was it to get angry?

Oh WAAAH! So Sandra Tanner got confronted at her place of business and asked some challenging questions concerning what her place of business sells. After 20 years of spewing hate filled poison from her lips and defiling someone's sacred held belief's with her mighty pen? You know... someone had a timely quote for this:

Richard Vernon wrote:Don't mess with the bull, young man, you'll get the horns!

Interesting. Which part of the Gospel principals does this notion of justice relate to, Oxygenadam?[/quote]

They confronted Sandra Tanner at her PLACE OF BUSINESS with some challenging questions concerning ITEMS HER BUSINESS SELLS. I do not see "justice" happening here. Jerald kicked them out because Sandra could not answer their questions and got frustrated with them. It's not like they came to her house. The came to the Tanner's cesspool of hate (UTLM), and challenged them on some issues. Boo freaking hoo!

And please please tell me what part of "Christianity" allows for the publishing of, and setting up an entire business dedicated to pure, unadulterated HATE? Do you think the savior would approve of this behavior?

It was meant to smear him and to paint him in a negative light.

Oh, you mean like he smeared and painted my faith in a negative light his whole life?

I'm sure that even you can see how this was a cheap shot. I mean, do you think that trash-talking the deceased is an A-okay ethical practice? Do you think the Savior would approve of that behavior?

I can see how this is a "cheap shot" and SHIELDS probably shouldn't have put it on their website.

Would you spread gossip and innuendo in order to try and destroy the reputation of an honest historian?

Who are you talking about, Quinn?

Yep.

I can't comment much about Quinn, because I haven't read all that much about him. I do know this: there are honest historians all over the place who did not get ex-communicated for their writings. See Juanita Brooks, for example.

Would you lie about getting paid to do apologetics so that you can continue to claim that "anti-Mormon" ministries are "well-funded"?

Definitely not, and I know of no one who has.

Dr. Peterson has dissembled about this repeatedly, even in some of those archived SHIELDS exchanges.

I can't speak for him, of course.

The moral of this story is the above quote: Don't mess with the bull, you'll get the horns.

oxygenadam wrote:
The moral of this story is the above quote: Don't mess with the bull

Regarding your metaphor for Mormon apologetics, you seem to be missing the second half of your compound word.

OS wrote:If the Ensign were a publication with the sole purpose of distributing hate material against a particular faith, the correspondence is more than justified. It is not until the hate ministers get nasty that the LDS folks get nasty.

But the question was whether the response was respectful -- as you claimed. Now you are moving the goal posts.

OS wrote:But again, are you suggesting that hateful and mis-representative material be published about a particular faith, and that faith is unethical for responding to it? Preposterous!

Are you suggesting that the ethics of hateful ministers contracting for the devil determine the ethics of LDS apologists? That's an enlightening suggestion if it is true. Tell me: do the scriptures teach you to adopt the ethics of your adversaries?

OS wrote:People learn in different ways. Some like the approach of SHIELDS, while some prefer the approach of FAIR. Others aren't helped by apologetic point/counterpoint at all, and look to scholarly outlets like the Maxwell Institute. Personally, I went through all of these stages.

Right, I can agree with this. Some people learn best from the serious study of scholarship, others learn best from the juvenile antics and smear campaigns of the apologists. Apparently, your testimony set out on the road to recovery after enjoying the underhanded cheap shots of SHIELDS, as Doctor Scratch observed.

It sounds like you are arguing that the ends of testimony strengthening justify the means. If cheap shots and polemics help a TBM remain faithful, that's all good with you, the end result is achieved. Now, are you willing to consider that if indeed counter-cult ministries engage in cheap shots and misrepresentation -- and I'm not claiming that they do, I believe they are far more ethical than the apologists give them credit -- that they are merely doing what you claim is right by teaching according to the learning style of their audience?

oxygenadam wrote:I have noticed that the LDS folk tend not to get "nasty" until the person with whom they're corresponding get's "nasty".

I haven't noticed that. In fact, I doubt that your argument has much real support. Feel free to supply factual examples demonstrating your claim.

No. The behavior of the individuals involved is genuinely sickening and degenerate. It's the behavior of people who have so given themselves over to the Adversary that they can no longer recognize right from wrong.

Maybe you could provide some examples.

Okay, here's one which Dr. Hamblin posted to the FAIR blog:

Bill Hamblin wrote:I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count 'em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they're a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it's because he's a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn't I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can't get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I'm not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts.

Pretty foul and disgusting, imho.

Do you condone the hate ministries and their actions? I promise you, there would not be a SHIELDS if there weren't viral hate speech about my faith.

I'm not sure which "hate ministries" you're referring to. In your initial post from the aptly named MADboard, you mentioned that your testimony had been shaken by critical materials, which leads me to believe that the "ministries" weren't "hateful," per se, but were merely pointing out problems and inconsistencies in Church doctrine and teachings.

Perhaps you could quote an example of this supposed "hate" you're referring to?

"Helpful" in what sense? You've still never explained why you or anyone else "needs" apologetic websites that are primarily aimed at attacking, smearing, and aggressively assaulting Church critics.

Helpful in that people like me, 10 years ago, can realize that this hate speech is wholly unfounded and sometimes just plain stupid. I suppose you're right, in that they are not "needed" but they are indeed helpful.

Well, I think it's weird that smear tactics and aggressive polemics somehow adds up to deconstruction of critical arguments....but, hey---whatever works, I guess.

This thread is not about DCP. Here is a very small snippet of what I learned from the correspondence with Hamblin and White.

Hamblin wrote:Jim,

In light of our discussion on the radio Sunday night, I'd like to see your interpretation of Psalms 82. The following is my translation, upon which you may comment as you like. I am attempting to be as literal as possible.

1 Elohim stands/presides in the council/assembly ('adat) of El In the midst of the elohim he governs/passes judgement/enacts laws:

I note that you have claimed the Bible never mentions a council of the gods. It certainly seems that this is exactly what is being described here. (see, further, E. T. Mullen. The Assembly of the Gods Harvard Semitic Monographs 24 (1980)). I pose to you the following question, to which I will give what seems to me to be the obvious answer. What is the council of El? It is a group of gods/elohim. Who are these elohim, in the midst of whom elohim stands? They are (in v. 6) the sons of Elyon. How is the first elohim different from the second elohim? He presides in the council. He is the ruler of the other elohim. Why does the Hebrew use precisely the same word to describe them? Because they are the same.

It's not rude at all.

That's debatable. I'm guessing that this is Hamblin's way of countering the mainstream Christian critique of LDS polytheism. But Dr. Hamblin's point is kind of dumb, since it dodges a lot of the main problems that most non-LDS Christians have with LDS theology. Hamblin is playing a sophist's game here. So in a sense, he would have been better off being rude, because at least then he wouldn't be doing something bordering on gross dishonesty.

Oh, I agree. SHIELDS was the "gateway" because you needed aggressively combative and hostile Mopologetics to smear the reputations of critics. *Then* you were able to move on, but the fact remains that polemics was the Savior of the day for you.

"Mopologetics" is not a word.

Sure it is. You can see some of the principal people from MAD, FAIR, and the MI using it in Kerry Shirts's video of last year's FAIR Conference. It absolutely is a word.

Hate ministers like James White do not have a "reputation" to smear, other than their un-Christian hate towards the Latter-day Saints. Do you condone such hate?

Please demonstrate with facts and clear examples that what you're referring to is genuine "hate," as opposed to, say, Christian concern and legitimate criticism. I want to see something that is along the lines of Professor Hamblin's epithet-laced tirade, which I quoted above.

No, that's not quite what I mean. Matt Roper actually gets paid to do apologetics. The same was apparently true of John Tvedtnes (now a SHIELDS "associate"!) when he worked for FARMS.

How do you know this information? Are you simply speculating to get your point across?

Because DCP said so.

The poster called "Infymus" had his private correspondence with Dr. Peterson posted to SHIELDS, and this resulted in him missing out on job opportunities. DCP needled him into getting angry, and when he finally did, Dr. Peterson posted the private emails to SHIELDS as an act of revenge.

I sincerely am sorry that an internet discussion caused someone to lose out on job prospects. But really... who's choice was it to get angry?

Do you apply the same logic to the anger of the apologists?

They confronted Sandra Tanner at her PLACE OF BUSINESS with some challenging questions concerning ITEMS HER BUSINESS SELLS. I do not see "justice" happening here. Jerald kicked them out because Sandra could not answer their questions and got frustrated with them. It's not like they came to her house. The came to the Tanner's cesspool of hate (UTLM), and challenged them on some issues. Boo freaking hoo!

It seems you have your facts wrong. For one thing, Midgley and Roper were asking S. Tanner about carrying titles penned by D. Michael Quinn. Midgley was trying to make the extraordinarily stupid and tenuous argument that carrying books by openly homosexual authors equates to full and open support of homosexuality itself. Midgley very aggressively pressed this line of questioning upon Mrs. Tanner, until he was eventually asked to leave. In the entire history of the UTLM, the Tanners have only "ejected" two people (well, three if you count Roper): Midgley, and Darrick Evenson. So, I guess Prof. Midgley is in good company, eh?

And please please tell me what part of "Christianity" allows for the publishing of, and setting up an entire business dedicated to pure, unadulterated HATE?

I don't know. You'd have to ask Stan Barker.

Would you spread gossip and innuendo in order to try and destroy the reputation of an honest historian?

Who are you talking about, Quinn?

Yep.

I can't comment much about Quinn, because I haven't read all that much about him. I do know this: there are honest historians all over the place who did not get ex-communicated for their writings. See Juanita Brooks, for example.

Juanita Brooks was shunned by her fellow LDS. And you're ignoring my point about Mopologists and smear tactics.

Oxy, you should really read more about Juanita Brooks. Levi Peterson's Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian is a good place to start; you should also read her correspondence with Dale Morgan, some of his side of their letters can be found here: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/da ... etitle.htm

A trip to the Juanita Brooks Papers in the University of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections is also very rewarding, if you are near enough to access it.

Juanita Brooks has far more in common with Mike Quinn than people like Lou Midgley or Daniel Peterson.

Gadianton wrote:

OS wrote:If the Ensign were a publication with the sole purpose of distributing hate material against a particular faith, the correspondence is more than justified. It is not until the hate ministers get nasty that the LDS folks get nasty.

But the question was whether the response was respectful -- as you claimed. Now you are moving the goal posts.

I stand by my position that I see nothing disrespectful in the initial correspondence. There is probably some baiting, but again, don't put up a website for the purpose of attacking someone's faith if you don't want to get challenged about it. It's just stupid.

Are you suggesting that the ethics of hateful ministers contracting for the devil determine the ethics of LDS apologists? That's an enlightening suggestion if it is true. Tell me: do the scriptures teach you to adopt the ethics of your adversaries?

They are not "contracting for the devil" but their actions are evil, in my opinion.
I do not consider myself an apologist -- an apologist knows a lot more than I know.
Apologists do not speak for the Church, and what they say or do is not official doctrine (cue the "get out of jail free card"). So what the scriptures say and what apologists do sometimes do not perfectly align.

Do the scriptures tell these "Christian" ministries to attack the faith of other people? Let us not slip into a double standard here.

Right, I can agree with this. Some people learn best from the serious study of scholarship, others learn best from the juvenile antics and smear campaigns of the apologists. Apparently, your testimony set out on the road to recovery after enjoying the underhanded cheap shots of SHIELDS, as Doctor Scratch observed.

I can see that I am not communicating my point clearly enough. Let me say it again: SHIELDS was the first site I came across when searching for "Response to Mormon" at the time (2000 or 2001), it was the first link, looked interesting, and I clicked on it. It opened the door for me to apologetics and scholarship. What Stan Barker chooses to do with his website is up to him, not me.

It sounds like you are arguing that the ends of testimony strengthening justify the means. If cheap shots and polemics help a TBM remain faithful, that's all good with you, the end result is achieved.

In some small way, they did help, because I saw that the viscousness of anti-Mormonism had met its match.

Now, are you willing to consider that if indeed counter-cult ministries engage in cheap shots and misrepresentation -- and I'm not claiming that they do, I believe they are far more ethical than the apologists give them credit -- that they are merely doing what you claim is right by teaching according to the learning style of their audience?

The problem with this assertion, in my opinion, is that attacking the faith of another group of people is always wrong. It is evil, mean spirited, and perhaps worst of all, against the teachings of Christianity. Every apologist I've read did not attack any faith, but defended their own. That is far more noble.

Doctor Scratch wrote:

oxygenadam wrote:I have noticed that the LDS folk tend not to get "nasty" until the person with whom they're corresponding get's "nasty".

I haven't noticed that. In fact, I doubt that your argument has much real support. Feel free to supply factual examples demonstrating your claim.

Do you even read the material on the SHIELDS website? I'm not going to do the homework for you on this one, it's all right there, online, at shields-research.org.

Okay, here's one which Dr. Hamblin posted to the FAIR blog:

Bill Hamblin wrote:...Kikes...

Pretty foul and disgusting, imho.

Nice try. Hamblin was demonstrating that if you replace "Morgbots," and other derogatory names for Latter-day saints with the word "Kike" it would seem astoundingly bigoted. Yet, on the recovery from Mormonism board, this is the very paragraph that was said about Mormons. So, again, nice try, but this actually hurts your argument.

Heres the link: http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/The ... space.html

Do you condone the hate ministries and their actions? I promise you, there would not be a SHIELDS if there weren't viral hate speech about my faith.

I'm not sure which "hate ministries" you're referring to. In your initial post from the aptly named MADboard, you mentioned that your testimony had been shaken by critical materials, which leads me to believe that the "ministries" weren't "hateful," per se, but were merely pointing out problems and inconsistencies in Church doctrine and teachings.

Perhaps you could quote an example of this supposed "hate" you're referring to?

Again, there is no need to do the homework for you on something as blatantly obvious. Just read Hamblin's quote above, but replace "Kike" with "Morg" and "Morgbot" and you'll return to the actual post on the RfM boards.

Well, I think it's weird that smear tactics and aggressive polemics somehow adds up to deconstruction of critical arguments....but, hey---whatever works, I guess.

It doesn't add up in the way you've constructed it. It allowed me to see that apologetics exist, which eventually led me to serious scholarship and deconstruction of critical arguments. Please try not to misrepresent me.

That's debatable. I'm guessing that this is Hamblin's way of countering the mainstream Christian critique of LDS polytheism. But Dr. Hamblin's point is kind of dumb, since it dodges a lot of the main problems that most non-LDS Christians have with LDS theology. Hamblin is playing a sophist's game here. So in a sense, he would have been better off being rude, because at least then he wouldn't be doing something bordering on gross dishonesty.

The content is irrelevant at this point. We were trying to determine if it was rude or not to start a conversation in this way. Perhaps you have a nicer, more sugar-coated way to start a conversation with what you no doubt perceive as the overly-sensitive "Dr." White.

Hate ministers like James White do not have a "reputation" to smear, other than their un-Christian hate towards the Latter-day Saints. Do you condone such hate?

Please demonstrate with facts and clear examples that what you're referring to is genuine "hate," as opposed to, say, Christian concern and legitimate criticism. I want to see something that is along the lines of Professor Hamblin's epithet-laced tirade, which I quoted above.

Christian concern? LOL. If you want to see something that is along the lines of Professor Hamblin's epithet-laced tirade, change all instances of "Kike" and "Kikes" to "Morg" and "Morgbots" -- then you'll have the actual post by a hate monger from RfM.

No, that's not quite what I mean. Matt Roper actually gets paid to do apologetics. The same was apparently true of John Tvedtnes (now a SHIELDS "associate"!) when he worked for FARMS.

How do you know this information? Are you simply speculating to get your point across?

Because DCP said so.

NOW you believe him? I'm confused... which is he, a liar or a truth teller?

At any rate, if there are one or two defenders of my faith who are paid by BYU, when compared to the many ministries of hate against my religion, I am actually happy about it.

I sincerely am sorry that an internet discussion caused someone to lose out on job prospects. But really... who's choice was it to get angry?

Do you apply the same logic to the anger of the apologists?

Yes. It is always that person's ultimate choice to react in a certain way.

They confronted Sandra Tanner at her PLACE OF BUSINESS with some challenging questions concerning ITEMS HER BUSINESS SELLS. I do not see "justice" happening here. Jerald kicked them out because Sandra could not answer their questions and got frustrated with them. It's not like they came to her house. The came to the Tanner's cesspool of hate (UTLM), and challenged them on some issues. Boo freaking hoo!

It seems you have your facts wrong. For one thing, Midgley and Roper were asking S. Tanner about carrying titles penned by D. Michael Quinn. Midgley was trying to make the extraordinarily stupid and tenuous argument that carrying books by openly homosexual authors equates to full and open support of homosexuality itself. Midgley very aggressively pressed this line of questioning upon Mrs. Tanner, until he was eventually asked to leave. In the entire history of the UTLM, the Tanners have only "ejected" two people (well, three if you count Roper): Midgley, and Darrick Evenson. So, I guess Prof. Midgley is in good company, eh?

you're going to have to provide a link to where I can read about it, because it's not on SHIELDS. The one on SHIELDS is this:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/TannrIn2.htm

And it has nothing to do with Quinn.

And please please tell me what part of "Christianity" allows for the publishing of, and setting up an entire business dedicated to pure, unadulterated HATE?

I don't know. You'd have to ask Stan Barker.

*ZING!*

SHIELDS isn't a business. It's a website. It has no income. You act like this little website of which hardly anyone knows about is the most threatening thing to your way of life.

oxygenadam wrote:In some small way, they did help, because I saw that the viscousness of anti-Mormonism had met its match.

Whatever happened to turn the other cheek? Whatever happened to love our enemies? Now we meet viciousness with our own viciousness? How is that helpful? How is that furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ?

(you realize what viscousness is... right?)

harmony wrote:

Whatever happened to turn the other cheek? Whatever happened to love our enemies? Now we meet viciousness with our own viciousness? How is that helpful? How is that furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Sadly, these supposedly "Christian" virtues do not exist in these supposedly "Christian" ministries. A few random headlines from some of these "ministries" ...

Ed Decker's website

Sinister Sites -- Temple Square, Utah
While this place may seem holy and wholesome, a closer look at the structures reveal the presence of occult, pagan and masonic symbols. A deeper study of those grounds only adds to the controversy regarding Mormonism and reveals the disturbing truth about its real god.

Adolf Hitler and Mormonism

Mormons BAPTIZE NOTORIOUS KILLERS


And at Walter Martin Ministries:

The Confusion of Mormonism

From UTLM:

How the LDS Husband Hopes to Resurrect His Wife According to the LDS Temple Ceremony

Mormon Claims Answered


I could go on, and on, and on. Is this Christian to you? Where in the Bible does it say to attack someone else's faith?

And instead of sitting on the sidelines, some LDS members (not the church itself) have decided that enough is enough. So what?

(you realize what viscousness is... right?)

You're right, viscousness is the wrong word to use when talking about apologetics. Apologetics is correcting the misrepresentations of hate ministries like those of Decker, McKeever, Martin, Tanner, etc.

Apologetics is correcting the misrepresentations of hate ministries like those of Decker, McKeever, Martin, Tanner, etc.

No, that is also the role of good counter-apologetics. We are not all like that. Sensationalism does not get the job done. Rational inquiry does, especially because we are right.