Stendahl's Rules

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're really, really struggling to make me appear guilty of something.

(Nothing new there, of course.)

I'm going to a wedding reception.

[_Mister Scratch]

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

Apparently, it is only "bad" when it comes to applying the Rules to critics. DCP (and Johnson) believe that the Rules should be in effect at all times except when it come to critics of the Church. DCP stated above that "some critics" deserve to be treated with fairness, but, then again, it's unclear how the distinction is made. For example, DCP keeps mentioning Jack Chick. He is mentioning Chick because he thinks that no one here will possibly come to Chick's defense, and thus, that we'll all agree with him that Chick is an appropriate target for ridicule. But the problem here is that DCP directs ridicule at critics who are, presumably, scholarly and serious---people like Brent Metcalfe. So, when it's convenient, he'll say that "some critics" deserve serious treatment, but based on his writings, it think it's pretty clear that he tends to lump all of them under the same "anti-Mormon" umbrella, just as Gadianton demonstrated on the other thread.

[_Gadianton]

I can't understand any resistence to applying Stendahl's rules to critics or even "anti-Mormons".

1. Ask adherents, not enemies
2. Don't compare your best with your worst

Think about it, the apparently unwritten apologetic rules for dealing with threats are,

1. When dealing with a critic, ask enemies of the critic what the critic believes and respond to that in your publications.
2. When dealing with a critic, feel free to compare your best to his worst.

[_Mister Scratch]

You're really, really struggling to make me appear guilty of something.

I am? How am I doing that? I merely asked whether or not you treat critics fairly. You're really, really struggling to avoid answering that very simple, malice-free question. Why is that, I wonder?

I'm going to a wedding reception.

Well, I hope you have a good time.

[_Mister Scratch]

I can't understand any resistence to applying Stendahl's rules to critics or even "anti-Mormons".

1. Ask adherents, not enemies
2. Don't compare your best with your worst

Think about it, the apparently unwritten apologetic rules for dealing with threats are,

1. When dealing with a critic, ask enemies of the critic what the critic believes and respond to that in your publications.
2. When dealing with a critic, feel free to compare your best to his worst.

Well, I'm sure DCP would reply by saying that they do also deal with "the best"---i.e., critics like Metcalfe and Vogel (and non-critics who are nonetheless seen as enemies, like Quinn). The trouble is that there is no difference in the treatment. All critics get lumped under the same "anti-Mormon" umbrella (as you correctly pointed out in the other thread), and all are ridiculed and mocked by the apologists.

What I'm really curious about is the "holy envy" part of the Rules. What in Chick, Decker, Tryk, and so forth are the Mopologists envious of?

[_KimberlyAnn]

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

We had a discussion on this board re: that specific comment from DCP.

For those who are interested, it can be read here.

Now, I must hie to my daughter's first formal school dance. It's also her very first date and he's a couple years older than her. She was nominated for the Royalty Court and is hoping to be the Queen of the Dance. So, I'm heading to the school under the guise of taking pictures, but I'm really just snooping.

It's so Scratchian.

KA

[_Mister Scratch]

Now, I must hie to my daughter's first formal school dance. It's also her very first date and he's a couple years older than her. She was nominated for the Royalty Court and is hoping to be the Queen of the Dance. So, I'm heading to the school under the guise of taking pictures, but I'm really just snooping.

It's so Scratchian.

KA

Lol. I hope you have a good time, KA.

[_Gadianton]

Well, I'm sure DCP would reply by saying that they do also deal with "the best"---i.e., critics like Metcalfe and Vogel (and non-critics who are nonetheless seen as enemies, like Quinn).

Yes, this is true. But I still think there are problems here. first, even if one takes on "the best" as well as "the worst", it seems to me the intent of the rule is to avoid broad-brushing an entire religion based on a comparison of one's best to anothers worst. Strangely, one apologist on this thread, Dr. Peterson, just admitted to lambasting Calvinism entirely on the merits of one particular Calvinist who had been attacking his faith.

Second, why not just admit the rules apply to critics as well? There seems little to lose here.

The trouble is that there is no difference in the treatment. All critics get lumped under the same "anti-Mormon" umbrella (as you correctly pointed out in the other thread), and all are ridiculed and mocked by the apologists.

This is true, an astute observation.

What I'm really curious about is the "holy envy" part of the Rules. What in Chick, Decker, Tryk, and so forth are the Mopologists envious of?

A thoughtful question that deserves an answer.

[_harmony]

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

Apparently, it is only "bad" when it comes to applying the Rules to critics. DCP (and Johnson) believe that the Rules should be in effect at all times except when it come to critics of the Church. DCP stated above that "some critics" deserve to be treated with fairness, but, then again, it's unclear how the distinction is made. For example, DCP keeps mentioning Jack Chick. He is mentioning Chick because he thinks that no one here will possibly come to Chick's defense, and thus, that we'll all agree with him that Chick is an appropriate target for ridicule. But the problem here is that DCP directs ridicule at critics who are, presumably, scholarly and serious---people like Brent Metcalfe. So, when it's convenient, he'll say that "some critics" deserve serious treatment, but based on his writings, it think it's pretty clear that he tends to lump all of them under the same "anti-Mormon" umbrella, just as Gadianton demonstrated on the other thread.

But... I mean, really.. does anyone ever do everything according to some rule they might endorse in the interest of the greater good at any given moment in time? None of us can ever live up to those kinda exalted expectations of ourselves... or others. And isn't it kinda unfair to expect something from someone else that we ourselves don't adhere to... and that we are well aware they don't adhere to, even though they may sincerely want to?

And isn't expecting that kind of consistency kinda... ummm... well, don't they say that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds? So... small minded?

I mean, I give the Brethren a real hard time sometimes, but most of the time, even I know they're doing the best they can (at least some of the time), and the rest of the time... well, I'm not sure I'd do much better... (except I'd open the books).

[_Mister Scratch]

Apparently, it is only "bad" when it comes to applying the Rules to critics. DCP (and Johnson) believe that the Rules should be in effect at all times except when it come to critics of the Church. DCP stated above that "some critics" deserve to be treated with fairness, but, then again, it's unclear how the distinction is made. For example, DCP keeps mentioning Jack Chick. He is mentioning Chick because he thinks that no one here will possibly come to Chick's defense, and thus, that we'll all agree with him that Chick is an appropriate target for ridicule. But the problem here is that DCP directs ridicule at critics who are, presumably, scholarly and serious---people like Brent Metcalfe. So, when it's convenient, he'll say that "some critics" deserve serious treatment, but based on his writings, it think it's pretty clear that he tends to lump all of them under the same "anti-Mormon" umbrella, just as Gadianton demonstrated on the other thread.

But... I mean, really.. does anyone ever do everything according to some rule they might endorse in the interest of the greater good at any given moment in time? None of us can ever live up to those kinda exalted expectations of ourselves... or others. And isn't it kinda unfair to expect something from someone else that we ourselves don't adhere to... and that we are well aware they don't adhere to, even though they may sincerely want to?

I see what you're saying. For my part, I would like to believe that I adhere---more or less, I know I'm far from perfect---to Stendahl's Rules when dealing with Mopologists. For example, I see no need to pick endlessly at the lesser, minor Mopologists. Instead, I direct my criticism at the best of them: DCP, Hamblin, Midgley, Gee, and so forth.

Likewise, I admire the Mopologists' massive financial budget, and their secretive e-lists, such as l-skinny. I suppose you could characterize this as a kind of "holy envy."

Finally, I am glad to ask all sorts of folks about the Mopologists---both adherents and detractors. When I wanted to learn about Mopologetic motives, for example, I asked DCP and LoaP directly. Of course, they refused to answer, but I did my best.

Finally, I think I have adhered to Peterson's Rule as well. It's clear that a number of Mopologists believe in Mopologetics, so there must be something to it. I have tried my best to understand what this is, but I realize that I still have a ways to go.

And isn't expecting that kind of consistency kinda... ummm... well, don't they say that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds? So... small minded?

From Mopologists? Or from critics? And I'm not expecting "perfect" consistency (whatever that is). Rather, the questions I have directed at DCP were meant to determine whether or not he believes he treats critics fairly. So far, he still has not answered that question.

I mean, I give the Brethren a real hard time sometimes, but most of the time, even I know they're doing the best they can (at least some of the time), and the rest of the time... well, I'm not sure I'd do much better... (except I'd open the books).

That's fair enough. Do you believe also that Mopologists are doing the best they can?