The MADhouse on Sunstone

[_Cicero]

I just noticed this thread on MD&D : http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58336-vote-on-the-first-vision-at-sunstone/

It starts with a discussion of a particular panel on the first vision (the panelists were Dan Vogel, Mark Thomas, Todd Compton, and John-Charles Duffy). A multitude of posters then start mocking Vogel and Sunstone in general. CaliforniaKid then jumps on to defend Sunstone, and a massive MADhouse pile-on ensues. It's a very depressing read.

Here a couple of gems:

I really must say, this session represents the exaltation of nincompoopery that is the stock in trade at Sunstone.

I see Bill hasn't changed much in the last 15 years.

Really, I don't understand the problem here. We all agree, surely, that not everything said in every First Vision account is historical. There are a couple of points at which they explicitly contradict each other. So as we seek to harmonize the accounts, why not have a little fun while we're at it? Is fun so sinful that one can't have it without being labeled an idiot or a nincompoop?

Fun is fun. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as nincompoopery.

I'm not familiar with Thomas or Duffy. I am not a huge Vogel fan, but Todd Compton is most definitely NOT a nincompoop and Bill should know better than to insinuate such a thing. His arrogance is still astonishing.

You do realize, of course, that "the Sunstone leadership" doesn't assign the topics. People design their own sessions, and Sunstone just says yes or no. Being the good-natured folk they are, they almost never say no. Especially to a group as distinguished as the presenters on this panel. If TBMs aren't proposing faith-promoting sessions, they have only themselves to blame for missing a tailor-made missionary opportunity with a captive audience.

Here's a thought: At the next Sunstone confab, let the anti-Mormons hash out the various contradictory naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon and then vote on the one they like the most.

I just want to say, for the record, that the bigotry on display in this thread is an embarrassment to the Church, the board, and the entire enterprise of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion. It's a helpful reminder of why I stopped posting here. I think I'll return to that policy starting right now.

I'm sure you can all just imagine the howling and calumnies that ensued for the next 10 pages after that remark. I could choose so many examples, but I'll just go with this one from KevinG (a moderator no less):

This from a man who posts on Mormon boards with a monkey in a mortar board.

What's most interesting to me is that I believe that the church is trying to tell these guys something, and they clearly aren't listening. I most certainly could be wrong, and I don't have evidence for this other than DCP's firing, but it does also fit a historical pattern. Those familiar with the "September 6" know, for example, that there were many subtle (and occasionally not so subtle) messages sent from church headquarters before the actual excommunications took place.

Just for the record KevinG, monkeys are smarter than dogs (KevinG uses a dog as his avatar).

[_sock puppet]

I don't know why CK slums it over there at the MADhouse. They're incorrigible.

[_Chap]

I don't know why CK slums it over there at the MADhouse. They're incorrigible.

I think he finds it hard to give up hope that if you disagree with unreasonable people in a nice calm way they may learn something and change a little.

[_Hades]

I don't know why CK slums it over there at the MADhouse. They're incorrigible.

The nicompoopery is most astonishing.

[_bcspace]

I really must say, this session represents the exaltation of nincompoopery that is the stock in trade at Sunstone.

I see Bill hasn't changed much in the last 15 years.

I see Sunstone hasn't changed in 30.

[_Fence Sitter]

I don't know why CK slums it over there at the MADhouse. They're incorrigible.

SP,

I suspect that as a non-LDS Mormon studies scholar he finds that board to be somewhere he can find the most radical reactions to his work and opinions. What I find impressive is his ability to maintain an even temperament dealing with the likes of Hamblin and Co. Evey time I read exchanges between CK and others over there I am struck by how well he exemplifies the behavior the LDS defenders are supposed to exhibit.

[_Chap]

I don't know why CK slums it over there at the MADhouse. They're incorrigible.

The nicompoopery is most astonishing.

It is now at an astonishing fourteen pages of ravings about the evilness of anti-mormons, all of whom are steeped in misery into which they wish to drag others, etc. etc. I think Chris Smith bailed about page 3 - a wise monkey, that one!

[_Abaddon]

I don't know why CK slums it over there at the MADhouse. They're incorrigible.

SP,

I suspect that as a non-LDS Mormon studies scholar he finds that board to be somewhere he can find the most radical reactions to his work and opinions. What I find impressive is his ability to maintain an even temperament dealing with the likes of Hamblin and Co. Evey time I read exchanges between CK and others over there I am struck by how well he exemplifies the behavior the LDS defenders are supposed to exhibit.

+1000

CK is a class act. I've thought the same thing watching him interact with those that should hold themselves to a higher standard. To be truthful, most of the FAIRisees do hold themselves to a higher standard...just not the Christian one.

[_Blixa]

I just noticed this thread on MD&D : http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58336-vote-on-the-first-vision-at-sunstone/

It starts with a discussion of a particular panel on the first vision (the panelists were Dan Vogel, Mark Thomas, Todd Compton, and John-Charles Duffy). A multitude of posters then start mocking Vogel and Sunstone in general. CaliforniaKid then jumps on to defend Sunstone, and a massive MADhouse pile-on ensues. It's a very depressing read.

John-Charles Duffy once wrote a very interesting article on Mormon apologetics that you can read here.

To encourage you to read through it, let me highlight some of the interesting material in the notes--some commentary especially interesting in light of recent discussions of apologetic behavior:

27. For example: Peterson derides Sandra Tanner at some length for asserting (in his words) that “Latter-day Saints [are] more Hindu than Christian” or that “the faith of the Latter-day Saints is as much Hindu as Christian.” Since when, Peterson retorts, have Mormons worshipped Vishnu, revered the Vedas, or taught karma and reincarnation? (“Skin Deep,” 100–01; “In the Land of the Lotus Eaters,” vi). But Tanner never said that the religious content of Mormonism resembles that of Hinduism. Rather, she asserted that Mormon “theology is as close to Christianity as Hinduism”—i.e., that Mormonism, like Hinduism, should be viewed as a non-Christian religion (quoted in Peterson, “Skin Deep,” 100). Either Peterson is knowingly mischaracterizing Tanner to his readers for the sake of scoring points at her expense, or his eagerness to ridicule her has clouded his ability to recognize what she is actually saying.

28. Example: In response to Douglas F. Salmon’s critique of Hugh Nibley’s “parallelomania,” Hamblin accuses Salmon of misreading Nibley: “Salmon first insists that Nibley claims that the seventh-century Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan contains ‘perhaps the oldest Adam traditions.’” To show that this is a misreading, Hamblin then quotes Nibley, who wrote: “Perhaps the oldest Adam traditions are those collected from all over the ancient East at a very early time, which have reached us in later Ethiopian and Arabic manuscripts under the title of ‘The Combat of Adam and Eve against Satan.’” Hamblin continues: “From Nibley’s entire statement in context, it is quite clear that Nibley recognizes that the Ethiopian and Arabic Combat is not itself the oldest tradition but is in part a collection of earlier Adam material, a fact on which all scholars agree.” But Salmon didn’t say that Nibley claimed Combat “is . . . the oldest tradition” (my emphasis). Salmon said, in Hamblin’s words, that Nibley claimed Combat “contains ‘perhaps the oldest Adam traditions’” (my emphasis)—a perfectly accurate paraphrase of Nibley as quoted by Hamblin. I have to conclude either that Hamblin is misrepresenting Salmon (and perhaps also Nibley) for the sake of appearing to have made a sound rebuttal, or that Hamblin’s zeal to defend Nibley has led him to make what he sincerely, but mistakenly, believes is a sound rebuttal. William J. Hamblin, “Joseph or Jung? AResponse to Douglas Salmon,” FARMS Review 13, no. 2 (2001): 95–96.

29. See note 23 (above), where Peterson “admit[s]” that Howsepian’s article made him angry. Similarly, Robert Millet reports that his first reaction to the revisionist scholarship of the Jesus Seminar “was a form of quiet rage: How dare they? Who do they think they are? What audacity to suppose that they know enough about our Lord and Savior to set us straight, to tell the world what Jesus said and what He did not say!” In Millet’s case, rage gives way to condescending pity: “How unfortunate it is that basically good men and women, people who have at least an affection or an admiration for holy writ, should wander so far afield.” “The Historical Jesus: A Latter-day Saint Perspective,” Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 173.

30. To a countercultist who accused him of being “an angry and intemperate character,” Peterson writes: “Actually, as anyone who knows me could tell you, I am a relaxed, good humored fellow who very rarely gets upset and certainly is not angered by incompetent scoundrels such as you have revealed yourself to be. I am not even angry about this most recent insult. Sorry if that disappoints you. I have already shared it with a rather large number of friends, who will very likely chuckle and shake their heads, as I have, at the pathetic quality of your message.” Email to Mike Thomas, 14 August 1998, http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/rot_DCP.htm. Similarly, Louis Midgley and John Tvedtnes deny feeling hostile or angry toward the Tanners. Louis Midgley, to Sandra Tanner, 2 July 1997, electronic copy at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/TannerIn.htm; John A. Tvedtnes, “Great and Specious Arguments: Jerald and Sandra Tanner on FARMS,” http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews ... review.htm. (All webpages accessed 1 April 2004.)

33. Persecution is a prominent theme of LDS apologetic discourse. Louis Midgley appears to regard apologetics as a fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s charge to document the persecution of the Saints found in D&C 123. “On Caliban Mischief,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): xxxv. Contributors to the FARMS Review compare Michael Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics to “the dishonest and lurid ‘exposés’ of the past” and therefore conclude that the book is “a form of persecution.” George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, “A Response to D. Michael Quinn’s Homosexual Distortion of Latter-day Saint History,” FARMS Review 10, no. 1 (1998): 261. Another FARMS Review contributor suggests that trying to pass out literature to Latter-day Saints on their way to general conference infringes on the Saints’ freedom of religion. Russell C. McGregor, “Letters to an Anti-Mormon,” FARMS Review 11, no. 1 (1999): 257. The SHIELDS website dedicates a whole page to what are meant to be inspiring quotes about persecution from nineteenth-century Church leaders. “Quotables: Persecution,” http://www.shieldsresearch.org/General/ ... cution.htm (accessed 1 April 2004). Inevitably, perhaps, in a post-9/11 world, one apologist has taken persecution rhetoric to another level, equating anti-Mormonism with spiritual terrorism: see http://www.geocities.com/ldsbeliefs/ant ... twork.html (accessed 1 April 2004).

37. That each apologist seeks, in fact, to challenge his correspondent becomes clear as the correspondence unfolds. By the end of his email exchange with Ron Rhodes, Bickmore admits, “I AM questioning your character,” which earlier he had only hinted at. Email to Ron Rhodes, 28 July 1999, http://www.shields-research.org/Critics ... more01.htm (accessed 1 April 2004). Midway through his correspondence with James White, Midgley acknowledges his effort to “demonstrate” that White has made an untrue claim. Nevertheless, Midgley wants to keep insisting that he seeks information, not a quarrel. When it becomes simply implausible for Midgley to deny that he is engaged in an argument, he accuses White of having “bait[ed]” him—to which White retorts that it was Midgley who initiated the correspondence. A sarcastic bent becomes clear when Midgley asks White, “How come you love to label Professor Peterson as ‘childish’ and so forth, and yet never accuse me of those kinds of behavior. Do I somehow fail to measure down?” The Midgley/White correspondence is archived at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_02.html (accessed 1 April 2004). Midgley seems invested in denying that he has contentious motives; note that he likes to end his correspondence, “Grace and peace.” Yet even among admirers, Midgley has a reputation for being “feisty”: see Ross Baron, “Feeding the Multitudes: Being Fishers of Men,” http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001BarR.html (accessed 1 April 2004). The dynamic we see in Midgley’s correspondence with White—denying contentious motives while providing contrary indications—can also be seen when we contrast two documents connected to a confrontation with Sandra Tanner that resulted in Midgley’s being thrown out of the Tanners’ store. In a letter to Tanner, Midgley professes to be “at a loss to figure out what I might have said to you that warranted our being tossed out of your bookstore.. . . I do not recall either feeling or expressing hostility towards you in any of our conversations.” Louis Midgley, to Sandra Tanner, 2 July 1997, electronic copy at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/TannerIn.htm (accessed 1 April 2004). Yet in an account of the confrontation written for SHIELDS, Midgley describes himself as having “teased Sandra Tanner” and boasts that he was able to lead her along until she was “caught in her own little trap.” “Standards of Proof,” http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/TannrIn2.htm (accessed 1 April 2004).

40. In his response to the Signature publication, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, Peterson suggests “that Korihor may have been a homosexual whose theology flowed directly from his and his followers’ need for self-justification” (“Text and Context,” 539 n. 48). In this same vein, Peterson provides five pages of historical examples of individuals whose liberal theology or irreligiosity coincided with sexual immorality, including, particularly, homosexuality (536–41). Peterson concludes, “It must be clearly understood that I am not charging any particular individual, at Signature or anywhere else, with sexual immorality” (541)—a protestation which sounds sly under the circumstances. What looks like another homosexual-related dig appears two years later when Peterson says that some FARMS reviewers “may have been born that way, with the nastiness gene” (“Editor’s Introduction: Triptych,” xxxvii). During this same period, Louis Midgley made what strike me as oblique accusations of homosexuality against David Knowlton and D. Michael Quinn: “Atheists and Cultural Mormons Promote a Naturalistic Humanism,” FARMS Review 7, no, 1 (1995): 254 n. 60, 259 n. 69. In subsequent years, Peterson has made direct, disdainful allusions to Quinn’s homosexuality and that of Signature Book’s Ron Priddis. To a countercultist who
predicted that Peterson would “eventually go the way of” Michael Quinn and other revisionists, Peterson writes, “ I am not sure why you think that I am going to become a practicing homosexual and be excommunicated like Mike Quinn. Have I ever given you any reason to expect something like that? Should I warn my wife?” Email to John L. Smith, n.d., http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/UMI-5.htm. On another occasion, Peterson informs a countercultist that Priddis “is involved in what we sometimes euphemistically call an Alternative Lifestyle.” Email to Mike Burns, 5 January 1999, http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/CC02.htm. (All webpages accessed 1 April 2004.)

[_Doctor Scratch]

That Duffy piece is excellent. After reading that, it's really impossible to defend the claim that Midgley, DCP et al. *weren't* engaged in a coordinated smear campaign against Mike Quinn and others. This is just yet another reminder of how important and praiseworthy it is that they've been cleared out from the Maxwell Institute.

As for deliberately misreading or distorting things, just recently DCP was garbling an observation I made on one of his blog entries: the one where he was trying to rehab his image by mentioning "Salt Press." Oh, well. Now I guess he can get back to his usual right-wing ruminations, such as his strange argument that we can prevent tragedies like the Aurora, CO shooting by instituting a paranoid, quasi-police state where everyone is armed to the teeth. You know, since if everyone is terrified of getting blown away by their fellow citizens, you'll never see crimes like this. It's like he's getting his ideas from sorely outdated Cold War-era political theory.