A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

[_Yoda]

I think we have to remember how long ago this article was written. This is an article that was written back in 1994...nearly 20 years ago.

The old "everbody was racist" defense.

The Church is never going to accept homosexuality as a norm. It will always be viewed as a sin.

Quite the prophetic hat you're wearing.

Have you ever read:

Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective (1984)
Matlovich: The Good Soldier (1989)
Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto (1993)

If not, you're running way behind. All of them would have been available to DCP when he published.

I have not read any of those publications. Are any of these authors LDS? What we are talking about here is specific LDS doctrine. And, no, I honestly don't think that homosexuality will ever be accepted in the LDS Church.

I, personally, accept homosexuality as a norm. I have two family members who are homosexual. We are not discussing personal feelings here, though. We are talking about Mormon culture and doctrine.

[_Darth J]

And, no, I honestly don't think that homosexuality will ever be accepted in the LDS Church.

If there's one thing history has shown us, it's that the LDS Church will stand firmly by its principles in the face of societal pressure.

[_lulu]

I think we have to remember how long ago this article was written. This is an article that was written back in 1994...nearly 20 years ago.

The old "everbody was racist" defense.

The Church is never going to accept homosexuality as a norm. It will always be viewed as a sin.

Quite the prophetic hat you're wearing.

Have you ever read:

Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective (1984)
Matlovich: The Good Soldier (1989)
Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto (1993)

If not, you're running way behind. All of them would have been available to DCP when he published.

I have not read any of those publications. Are any of these authors LDS? What we are talking about here is specific LDS doctrine. And, no, I honestly don't think that homosexuality will ever be accepted in the LDS Church.

I, personally, accept homosexuality as a norm. I have two family members who are homosexual. We are not discussing personal feelings here, though. We are talking about Mormon culture and doctrine.

Why do they need to be by LDS authors? Is there a banned book list in Mormonism?

If you had ever been gay bashed, you'd take it personally.

[_Darth J]

If you had ever been gay bashed, you'd take it personally.

Why, Lulu, what a ridiculous thing to say.

Some modern Mormons have distant ancestors who had political conflicts with their neighbors in Missouri over a century and a half ago that turned into a bilateral shooting war. And then of course the Mormons who followed Brigham Young had to flee the territorial United States in order to practice polygamy, while the Mormons who did not accept polygamy remained behind and somehow were not annihilated.

So, you see, Mormons understand what it is to be persecuted. Just because you personally have experienced violence based on your sexual orientation doesn't mean you understand vicious persecution the way a modern suburban Mormon does.

[_Darth J]

Proposition #1
The wicked dislike the righteous.
Some people dislike Mormon dogma.
Therefore, people who dislike Mormon dogma hate Mormons because they are righteous.

Proposition #2
The wicked dislike the righteous.
Daniel Peterson dislikes homosexual behavior.
Therefore, Daniel Peterson dislikes homosexual behavior because gay people are righteous and he hates them for it.

I suggest we disaffirm #2 as soon as Daniel Peterson disaffirms #1.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish, I understand what you are saying regarding this particular piece, however, I think we have to remember how long ago this article was written. This is an article that was written back in 1994...nearly 20 years ago. Even if you are not willing to take Dan at his word about using the examples as a dramatic way to demonstrate how different people's lifestyles view their perception of material, particularly relgious material, I think we need to keep in mind how long ago the article was written, and how much more we have discovered about homosexuality in the past 20 years. Look at how the attitude of the Church, itself, has changed over that time.

Well, I am not talking about the LDS Church. As far as I am concerned, the LDS Church has put a fair amount of distance between itself and classic-FARMS "character assassination" faux-pologetics by supporting the resignation of Dr. Peterson from his various posts in the Maxwell Institute. No, what this concerns is the use of various implications to suggest that liberal Mormons and critics are spiritually deficient because of sin, and that this is why they disagree with the LDS Church on various matters.

Of course, we know the post hoc propter hoc fallacy when we see it. Furthermore, a person may profess belief in any number of good things and still be a complete reprobate. One may quote all kinds of scriptures about the relationship between sin and unbelief, but then everyone is, theologically speaking, a sinner to one degree or another, and everyone lacks faith to one degree or another. I think it is altogether stupid to misuse the scriptures as Pahoran has to try to rescue the bigot Jones, whom the Catholic Church had the good wisdom to toss overboard.

Not only is he a bigot and anti-Semite, but his historical scholarship is deplorable in quality. Otherwise he would not engage in such poor reasoning.

[_Kishkumen]

But now we see who is really smearing whom.

Hey, if you want to argue that Jones is not a bigot and an anti-Semite be my guest. Peterson may not have known that Jones was the latter when he cited him, but he most assuredly knew that he was the former. Oh, I know, since he shares that kind of risible view of the relationship between gender preference and atheism, he did not regard it as bigoted.

Maybe he does today. I have no idea, since he has never retracted his support of Jones' "scholarship" on this issue.

And yet it is consistent with revealed truth:

Doctrine and Covenants 42:23
23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

Doctrine and Covenants 63:16
16 And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.

You are proof-texting here, Pahoran. But then, you were never a very sharp interpreter of the scriptures. Your theory about priesthood in Alma was pretty poor stuff, and it seems you have improved very little since that time.

Then, suddenly, he lost his faith -- it was a completely intellectual apostasy, entirely caused by something he had "found out" about Facsimile 3 of the Book of Abraham. Which seemed odd, because that had been his particular hobby all along. Not long after that, it turned out that he was as camp as a row of tents.

Wow. OK. So, you are a bigot too. Well, there you go. We see that, like his fellow homophobes in classic-FARMS, he attributes the loss of an acquaintance's faith to causes of sexual sin, when he has no evidence that this is the case. All this bigot, Pahoran, has to know is that the guy later came out as gay, and then he concludes that this was the cause of his apostasy in the first place.

Now, if Pahoran were not a totally bigoted homophobe, he might lament that this former fellow in the faith had fought the good fight with his SSA until he came to doubt for other reasons and then he gave up. But, oh no, not the bigot Pahoran. He assumed that sexual sin was the cause of the apostasy.

And what is your evidence, Pahoran? Well, you admit you have none:

No surprises there; and nothing to explain away, either.

Well, Pahoran, I have to say that I am disappointed at how dull-witted you have turned out to be. Not only do you strain to make the scriptures mean what you want them to mean, but you also think that a bigot is the ideal person to come to the defense of another who has been charged with bigotry.

You would have been better off leaving this whole thread alone.

[_RayAgostini]

Of course, we know the post hoc propter hoc fallacy when we see it. Furthermore, a person may profess belief in any number of good things and still be a complete reprobate. One may quote all kinds of scriptures about the relationship between sin and unbelief, but then everyone is, theologically speaking, a sinner to one degree or another, and everyone lacks faith to one degree or another.

This is true, but it all depends on which direction you're heading in, and what's really in your heart.

9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.
10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations.
11 And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.
12 And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations.
13 O all ye that are spared because ye were more righteous than they, will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you? (3 Nephi 9)

A change of heart might be a long and slow process of repentance, but it's probably achievable. The opposite of that is self-justification, and continuing to "dig a pit for thy neighbour", make people an "offender for a word", or to ensnare and trap others for your own gain, and in some cases "your own gain" could be just to rationalise away the foundations of the gospel. C.S.Lewis wasn't a "saint" by LDS standards, but perhaps he might be considered as being among the "more righteous".

“[God] will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of heaven as a shortcut to the nearest chemist’s shop.” -- C.S. Lewis.

President Uchtdorf: "Stop it!"

Me: "Stop fighting it!"

But if you choose not to, then carry on like a runaway train heading for disaster. Your irrational anger seems to be increasing on a weekly basis:

As long as there are dweebs who have high IQs, poor social skills, emotional problems, and lots of resentment, there will be a great store of potential candidates for a life of Mopologetics.

The healthy ones tend not to last but a few years. That is the reassuring thing.

But do have a good day.

[_Darth J]

Of course, we know the post hoc propter hoc fallacy......

This is true, but it all depends on which direction you're heading in.......

[_Pahoran]

But now we see who is really smearing whom.

Hey, if you want to argue that Jones is not a bigot and an anti-Semite be my guest.

I know nothing about the fellow. He may very well be both of those things, but that is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether his arguments are valid -- or whether Dan shares his anti-Semitism. Which, as you perfectly well know, he does not. However, you are indulging the ad hominem fallacy in the worst way -- the worst because we are not merely seeing an ignorant pink-neck's knee-jerk reaction; you know precisely what you are doing and why you are doing it. As ever, you are appealing to the lowest of the remarkably low prejudices of your chosen audience.

Not only that, but you are doing exactly what you falsely (and intentionally) accuse Dan and his friends of doing: indulging in "character assassination" because you don't have a valid response.

Peterson may not have known that Jones was the latter when he cited him, but he most assuredly knew that he was the former. Oh, I know, since he shares that kind of risible view of the relationship between gender preference and atheism, he did not regard it as bigoted.

And why do you regard it as "bigoted?" Because that is the prejudice you share. It is certainly the prevailing prejudice in this sty, and nobody who knows you expects you to ever defy the popular view.

Maybe he does today. I have no idea, since he has never retracted his support of Jones' "scholarship" on this issue.

And what valid counterarguments do you have, apart from the fallacious appeal to popularity?

And yet it is consistent with revealed truth:

Doctrine and Covenants 42:23
23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.

Doctrine and Covenants 63:16
16 And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.

You are proof-texting here, Pahoran. But then, you were never a very sharp interpreter of the scriptures. Your theory about priesthood in Alma was pretty poor stuff, and it seems you have improved very little since that time.

And now another example of the ad hominem fallacy. For someone who loftily ignores everything I write as utterly beneath your dignity, you have a remarkably good memory of past exchanges; I'm afraid I don't remember the argument in question.

Which is fine, because it is, as you perfectly well know, utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand. Kindly explain what those scriptures "really" mean, if it's not what they apparently say.

Wow. OK. So, you are a bigot too.

Since your definition of a "bigot" is anyone who doesn't share your entirely controlling prejudices, I take that as a compliment.

Snip spiteful rant in which Kishkumen tries to work the word "bigot" in as often as he possibly can.

You would have been better off leaving this whole thread alone.

It was just too tempting. In present company, I can't help but shine.

You see, even if I was every bit as "bigoted" as you so manically rant that I am, I'm still not as bigoted as you.

Or your mindless claque.

Regards,
Pahoran