Stendahl's Rules

[_harmony]

It's been a busy day, somewhat trying in more than a few ways, so I'll be brief:

1. What is Stendahl's rules?

2.

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.

Shouldn't this say "I take seriously the fact that many people worldwide reject Mormon claims because of anti-Mormon input. That's why... blah blah blah"? Otherwise, it looks like you're arguing that millions of people's agency should be overlooked. Maybe I am readig it wrong.

3. Welcome, Nomad.

4. I've seen very little anti-Mormon stuff on the shelves of Christian bookstores. Maybe in a huge store, anti-Mormons get one 4' shelf. I have, on the other hand, witnessed preaching against Mormons in the Baptist church that's across the road from my ward building. And I've watched my momma take the preacher to task for his misapplication of Christ's commandment to love everyone. oooooo! She was mad!

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I never said that critics form a "monolith." I simply asked whether or not you believed that critics deserved to be extended the same rules that you (presumably) apply to religions.

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

You did read the Johnson piece, right? The one from FAIR that I linked to in the OP? And you noticed that he meant to apply all those rules to the critics---i.e., to test and see whether or not critics have been following the rules?

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

Well, I didn't suggest that. I was merely wondering whether you felt compelled to treat critics with any measure of fairness. It's becoming increasingly clear that you do not.

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.)

Of course, the problem here lies in your notion of "silly." You claim above that you make a clear distinction between "silly" critics like Decker and Chick, but then you publish something about a scholarly critic like "Metcalfe is Butthead." I have to ask, Professor P.: Is the distinction really all that clear in your mind? Or, is it more accurate to say that you just don't treat critics fairly?

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

Would you say that this is a fair-minded article? Did you apply Stendahl's Rules, or Peterson's Rule?

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).

Feel free to point out wherever I have engaged in non sequiturs or mind reading. I'm sure you'll have as much concrete and compelling evidence as your claim that bookstores in CA and CO have "entire shelves" of "anti-Mormon" books.

If you wish to provide an argument in favor of the thesis that you do indeed treat critics fairly, then I'm all ears.

[_Mister Scratch]

It's been a busy day, somewhat trying in more than a few ways, so I'll be brief:

1. What is Stendahl's rules?

Hi, Harmony. I summarized the Rules in my OP. You can also follow the link in my OP to the FAIR article in which the Rules are explained in more detail.

2.

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.

Shouldn't this say "I take seriously the fact that many people worldwide reject Mormon claims because of anti-Mormon input. That's why... blah blah blah"? Otherwise, it looks like you're arguing that millions of people's agency should be overlooked. Maybe I am readig it wrong.

I couldn't agree more with this. It's not as if the FARMS Review is meant to be a missionary effort. It clearly exists to attack "anti-Mormons", Chapel Mormons, and critics of the Church. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel that this is an extraordinarily profound and astute observation. I mean, where has DCP ever formulated some kind of argument that would persuade a typical Gentile that Native Americans are actually Israelites?

3. Welcome, Nomad.

Ditto.

4. I've seen very little anti-Mormon stuff on the shelves of Christian bookstores. Maybe in a huge store, anti-Mormons get one 4' shelf. I have, on the other hand, witnessed preaching against Mormons in the Baptist church that's across the road from my ward building. And I've watched my momma take the preacher to task for his misapplication of Christ's commandment to love everyone. oooooo! She was mad!

I know that I'll be waiting patiently for the Good Professor to cough up the names of the bookstores. Hopefully one of us will be able to investigate his claims. The FARMS Review authors do a really good job of checking sources. As the old saying goes, "One good turn deserves another!"

[_harmony]

It's been a busy day, somewhat trying in more than a few ways, so I'll be brief:

1. What is Stendahl's rules?

Hi, Harmony. I summarized the Rules in my OP. You can also follow the link in my OP to the FAIR article in which the Rules are explained in more detail.

Yeah, well, I don't get it, so please try again, for those of us with headaches.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yeah, well, I don't get it, so please try again, for those of us with headaches.

Sure, Harmony. But only because it's you doing the asking.

Bear in mind that this is Johnson quoting DCP's paraphrasing:

He laid down three rules which might seem obvious but they are often ignored in trying to understand other faiths. One of them, the first rule was that when you want to learn about a religion you should ask the adherents to that religion and not its enemies. Now that seems fairly obvious but it is ignored an awful lot.

The second rule was a little more interesting. Don't compare your best with their worst, which is often done. You know, we Christians believe in the ideal of loving everyone, but the Muslims, look at those terrorists in Algeria. What you do is take the worst example of the other guy's religion and compare it to the ideal, almost never reached in your religion and that's apples and oranges, right? If you are going to compare terrorists, you should compare Christian terrorists with Muslim terrorists. If you are going to compare ideals, you should compare the ideal in the other faith with the ideal in your faith. If you are going to compare your saint to something in their religion, find one of their saints and compare them. That's the only fair way to do it.

The third one, I think, is even more interesting. His principle was [to] leave room for what he called "holy envy." By holy envy, he intended the idea of looking at another faith and saying, you know, there is something in this other religious tradition that I really envy. I value it. I wish we had it. I can learn something from it.

[Guest]

I simply asked whether or not you believed that critics deserved to be extended the same rules that you (presumably) apply to religions.

I apply to religions rules that are applicable to religions, but I don't apply those rules to algebraic equations, driving, basketball, or anything else where they aren't applicable.

You did read the Johnson piece, right?

Not recently, no.

If you want to have a conversation with Mr. Johnson, I suggest that you contact him and initiate it.

I was merely wondering whether you felt compelled to treat critics with any measure of fairness. It's becoming increasingly clear that you do not.

Bilge.

You claim above that you make a clear distinction between "silly" critics like Decker and Chick, but then you publish something about a scholarly critic like "Metcalfe is Butthead."

Where did I publish that?

Or, is it more accurate to say that you just don't treat critics fairly?

Why do you go through all of the ludicrous rigamarole of pretending to inquire, and to amass evidence?

Why not just come out and state your dogma up front: "Peterson doesn't treat critics fairly."

After all, there's never really any suspense about what your conclusion is going to be.

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1&id=72

Would you say that this is a fair-minded article?

I would say that it's a fairly funny article, and that it scores some genuine (and, thus, genuinely fair) criticisms against Loftes Tryk. (Humor is not regarded as sinful in non-Scratchist faiths.)

I encourage any who might be interested to read it.

If you wish to provide an argument in favor of the thesis that you do indeed treat critics fairly, then I'm all ears.

No argument or evidence is likely to convince the die-hard Scratchite dogmatist. But for reasonable people, I offer:

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=1

[_harmony]

Yeah, well, I don't get it, so please try again, for those of us with headaches.

Sure, Harmony. But only because it's you doing the asking.

Bear in mind that this is Johnson quoting DCP's paraphrasing:

He laid down three rules which might seem obvious but they are often ignored in trying to understand other faiths. One of them, the first rule was that when you want to learn about a religion you should ask the adherents to that religion and not its enemies. Now that seems fairly obvious but it is ignored an awful lot.

The second rule was a little more interesting. Don't compare your best with their worst, which is often done. You know, we Christians believe in the ideal of loving everyone, but the Muslims, look at those terrorists in Algeria. What you do is take the worst example of the other guy's religion and compare it to the ideal, almost never reached in your religion and that's apples and oranges, right? If you are going to compare terrorists, you should compare Christian terrorists with Muslim terrorists. If you are going to compare ideals, you should compare the ideal in the other faith with the ideal in your faith. If you are going to compare your saint to something in their religion, find one of their saints and compare them. That's the only fair way to do it.

The third one, I think, is even more interesting. His principle was [to] leave room for what he called "holy envy." By holy envy, he intended the idea of looking at another faith and saying, you know, there is something in this other religious tradition that I really envy. I value it. I wish we had it. I can learn something from it.

So... how is this bad? It seems very fair.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scratch is trying to claim that, because I believe in treating Catholicism and Buddhism and Islam and Methodism with respect while regarding Jack Chick as a bigot and a buffoon, I'm a hypocrite.

[_harmony]

Scratch is trying to claim that, because I believe in treating Catholicism and Buddhism and Islam and Methodism with respect while regarding Jack Chick as a bigot and a buffoon, I'm a hypocrite.

Oh. Well. There's no accounting for personal taste, is there? (I don't know who Jack Chick is, but I personally know several ignorant Baptist bigots and a couple of Catholic buffoons that I have a hard time treating with respect).

[_Mister Scratch]

I simply asked whether or not you believed that critics deserved to be extended the same rules that you (presumably) apply to religions.

I apply to religions rules that are applicable to religions, but I don't apply those rules to algebraic equations, driving, basketball, or anything else where they aren't applicable.

So, you're saying that Stendahl's Rules (and Peterson's Rule) do not apply to critics? (It's amazing how hard of a time you seem to be having in simply offering up a straightforward answer to this question.)

You did read the Johnson piece, right?

Not recently, no.

Well, gee, you wouldn't want to be accused of offering up opinions in a conversation that relates to a piece of writing you're unfamiliar with. Johnson seems perfectly willing to extend the Rules to critics. How come you aren't?

I was merely wondering whether you felt compelled to treat critics with any measure of fairness. It's becoming increasingly clear that you do not.

Bilge.

Well, then, feel free to enlighten me. You appear to be dismissing the aforementioned rules pretty brazenly. What rules (if any) do you use when you attempt to treat critics fairly? Or is it all a matter of whim?

You claim above that you make a clear distinction between "silly" critics like Decker and Chick, but then you publish something about a scholarly critic like "Metcalfe is Butthead."

Where did I publish that?

Editors usually take responsibility for what gets published on their watch. Don't they?

Or, is it more accurate to say that you just don't treat critics fairly?

Why do you go through all of the ludicrous rigamarole of pretending to inquire, and to amass evidence?

Wha? Please tell me that you're not actually trying to argue that inquiries and the amassing of evidence are "ludicrous."

After all, there's never really any suspense about what your conclusion is going to be.

No, there's still suspense. You might prove me wrong by providing a set of Rules you use when dealing with critics. It's clear that you demand that critics follow a certain set of Rules. Which rules do you feel that *you* need to abide by?

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1&id=72

Would you say that this is a fair-minded article?

I would say that it's a fairly funny article, and that it scores some genuine (and, thus, genuinely fair) criticisms against Loftes Tryk. (Humor is not regarded as sinful in non-Scratchist faiths.)

I encourage any who might be interested to read it.

More dodging of the question. Again: do you feel that you treated Tryk fairly? Did you apply Stendahl's Rules, or Peterson's Rule?

If you wish to provide an argument in favor of the thesis that you do indeed treat critics fairly, then I'm all ears.

No argument or evidence is likely to convince the die-hard Scratchite dogmatist. But for reasonable people, I offer:

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=1

Yes, and among those pieces is your "Lotus Eaters" article and your Tryk piece. Now how is it, again, that these are proof of your fair-minded treatment of critics? How do these pieces spell out your Code of Ethics?

Or are you operating according to a double standard?