Stendahl's Rules

[_harmony]

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.

Good post, Antishock. You make a good argument.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

But, as you yourself admitted on this thread, you don't treat critics equally. Vogel and Metcalfe are treated according to different "rules" than Decker and Chick. And all of them, as the evidence has shown, are targets for Mopologetic ridicule. Just how do you define "fairness," Dr. Peterson?

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 have to wonder what you think you gain by insisting that Stendahl's Rules ought to be limited in this way. As Harmony pointed out earlier, they seem "very fair." Don't you agree? I'm sure that I'm not alone in feeling baffled as to why you wouldn't simply say, "Yes, I believe the Rules ought to be extended to all critics. Sure, they were initially formulated to deal with religions, but they clearly have wider applicability."

Instead, because you continually insist that the Rules shouldn't be extended to critics, since critics "aren't a religion," it seems as if you are giving yourself a free pass to treat critics unfairly, and to ridicule them.

by the way: Mopologetics is not a "religion," is it? And so, by your own logic, anything "Mopologetic" should not be afforded any of the protections under Stendahl's Rules. Right?

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.

How would you say that you treated Tryk and Decker "fairly"? How about James White? What was "fair" about your treatment of these people? From what I can tell, it appears that you are adhering to a kind of "eye for an eye" philosophy with these folks. I.e., your "fair-minded" logic runs something like this: "Ed Decker said some mean and dishonest things about the LDS Church, so, in all fairness, I am going to ridicule him and say a bunch of equally nasty things about him."

Does that sum up your notion of "fairness," Professor P.?

[_solomarineris]

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.

You sure don't. However it doesn't absolve you from being "guilty by association" as an LDS member. Prophet Joseph Smith boldly claimed other religions being abomination of God's eyes, Catholic Church being a "Mother of the whore Church".
Granted we live in 21'st Century, I don't see any of Brass repudiating these teachings.
We know, you are a nice mellow guy, who wouldn't hurt an ant.
So?
You still believe the same BS as it was taught by your masters hundred years ago.
Otherwise you'd repudiate bad stuff in one of your substance-less reviews. (which would be quite refreshing but of course they'd cut your tail so fast you wouldn't know what'd hit you).
Make no mistake DCP, your charm can save you up to a point, here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

solomarineris, Joseph Smith had very positive things to say about Catholics, Methodists, etc. I know too much about him to be able to swallow your attempt to depict him as a religious bigot. (I gave a speech on his attitude toward other religions a few years back, at National Taiwan University. Maybe I'll publish it sometime.)

But, as you yourself admitted on this thread, you don't treat critics equally.

You're right. And what's more, I don't treat poems, colors, politicians, movies, restaurants, novels, national parks, magazines, philosophers, neckties, cities, comedians, breakfast cereals, baseball teams, and soap brands equally, either.

The verb to discriminate wasn't always shameful. A discriminating reader, for example, was one who spent his or her time on literature more than on trash.

I see nothing wrong with believing that some things are better than others, more worthy of serious attention than others.

Vogel and Metcalfe are treated according to different "rules" than Decker and Chick.

If Vogel and Metcalfe produced sensationalistic and/or bigoted trash of the type emitted by Decker and Chick, they would be treated like Decker and Chick.

And all of them, as the evidence has shown, are targets for Mopologetic ridicule.

Non-Scratchites don't regard humor as sinful.

Just how do you define "fairness," Dr. Peterson?

This is essentially the question "What is justice?" to which Plato devotes his Republic. It's an exceedingly difficult one to answer. Great minds from Plato and Aristotle through Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius and Immanuel Kant to John Rawls have wrestled with it.

I love philosophical discussions, and would happily participate in a seminar on the topic.

But there's not a snowball's chance in hell that I'm going to enter into a discussion on it with you. I don't regard you as intellectually serious, and all I ever see from you is attempts to spin what I say in order to defame me.

I have to wonder what you think you gain by insisting that Stendahl's Rules ought to be limited in this way.

I suspect that I know what you hope to gain by insisting that they ought to be applied beyond Krister Stendahl's application of them.

But I don't see them as applicable. Major religious or philosophical movements simply aren't the same kind of animal as Jack Chick is, or as Ed Decker is, or even as Brent Metcalfe or Dan Vogel is.

Questions of "holy envy" are appropriate to substantial intellectual and spiritual movements. They don't necessarily apply to individual critics or polemicists. The principle of going first to an adherent rather than to a critic, or of comparing my faith's apples with your faith's apples, is helpful to those contemplating other religious faiths, but seems largely irrelevant to somebody who's just planning to review a book.

Tough luck.

As Harmony pointed out earlier, they seem "very fair." Don't you agree?

I think they're more than fair.

I'm very fond of them. I speak and write about them often as a model for interreligious dialogue and understanding.

But they wouldn't serve as a model for football referees or criminal court judges or highway patrolmen.

I'm sure that I'm not alone in feeling baffled as to why you wouldn't simply say, "Yes, I believe the Rules ought to be extended to all critics. Sure, they were initially formulated to deal with religions, but they clearly have wider applicability."

I think I've explained why I don't say that. Several times.

Instead, because you continually insist that the Rules shouldn't be extended to critics, since critics "aren't a religion," it seems as if you are giving yourself a free pass to treat critics unfairly, and to ridicule them.

I'm simply astonished that you would want to understand me that way. I'm speechless with surprise.

by the way: Mopologetics is not a "religion," is it? And so, by your own logic, anything "Mopologetic" should not be afforded any of the protections under Stendahl's Rules. Right?

I don't believe that Stendahl's three rules apply to apologetics of any kind.

How would you say that you treated Tryk and Decker "fairly"?

I accurately summarized their views and challenged them:

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

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=190

I don't regard a sense of humor as something for which I need to apologize. I'm not a Scratchite.

How about James White?

I've accurately summarized his views and challenged them.

This is on particularly clear display in my two-hour radio debate with him from years ago.

What was "fair" about your treatment of these people?

See above.

From what I can tell, it appears that you are adhering to a kind of "eye for an eye" philosophy with these folks. I.e., your "fair-minded" logic runs something like this: "Ed Decker said some mean and dishonest things about the LDS Church, so, in all fairness, I am going to ridicule him and say a bunch of equally nasty things about him."

Not even close.

Does that sum up your notion of "fairness," Professor P.?

No, Mister Sophist. It doesn't.




.

[_Mister Scratch]

The verb to discriminate wasn't always shameful. A discriminating reader, for example, was one who spent his or her time on literature more than on trash.

I see nothing wrong with believing that some things are better than others, more worthy of serious attention than others.

That's fine and good, of course. But that isn't really the issue here. If I understand you correctly, you are insisting that religions---Mormonism especially---deserves to be treated differently than "literature, movies, breakfast cereal," and whatever else. Is that correct? If so, the question becomes: Why? What is it about religion that necessitates the need for a "free pass"?

Vogel and Metcalfe are treated according to different "rules" than Decker and Chick.

If Vogel and Metcalfe produced sensationalistic and/or bigoted trash of the type emitted by Decker and Chick, they would be treated like Decker and Chick.

But, as has already been established, to a certain extent, they have been. "Metcalfe is Butthead," anyone? Obvioulsy, the production of "sensationalistic and/or bigoted trash" isn't the deciding factor. So what is? Whim?

And all of them, as the evidence has shown, are targets for Mopologetic ridicule.

Non-Scratchites don't regard humor as sinful.

You're right. And neither do Scratchites. It's only folks like Mopologists, and the General Authorities, who seem to warn and rant against certain forms of humor.

Just how do you define "fairness," Dr. Peterson?

This is essentially the question "What is justice?" to which Plato devotes his Republic. It's an exceedingly difficult one to answer. Great minds from Plato and Aristotle through Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius and Immanuel Kant to John Rawls have wrestled with it.

I love philosophical discussions, and would happily participate in a seminar on the topic.

But there's not a snowball's chance in hell that I'm going to enter into a discussion on it with you. I don't regard you as intellectually serious, and all I ever see from you is attempts to spin what I say in order to defame me.

In other words, you are chickening out of the discussion. If you believe you are fair, and if you believe you use fair standards in your dealings with critics, then I would assume that you'd have no problem defending your belief---and yes, even against mean old Mr. Scratch. But, I'll go ahead and duly note that you're unwilling to lay out the premises of your alleged "fairness" towards critics.

I have to wonder what you think you gain by insisting that Stendahl's Rules ought to be limited in this way.

I suspect that I know what you hope to gain by insisting that they ought to be applied beyond Krister Stendahl's application of them.

Yeah, you're right: that critics are treated fairly. It doesn't seem quite right to demand that religions get treated with one set of rules while critics of said religion can be treated however the given apologist pleases.

But I don't see them as applicable. Major religious or philosophical movements simply aren't the same kind of animal as Jack Chick is, or as Ed Decker is, or even as Brent Metcalfe or Dan Vogel is.

Questions of "holy envy" are appropriate to substantial intellectual and spiritual movements.

Is that the basis of your application of Stendahl's Rules, or your notions of fairness? "Substantial intellectual and spiritual movements"? Well, that's very interesting, particularly given your laundry list of items up for "discrimination" at the beginning of your post. Surely, literature and movies are often "intellectually substantial." And yet, you apparently see no reason to treat these things fairly.

Furthermore, critics of the LDS Church point out that it is not "intellectually and spiritually substantial" (whatever that means; are JW's "intellectually and spiritually substantial"? Scientologists? Moonies?)

They don't necessarily apply to individual critics or polemicists.

I'm sure that critics of the LDS Church could say, equally, that the rules don't apply the individual General Authorities, or historical Mormons, or individual doctrines. You really are hedging here, aren't you?

The principle of going first to an adherent rather than to a critic, or of comparing my faith's apples with your faith's apples, is helpful to those contemplating other religious faiths, but seems largely irrelevant to somebody who's just planning to review a book.

It would seem a gross understatement to claim that FARMS Review is "only" or "just" about "reviewing books." Come on, now.

Tough luck.

Exactly.

As Harmony pointed out earlier, they seem "very fair." Don't you agree?

I think they're more than fair.

I'm very fond of them. I speak and write about them often as a model for interreligious dialogue and understanding.

And this is where your argument doesn't make sense. You would agree, would you not, that back-and-forth criticism between ex-Mormons, anti-Mormons, atheists, and apologists constitutes a form of "interreligious dialogue," wouldn't you? I mean, you and other apologists have argued elsewhere that atheism is a kind of "religion," haven't you?

But they wouldn't serve as a model for football referees or criminal court judges or highway patrolmen.

Do you consider these things to be "intellectually and spiritually substantial movements"? If not, why cite them as examples?

I'm sure that I'm not alone in feeling baffled as to why you wouldn't simply say, "Yes, I believe the Rules ought to be extended to all critics. Sure, they were initially formulated to deal with religions, but they clearly have wider applicability."

I think I've explained why I don't say that. Several times.

Right. You've said, on the one hand, that some critics deserve better treatment than others. You've also said that critics don't constitute a "religion," and thus, that the Rules shouldn't apply. You've also said that the Rules should apply to "intellectually and spiritually substantial movements," but here, wouldn't you have to concede that criticism---at least part of it---when take as a whole, forms a "intellectually substantial movement"? I mean, when you add up Fawn Brodie, the Tanners, Metcalfe, Vogel, and so forth, wouldn't you have to concede that this is, at minimum, "intellectually substantial"?

Instead, because you continually insist that the Rules shouldn't be extended to critics, since critics "aren't a religion," it seems as if you are giving yourself a free pass to treat critics unfairly, and to ridicule them.

I'm simply astonished that you would want to understand me that way. I'm speechless with surprise.

You still haven't explained why you think that religions, and religious adherents ought to be treated according to one set of rules, while you get to lambaste and mistreat critics according to your arbitrary whims.

by the way: Mopologetics is not a "religion," is it? And so, by your own logic, anything "Mopologetic" should not be afforded any of the protections under Stendahl's Rules. Right?

I don't believe that Stendahl's three rules apply to apologetics of any kind.

Are you suggesting that Mopologetics is not a form of "interreligious dialogue"?

How would you say that you treated Tryk and Decker "fairly"?

I accurately summarized their views and challenged them:

Mocking people is "fair"? You do know about the Great and Spacious building, don't you Professor P.?

I don't regard a sense of humor as something for which I need to apologize. I'm not a Scratchite.

So... your sense of humor is your standard? It's not necessary to treat people fairly if you find it funny and humorous to ridicule them?

How about James White?

I've accurately summarized his views and challenged them.

This is on particularly clear display in my two-hour radio debate with him from years ago.

Well, it's sure not evident in your l-skinny exchanges. Unless you think that passing along private emails to your friends is somehow "fair."

What was "fair" about your treatment of these people?

See above.

I did. I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you could elaborate.

From what I can tell, it appears that you are adhering to a kind of "eye for an eye" philosophy with these folks. I.e., your "fair-minded" logic runs something like this: "Ed Decker said some mean and dishonest things about the LDS Church, so, in all fairness, I am going to ridicule him and say a bunch of equally nasty things about him."

Not even close.

Well, then, feel free to explain. Your notions of fairness are remarkably arcane, Dr. Peterson. More arcane, I daresay, than any reasonable person would have thought possible.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If I understand you correctly, you are insisting that religions---Mormonism especially---deserves to be treated differently than "literature, movies, breakfast cereal," and whatever else. Is that correct?

That is correct. And literature deserves to be treated differently than movies and breakfast cereal. And breakfast cereal deserves to be treated differently than literature and movies.

What is it about religion that necessitates the need for a "free pass"?

I haven't the faintest idea. If you think religion necessitates the need of a "free pass," please explain why. I've never suggested such a thing.

Obvioulsy, the production of "sensationalistic and/or bigoted trash" isn't the deciding factor.

But it is the deciding factor. That's why we've devoted serious scholarly responses to Metcalfe and Vogel, for instance, but not to Jack Chick.

It's only folks like Mopologists, and the General Authorities, who seem to warn and rant against certain forms of humor.

Scarcely. Do you know of anybody who endorses all forms of humor, without distinction?

In other words, you are chickening out of the discussion.

Yeah, that's it.

I'm terrified of your rigorous and objective philosophical mind.

It doesn't seem quite right to demand that religions get treated with one set of rules while critics of said religion can be treated however the given apologist pleases.

I agree, of course.

Surely, literature and movies are often "intellectually substantial." And yet, you apparently see no reason to treat these things fairly.

Where have I suggested, let alone said, that I don't believe in treating literature and movies fairly?

Furthermore, critics of the LDS Church point out that it is not "intellectually and spiritually substantial"

They're free to make their case. I'm free to respond.

I'm sure that critics of the LDS Church could say, equally, that the rules don't apply the individual General Authorities, or historical Mormons, or individual doctrines.

And I would likely agree with them.

You really are hedging here, aren't you?

You're pretty completely clueless on this subject, aren't you?

You would agree, would you not, that back-and-forth criticism between ex-Mormons, anti-Mormons, atheists, and apologists constitutes a form of "interreligious dialogue," wouldn't you?

In some cases, yup.

I mean, you and other apologists have argued elsewhere that atheism is a kind of "religion," haven't you?

Yup. Sometimes it is.

But they wouldn't serve as a model for football referees or criminal court judges or highway patrolmen.

Do you consider these things to be "intellectually and spiritually substantial movements"? If not, why cite them as examples?

Because they're not.

(Whoosh! Right over his head!)

wouldn't you have to concede that criticism---at least part of it---when take as a whole, forms a "intellectually substantial movement"?

No. I think you're straining.

You still haven't explained why you think that religions, and religious adherents ought to be treated according to one set of rules, while you get to lambaste and mistreat critics according to your arbitrary whims.

Since I don't think anything of the sort, why should I feel any obligation to "explain" such a silly notion?

Are you suggesting that Mopologetics is not a form of "interreligious dialogue"?

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

Anyway, interreligious dialogue isn't the same thing as religion.

Mocking people is "fair"?

Grim humorlessness isn't a virtue, Scratch. It's a personality defect.

[_Mister Scratch]

What is it about religion that necessitates the need for a "free pass"?

I haven't the faintest idea. If you think religion necessitates the need of a "free pass," please explain why. I've never suggested such a thing.

I mean a "free pass" in terms of Stendahl's Rules. Which you know. Of course. Do you think your little games really fool anyone?

Obvioulsy, the production of "sensationalistic and/or bigoted trash" isn't the deciding factor.

But it is the deciding factor. That's why we've devoted serious scholarly responses to Metcalfe and Vogel, for instance, but not to Jack Chick.

But that's not what I said. Instead, I said that "seriousness" is not the deciding factor in terms of whether or not you opt to treat critics fairly, or whether you decide to engage in ridicule.

It's only folks like Mopologists, and the General Authorities, who seem to warn and rant against certain forms of humor.

Scarcely. Do you know of anybody who endorses all forms of humor, without distinction?

Who said anything about "all forms of humor"? I said "certain forms of humor." Your reading comprehension needs a brush-up, Dr. P.

In other words, you are chickening out of the discussion.

Yeah, that's it.

I'm terrified of your rigorous and objective philosophical mind.

Really? As terrified as I am of your assault rifle, and your penchant for smear campaigns, gossip mongering, and character assassination? Or, your penchant for using real-life, personal details to silence critics?

It doesn't seem quite right to demand that religions get treated with one set of rules while critics of said religion can be treated however the given apologist pleases.

I agree, of course.

Really? Well, I'm glad to hear it. When can we expect you to publicly state that you believe that anti-Mormon critics should be "covered" under Stendahl's Rules?

Furthermore, critics of the LDS Church point out that it is not "intellectually and spiritually substantial"

They're free to make their case. I'm free to respond.

Well, by your logic, then, Stendahl's Rules should not apply to the LDS Church.

I'm sure that critics of the LDS Church could say, equally, that the rules don't apply the individual General Authorities, or historical Mormons, or individual doctrines.

And I would likely agree with them.

Okay.... Where *would* the Rules be applicable, then? You're not trying to kick up a bunch of dust here, are you Professor P.?

You really are hedging here, aren't you?

You're pretty completely clueless on this subject, aren't you?

And this is relevant to the discussion how? Or are you just trying to de-rail the discussion with a cheap shot? Boy, you really struggle when it comes to staying on topic, don't you? It seems as if, on this board and in your Mopologetic writings, that you are incapable of avoiding cheap shots and personal attacks. You do realize that, don't you? People have been telling you this for decades now. Didn't you once say something to the effect that doing the same thing over and over again is one of the hallmarks of insanity?

You would agree, would you not, that back-and-forth criticism between ex-Mormons, anti-Mormons, atheists, and apologists constitutes a form of "interreligious dialogue," wouldn't you?

In some cases, yup.

Then by your own logic and argument you would need to extend Stendahl's Rules and Peterson's Rule to the critics. End of story. Unless, of course, you have some kind of un-Christian, revenge-driven agenda.

I mean, you and other apologists have argued elsewhere that atheism is a kind of "religion," haven't you?

Yup. Sometimes it is.

Yes. Of course. I'm sure one day I will grow weary of scoring endless points against you. You could probably put an end to it by following your own advice and displaying some humility, but, obviously, you are incapable of that.

wouldn't you have to concede that criticism---at least part of it---when take as a whole, forms a "intellectually substantial movement"?

No. I think you're straining.

Perhaps you should re-read your own argument in "Reflections on Secular anti-Mormonism," in which you argue, in effect, that the whole of European and liberal American intellectuals are some kind of anti-Mormon critical force.

Then again, it would obviously be much easier for you to write off all critics as boneheaded straw men, who aren't "intellectually and/or philosophically substantial." (Gee, are you one of Droopy's professors? It seems like he's taught you a lot.)

You still haven't explained why you think that religions, and religious adherents ought to be treated according to one set of rules, while you get to lambaste and mistreat critics according to your arbitrary whims.

Since I don't think anything of the sort, why should I feel any obligation to "explain" such a silly notion?

Oh, so now you *do* think that critics should be treated with Stendahl's Rules? Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Why don't you make up your mind, Professor P.?

Are you suggesting that Mopologetics is not a form of "interreligious dialogue"?

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

Right. Sometimes it's just vicious mockery, backstabbing, and character assassination.

Anyway, interreligious dialogue isn't the same thing as religion.

Struggling tonight, aren't you? You said that Stendahl's Rules were meant for "interrelgious dialogue." Remember? If not, here it is again:

I speak and write about them [i.e., Stendahl's Rules] often as a model for interreligious dialogue and understanding.

Gee, you wouldn't want it to seem as if you are equivocating, and trying to distract attention away from the issue, would you?

Mocking people is "fair"?

Grim humorlessness isn't a virtue, Scratch. It's a personality defect.

Let me ask you something. Do you find the humor on the Salamander Society webpage "funny"? The "jokes" on RfM? Did you think Infymus's image of you in an S&M outfit was "funny"? If not, are you therefore "grimly humorless"?

Who gets to decide what's funny? The person doing the ridicule, or the object of that ridicule? If a joke is being made at the expense of "Morgbots," do the "Morgbots" have a right to object? Or, instead, must they be made to concede that they joke was funny, lest they be accused of "grim humorlessness"? I mean, let's face it: probably lots of LDS find the humor of George Carlin, Chris Rock, Richard Pryor, and countless other modern comedians to be patently offensive and unfunny. So who's being "grimly humorless" here? The millions of people who find these comedians funny? Or the few conservative Mormons who feel offended? Please feel free to enlighten me here, oh Funny One.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Who said anything about "all forms of humor"? I said "certain forms of humor." Your reading comprehension needs a brush-up, Dr. P.

Nope.

Lots of people warn and rant against certain forms of humor. And rightly so.

Well, by your logic, then, Stendahl's Rules should not apply to the LDS Church.

???????

You're pretty completely clueless on this subject. Can you provide any serious reason why I should continue to attempt conversation with you on it? I can't think of one.

Perhaps you should re-read your own argument in "Reflections on Secular anti-Mormonism," in which you argue, in effect, that the whole of European and liberal American intellectuals are some kind of anti-Mormon critical force.

I don't argue that, and I don't believe it.

Oh, so now you *do* think that critics should be treated with Stendahl's Rules? Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Why don't you make up your mind, Professor P.?

You can't really be such an incompetent reader. This has got to be deliberate.

But what's the point of it?

Mocking people is "fair"?[Let me ask you something. Do you find the humor on the Salamander Society webpage "funny"?

Some of them are very funny.

The "jokes" on RfM?

Some are. Some aren't.

Did you think Infymus's image of you in an S&M outfit was "funny"?

I don't think I've seen it.

Who gets to decide what's funny?

I don't think there's any Funniness Certification Commission that gets to "decide."

I decide for me. You decide for you. We call this freedom.

If a joke is being made at the expense of "Morgbots," do the "Morgbots" have a right to object?

Obviously yes. We call this freedom.

[_solomarineris]

solomarineris, Joseph Smith had very positive things to say about Catholics, Methodists, etc. I know too much about him to be able to swallow your attempt to depict him as a religious bigot.

DCP,
I've never called Joseph Smith religious bigot.
I didn't even say he was wrong calling Catholic Church as such.
I think he (Joseph Smith) was more courageous to spell things out.
Unfortunately it is your generation marginalizing his work.

[_Mister Scratch]

Who said anything about "all forms of humor"? I said "certain forms of humor." Your reading comprehension needs a brush-up, Dr. P.

Nope.

Lots of people warn and rant against certain forms of humor. And rightly so.

Yes. In fact, more people need to "warn and rant against" the kind of juvenile, mocking, locker-room humor practiced by a certain group of LDS apologists.

Well, by your logic, then, Stendahl's Rules should not apply to the LDS Church.

???????

You're pretty completely clueless on this subject.

No, I'm not. Instead, what's clear is that name-calling, and attempts at insulting my level of knowledge constitute your last-ditch attempt to bail out of the corner you've painted yourself into. Is that really the best you've got, Dr. P.?

Go ahead and explain again why, if attacking the GAs, individual doctrines, and individual historical Mormons (such as Joseph Smith), is *not* a violation of Stendahl's Rules, then the rules should, via some pretzel logic, in fact actually apply to the LDS Church. Or are you trying to argue that the GAs, individual doctrines, and historical Mormons aren't actually "The Church"?

Can you provide any serious reason why I should continue to attempt conversation with you on it? I can't think of one.

Yes: you have been caught equivocating. You have revealed yourself to be a gross hypocrite.

Perhaps you should re-read your own argument in "Reflections on Secular anti-Mormonism," in which you argue, in effect, that the whole of European and liberal American intellectuals are some kind of anti-Mormon critical force.

I don't argue that, and I don't believe it.

You argue in the essay/presentation that Europe and the American liberal media "have it in" for Mormons. Would you care to deny this yet again? Or should I pull up the quote for everyone to read? Or, better yet: should I provide a link to Bob McCue's stunningly fair-minded evisceration of your utterly illogical, mean-spirited, "drama queen" whine-fest?

Oh, so now you *do* think that critics should be treated with Stendahl's Rules? Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Why don't you make up your mind, Professor P.?

You can't really be such an incompetent reader. This has got to be deliberate.

But what's the point of it?

It's not that I'm an "incompetent reader." It's that you are inconsistent in your remarks, and apparently, in your standards and personal conduct.

Mocking people is "fair"?[Let me ask you something. Do you find the humor on the Salamander Society webpage "funny"?

Some of them are very funny.

Some of the "humors" are very funny? Where did you learn English, Prof. P.? Let me ask you another question: Do you find some of the humor offensive or off-putting? And if so, which? And why?

The "jokes" on RfM?

Some are. Some aren't.

Which ones aren't funny?

Who gets to decide what's funny?

I don't think there's any Funniness Certification Commission that gets to "decide."

I never suggested that there was any such "commission." (Though of course, that's debatable. Obviously, for you and other TBMs, that "commission" consists of the Brethren.)

I decide for me. You decide for you. We call this freedom.

This is obviously not the issue. More red herrings from you, which is hardly surprising. You must really feel desperate.

If a joke is being made at the expense of "Morgbots," do the "Morgbots" have a right to object?

Obviously yes. We call this freedom.

Or do you call it "humorlessness"?

I'll tell you what is really, *REALLY* funny, from this thread:
1. Peterson's Rule. I guess it must have escaped your notice that this is really just a re-worded version of argumentum ad populum. Or, have you been taking even more lessons from Droopy, thus coming to the conclusion that logic is pointless and useless when applied to religion? In either case: D'oh! And thanks for the laugh! Hopefully, your massively evolved, utterly sharp sense of humor will allow you to see the fundamental funniness behind this astonishingly boneheaded error on your part.

2. This is the real humdinger: here I have a hardcore, TBM Mormon apologist trying to tell me that I am somehow "humorless." Oh really? Isn't the LDS Church the same organization that teaches its members to treat modern humor in a comprehensively uptight and Victorian way? "Oh my heck! He just said the 's' word!" That's what really funny, Dan. It's transparently obvious that your sense of humor is so Flintstonian and quaint that the notion of you trying to accuse pretty much anyone of being "humorless" is, well....hilarious. (Really---the Marx Brothers? That is your touchstone for what's funny? Did your mommy and daddy forbid you from watching the naughty, raunchy stuff like Milton Berle, or Saturday Night Live?)

In any case: carry on. Your wit is just so modern! So charming! So intelligent! You are so *kind* and Christlike in your ridicule! I'm in awe of it! Let us offer up a prayer in thanks!