Page 1 of 20

A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:03 pm
by _Doctor Scratch
It is raining new articles out here in the land of Mopologetic Studies. With the new, "steaming" issue of the MI hot off the press and still unreviewed at Amazon.com, the Board of Editors has seen fit to release a brand new "review," and this one is surely worthy of "classic-FARMS" designation:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/attack ... xplaining/

At any rate, the article is pretty standard issue FARMS-type stuff:

However, [Reverend Jackson] ignores all the detailed responses to these books that have appeared, even though he is aware of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University (see p. 186). The results of Jackson’s endeavor are rather disappointing.


The article, oddly enough, is called, "Attacking Rather Than Explaining," though after finishing it, you'll wonder whether this phrase was intended as a description for the book under review, or the review itself. The "review"/smear piece was penned by a young woman named Cassandra Hedelius, whose bio, at the end of the article, is as follows:

Cassandra S. Hedelius studied political science and mathematics at the University of Oklahoma and law at the University of Colorado. She has practiced domestic and business law for profit, and researches and writes about Mormonism for pleasure. Her main focus is the interaction of the LDS Church with modern media and political activism, with additional interest in religious freedom and public policy.


This is rather vague, no? That is: in spite of the MI team's relentless focus on credentials and qualifications, there is nothing here to indicate how and why Hedelius is "qualified" to publish on Mormon Studies topics. But the real question here for me is, "Why on earth is this young lady writing articles like this for the Mopologists?" How and why (in God's green earth) did she decide that this was a good idea?

But her bio seems relevant in light of one of her main critiques, which gets announced at the end of the first paragraph:

Part of his problem is that, as I will demonstrate, he lacks the qualifications and disposition to deal openly, honestly, and competently with what he calls “Mormonism.”

Who is Reverend Jackson? And, in his own opinion, what led and qualifies him to opine on Mormon things? His webpage indicates that he has been an associate pastor of two large churches: he worked at Kempsville Presbyterian Church in Virginia Beach (1986–1996) and then, with a Doctor of Ministry degree,3 at the Word of Grace Church in Mesa, Arizona (1996–2008). He has a master’s degree and PhD from respected seminaries. He is well traveled, having visited twenty-four countries. His special fondness for Turkey, with its connections to the New Testament, inspired him to lead and later organize biblical tours to Turkey.


How is it, I wonder, that a person with a "PhD from respected seminaries" is somehow less qualified to weigh in on religious topics than someone who "studied political science and mathematics at the University of Oklahoma and law at the University of Colorado"? Am I missing something here? Or was this an oversight on the part of the editorial staff?

It's this last question that hung most prominently on my mind as I digested the rest of this remarkably nasty article. Did Hedelius even write this, I wondered? Just look at the endless barage of FARMS cliches in this:

He’s on the attack already, implying that Latter-day Saints can’t handle even a fair and neutral explanation.


The well thus tidily poisoned, Jackson gets specific:


Many use the “some of my best friends are . . . ” gambit, but most don’t write authority-claiming books about their friends, or imbibe special insights from park names.


These kinds of silly mistakes, obvious to any of his Mormon “neighbors, acquaintances, and friends,” and also easily correctable had he actually engaged with Mormons


In addition, genuine friends don’t claim to be explaining another’s faith, when in fact they are making war against those beliefs.


Reverend Jackson is careless in keeping straight what is indeed official and what is mere speculation.


His citations to scripture are haphazard and unhelpful,


He resorts frequently to critical works by the Ostlings, Blomberg, and others, without that [sic] those sources have been shown to be problematic in their use of historical facts (Ostling) and presentation of LDS doctrine (both).


the well-poisoning dismissal of “anti-intellectual” Mormon critics of non-Mormons who dare to write about the church.


one notices slip-ups here and there



Although he is familiar with work of writers like Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet, as well as the publications of the Maxwell Institute, Jackson betrays no sign that he has taken any of this literature seriously



The essay winds up reading like a Mopologetic version of the word game, Mad Libs, where someone simply went through and penciled in "Reverend Jackson" and the title of his book into a boilerplate attack essay. Hedelius even has the careworn bullet-point list of errors "that don’t explain much and that obscure important issues." And do I have to say it? There is actually a bolded subsection that is (I kid you not) entitled, "The Hostile Agenda". LOL!

The only thing missing from this article would be an insinuation that Jackson is merely "in it for the money," and what do you know? Hedelius delivers:

All of this makes it thoroughly unsurprising that when events—the Mitt Romney campaign—presented an opportunity to sell more books and publicize his message, Reverend Jackson retitled and reissued his ersatz Mormonism Explained as The Mormon Faith of Mitt Romney.10 This time around, it suited both his agenda and his marketing strategy to be much more forthcoming as to his intentions.


You have to admit: it's kind of sad, in its own way. That isn't to say that there were rays of light here and there, such as this tidbit, involving Jackson's attempts to locate "official" LDS doctrine:

He turned to email exchanges with volunteers at the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) but was frustrated by their disclaimer of official status to speak for the Church of Jesus Christ (p. 12).


Oh, man! A devastating blow! And very, very curious that the editorial staff would allow this onto the pages of the MI. Closer to the "collapse" of "classic-FARMS," DCP and others were touting FAIR as the top Mopologetic organization around, and they were urging donors to send their dollars in that direction. And yet now, here is this blatant curb-check. I wonder if this represents a shot fired across the bow? It may very well be that the MI has decided to assert itself as the pre-eminent Mopologetic organization.

Very, very interesting.

Re: A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:43 pm
by _lulu
I swear some Mormons know nothing about how other churches work. If Hedelius doesn't know that a Doctor of Ministry is abbreviated "D.Min.," not "Ph.D.," she should shut up until she figures it out.

Jackson, as stated on his website, claims to have a

BA Northwest University
http://www.northwestu.edu/

M.Div. Fuller Theological Seminary, the usual degree granted by seminaries and required for ordination and called a "Master of Divinity"
http://www.fuller.edu/

D.Min. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
http://www.gordonconwell.edu/

In her footnote Hedelius states that Jackson's doctorate did not require a dissertation. Yes, that's because its a professional degree like the JD from law school that Hedelius claims to hold or an MD from a medical school (did her physician write a dissertation?) That's why its a D.Min. and not a Ph.D.

So we've got a dissertationless JD throwing an academic stone at a D.Min. because he hasn't written a dissertation. Silly mistake that could have been avoided if Hedelius and actually tried to engage with Jackson.

Re: A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:29 pm
by _Doctor Scratch
lulu wrote:I swear some Mormons know nothing about how other churches work. If Hedelius doesn't know that a Doctor of Ministry is abbreviated "D.Min.," not "Ph.D.," she should shut up until she figures it out.

Jackson, as stated on his website, claims to have a

BA Northwest University
http://www.northwestu.edu/

M.Div. Fuller Theological Seminary, the usual degree granted by seminaries and required for ordination and called a "Master of Divinity"
http://www.fuller.edu/

D.Min. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
http://www.gordonconwell.edu/

In her footnote Hedelius states that Jackson's doctorate did not require a dissertation. Yes, that's because its a professional degree like the JD from law school that Hedelius claims to hold or an MD from a medical school (did her physician write a dissertation?) That's why its a D.Min. and not a Ph.D.

So we've got a dissertationless JD throwing an academic stone at a D.Min. because he hasn't written a dissertation. Silly mistake that could have been avoided if Hedelius and actually tried to engage with Jackson.


Those are great points, Lulu. Yet again I have to wonder aloud: Do we blame Hedelius for this oversight, or the MI editorial team? Considering how much these people are obsessed with credentials, you'd think that at least *one* of them would have caught this error. Well, maybe we can hope for their Admin to issue an "Errata and Corrections" post sometime in the future.

Re: A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:12 am
by _Bob Loblaw
It's like they have an ongoing contest to see who can out-douchebag the others. What a worthless endeavor the "Interpreter" is turning out to be.

Re: A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:41 am
by _lulu
Doctor Scratch wrote:Those are great points, Lulu. Yet again I have to wonder aloud: Do we blame Hedelius for this oversight, or the MI editorial team? Considering how much these people are obsesses with credentials, you'd think that at least *one* of them would have caught this error. Well, maybe we can hope for their Admin to issue an "Errata and Corrections" post sometime in the future.

I'd say a pox on both their houses.

One of the problems with the old FARMS and it appears with the new MI is that they just invite Mormons from off the street to write. As you say in the OP, there's no consideration of the reviewer's credentials. As long as they are willing to read the book and write a take down review, they're in.

From top to bottom, Mormons just don't understand theological education. They may want to think they're not "weird" or that they are mainstream but they are ignorant of how about 90% of Christianity works.

One would hope that Daniel C. Peterson, Ph.D. would know something about academic and professional degrees in religion, so maybe he does bear more responsibility. And editors are supposed to edit the author, after all. I can hear him now about how his enemies are picking on something that doesn't matter.

On the other hand, Hedelius could do enough research to figure out the requirements for a D.Min. but couldn't google Doctor of Ministry to see that what the abreviation is? Even the name of the degree doesn't suggest that it would be called a Ph.D. And then she wants to take down Jackson for not understanding and engaging. I guess its a one way street.

MI should do an article on theological education, that way they will know an S.T.D. when they see one :lol: . Which, by the way, is Doctor of Sacred Theology.

Re: A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:58 am
by _MrStakhanovite
lulu wrote:So we've got a dissertationless JD throwing an academic stone at a D.Min. because he hasn't written a dissertation. Silly mistake that could have been avoided if Hedelius and actually tried to engage with Jackson.


Silly is being kind, shamefully ignorant is what I’d call it. That must be a hell of a peer review process.

Re: A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:25 am
by _Doctor Scratch
Well, I'm sure you all will be very excited when you realize that the MI has vowed to try really, really hard to post new material once a week. Can you just imagine? I predict that by early 2013, the entire project will have begun to fall apart, and that, if they truly do try to maintain this high rate of publication, that their reputation will disintegrate even faster. I mean, did you watch Episode II of the "Roundtable"? I don't know that I'll ever get around to it, but I'm told that the only interesting part comes at the end, when Hamblin unexpectedly "excuses himself" and leaves for a while. What's more--as far as I can tell, no one bothered to even mention this new article over on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board. And have you seen one reference to any of the articles in defense of anything? In the past, when critics posed difficult questions, you'd often get a series of links to old FARMS articles. When--if ever--will they do this with the MI?

Re: A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:36 am
by _sock puppet
Seems like a lot of hubris from Ms Hedelius, given that she thought Mansfield didn't know of what he wrote
Hedelius wrote:From: Cassandra Showell Hedelius (Mormon Apologist)
Time/Date: 3:17 PM EDT on June 27, 2012

What I have to say is blunt, but I intend it kindly
and helpfully
--this account, that purports to represent how Mormons actually think and speak, and intends to help others understand "how Mormons understand themselves," fails pretty badly.

It sounds completely alien to this lifelong Mormon, both in terms of word choice and substance.

I would urge Mr. Mansfield to hastily issue a second,
revised edition, but not before having it thoroughly
reviewed by an ACTUAL Mormon
.

(2)

From: NonAnonymous (a.k.a. Robert Baty)
Time/Date: 3:26 PM EDT on June 27, 2012

To Cassandra Showell Hedelius -

Glad to see you pop in for some participation here.

Will you join other evasive Mormons here in demonstrating the justification of some of the criticisms sent Mormon way by many or show yourself to be different.

Here's the simple questions for you to answer as to what YOU, a Mormon, believe with reference to what is posted on an "official" Mormon website:

> (A) God revealed the doctrine of
> plural marriage to Joseph Smith?
>
>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No
>>
>> Cassondra Hedelius (Mormon) - ???

> (B) God commanded Joseph Smith
> to live it?
>
>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No
>>
>> Cassandra Hedelius (Mormon) - ???

> (C) Joseph Smith taught the
> doctrine to some associates?
>
>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - Yes
>>
>> Cassandra Hedelius (Mormon) - ???

> (D) Joseph Smith and a number of
> his associates entered into plural
> marriages?
>
>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - Yes
>>
>> Cassandra Hedelius (Mormon) - ???

> (E) Joseph Smith and his associates
> needed and received personal inspiration
> from God to help them enter in to
> plural marriages?
>
>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No
>>
>> Cassandra Hedelius (Mormon) - ???


I like that Hedelius took a powder and didn't answer Baty.

Re: A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:51 am
by _Gadianton
Yeah, you guys blew this one out of the water. So much for peer review over there.

But the real question here for me is, "Why on earth is...


You know, that is a great question. I don't want to say anything negative about her because it's very possible the stuff the peer review process did catch was stuff like, well, just for argument's sake, say that one section might have been called, "critique of LDS doctrines," and got kicked back from the board with the suggestion that the wording wasn't extreme enough and had to become "the hostile agenda."

FYI, one of the things listed under the hostile agenda, is that Mormons require good works to be saved, which is true. A real conspiracy there.

Re: A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:26 pm
by _Kishkumen
Hmmm...

I guess there isn't much rigor in peer review at MI.