Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_Mister Scratch]

I provided no context. I'll check the e-mail. I asked him an introductory question, something along the lines of, "Is this anti-Semitism?" I then copied verbatim what he said. He didn't know where I stood on the issue at all.

And Bill 'anti-semite' Hamblin doesn't strongly imply that "Bill Hamblin hates Jews." You're odd.

Actually, I was referring to Jewish suffering. I know LDS suffering only gets a yawn from you but I was hoping your attempt to make Hamblin into an anti-Semite wasn't projection on your part. Should I stand corrected?

What? What are you talking about? I was not the one dropping the "K-bomb" every other sentence in order to berate people on RfM. Look, Nehor, I get that you are really upset / embarrassed about the fact that Prof. Hamblin lost his cool in so dramatic a fashion. But, fact is, he has never apologized or owned up to this. (as far as I know.) If he wants to say he's sorry, then sure, I will stop picking at him.

Ummm....again, you're missing the point. THERE WAS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR!!!! That is what I am saying. You keep pretending that I am trying to diminish some hostile intent when my point has always been that there was no hostile intent.

Yes, there was. Hamblin was clearly very angry and he allowed his white-hot wrath to bubble over in a very pathetic way. I mean, why go on the extended diatribe at all? What was the usefulness of that? Why was it necessary for him to repeatedly use the "K-word"? Could he have gotten his basic point across without it? Yes, of course he could have. But he didn't. Instead, he let his anger get the better of him, and he went ballistic. He was over-the-top, and behaved in a very juvenile and offensive way. I think he should apologize.

In this analogy Hamblin is a Mormon. This would make him a Jew in the analogy. If you want to accuse him of having a persecution complex you MIGHT have an argument but I doubt it. Still, calling him an anti-Semite is so much more juicy huh?

Very well, but using his persecution complex as an excuse to repeatedly, over and over and over, drop the "K-bomb" is just plain wrong. He should apologize.

[_The Nehor]

You are clearly very angry and you allowed your white-hot wrath to bubble over in a very pathetic way. I mean, why go on the extended diatribe at all? What was the usefulness of that? Why was it necessary for you to repeatedly use Bill "Anti-Semite" Hamblin? Could you have gotten your basic point across without it? Yes, of course you could have. But you didn't. Instead, you let your anger get the better of you, and you went ballistic. You were over-the-top, and are behaving in a very juvenile and offensive way. I think you should apologize.

[_Daniel Peterson]

"Selected quotations"???? I provide verbatim quotes, and links to the articles in question. You don't *ever* do this kind of thing, and expect us to swallow your counterarguments on the basis of your bloviation and nothing else.

On the contrary, I'm quite content to have people read the entire articles.

I am unaware of a single reputable, mainstream academic journal which produces the same kind of demonization and vitriolic crap that is FARMS Review's stock-in-trade.

If that's true, you must not read many academic or controversial book reviews. The FARMS Review is relatively mild, by comparison.

My model for the overall tone of the Review has always been a blend of purely academic reviewing and the kind of review featured in political/controversial magazines like the New Republic, National Review, The Nation, the American Spectator, and the Weekly Standard. I think we're well within that range.

Will Bagley and Erik Johnson, among others, agree with my view, by the way.

I couldn't be more convinced if you had secured endorsements from Ed Decker, Sandra Tanner, Lawrence O'Donnell, and the staff of the Nauvoo Christian Visitor Center.

Do you have any evidence at all to back up your claim here?

Yes. The periodicals room in any substantial academic library.

I hereby predict that you will now fall back on your latest excuse, which is that you won't engage this "substantial issue" since I am too mean / mendacious / dishonest / malevolent, etc.

It's not merely my "latest excuse." I've never seen any value in engaging you on any issue of substance. And not only because you're mendacious, dishonest, and malevolent, but because you appear to be uninterested in genuine discussions and because you insist on demonizing those with whom you disagree.

It is a smear journal, devoted to demonizing and attacking critics of the Church.

That's nonsense, of course.

In the most recent issue of the Review, for example, articles like Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt's "Does God Have a Wife?" and M. Gerald Bradford's "The Study of Mormonism: A Growing Interest in Academia" and James E. Faulconer's "Rethinking Theology: The Shadow of the Apocalyse" and Terryl L. Givens's "New Religious Movements and Orthodoxy: The Challenge to the Religious Mainstream" and Michael S. Heiser's "You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82" and David Bokovoy's "'Ye Really Are Gods': A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John" and Michael Heiser's response ("Israel's Divine Council, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study") cannot reasonably be dismissed as "smears."

You have advised TBMs to "distrust" Quinn.

Writers in the Review have, on a few occasions, found his scholarship unreliable, and said so. And they have offered evidence and analysis in an attempt to substantiate that verdict.

That's entirely in-bounds for academic critiques.

<Ahem.> And where is the 2nd Michael Watson Letter?

I've explained, several times, that Bill says he misplaced it. I think that very unfortunate. I wish it hadn't happened. I was more than a bit unhappy when I heard about it. But I saw the letter, and so too (in the course of our normal source-checking) did Dr. Shirley Ricks, the production editor of the FARMS Review, and Alison Coutts, the FARMS publications director, and at least one source-checker -- and the quotation from it in the FARMS Review is, apart from its greeting and its signature, complete. If you want to accuse us of collaborating to forge a letter and attribute it in print to the First Presidency, you're entirely free to do so. Ideally, though, you will do so under your own name rather than anonymously, and you will bring your accusation to the attention of the Office of the First Presidency. If you're right, we will face serious Church discipline, and your accusation will be vindicated.

Right. I figured that, deep down, you want vengeance. You want the FP to punish me, etc.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you serious?

[_Daniel Peterson]

"Innocent and straightforward"? I don't think so. We both know that the Church has behaved in very sneaky ways on this issue, and that because of this, Jewish groups have sued. There is nothing "straightforward" or "innocent" about this at all, in my opinion.

That could be discussed, and I would be entirely willing to discuss it with virtually anybody else, virtually anywhere else.

In any event, my reference to your "spin" of something that was reasonably innocent and straightforward had (as I think will be clear to most people but you) nothing whatever to do with the broader issue of Mormon proxy baptisms. It referred specifically to your typically clever and typically malevolent misreading of what I had just said.

Your comments here illustrate pretty plainly one of the reasons why I have no interest in attempting substantive discussion with you.

I'm merely being realistic. If group A agitates against and criticizes group B, group B's attitude toward group A is likely to become less positive. There's nothing here about a quid-pro-quo or a threat. It's simply an acknowledgment of human nature.

"Agitates against and criticizes"? And you are accusing me of spin? The Jewish groups say, "Hey, look, we'd appreciate it if you'd respect our religious and cultural heritage and not baptize us into the LDS Church." That hardly counts as "agitation and criticism" in my opinion.

True. That meek little sentence wouldn't count as "agitation" and wouldn't count as very rough "criticism." Of course, there have been, as you know, petitions, and angry articles, and calls for lawsuits, and (as you yourself note) actual lawsuits, and etc. You misrepresent the situation by pretending otherwise. And, of course, you do it in a quite illegitimate effort to make me look irrational.

Malevolent mendacity. The pattern never varies. The leopard doesn't change its spots.

And there very much was a "quid-pro-quo" sort of negotiation going on. You didn't say, "Hey, LDS sympathize with Jews. We like Jews. Can't we all just be friends?" You said, "Jews have few friends in the world, including LDS, so don't alienate us." This was clearly a threat, albeit a fairly mild one.

It was a friendly warning that the attitudes of some LDS, if they come to regard Jews as critics of their faith, could become less positive. That's not a threat. Being malicious, you want to portray me as malicious, too.

[_Runtu]

Good heavens, this is pointless. Can't we just admit to each other that most of us are doing the best we can with the knowledge we have? Why we have to constantly harp on each other's characters or lack thereof is a mystery to me.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Let me ask you this: If Professor Hamblin's outburst had been leaked to the media, how do you think it would have been received? Do you think that the bulk of Americans would have dismissed it with a shrug? Would it have been akin to Michael Richards's or Mel Gibson's angry outbursts? Or Halle Berry's unfortunate slip-up on The Tonight Show?

I doubt it'd cause much fuss. Those other folks are celebrities...and Hamblin....isn't.


(what did Halle Berry do? I haven't heard anything about that)

[_Mister Scratch]

You are clearly very angry and you allowed your white-hot wrath to bubble over in a very pathetic way. I mean, why go on the extended diatribe at all?

I didn't. I put up the offending post, and expressed my disapproval of it.

What was the usefulness of that? Why was it necessary for you to repeatedly use Bill "Anti-Semite" Hamblin?

Where've I done that, Nehor? I'm going to have to CFR you again, since you are obviously flailing about in desperation at this point.

Could you have gotten your basic point across without it? Yes, of course you could have. But you didn't. Instead, you let your anger get the better of you, and you went ballistic.

But.... I didn't 'go ballistic.' I merely posted the diatribe and commented on it. Certainly, there wasn't a long string of offensive epithets in my post!

You were over-the-top, and are behaving in a very juvenile and offensive way. I think you should apologize.

Next time bring your "A-game," Nehor.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Have a good day, Scratch, and a great Christmas season.

I hope that what you post on this message board doesn't accurately represent your daily life off-line.

[_Mister Scratch]

"Selected quotations"???? I provide verbatim quotes, and links to the articles in question. You don't *ever* do this kind of thing, and expect us to swallow your counterarguments on the basis of your bloviation and nothing else.

On the contrary, I'm quite content to have people read the entire articles.

Uh huh. Right. You say, "Critic is wrong, go read the articles. I'm not going to explain how or why, nor am I going to provide any real counterargument or citation of text, I'm just going to tell you that I'm right, and leave it up to you to figure out how/why." Real convincing, Dan.

I am unaware of a single reputable, mainstream academic journal which produces the same kind of demonization and vitriolic crap that is FARMS Review's stock-in-trade.

If that's true, you must not read many academic or controversial book reviews. The FARMS Review is relatively mild, by comparison.

My model for the overall tone of the Review has always been a blend of purely academic reviewing and the kind of review featured in political/controversial magazines like the New Republic, National Review, The Nation, the American Spectator, and the Weekly Standard. I think we're well within that range.

LOL! Wow.... What a major-league stretch. You think the tone of FARMS Review is on a par with New Republic? Further, are you now finally conceding that FROB is not "academic" in the more normative sense? (And by the way: I'm still waiting for you to supply an example of an *actual* academic journal whose "purely academic" reviews carry on for 50+ pages and include accusations such as "Quinn is a bad historian.")

Do you have any evidence at all to back up your claim here?

Yes. The periodicals room in any substantial academic library.

I didn't ask whether the library had any evidence in support of your claim. (And I rather doubt that it does.) I asked if you had any evidence. Apparently, you don't.

I hereby predict that you will now fall back on your latest excuse, which is that you won't engage this "substantial issue" since I am too mean / mendacious / dishonest / malevolent, etc.

It's not merely my "latest excuse." I've never seen any value in engaging you on any issue of substance. And not only because you're mendacious, dishonest, and malevolent, but because you appear to be uninterested in genuine discussions and because you insist on demonizing those with whom you disagree.

What, you mean like FARMS Review?

It is a smear journal, devoted to demonizing and attacking critics of the Church.

That's nonsense, of course.

Not. I have posted on this numerous times. Feel free to provide a rebuttal if you can muster one.

In the most recent issue of the Review, for example, articles like Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt's "Does God Have a Wife?" and M. Gerald Bradford's "The Study of Mormonism: A Growing Interest in Academia" and James E. Faulconer's "Rethinking Theology: The Shadow of the Apocalyse" and Terryl L. Givens's "New Religious Movements and Orthodoxy: The Challenge to the Religious Mainstream" and Michael S. Heiser's "You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82" and David Bokovoy's "'Ye Really Are Gods': A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John" and Michael Heiser's response ("Israel's Divine Council, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study") cannot reasonably be dismissed as "smears."

But plenty of other articles can, such as ones written by John Tvedtness (sp?), Bill Hamblin, yourself, Russell McGregor, etc., etc., etc. A few non-hostile articles doesn't do much to put a damper on all the smears that get published.

You have advised TBMs to "distrust" Quinn.

Writers in the Review have, on a few occasions, found his scholarship unreliable, and said so. And they have offered evidence and analysis in an attempt to substantiate that verdict.

That's entirely in-bounds for academic critiques.

There is a lot of distance between saying, "some of this scholarship is unreliable," vs. saying, "Quinn is a bad historian."

<Ahem.> And where is the 2nd Michael Watson Letter?

I've explained, several times, that Bill says he misplaced it. I think that very unfortunate. I wish it hadn't happened. I was more than a bit unhappy when I heard about it. But I saw the letter, and so too (in the course of our normal source-checking) did Dr. Shirley Ricks, the production editor of the FARMS Review, and Alison Coutts, the FARMS publications director, and at least one source-checker -- and the quotation from it in the FARMS Review is, apart from its greeting and its signature, complete. If you want to accuse us of collaborating to forge a letter and attribute it in print to the First Presidency, you're entirely free to do so. Ideally, though, you will do so under your own name rather than anonymously, and you will bring your accusation to the attention of the Office of the First Presidency. If you're right, we will face serious Church discipline, and your accusation will be vindicated.

Right. I figured that, deep down, you want vengeance. You want the FP to punish me, etc.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you serious?[/quote] (bold emphasis added)

Why should the anonymity be a factor at all, Prof. P.? We both know that the Church monitors well over a thousand sites on the Web.

[_Mister Scratch]

"Innocent and straightforward"? I don't think so. We both know that the Church has behaved in very sneaky ways on this issue, and that because of this, Jewish groups have sued. There is nothing "straightforward" or "innocent" about this at all, in my opinion.

That could be discussed, and I would be entirely willing to discuss it with virtually anybody else, virtually anywhere else.

In any event, my reference to your "spin" of something that was reasonably innocent and straightforward had (as I think will be clear to most people but you) nothing whatever to do with the broader issue of Mormon proxy baptisms. It referred specifically to your typically clever and typically malevolent misreading of what I had just said.

Your comments here illustrate pretty plainly one of the reasons why I have no interest in attempting substantive discussion with you.[/quote]

You can go ahead and continue to manufacture lame excuses for why you will not address key arguments and issues. I'll just point out that you posted perhaps 3 dozen times on the MAD board, taunting Yme to deal with your (now pretty much totally discredited) arguments pertaining to LDS academic embarrassment. Hey, I am perfectly willing to take you on! Will you do it? No. Is the real reason that I am, as you put it, "malevolent"? No. The real reason is that you have been checkmated, and a weakness in the Mopologetic position has been uncovered.

I'm merely being realistic. If group A agitates against and criticizes group B, group B's attitude toward group A is likely to become less positive. There's nothing here about a quid-pro-quo or a threat. It's simply an acknowledgment of human nature.

"Agitates against and criticizes"? And you are accusing me of spin? The Jewish groups say, "Hey, look, we'd appreciate it if you'd respect our religious and cultural heritage and not baptize us into the LDS Church." That hardly counts as "agitation and criticism" in my opinion.

True. That meek little sentence wouldn't count as "agitation" and wouldn't count as very rough "criticism." Of course, there have been, as you know, petitions, and angry articles, and calls for lawsuits, and (as you yourself note) actual lawsuits, and etc. You misrepresent the situation by pretending otherwise. And, of course, you do it in a quite illegitimate effort to make me look irrational. [/quote]

Come again? What is it, pray tell, that I'm "misrepresenting" here? Are you saying that Jewish groups "agitated" from the get go? Or did they request that the LDS proxy baptisms come to and end, only to be given the run-around? Are you really saying that Jewish groups had no right to feel offended in this instance?

Malevolent mendacity. The pattern never varies. The leopard doesn't change its spots.

And there very much was a "quid-pro-quo" sort of negotiation going on. You didn't say, "Hey, LDS sympathize with Jews. We like Jews. Can't we all just be friends?" You said, "Jews have few friends in the world, including LDS, so don't alienate us." This was clearly a threat, albeit a fairly mild one.

It was a friendly warning that the attitudes of some LDS, if they come to regard Jews as critics of their faith, could become less positive. That's not a threat. Being malicious, you want to portray me as malicious, too.

It was a mild threat. You were saying, in essence, that LDS friendship was contingent upon Jewish acquiescence to proxy baptisms. I.e., "Do what we say or we'll 'become less positive.'"

Anyways, I'd much prefer to discuss "LDS academic embarrassment," and the failure of LDS scholars to present their most controversial theories to the wider academic community. I have to keep bringing this up, since I enjoy popping balloons. Pop!