Stendahl's Rules

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Touche. Your counterargument has been well-played, Dr. Robbers. I concede defeat on this point.

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

Agreed. Your observation underscores DCP's evasiveness on this thread. Why doesn't he just say one way or the other whether he thinks critics deserve to be treated with the fairness outlines in Stendahl's Rules?

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP stated above that "some critics" deserve to be treated with fairness but, then again, it's unclear how the distinction is made.

And Scratch thereby falsely insinuates that I've also said that "some critics" deserve to be treated unfairly.

But I haven't said that.

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.

Harmony says she's unaware of Jack Chick. Here's a specimen of his work:

http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0118.asp

I think this is the same comic that begins with scenes of Mormon detectives ruling as suicidal the obvious murder of a dissenting Church member, taking direct, explicit orders to do so by telephone from their bishop.

Another Jack Chick highlight is the comic book in which he alleges that John Wilkes Booth was a Jesuit priest who assassinated Abraham Lincoln at the command of the Vatican.

I think Jack 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.

I've written, and otherwise published, scores and scores of pages of serious scholarly engagement with Brent Metcalfe's writing.

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.

Mister Scratch praises the work of Gadianton Scratch, who praises the work of Mister Scratch, who praises the work of Gadianton Scratch, who praises the work of Mister Scratch, who praises the work of Gadianton Scratch, who praises the work of Mister Scratch.

For specimens of serious engagement with critics, I offer scores of links at the following locations:

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

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

These can never be enough for a devout Scratchist, but normal, reasonable people will weigh the evidence without regard to Scratchite dogma.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

I "admitted" nothing of the kind.

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.

Nonsense.

When responding to Decker, we read what Decker himself has written, and we comment on it.

When responding to Metcalfe, we read what Metcalfe himself has written, and we comment on it.

These are reviews. When you review Master and Commander or Lord of the Rings, you watch Master and Commander or Lord of the Rings, and you comment on it.

There's no great mystery here.

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?

Krister Stendahl's rules were formulated for examining religions other than one's own.

Is Chick a religion? Is Decker a religion? Is Tryk a religion?

What a transparently ridiculous game you're playing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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've been answering this question for three years or so.

Yes. I believe I treat critics fairly.

[_harmony]

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.

I don't think so. All I see is you criticizing Daniel. Any criticism of the others is minor in comparison.

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."

The size of their budget is still speculative, and the secrecy of the skinny list has obviously been breached.

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.

Personally, I think that wasn't your best; you could do better.

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.

You lost me.

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.

Actually, I was referring to you.

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

They think so, and that's what counts.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your counterargument has been well-played, Dr. Robbers.

Mister Scratch ceremoniously praises Gadianton Scratch.

Second, why not just admit the rules apply to critics as well?

Because, as I've pointed out, they don't.

Agreed. Your observation underscores DCP's evasiveness on this thread. Why doesn't he just say one way or the other whether he thinks critics deserve to be treated with the fairness outlines in Stendahl's Rules?

It's not legitimate to equate "Stendahl's Rules" with "fairness." Stendahl's rules were formulated with specific regard to examining the claims, doctrines, and practices of a religion to which one does not adhere. They were not formulated to cover individual authors, ministers, agitators, propagandists, or polemicists.

I believe in being fair to everybody. I do not believe in applying Stendahl's rules where they were not meant to be applied.

As I've said numerous times here.

I understand, of course, that a Scratchite trap is being laid (for what little it's worth). I'm to be depicted as unfair, evasive, and/or hypocritical. Which is scarcely late-breaking news. Depicting me that way is always the goal.

[_Gadianton]

How do our critics score in using Stendahl's rules? Based on the examples that are on the shelves of Christian bookstores, examples that are preached over Protestant pulpits, and examples splattered all over the Internet, we find, as does Dr. Peterson, that the critics of the LDS faith fail miserably.

____

I've listened to piles of Protestant preachers preaching over many Protestant pulpits and to date have heard zero Protestant protestations relating to Mormonism or other non-Protestant preaching, teaching or believing.

Nightengale, This is an important observation. I remembered reading your comment here earlier in the morning and it weighed on my thoughts this afternoon, but for some reason I couldn't find it to comment on but just now I spotted your quote. While Johnson(?) doesn't come right out and say it, pretty much the entire MAD community is fully taken by the logic that Mormons are superior to Christians because of the existence of anti-Mormon literature. Of course, you are right, that typical protestant churches don't exist just to ridicule Mormonism. Many apologists, especially the junior apologists, are easily led to feeling very superior about their faith based on precisely breaking rule number 2.

[_Daniel Peterson]

typical protestant churches don't exist just to ridicule Mormonism.

Who on the planet has ever suggested that typical Protestant churches exist solely to ridicule Mormonism?

Can a straw man possibly be any more crammed and stuffed with straw than this one?

[_antishock8]

I think the two of the three rules are seriously flawed in the first place. It's a false paradigm only designed to quiet people. Silly.

Rule #1 "... when you want to learn about a religion you should ask the adherents to that religion and not its enemies."

The problem with that is the human condition of embellishment; Lying for the Lord in Mormonism, or taqiyya in Islam as it were. When you have believers, as is the case in Sunni and Shia Islam that are taught how to lie in order to advance their cause, it isn't helpful to ask them about their religion. Islam is Peace is about as useful as Mormonism is The One True Church. After all, I recall a certain Prophet destroying a printing press for "spreading lies" about his practice of polygamy, when in reality it was dead on.

Rule #2 "... Don't compare your best with their worst..."

I totally disagree with this notion. By their fruits ye shall know them. We should absolutely use comparitive examples mixing ideology with real world examples. I don't see any problem with stating that in Chrisitanity one is commanded to Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You, whereas in Islam we have real world examples of Muslim men murdering sisters over honor, blowing up busloads of women and children, sawing the heads off their wives and "enemies", forcing women to be covered, raping their women legally, etc... By suspending reason and common sense in order to falsely create an air of fairness is to turn a blind eye to the reality and horrors of some ideologies that are, in my opinion, pure evil. This kind of discussion leads to understanding, exploration, introspection, and progress. Rule #2 only leads to more Rule #1. It's a cycle meant to keep people uninformed.

Rule #3 is "... 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."

I really can't argue with this. The only problem I see with this is one man's idea of "value" is another man's "garbage". As much as we'd like to think people would seek the good out in each others' ideologies and then use them, they often think the bad is good and start using that, instead. How many Mormons value Islam's ideas on homosexuality, a woman's place in society, the reverential treatment of a prophetic figure? These notions, for a vast amount of people in a civil world are very problematic, and in some cases deadly. Finding common ground and envy in each others' ideologies sounds good, but in many cases one group ends up aiding and abetting another to commit evil, in the name of good. This particular "rule" should be treated with much caution and scrutiny.

[_Nightingale]

... pretty much the entire MAD community is fully taken by the logic that Mormons are superior to Christians because of the existence of anti-Mormon literature. Of course, you are right, that typical protestant churches don't exist just to ridicule Mormonism. Many apologists, especially the junior apologists, are easily led to feeling very superior about their faith based on precisely breaking rule number 2.

I don't know if your comment about MAD is true with such a broad brush, but I'm no MAD expert. It is apparent that sometimes that impression about non-LDS faiths is given, and taken, by some Mormons. I don't think it's surprising that one group has incorrect impressions about another group's beliefs. Misunderstandings abound. Most of them are not rooted in malicious intent. Rather, it is difficult to understand the nuances of any faith from the outside. And it's easy to convey wrong impressions, whether purposely or more commonly through a genuine misunderstanding.

But yeah, most time in a Protestant church is spent worshipping and learning according to Protestant beliefs, in my experience, and not on learning about or discussing other faiths and especially not in being negative or derogatory about what we don't believe. The services and classes are meant to be positive learning and worshipping times. An impression that it's a seething mass of anti-Mormonism is obviously absolutely incorrect, unless it is, in some weird and obscure place!

On another note, to address the mention above of "holy envy", apparently it was a Divinity professor, Krister Stendahl, who coined the expression:

"The real trick [to religious understanding] is what I call ‘Holy Envy,'" said Krister Stendahl, professor emeritus at Harvard Divinity School. "There is something in the other that is beautiful, that even tells you something about God. But it ain't yours; it's different.... We are different, and we should celebrate that diversity."

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=ma ... le=010932f

To Stendahl there was a precise meaning for the term he coined but as often with our language it is used by others in different ways. My understanding of it is that it refers to religious matters and is basically an admiration of the good things that a person of one faith can see in another.

Interestingly, I found the term in an LDS blog, used to express the author's appreciation of "Protestant architecture".

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/on-me ... -weddings/

I've seen it used by Protestant theologians in reference to a belief in another religion that they like the sounds of. For me, I could use it in reference to the LDS view of the afterlife that doesn't include the Catholic or Protestant hell!