A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

[_Yahoo Bot]

Wow--it seems that Brant Gardner, Steve "Donkey Lips" Smoot and others have turned up in the "Comments" section an effort to chase Rev. Jackson away.

Oh come on. Making fun of somebody's genetic deficiencies again? I'd be much more embarrassed having as an avatar a nerd-boy's favorite. Get out much?

Seriously, I like the Interpreter's articles. Fairly well done, in my view. I'm going to give them some money if I can figure out why my Pay Pal account won't work.

I don't care so much about articles reviewing an obscure evangelical's work, but some people might.

All told, the author shouldn't get pulled into defending her piece in blow-by-blow posts with the reviewed author. Unseemly. You just want to let your piece establish itself.

I'd debate the guy. Give him my name.

[Guest]

Thanks Tom for those examples. I noted many examples of reckless spin-doctoring myself.

For instance, where she takes him to task for using McConkie's work, which would otherwise seem to be a perfectly reasonable source for discovering "Mormon Doctrine," she complains,

Well aware that the only official source of LDS doctrine is the standard works and clarifications provided by the united First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (p. 79), he states that “absolutely no one else in Mormonism—no matter how significant or educated—has the right to officially speak on behalf of the LDS Church” (p. 79). Why then, while professing such concern to find Mormonism’s official statements...,

When I read this, I could hardly imagine our "reviewer" at the "MI" could possibly be lifting this statement in context. Does it ring true to you that Jackson is stating "absolutely no one in Mormonism...has the right to officially speak..."?

No, it does not ring true.

Fortunately, Google had some cache for this page to get the full context. The next sentence reads, "In fact, speaking against the official doctrinal positions of the Church can lead to Mormon court trials." And above his so-called personal "statement" is a quote from Stephen Robinson explaining the matter; the statement he is paraphrasing.

Jackson is not stating anything, he's clarifying the statements of the Brethren, as filtered through Stephen Robinson, and obviously criticizing the Church's authoritarian stranglehold on the members. It has nothing to do with him acknowledging the living Brethren and the standard works are the only sources of doctrine, and then moving on to contradict himself. This is an invented contradiction by the reviewer.

Just think about how ridiculous our reviewer sounds as she burns down the straw man,

Why then, while professing such concern to find Mormonism’s official statements, did he rely so heavily (at least forty citations) on Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine (p. 12)? Why not instead refer mainly to the LDS scriptures?

Could our Reviewer even write such a book? Rather, take a law graduate first in his class who scored perfect on the bar, perfect on his SAT, and with no knowledge of Mormonism, sit him in a room with the standard works alone, and offer him 1,000,000 dollars to correctly construct Mormon Doctrine as (supposedly) taught by the living leaders of the Church. Where we'd get the answers to grade him is anyone's guess, but the probability of success is next to zero. If this is indeed the standard Jackson should adhere to, then no one could ever write a book on Mormon Doctrine, Stephen Robinson or herself included!

She misconstrues Jackson intentionally.

Imagine the Pope announcing one day that only the Bible, specifically as interpreted by him, reflects Catholic doctrine. Would that mean that a journalist could now never turn to any other sources to write about Catholic doctrine, or that these sources would even be the best for the task?

No.

The journalist could both:

A: Explain that the current Pope has made the announcement that Catholic beliefs are delineated only by the Bible and his own reflections.

B: Go on to explain the beliefs of Catholicism as they appear to have existed through the years, as explicated by the Church's most pronounced voices and publications.

And be 100% consistent.

McConkie's and Robinson's books are among the best out there for discovering what Mormonism teaches. Jackson clearly went out of his way to get the best explanations of Mormonism as published by Mormons themselves.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Incredible, first-rate scholarship there, Dean Robbers. Just imagine the pretzel-shaped logistics that Hedelius and her editors had to engage in: here was poor Rev. Jackson, citing one of the Mopologists, Stephen Robinson, and so the MI Mopologists had to figure out how to attack him without cutting off Robinson's head in the process. This is remarkable.

[_Doctor Scratch]

All told, the author shouldn't get pulled into defending her piece in blow-by-blow posts with the reviewed author. Unseemly. You just want to let your piece establish itself.

That's a good point, Bob. I wonder if she was goaded into responding by the senior MI Mopologists, or if there was sufficient chatter on Skinny-L to force her into action. (Speaking of which, do you suppose that she's the lone female member of Skinny-L?) She clearly waited before responding: in the wake of her "article"'s publication, she quickly scrambled to hide a lot of her old blog postings, so you sort of have to conclude that she was "covering her tracks," as it were.

[_Gadianton]

Another distortion,

The reviewer writes,

Jackson betrays no sign that he has taken any of this literature seriously. Hence the following: “Latter-day Saints believe that each person’s eternal destiny will match what he or she has merited through good or bad works; the person will be rewarded or condemned according to what God determines he or she deserves” (p. 131). Here we see the common cavil directed at the faith of the Saints, who are often falsely accused of “works righteousness,” or the absurdity that they believe they can save themselves from death and sin. Jackson does not acknowledge that the Book of Mormon teaches emphatically that God is the sole author of salvation and that only through the merits and mercy of the Holy One of Israel can mortals in any sense be saved.

The quote she provides does not contradict the role of grace. He states pretty much what is in line with the Articles of Faith even, that a man is punished for his own sins etc. What she does, rather, is make her case with guilt by association, condemn him for the "common cavil" directed at the Saints and then claim he doesn't acknowledge Jesus's role. A google search turned up this cache from his book:

In the LDS covenant plan of salvation, both God's grace and human works are absolutely necessary and required. In other words, although faith in God's covenant grace in the atonement of Jesus Christ is a prerequisite, the LDS Church also emphasized very strongly that human covenant works and ordinances are also absolutely necessary for salvation.

It doesn't look to me at all like Jackson is distorting anything or leaving anything out. From here, it's gnat-straining over how exactly works count, if baptism etc. counts as a "work," and there has been more than a single opinion here coming from the Church on just who works and grace operate together. The Book of Mormon says we are "saved, after all that we can do." Do the Mopologists want Mormon doctrine to be saved by grace in exactly the same sense that EV's believe it?

[_MCB]

Just another example of the apostasy of Mormons from their own book-- the cornerstone of their faith.

[_Gadianton]

Yahoo Bot,

Do you think I should go to the comments session of the Interpreter and trounce the apologists on this one? I mean, it's clear I'd own them all pretty easy. They'd probably ban me instantly though, as I think they know how good I can be when it comes to finding flaws in their arguments.

I could do a much better review of Jackson's book. I could even do a better hatchet job, if that's what I wanted to do. As polemics, this piece is way too predictable, she took all the stereotypical points the apologists defend themselves on and went out proof-texting to find an "attack" that fits the mold for her "defense".

I'd defend Jackson any day on that thread, against the top apologists of the MI, and I'd win very easy. On the other hand, I think I could give Jackson a run for his money on a few points I've uncovered that he makes. Well, I look for the lynchpin of a position while the apologists are satisfied with finding statements that they feel are representative of anti-Mormon "cavil". They just do a sloppy job, usually. I don't know if it's just a limitation of their ability, or they write what they think their base wants to hear, and so don't try very hard to do much real analysis.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Yahoo Bot,

Do you think I should go to the comments session of the Interpreter and trounce the apologists on this one? I mean, it's clear I'd own them all pretty easy. They'd probably ban me instantly though, as I think they know how good I can be when it comes to finding flaws in their arguments.

I could do a much better review of Jackson's book. I could even do a better hatchet job, if that's what I wanted to do. As polemics, this piece is way too predictable, she took all the stereotypical points the apologists defend themselves on and went out proof-texting to find an "attack" that fits the mold for her "defense".

I'd defend Jackson any day on that thread, against the top apologists of the MI, and I'd win very easy. On the other hand, I think I could give Jackson a run for his money on a few points I've uncovered that he makes. Well, I look for the lynchpin of a position while the apologists are satisfied with finding statements that they feel are representative of anti-Mormon "cavil". They just do a sloppy job, usually. I don't know if it's just a limitation of their ability, or they write what they think their base wants to hear, and so don't try very hard to do much real analysis.

Why bother? Sloppy, predictable junk like this doesn't really merit a response, does it?

[_lulu]

Well, I look for the lynchpin of a position while the apologists are satisfied with finding statements that they feel are representative of anti-Mormon "cavil". They just do a sloppy job, usually.

And that's one of the sad things. There really could be an informative discussion between Jackson and someone who knows more about Mormonism than he does. But instead we're back to MI drivel, whether that's Maxwell Institute of Mormon Interpreter.

[Guest]

I'm going to rant a bit.

I absolutely detest this type of approach to apologetics. I was so frustrated and perhaps even angry when, after reading articles from Hugh Nibley as a young man -- in particluar, No Maam, That's Not History -- and then as an adult reading the actual source material.

It's all a rhetorical game. They pick out absolutely irrelevant details that have nothing to do with the author's thesis and then write page after page about what a dope the author is/was.

Apologetics is about providing plausible answers to difficult questions. If you aren't willing to address the actual questions posed, you are playing games and NOT doing apologetics. You are deceiving your readers and you are doing so knowingly.

Don't get into pissing matches over credentials. Real scholars don't give a damn about credentials. They care about the ARGUMENT. The only time credentials become an issue is when you have non-experts speaking as experts and spewing nonsense. And even in that case, taking note of credentials should be an addendum; an afterthought.

And for hell's sake, if you have the guts to write a review of an author's book then have the balls/ovaries to debate the author and defend your position. To avoid such a debate is cowardly.

Read the work of Givens, Bowman, Bushman and Flake. Do what they do. Please.

*edited to remove inappropriate comments*