A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

[_RayAgostini]

Read the work of Givens, Bowman, Bushman and Flake. Do what they do. Please. Like it or not you have put yourselves out as representatives of Mormonism. Well, right now you are making us Mormons look like complete douche bags.

What's your stated position on Mormonism again, Seth? Does the "us" you use represent all Mormons?

Can you also elaborate on what motivated your sig.line? (I've been curious about this for a long while now.)

[_sethpayne]

Read the work of Givens, Bowman, Bushman and Flake. Do what they do. Please. Like it or not you have put yourselves out as representatives of Mormonism. Well, right now you are making us Mormons look like complete douche bags.

What's your stated position on Mormonism again, Seth? Does the "us" you use represent all Mormons?

Can you also elaborate on what motivated your sig.line? (I've been curious about this for a long while now.)

I'm a proud member of the LDS Church. I hope that many of its truth claims are true. I draw tentative conclusions based on the information I have available to me and I exercise the mind God gave me.

Does the "us" represent all Mormons? Well, I can't say all. Obviously there are members willing to engage in empty polemics. Most members, however, would be appalled to see how self-appointed Church representatives are mocking their supposed enemies and misleading their readers.

Seth

[_RayAgostini]

Does the "us" represent all Mormons? Well, I can't say all. Obviously there are members willing to engage in empty polemics.

And critics do, exactly what? Engage in "meaningful polemics"?

Most members, however, would be appalled to see how self-appointed Church representatives are mocking their supposed enemies and misleading their readers.

Seth

Does that include Joseph Smith?:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (JS-H 1)

Just curious.

Seth, in This blog post, you wrote (among other things):

I don’t know, and I suppose I don’t believe, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and the universal messiah. I don’t know that Jesus was resurrected. I suppose all of this is possible but I find it unlikely given 1) the religious ethos of 1st century Palestine, 2) textual criticism of the New Testament which, to me at least, clearly indicates a theological reworking of the Jesus narratives by later authors and 3) the varieties of religious experience we find before, during, and after the time of Jesus all throughout the world. That God would choose an obscure piece of Roman-occupied land to work out the universal salvation (though means the New Testament doesn’t really make clear) simply doesn’t ring true to me.

(Emphasis added)

So when you say "us" or "we", you speak on behalf of all/many/some Latter-day Saints? And you are qualified to judge who is a "real Latter-day Saint", and who makes "us" "look like douchebags"?

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. (Articles of Faith)

[_Kishkumen]

So, your defense of Hedelius is a swipe at sethpayne, Ray?

That's weak crap.

[_RayAgostini]

So, your defense of Hedelius is a swipe at sethpayne, Ray?

That's weak crap.

Fortunately, I now know you are not Doctor Scratch. I do sincerely apologise for that smear on your character.

"Weak crap" is you obsequiously bowing to Scratch without question on almost every issue.

So, you are a Latter-day Saint, too? I'd be delighted to hear your non-testimony of the resurrected Jesus, along with Seth's.

[_moksha]

Bob, I was wondering if you regard Ray as an anonymous coward of sorts because he lives in a place where the Danites cannot get to him without immediately casting blame on Pahoran?

[_sethpayne]

And critics do, exactly what? Engage in "meaningful polemics"?

Good critics engage in good scholarship. Chris Smith, for example. Some critics are complete morons. Ed Decker and Bill Schnoebelen, for example.

Does that include Joseph Smith?:

From what I know of Joseph Smith I believe he would preach what he believed as truth regardless of what anyone said or did. He rejected traditional Protestantism and created something unique.

Seth, in This blog post, you wrote (among other things):

As I stated before, there are many things I hope for. That there is a loving God who has provided a plan for us to become like him and live together with our families is a wonderful idea and I hope it is true. At this point in my life the "rational" part of my brain prohibits me from stating I *believe* these things. Nevertheless I hope it, or perhaps even something better, is true. There is one thing I feel very strongly about and that is I believe in a loving God. I do so because there are several rational arguments I feel compelling and thus I am able to choose to believe.

So when you say "us" or "we", you speak on behalf of all/many/some Latter-day Saints? And you are qualified to judge who is a "real Latter-day Saint", and who makes "us" "look like douchebags"?

I speak for anyone who believes honesty, fairness, charity, and kindness are virtues to be pursued. I believe most members of the Church pursue these virtues.

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. (Articles of Faith)

Many members are fortunate to possess belief and knowledge. I believe in God. This is my starting point.

[_Kishkumen]

Fortunately, I now know you are not Doctor Scratch. I do sincerely apologise for that smear on your character.

"Weak crap" is you obsequiously bowing to Scratch without question on almost every issue.

So, you are a Latter-day Saint, too? I'd be delighted to hear your non-testimony of the resurrected Jesus, along with Seth's.

You know, Ray, you can use the same tired tactic of trying to make this about me, Doctor Scratch, or sethpayne, but what is obvious here is that you have no rebuttal against CK's accurate characterization of Hedelius' review or Dean Robbers' demonstration of exactly how distorted her caricature of Jackson's book was.

These are the salient issues. This thread contains criticism of a piece of bad apologetic writing. Can you defend it? Or will you persist in throwing out distractions? I would love to see you defend her work, if you think you can. At least stick to the damned subject.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Good critics engage in good scholarship. Chris Smith, for example.

I know you intended this as a compliment, and I thank you. I do hope, though, that I can someday shed the "critic" label.

[_RockSlider]

Ray, are you a Mormon?

Based on your questioning posters here on their qualifications to claim the title of Mormon, I assume you reject the concepts of a Jack Mormon, or a NOM or a Cultural Mormon.

Is it just a requirement that one believes in the first three Articles of Faith that qualifies one to make the claim of being Mormon?

I feel I earned the right to call myself Mormon, no matter how many of the 13 articles of Faith I might actually endorse.