Stendahl's Rules

[Guest]

Does this mean that you don't think that Stendahl's Rules, or Peterson's Rule apply to the critcs' point of view?

It's really cute of you to try to pretend that Ed Decker, Bill Schnoebelen, and people of that type represent all critics of Mormonism.

I suspect, though, that even you can tell the difference -- and, if it didn't conflict with your agenda -- could admit the difference, between, say, an essay by Sterling McMurrin and a Jack Chick comic:

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

[_Nightingale]

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.

Wasn't there a minister from Florida who made quite a splash last year attacking Mitt Romney and the LDS Church over his radio ministry? What about that Utah group who protested so loudly when they were refused being allowed to videotape a Mormon Pageant so they could add derogatory narration and sell it on their website? This same group had women dress up as Joseph Smith's many wives at the Moroni pageant. Do you believe they fail to mention Mormons at their services?

.

Oh. Allow me to make another adjustment to my statements above. I was referring to normal, lucid, moderate groups. This reminds me of something I should have remembered in the first place. Many US Christians are more outspoken and opinionated and interactive, it seems, than their northern cousins (us). I think I said that *I* don't attend Protestant services and hear diatribes (or even mentions) against other religions, in particular Mormonism. (I can't deny that such topics are sometimes discussed in a class setting or Sunday School).

I was seeking merely to offset the impression given that this was a normal and recurring part of Protestant church services. In my experience, it is not. I would hope that such would be the case everywhere but perhaps not. Fortunately for my sanity and my spiritual life, Protestant ministers/pastors of my acquaintance spend most of their time focusing on the teachings of their own church and the needs of the congregants under their care.

If I wanted an "anti-Mormon" book, I'd probably have to get it off Amazon.

[_Mister Scratch]

Does this mean that you don't think that Stendahl's Rules, or Peterson's Rule apply to the critcs' point of view?

It's really cute of you to try to pretend that Ed Decker, Bill Schnoebelen, and people of that type represent all critics of Mormonism.

That's not what I said. Would you care to actually answer the question?

[_Mister Scratch]

If I wanted an "anti-Mormon" book, I'd probably have to get it off Amazon.

Of course. Part of the paranoid Mopologetic mythology is that "anti-Mormonism" is some kind of unified industry, and that it is literally flooding the globe with misinformation, all of which is mean-spirited and aimed at destroying the LDS Church.

[_Mister Scratch]

I suspect, though, that even you can tell the difference -- and, if it didn't conflict with your agenda -- could admit the difference, between, say, an essay by Sterling McMurrin and a Jack Chick comic:

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

Of course there is a difference between an essay by McMurrin and a Jack Chick comic. I never said there wasn't. Instead, I asked you if you thought the rules ought to be applied to critics' point of view. It's a very simple question. It's odd that you haven't answered it yet.

[_Daniel Peterson]

[Of course there is a difference between an essay by McMurrin and a Jack Chick comic. I never said there wasn't. Instead, I asked you if you thought the rules ought to be applied to critics' point of view. It's a very simple question. It's odd that you haven't answered it yet.

You don't have a life?

I do.

I've been helping my wife unload groceries from the car and placing them in cupboards, refrigerator, and freezer.

I apologize that my attention was distracted during a Scratchite service.

But, of course, I've already implicitly answered your question. Unfortunately, I guess I have to spell it out really, really clearly:

Some critical claims are worth taking seriously. But not all. Jack Chick comics, for example, like Ed Decker's wacked-out conspiracy theories and his bizarre demonological allegations, are rich targets for laughter.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Part of the paranoid Mopologetic mythology is that "anti-Mormonism" is some kind of unified industry, and that it is literally flooding the globe with misinformation, all of which is mean-spirited and aimed at destroying the LDS Church.

This is a Scratchite straw man.

Defenders of Mormonism do, however, recognize that there are anti-Mormons who engage in anti-Mormon lectures, publication, broadcasting, etc., that this is aimed at damaging the LDS Church, and that, in fact, some of it is mean-spirited. To deny this obvious fact would be silly.

Serious question for the imam of Scratchism ("Go the source," say I!): Does Scratchite orthodoxy require the faithful Scratchite believer to deny that anti-Mormon lectures, publications, broadcasting, and etc., exist?

[_Mister Scratch]

[Of course there is a difference between an essay by McMurrin and a Jack Chick comic. I never said there wasn't. Instead, I asked you if you thought the rules ought to be applied to critics' point of view. It's a very simple question. It's odd that you haven't answered it yet.

You don't have a life?

I do.

I've been helping my wife unload groceries from the car and placing them in cupboards, refrigerator, and freezer.

I apologize that my attention was distracted during a Scratchite service.

But, of course, I've already implicitly answered your question. Unfortunately, I guess I have to spell it out really, really clearly:

Some critical claims are worth taking seriously. But not all. Jack Chick comics, for example, like Ed Decker's wacked-out conspiracy theories and his bizarre demonological allegations, are rich targets for laughter.

Oh, is that a new rule? "Some critical claims are worth taking seriously"? Should Stendahl's Rules be amended to something along the lines of, "Only some facets of others' religions need to be treated with respect. Feel free to laugh at whatever you find ludicrous."

I think you understand my point here, Dan, your silly, red herring mention of groceries notwithstanding. If Rule 2 says not to drag "the worst" into the discussion, then why do you open by mentioning Decker and Chick? And applying "Peterson's Rule": I once read that Jack Chick was the most published author in the world, with his tracts having a stupefying level of distribution, reaching into the hundreds of millions (or perhaps billions). By the logic of Peterson's Rule, wouldn't you have to acknowledge that there is something valuable in those comics? I am really interested to know: what "holy envy" do you feel for the work of Decker and Chick?

[_Mister Scratch]

Part of the paranoid Mopologetic mythology is that "anti-Mormonism" is some kind of unified industry, and that it is literally flooding the globe with misinformation, all of which is mean-spirited and aimed at destroying the LDS Church.

This is a Scratchite straw man.

Defenders of Mormonism do, however, recognize that there are anti-Mormons who engage in anti-Mormon lectures, publication, broadcasting, etc., that this is aimed at damaging the LDS Church, and that, in fact, some of it is mean-spirited. To deny this obvious fact would be silly.

Come on now, Professor P. It is an argument based on scale. The point you were making in your above post is that there entire "shelves" of books devoted to "anti-Mormonism." Louis Midgley once commented on the "Old Cash Nexus" that supposedly goes into funding this "vast network" of the "anti-Mormon industry." (Where, I wonder, has it every been rigorously documented that such an "industry" actually exists? Or, is this more a matter of Mopologetic anecdotal evidence? Or is it just equivocation?)

My point is that you guys seem to exaggerate the scope and scale of the "threat." Feel free to disagree, and to claim that your observation about "whole shelves of anti-Mormon books" is really just meant to make the far more benign and limited point that there are "anti-Mormons who engage in anti-Mormon lectures, publication, broadcasting, etc."

Serious question for the imam of Scratchism ("Go the source," say I!): Does Scratchite orthodoxy require the faithful Scratchite believer to deny that anti-Mormon lectures, publications, broadcasting, and etc., exist?

Who's crafting the straw man?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh, is that a new rule? "Some critical claims are worth taking seriously"? Should Stendahl's Rules be amended to something along the lines of, "Only some facets of others' religions need to be treated with respect. Feel free to laugh at whatever you find ludicrous."

Silly Scratch. You're off your game today, and it shows.

As I've pointed out, I respond to critics of my faith. And I sometimes laugh at the more ridiculous ones.

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.