Stendahl's Rules

[_Mister Scratch]

Oh, is that a new rule? "Some critical claims are worth taking seriously"? Should Stendahl's Rules be amended to something along the lines of, "Only some facets of others' religions need to be treated with respect. Feel free to laugh at whatever you find ludicrous."

Silly Scratch. You're off your game today, and it shows.

As I've pointed out, I respond to critics of my faith. And I sometimes laugh at the more ridiculous ones.

But I don't attack their religious beliefs. Quite the contrary, as my consistent public record over the past quarter of a century shows beyond even your power to distort and spin.

Anti-Mormonism isn't a religion. As I've already pointed out to you.

So, am I to understand that your answer is: "Yes, Stendahl's Rule and Peterson's Rule do not apply to critics"? Based on your last few posts, I would have assumed that you were arguing the *opposite* of that. Perhaps I was wrong?

[_Mister Scratch]

By the way, Prof. P., you do remember writing this, don't you?

I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous--DCP, MADB, Oct 8 2007

[_Chap]

Now, to the point, I am certain that someone, somewhere has a fairly accurate count of the books written for the purpose of discrediting Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The tally, I'm sure, is well into the four-digit range, and perhaps even surpasses 10,000. I think that would definitely fill a few bookshelves, as I've heard it does in the church history department's collection.

A remote search of the Library of Congress catalogue for books with "Mormon" in any field yields only 4883 titles. So there are unlikely to be 10,000 anti-Mormon books in existence, and there are probably less than 1,000 books that have been written in recent decades (the count above includes books of all dates) "for the purpose of discrediting Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

[_Pokatator]

Now, to the point, I am certain that someone, somewhere has a fairly accurate count of the books written for the purpose of discrediting Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The tally, I'm sure, is well into the four-digit range, and perhaps even surpasses 10,000. I think that would definitely fill a few bookshelves, as I've heard it does in the church history department's collection.

Nomad welcome to the board.

Do you mean that there are 10,000 books in print by total volume of copies or by individual title? 10,000 titles seems really high to me.

I am in agreement with "Florence" Nightingale. I have been in lots of book stores and I have never seen more than a couple of shelves in the religious section for both "anti" and "pro" books. I do have a limited area to report on but this is how I have seen it in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Oregon. I am referring to stores like Hastings, Barnes & Noble and Waldenbooks.

I do not doubt that the church has a copy or tries to have a copy of absolutely everything "anti-Mormon" that has been printed for reference. If someone has a list I would like to see it.

[Guest]

So, am I to understand that your answer is: "Yes, Stendahl's Rule and Peterson's Rule do not apply to critics"? Based on your last few posts, I would have assumed that you were arguing the *opposite* of that. Perhaps I was wrong?

You're always wrong. Write that on the back of both hands, and contemplate it every fifteen minutes.

I take serious criticisms seriously. That, for example, is why I have a substantial piece on Mormonism and the Trinity that should be appearing before the end of the month in Element, the journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology. That's why I've published so much with FARMS over the years. That's why I wrote Offenders for a Word.

I take seriously the fact that many people worldwide reject Mormon claims. That's why I try to formulate arguments that will persuade them otherwise, and seek to make those arguments publicly known.

But not all criticisms deserve serious responses. Some are simply ridiculous. Do I really have to amass evidence and formulate arguments to refute Ed Decker's claim that Mormons sponsor Boy Scout troops as paramilitary training units in preparation for the planned Mormon take-over of the government, at which time we'll rule from a full-scale reproduction of the Oval Office located in the Washington DC Temple? Do I really need to take seriously Bill Schnoebelen's allegation that Mormon apostles have the number 666 carved into their flesh, that they drink blood from human-skull mugs during their Thursday morning meetings, and that Elder Faust frankly admitted to him that the real god of Mormonism is Lucifer?

[_Daniel Peterson]

By the way, Prof. P., you do remember writing this, don't you?

I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous--DCP, MADB, Oct 8 2007

I do.

It's by far the worst thing I've ever said about any religion, ever.

I said it after a certain Calvinist, formerly the paid editor of an avowedly anti-Mormon monthly tabloid, had been posting particularly contemptuous things about my faith. I wanted him to understand that, if I felt so inclined, I could be as negative about his faith as he was being about mine.

In fact, though, I'm not that negative. You can search and search and search through my published works (or get your creepy network of anonymous "informants" to do the searching for you). The nearest thing you'll find to the comment you cite above is a very positive essay about John Calvin, published by Meridian Magazine some years ago.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Gee, Scratch. It's been very nearly half an hour since you posted here.

You gave me only twelve minutes, above, before you began suggesting that there was something fishy about my alleged failure to answer one of your absurd questions.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Very nearly an hour now.

Very odd.

Definitely quite disturbing.

Perhaps, even, a watershed moment in the history of Scratcholepsy.

[_Mister Scratch]

So, am I to understand that your answer is: "Yes, Stendahl's Rule and Peterson's Rule do not apply to critics"? Based on your last few posts, I would have assumed that you were arguing the *opposite* of that. Perhaps I was wrong?

You're always wrong. Write that on the back of both hands, and contemplate it every fifteen minutes.

I take serious criticisms seriously. That, for example, is why I have a substantial piece on Mormonism and the Trinity that should be appearing before the end of the month in Element, the journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology. That's why I've published so much with FARMS over the years. That's why I wrote Offenders for a Word.

Why not a simple answer, Prof. P.? Why not a simple, "No. Critics don't deserve to be treated under the rubric of Stendahl's Rules or Peterson's Rule." And besides: you once published an entire, rather lengthy article in FARMS Review on Loftes Tryk. Remember? Or do you regard Tryk's criticism as "serious"? Or is FROB a venue in which regard for the Rules gets tossed aside?

But not all criticisms deserve serious responses. Some are simply ridiculous. Do I really have to amass evidence and formulate arguments to refute Ed Decker's claim that Mormons sponsor Boy Scout troops as paramilitary training units in preparation for the planned Mormon take-over of the government, at which time we'll rule from a full-scale reproduction of the Oval Office located in the Washington DC Temple? Do I really need to take seriously Bill Schnoebelen's allegation that Mormon apostles have the number 666 carved into their flesh, that they drink blood from human-skull mugs during their Thursday morning meetings, and that Elder Faust frankly admitted to him that the real god of Mormonism is Lucifer?

That's not really at issue here, Professor P. The issue is whether or not you treat critics fairly. As per the rules, it appears that you do not, and that you see no need to do so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why not a simple answer, Prof. P.? Why not a simple, "No. Critics don't deserve to be treated under the rubric of Stendahl's Rules or Peterson's Rule."

Critics aren't a monolith, Scratch.

Some, as I've said, should be taken seriously. Some, as I've said, shouldn't be.

And anyway, as I've said, criticism isn't a religion.

There is no evidence to suggest that millions, over centuries, have resonated to The God Makers, or found their life's meaning in it.

I don't attack other people's religions. But I feel perfectly free to rebut criticisms of mine, and even to make fun of silly critics. (And yes, that includes you.)

And besides: you once published an entire, rather lengthy article in FARMS Review on Loftes Tryk. Remember?

I do. I had a good time with it. Maybe others here will enjoy it, as well:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... um=1&id=72

Or do you regard Tryk's criticism as "serious"?

Clearly, I regarded it as hilarious.

Humor is permitted in non-Scratchite faiths. It's not considered a sin.

Or is FROB a venue in which regard for the Rules gets tossed aside?

Nope. When the rules apply, the FARMS Review applies them.

The issue is whether or not you treat critics fairly. As per the rules, it appears that you do not, and that you see no need to do so.

After all the nonsense you've attempted on this thread, what a stunning surprise it is to find that you've come, via your usual mind-reading and non sequiturs, to the very conclusion that serves as the fundamental premise of virtually everything that you've posted about me for the past three years (or whatever it's been).

I'm utterly flabbergasted. Astonished beyond expression.