A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

[_RockSlider]

Ray,

What I cannot understand is how you now seem to consider yourself an "us" in association to the old and new MI. Even though no longer an official member I'm also sure you consider yourself an "us" as a very experienced old school orthodox Mormon.

And yet it is not ok for any of us, here at your now despised MDB, to call on our lifetime experience in the midst of the "us" of Mormonism.

And now, immediately after admitting to your mistake of falsely accusing Kish, you now have set your sights on the likes of sethpain, who like all of us here must simply be praising, supporting and following scratch. Constantly proving the hypocrisy and sliminess of this site.

Ray, I'm here to tell you that there are many wonderful and excellent people here and that you're new found hatred for MDB and need to continually come here and accuse and attack the individuals here as being some kind of evil enemy is wrong.

[_Chap]

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.

My apologies, Chris. In an effort to quickly respond to Ray I used imprecise language and I should have been more thoughtful and careful.

Frankly, I hate the label "critic." It is divisive and unnecessary. You are a fair and honest scholar.

A fair and honest scholar looking at the writings of Mormon apologists of the Mormon Interpreter school is much more worrying to them than someone who can be dismissed as a critic driven by (say) an obvious Evangelical 'anti-mormon' agenda.

Why? Because the facts about much of the Mormon historical record are not very faith-promoting - at least in terms of promoting the kind of faith Mormon Interpreter seems to wish to promote.

[_RayAgostini]

But you don't reject the idea that hardline crazies can speak for Mormonism, as they do without hesitation or reflection.

Sometimes even you do it.

You should listen to Greg Prince's Mormon Stories interview in which Prince talks about "owning your own religion." In that interview he relates an exchange between Brigham Young and a prominent Mormon over a business deal gone bad.

Brigham said to this man, "So, I guess you'll apostatize now?"

The man replied, "I would if this were your church, but it is not your church. It is my church as much as it is yours."

I am actually paraphrasing here. But you get the idea. The prophet was told that the church was not his. Sethpayne and a sizeable minority of other folks stake out the same position. They refuse to allow Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Daniel Peterson, or Greg Smith to tell them that they should b****r off.

Well I'm offering counter-criticisms of that. You okay if I speak my mind? Or are you going to tell me to "bugger off" too?

Now, sethpayne's ideas may be less than mainstream on certain issues, but he owns his own religion, he is honest about his position, and he does not demand that everyone else think as he does. What he does ask, and I think he has every right to do this, is that people who undertake to represent Mormonism to the world and argue on its behalf, especially those who have not been called to do so, behave in a manner that reflects well on the Christian ethics and integrity of the membership as a whole.

Here was Seth's response:

I'm going to rant a bit.

I absolutely detest this type of approach to apologetics....

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. 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.

That's a very well balanced, objective and compassionate reply. Seth doesn't practice what he's calling for. "Ranting" isn't very productive if one wishes to correct or improve approaches to apologetics, and someone who holds a different (sometimes more orthodox) view isn't necessarily a "douchebag". They just have different opinions, beliefs, and approaches to apologetics.

That said, he is not misrepresenting the people with whom he disagrees. Their words condemn them. Gadianton has shown that Hedelius deliberately misrepresented Jackson. You have not, because you cannot, defend this lapse in scholarly integrity.

Oh, but that it were only a lapse!

Instead it represents an ingrained practice of studied and deliberate obfuscation and deception that operates on an "ends justifies the means" basis. Hedelius will excuse herself for lying because she holds her cause to be so important. In this she compromises the entire reason for having the cause in the first place.

Many people don't buy into the apocalyptic and chauvinistic parochialism that is driving a lot of this apologetic drivel and the questionable ethics that undergird it.

But, you seem to, and the argument you offer to back up your case is that you have agreed with your opponents in defining yourself out of Mormonism. Well, that's your decision, Ray. But there is no reason it has to be sethpayne's decision.

I've read her article, and I don't agree with you. It seems you're getting to a point where 90% of apologetic writing is "apologetic drivel", "apocalyptic and chauvinistic parochialism" (ever heard of a man named Jesus?), and "studied and deliberate obfuscation and deception that operates on an 'ends justifies the means' basis."

I think you're angrily ranting as well, and you haven't provided any detailed and balanced responses on this thread, just endorsing the view that apologists are "douchebags" and it's all "apologetic drivel", and they are "out to get you".

Since you write for WWE, maybe you could offer a more reasoned and less emotional response there?

[_RayAgostini]

Ray,

I like you. We've always gotten along and I'm really surprised that you are 1) putting words into my mouth and 2) accusing me of ulterior motives. I don't appreciate it. I try to be open and honest about who I am, what I believe, and what I hope for. That you are using my own words -- expressed in an effort to be sincere -- to try and ascribe to me certain unstated motives and characteristics is disappointing. You are trying to make this about *me* rather than the *issue* on which I commented. Let me make something abundantly clear:

Criticism of specific unsavory polemical tactics used to dismiss authors who write about Mormonism is, in reality, a defense of Mormonism.

But it's not the only defense of Mormonism, and it most certainly isn't the only legitimate defense of Mormonism. So Seth, you are "sincere", but apologists who write for the Interpreter aren't? Seriously, I didn't see anything as crass in Cassandra Hedelius' article as I saw in your post.

Please go back and read my post again. You will notice that I mention, by name, several individuals who discuss Mormonism and its critics in a respectful, kind, and honest way.

Richard Bushman, Teryll Givens, Kathleen Flake and others like them have done more to produce good will towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than any nonsensical polemical tirade ever has or ever will.

And all the others are "douchebags" who write "apologetic drivel"? What you call a "polemical tirade" is simply a critical review of a book the author (Hedelius) found wanting, and she concluded her comment with:

5) I apologize that my writing style offended you. I didn’t mean to be glib or smug, only trenchant. I tried to give a full report of your and your book’s virtues, and was honest in my portrayal of its deficiencies. It’s really much better than many dismissals of Mormonism from an Evangelical standpoint, but that’s such an overcrowded and low-quality genre that being a cut above still isn’t terribly high.

6) I wish you well, Dr. Jackson. From what I’ve seen on your resume and website, you’ve been a devoted friend to humanity and disciple of Christ. I hope that some day you will acquire a deeper understanding of Mormonism, but our differences in the meantime do nothing to lessen my admiration.

But never mind, she's just another "douchebag apologist".

Again, I like you Ray and I hope we can continue on with mutual respect. I would be very sad indeed if my use of the word "us" has made me an enemy in your eyes.

Seth

I've always considered you a reasonable person with balanced views, and I think a sense of fairness (above mine, actually), but I have to say that in recent times my view of that is changing. Maybe the future holds out more hope.

[_sethpayne]

That's a very well balanced, objective and compassionate reply. Seth doesn't practice what he's calling for. "Ranting" isn't very productive if one wishes to correct or improve approaches to apologetics, and someone who holds a different (sometimes more orthodox) view isn't necessarily a "douchebag". They just have different opinions, beliefs, and approaches to apologetics.

Ray,

You make a good point that there are/were more effective and appropriate ways to express my frustration.

I apologize if I have offended anyone at MI and I retract my use of the words "douche bags." My intent was not to put a blanket label on MI authors. Rather, that this type of apologetic response makes Mormons look like we're the "mean" and defensive ones when we don't seriously engage and accurately represent the work of others.

Seth

[_RayAgostini]

Ray,

You make a good point that there are/were more effective and appropriate ways to express my frustration.

I apologize if I have offended anyone at MI and I retract my use of the words "douche bags." My intent was not to put a blanket label on MI authors. Rather, that this type of apologetic response makes Mormons look like we're the "mean" and defensive ones when we don't seriously engage and accurately represent the work of others.

Seth

Thank you, Seth. The "atmosphere" here and on most MBs, I realise, isn't conducive to bringing out better selves (pointing the finger at myself, too). I look forward to reading more of your blog contributions.

[_sethpayne]

All,

I would like to publicly apologize to Dan Peterson and others who have contributed to the Interpreter for my use of language. I did not intend to put forth a blanket characterization of the Interpreter.

There are much better ways of expressing my views without using such unproductive and emotionally charged language.

Seth

[_Ceeboo]

All,

I would like to publicly apologize to Dan Peterson and others who have contributed to the Interpreter for my use of language. I did not intend to put forth a blanket characterization of the Interpreter.

There are much better ways of expressing my views without using such unproductive and emotionally charged language.

Seth

Apology not nearly good enough for me!

Sorry.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_sethpayne]

All,

I would like to publicly apologize to Dan Peterson and others who have contributed to the Interpreter for my use of language. I did not intend to put forth a blanket characterization of the Interpreter.

There are much better ways of expressing my views without using such unproductive and emotionally charged language.

Seth

Apology not nearly good enough for me!

Sorry.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Well Ceeboo, I will see you in the playground after school. :)

Seth

[_Ceeboo]

Well Ceeboo, I will see you in the playground after school. :)

Seth

Ha!



You're a super classy and stand up guy, Seth!

for what it's worth, you have earned my respect and admiration a long time ago!

Peace,
Ceeboo