The Berry-Picker's "Laughter"

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I haven't bothered going to this guys web page, but this quote from the OP caught my eye.

Rest assured folks like Ed Decker, John L. Smith, Ankerberg and Weldon among a host of others, make their living persecuting the Saints—it is what they do and is a full-time job. And if you think that they are willing to cut us the least bit of slack and "live and let live," you are likely to be mistaken. So the truth of the matter is that I do not take them very seriously.

At first it appears to be the typical dire warning from the persecuted TBM about the anti-mormons who lie in wait to deceive. But he ends it by saying he doesn't take them very seriously. It seems to me he is as paranoid and frightened as any other TBM about "anti-mormons." After all, they are employed by satan. They refuse to let us live and let live, and the won't cut us the least bit of slack. I'm also curious about his claim that anti-mormons make their living persecuting saints and it is their "full time job." Is it possible to make a living by persecuting Mormons? THese guys have to have other jobs. I would guess persecuting Mormons is more of a hobby than a ful time job. Maybe a part time job, but not a full time job. There simply is not enough demand in the world for anti-mormon persecution. The vast majority of the world couldn't care less about Mormonism, and I seriously doubt "persecuting the saints" is a high demand job skill, especially in these tough economic times.

[_Daniel Peterson]

John Ankerberg and John Weldon devote themselves, professionally, to attacking a fairly wide range of non-evangelical-Protestant faiths or worldviews, including Mormonism (on which they've published books and tracts, done television shows, lectured, and the like).

Ed Decker and John L. Smith have dedicated themselves, full time, for many years, to attacking Mormonism -- though Decker does occasionally attack Freemasonry, as well.

[_Mister Scratch]

I credit DCP with directing me to Novak's "important web site" a decade ago.

Ah, yes. Of course. Thank you for refreshing my memory, Tom. My favorite part was this:

I like this article. I hope you liked it. I invite readers to send in the zaniest, the weirdest, the most paranoid, the most obviously off-the-wall anti-Mormon claims and arguments. Perhaps we will even select and publish some of the ones we find most entertaining. (A good selection of these is already available at Gary Novak's important web site "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web" [located at http://www.inficad.com/~novak/].) Some of us—not FARMS officially, I hasten to add—are considering the establishment of an award for "America's Funniest Anti-Mormons," although we certainly welcome international contributions, as well. (If there are enough submissions, perhaps we can open up a new category, like the annual "Foreign Film" Oscar at the Academy Awards.) We have settled on at least two prizes, to be known respectively as the "Korihor" and either the "Philastus" or the "Hurlbut." The latter titles come from the name of one of the very earliest anti-Mormons, "Doctor Philastus Hurlbut" who, in an eerily prescient move that has since been emulated by several countercult luminaries, carried the name of "Doctor" without ever earning a degree.

Why would we go to such trouble? Simply because we hope to see better anti-Mormon writing. We desire an anti-Mormon literature that will be yet more creative and entertaining than it has already been. This is a tall order, but, as the dawn of the new millennium draws nigh, who can doubt that the future is bright with promise?

I'm sure DCP was slapping his knees mirthfully as Robert Ritner announced that he was seriously considering a defamation lawsuit against The Good Professor: Ho ho ho! Hilllaaaaarious! Those wily anti-Mormons!

In any case, it is very interesting (yet again) to be given this peep into the soul of Mopologetics.

[_Mister Scratch]

John Ankerberg and John Weldon devote themselves, professionally, to attacking a fairly wide range of non-evangelical-Protestant faiths or worldviews, including Mormonism (on which they've published books and tracts, done television shows, lectured, and the like).

Ed Decker and John L. Smith have dedicated themselves, full time, for many years, to attacking Mormonism -- though Decker does occasionally attack Freemasonry, as well.

Hi there, Prof. P. By any chance do you have access to these people's financial records? Are you able to ascertain, with absolute certainty, that these individuals "devote themselves, professionally" to these things? Or, are they essentially doing the same thing that you do as a Mopologist? For example, does Ankerberg have a "Best of the Bonehead Mopologists" award, or something along those lines? And if he did, would you find it funny?

[_Mister Scratch]

I think we can laugh at ourselves even for the "embarassing" aspects. We just try not to take sacred things lightly. Perhaps the following is taking things too lightly, but I suppose I haven't yet met a Mormon who takes offense at it if done in the right situation.

I laughed at the following joke told to my by a missionary companion:

How can you tell that someone is a devout Catholic?
When he gets up he crosses himself.

How can you tell that someone is a devout Mormon?
When he gets up, he tugs at his legs (to pull his garments back down).

I see what you're saying, ABman, and I agree with you. However, the sort of "grim humorlessness" I'm referring to is more in response to being laughed at. You know what I mean? It's not this sense of, "Ah, okay, this is a funny joke about Mormon customs, or Mormon culture," or whatever. It is the sense, among Mopologists, that they are viewed as ridiculous. The sense that they are, quite literally, "laughingstocks." DCP and Bill Hamblin often try to make self-deprecating jokes about how they must be "laughinstocks," since, hey! look! another book published with the Oxford U. Press! Ha Ha! They must be laughingstocks since, hey! look! DCP got invited to lecture on Islam in Dubai!

You see: I doubt very much that they would be engaging in this type of self-deprecating humor if their weren't some kind of wound behind all of it. "There's many a true word spoken in jest," as the old saying goes. At heart, many of the Mopologists realize, I think, that on some level, they really are laughingstocks. And this is what fuels the sorts of things like G. Novak's website, and his apparent anger.

[_Scratchopolis]

I see what you're saying, ABman, and I agree with you. However, the sort of "grim humorlessness" I'm referring to is more in response to being laughed at. You know what I mean? It's not this sense of, "Ah, okay, this is a funny joke about Mormon customs, or Mormon culture," or whatever. It is the sense, among Mopologists, that they are viewed as ridiculous. The sense that they are, quite literally, "laughingstocks." DCP and Bill Hamblin often try to make self-deprecating jokes about how they must be "laughinstocks," since, hey! look! another book published with the Oxford U. Press! Ha Ha! They must be laughingstocks since, hey! look! DCP got invited to lecture on Islam in Dubai!

You see: I doubt very much that they would be engaging in this type of self-deprecating humor if their weren't some kind of wound behind all of it. "There's many a true word spoken in jest," as the old saying goes. At heart, many of the Mopologists realize, I think, that on some level, they really are laughingstocks. And this is what fuels the sorts of things like G. Novak's website, and his apparent anger.

This is deeply, deeply disturbing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm sure DCP was slapping his knees mirthfully as Robert Ritner announced that he was seriously considering a defamation lawsuit against The Good Professor: Ho ho ho! Hilllaaaaarious! Those wily anti-Mormons!

No, I don't find the prospect of being sued at all entertaining. It's a personal quirk of mine.

But I'm intrigued by your apparent willingness to class Robert Ritner with Walter Martin, Ed Decker, and Bill Schnoebelen as an "anti-Mormon."

I wouldn't have classified him that way, myself.

Hi there, Prof. P. By any chance do you have access to these people's financial records? Are you able to ascertain, with absolute certainty, that these individuals "devote themselves, professionally" to these things?

If you have any evidence suggesting that either John L. Smith or Ed Decker engages in any professional activities other than his anti-Mormon ministry, feel free to share it.

If you have anything to demonstrate that John Ankerberg and John Weldon have jobs unrelated to writing on "the cults and false religions," please present it.

I don't think my description of them is even slightly controversial outside of Scratchworld.

Or, are they essentially doing the same thing that you do as a Mopologist?

Feel free to locate a few of my publications against Protestantism, or my exposés of Hinduism, or my filmed denunciations of the Catholic Church, or my tabloid articles attacking Islam.

For example, does Ankerberg have a "Best of the Bonehead Mopologists" award, or something along those lines?

I haven't the faintest idea.

And if he did, would you find it funny?

If it were funny, yes, I would.

For that matter, I think it's pretty funny that you're trying to depict me (and Bill Hamblin, of all people!) as desperately insecure and grimly humorless. But I don't think you intend this latest silliness of yours to be funny. Am I right?

[_Analytics]

Did Mr. Novak really create a website devoted solely and exclusive to the mockery of Church critics? Is his laughter "all in good fun," as the old saying goes?

If I may take a moment to reminisce, in the mid 90’s the world-wide-web was in its infancy and I hadn’t yet shaken off the blinders of my former religion. I browsed what the web said about my religion and discovered SHIELDS. It turned out that SHIELDS--especially the worst of the anti-Mormon web—was an important catalyst for my own personal growth.

I found the Shields humor to be funny from time to time, but it felt dirty—it seemed they crossed the line between good-natured jokes and bitter, hateful mocking. It’s not that I had much sympathy for the people Shields was attacking—I didn’t—it just seemed unbecoming to mock.

But I found something disturbing about it beyond the callous mockery. It took a little while to figure it out, but eventually I realized how pathetic it is to literally seek out the worst of your critics for focus (this is no different than what the worst posters at rfm do when they mock the dumbest believers). The epiphany was that these guys were deriding the worst of the anti-Mormon web as their own mental distraction from the best critical arguments against their feeble, cherished beliefs.

Just as one should seek wisdom out the best of books, you should seek it out the best of websites--especially the best ones that are critical of your own views.

[_Chap]

[ ...] It took a little while to figure it out, but eventually I realized how pathetic it is to literally seek out the worst of your critics for focus (this is no different than what the worst posters at rfm do when they mock the dumbest believers). The epiphany was that these guys were deriding the worst of the anti-Mormon web as their own mental distraction from the best critical arguments against their feeble, cherished beliefs.

Just as one should seek wisdom out the best of books, you should seek it out the best of websites--especially the best ones that are critical of your own views.

QFT. <sound of nail being hit decisively on head>

Where in your view is the best LDS apologetic material to be found nowadays? Any examples?

[_Analytics]

Where in your view is the best LDS apologetic material to be found nowadays? Any examples?

From what I'm familiar with, I'd say FAIR is the best, followed by Jeff Lindsay and FARMS.