The Wisdom & Faith of Lehi Cranston

[_harmony]

My statement that you are probably worse than you think you are comes from a long standing tradition of you not admitting when you are wrong.

I don't defend positions that I believe to be incorrect.

On line, I defend positions.

Do the math.

"In our lives we have walked some strange and lonely treks
Slightly worn but dignified and not too old for sex
We're still striving for the sky
No taste for humble pie
Thanks for all your generous love and thanks for all the fun
Neither you nor I'm to blame when all is said and done" ABBA

When all's said and done... no one knows, not even you. So you may be correct, and you may not be. Some of us allow for a margin of error. And some of us don't.

[_solomarineris]

I've never been the monster of cruelty that some imagine me to have been and that Scratchists devoutly believe me still to be.

DCP
That's quite a stretch, I would put very serious money into it that none of us believe you're a "monster of cruelty", far from from it! You're nice guy, most of us know that you could be instantly anyone's good friend.
It's just that I personally cannot get over the stigma attached to your personality of "Shallow Hal".
I personally don't think Scratch hates you, he just plays with you, he is just the master of buttons.
He knows how to push them.
I personally would hate to have an adversary like him.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But you just did claim perfection.

No, I didn't.

I denied being, or ever having been, "a monster of cruelty."

Perhaps you need to re-read what you wrote to me?

Perhaps you do?

But I simply won't plead guilty to an unspecified blanket charge that I've been "a monster of cruelty" in the past, or that I'm one now. Sorry. There are already too many Scratches -- though I admit that it would be amusing to see how they would react if I were to join their cult.

I never charged you with that.

Here's the exchange, from page two, above:

I've never been the monster of cruelty that some imagine me to have been and that Scratchists devoutly believe me still to be.

Actually, to some, you have been.

Perhaps you don't see it, but others do.

I don't know how else to read that other than to see it as your claiming that actually, to some, I have been a monster of cruelty and that, although I may not see that I've been a monster of cruelty, others do see that I've been a monster of cruelty.

I said that sometimes you have been mean to people. You flat out denied that you have ever been mean to anyone, and that it was everyone else's fault for "imagining" it.

Please reread the actual exchange.

Perhaps you are overly sensitive to the abusive nature of Scratchs accusations. I can understand why you would get so defensive.

I think I've actually been remarkably patient and docile under the virtually unceasing rain of his defamatory accusations.

I feel as though I'm coming off as attacking you, when that isn't my goal. I don't think you are a monster by any stretch. However, you HAVE wronged people in the past as we all have. I'm glad to see that you admitted it.

I've never denied that I've wronged people as everybody has.

In the course of a reasonably long and reasonably active life, that's sadly almost inevitable.

What I deny is that I am or have been especially cruel.

I'm flawed, as everybody is, and would never deny it. Have I been mean once in a while? Possibly. Probably. But rarely if ever intentionally. Deliberate cruelty is not a primary or even secondary trait of mine. I tend, in fact, to be a pretty nice guy. Probably somewhat or even considerably above the "niceness" average. I feel terrible if I discover that I've even been unintentionally unkind to someone. That's not the direction in which the preponderance of my errors and defects lie.

One of the things that fascinates me about the behavior not only of the Scratches, but also (on a much, much lower intellectual and rhetorical plane) of such posters here as Mercury, solomarineris, Joey, collegeterrace/PP, Inconceivable, poor antishock8, Some Schmo, and Chap is that it seems to be so very largely about personal resentments and personal insults. It's so far from the way I think and act that I find it oddly fascinating.

[_Ray A]

It's not possible to make accurate judgments of a person from their online persona. I think good, and sometimes very good assessments can be made. Yet these are still really only compartmentalised judgements. for what it's worth, my differences with Dan are mainly ideological, and I think it's fair to say they are strong differences, exacerbated in recent times by my heavier emphasis on Book of Mormon non-historicity. Perhaps you could say, as he grows stronger in his belief in historicity, I've grown stronger in my non-historical stand. That in itself is a starting point for enhanced conflict. I'd say the cause of most of this conflict is over-defensiveness, or belief in the virtual "unassailability" of the Mormon position. It's not just the criticisms against it, but the very act of criticising that so often raises ire. (See MAD apologists in particular)

I recently had a few email exchanges with Rachael Kohn, a well-known religion commentator in Oz, who is now working on some programs on Mormonism to be broadcast in the near future, hence the reason for her recent visit to Utah. In one of her emails she told me she recognises the Mormon sensitivity to criticism, and has tread cautiously, so to speak, to avoid stepping on too many toes. And the symptom of this necessary approach is, in effect, caused partly by what the FARMS Review has been about, not only criticising the critics, but sometimes dragging them through the mud. Korihor's back, Dan's previous but now apparently mellowed approach to the Tanners, whom he once branded the most infamous anti-Mormons, the constant labelling of Vogel and Metcalfe as anti-Mormons (while they get slammed by some ex-Mormons as being too "pro-Mormon") and "butthead", and the Nibleyesque ridicule of even serious critics of Mormonism. This has been demonstrated over and over. It's as if the critical approach is too ridiculous to be taken seriously, even when done with sophistication. It's the total inability to even admit that "we may indeed be wrong on this one". (To be fair, Dan did say in the not too distant past that he believes they could still learn a lot from "listening more", and maybe that's partly why he's here, and maybe sometimes we don't listen enough.)

So that, I think, is the real source of animosity towards apologists. There is no way on God's earth the Book of Mormon cannot be history - it won't even be considered for a millisecond by the Maxwell Institute, and the Mission statement shows that. If you come to a different opinion and want to say so, you have to leave the MI and/or the Church to do so. It is this stand that draws so much criticism, and I think much of that reflects personally on Dan, as his apologist peers at the MI don't post here.

My personal view is that I still like Dan as a person (from my in real life encounter), and I think he's an extraordinarily intelligent person, and respected by the Islamic community here in Australia as one "Westerner" trying to negotiate balance in these complex relationships that often also involve heated politics and party/religious factionalism.
The only thing I don't really understand, is why Dan has to be so rigid and uncompromising when it comes to Mormonism (hence the criticisms), yet is trying to avoid this very counter-productive approach in Islam. That's probably because the Qur'an could not be as true as the Book of Mormon. That's probably because Muhammad only received "a portion of God's light", while Joseph Smith received "all of it", being visited by God himself. It's a kind of absolutism that is non-negotiable, while other less absolutes are negotiable.

Some of Scratch's criticisms have been over the top, to be sure, but I think his overall approach is a sort of "Terminator response" that draws wide empathy. It is ad hominem apologetics which created Scratch. It is this inability to concede anything, and to believe that anyone who opposes literalism has simply "lost the Spirit". The MI is what I'd call the apologetic arm of the "stone rolling forward" until it covers the whole earth. And that idea can be threatening to many who believe otherwise. When I see a TBM poster, as I did yesterday, proclaiming after reading the Book of Mormon that "I always wanted to know where the Indians came from", you realise how much ignorance is the basis of True Belief. And the MI comes along and clarifies, "well, not all the Indians, just the ones we saw. We have no proof of it, but there's no disproof either". No one at the MI ever scratches his/her head and seriously wonders, "could this be a fraud?"

[_Scottie]

Ahhh, you're right. I guess I did say that, didn't I.

My apologies.

[_Daniel Peterson]

what the FARMS Review has been about, not only criticising the critics, but sometimes dragging them through the mud.

Rarely if ever.

I've long sat (and continue to sit) on things that I know about certain critics but will never publish. I have no desire to drag them through the mud, and will never do so -- despite the fact that, at least in two or three cases, I easily could.

Korihor's back,

Still one of the funniest lines we've ever published, and I would publish it today. I think it made an important point, which was immediately explained by its author.

Dan's previous but now apparently mellowed approach to the Tanners,

Years ago, back in the days before my attitude toward the Tanners had supposedly mellowed, back when my "approach" to them was, apparently, very much harsher, the Salt Lake Tribune published an article about the Tanners in which I was quoted as having some positive things to say. My BYU department chairman received at least two phone calls from irate members of the Church demanding that I be fired.

the constant labelling of Vogel and Metcalfe as anti-Mormons

I did a search of three reviews of items by Dan Vogel, and found no case where the reviewer labeled Vogel an "anti-Mormon" -- although one, by Louis Midgley, did discuss the historian Marvin Hill's description of Vogel as an "anti-Mormon." (Anyone familiar with Marvin Hill's work will instantly recognize that he's anything but a FARMS writer.)

I performed a similar search on five reviews of items by Brent Metcalfe. One, a thirty-page essay by Bill Hamblin, twice obliquely and briefly referred to Brent Metcalfe in a way that might suggest an anti-Mormon agenda on his part. The term anti-Mormon was entirely absent from three of the reviews. The fifth review implicitly distinguished Metcalfe from anti-Mormons.

So it isn't at all clear that this alleged "labelling of Vogel and Metcalfe as anti-Mormons" has ever actually been "constant."

and "butthead",

Ah, the famous fourteen-year-old unpublished joke.

and the Nibleyesque ridicule of even serious critics of Mormonism.

As always, I invite people curious about the FARMS Review to actually read it:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

This has been demonstrated over and over.

And typically with no more rigor than here.

It's as if the critical approach is too ridiculous to be taken seriously, even when done with sophistication.

Again, I invite people to look at the Review with open minds, and ask themselves whether it takes criticisms seriously:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

It's the total inability to even admit that "we may indeed be wrong on this one".

The Review doesn't conceal the fact that, overwhelmingly (though not quite entirely) it's the work of believers.

But I invite anybody who might be unfamiliar with it to read a fair sample of its published essays and to judge for himself or herself whether it seriously engages criticisms and mounts serious arguments based on competently marshalled evidence and solid analysis:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

The only thing I don't really understand, is why Dan has to be so rigid and uncompromising when it comes to Mormonism

I'm convinced of my position, I defend it, and I don't do a theological imitation of Hamlet, but I don't think it's fair to describe me as "rigid and uncompromising" simply on that account.

No one at the MI ever scratches his/her head and seriously wonders, "could this be a fraud?"

I think everybody at the Maxwell Institute has considered that question seriously. I know I have. Though I do appreciate the long-distance attempt at a relatively sympathetic psychobiography.

[_Ray A]

Though I do appreciate the long-distance attempt at a relatively sympathetic psychobiography.

Oh no, I haven't attempted that, yet, and doubt I ever will. (Psychoanalysis would be a better word in any case, but even that doesn't really interest me.)

I'll be back tomorrow to nitpick on some points. Right now an accelerator pedal is anxiously awaiting contact with my shoe.

[_Mister Scratch]

What I deny is that I am or have been especially cruel.

I think the many people you taunted and ridiculed on RfM would tend to disagree. But, of course, you don't care in the slightest. According to your moral calculus, those sorts of people "deserve it." Just like Lehi Cranston deserves to be treated, in your eyes, as an insincere and dishonest troll. Just as Mike Quinn "deserved it," just as Prof. Ritner "deserved it." And so on.

I'm flawed, as everybody is, and would never deny it.

Sure you would. You've done it many, many times.

Have I been mean once in a while? Possibly. Probably. But rarely if ever intentionally. Deliberate cruelty is not a primary or even secondary trait of mine. I tend, in fact, to be a pretty nice guy. Probably somewhat or even considerably above the "niceness" average. I feel terrible if I discover that I've even been unintentionally unkind to someone.

Well---surprise, surprise!---you "unintentionally" helped to seriously damage Mike Quinn's (and Robert Ritner's, and Steve Benson's, and Tal Bachman's, etc., etc., etc.) credibility among a pretty significant number of Latter-day Saints. Do you feel "terrible"? Probably not. In fact, I have strong reason to believe that you probably found it "funny," and laughed about it with Bill Hamblin as the two of you watched silent anti-Mormon films for FHE.

One of the things that fascinates me about the behavior not only of the Scratches, but also (on a much, much lower intellectual and rhetorical plane) of such posters here as Mercury, solomarineris, Joey, collegeterrace/PP, Inconceivable, poor antishock8, Some Schmo, and Chap is that it seems to be so very largely about personal resentments and personal insults. It's so far from the way I think and act that I find it oddly fascinating.

Perhaps these people just think you're wrong, Dan. Sort of like how you think critics of the Church are "wrong."

I've said it before and I will say it again: a simple apology, for your bad behavior online and in print (in the FARMS Review) would permanently end my career on the messageboards. I would never expect you to say, "Yes, I'm guilty of everything Scratch said!" Nor would I expect you to say, "Yes, I smeared Mike Quinn!" A simple, "While I disagree with Scratch's wording, I admit that I've done some things I regret," would do it. And I do believe we'd need to know just what, exactly, you regret.

But, this will never happen. Scottie is absolutely right, and indeed, that is my central criticism of you: you cannot admit when you have acted wrongly. You worry that the "Scratches" will multiply. Well, yes---unless you act, in your own words, more "humbly," then this will no doubt continue to happen. So, carry on. Continue to insist that you don't find you l-skinny behavior the least bit problematic or embarrassing. Continue to declare that your nasty remarks and gossip about Quinn and Ritner were 100% kosher. Carry on! It is perfectly fine by me.

[_Mister Scratch]

Ray,

A brilliant and eloquent post. You have it 100% right. DCP's intransigence is merely symptomatic of Mormonism and Mopologetics writ-large. Think about it: what would happen to his critics if he followed his own advice and became more "humble"? They would be made to look like complete and utter jerks. One wonders why he's never been able to adopt that approach.

[_Yoda]

I would never expect you to say, "Yes, I'm guilty of everything Scratch said!" Nor would I expect you to say, "Yes, I smeared Mike Quinn!" A simple, "While I disagree with Scratch's wording, I admit that I've done some things I regret," would do it. And I do believe we'd need to know just what, exactly, you regret.

OK, now I'm confused, Scratch. I thought your primary beef with Daniel was over how you felt he had treated Quinn. Now, you're saying that he doesn't have to admit to any wrongdoing when it comes to Quinn?

And....read Daniel's prior post:

Have I been mean once in a while? Possibly. Probably. But rarely if ever intentionally. Deliberate cruelty is not a primary or even secondary trait of mine. I tend, in fact, to be a pretty nice guy. Probably somewhat or even considerably above the "niceness" average. I feel terrible if I discover that I've even been unintentionally unkind to someone.

Did he not admit in this post that he has done things he regretted?

Exactly what do you want him to admit to? Spell it out so that he, and the rest of us know.