A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Happy Sunday, Friends and Colleagues! On this day of reflection and reverence, I've been thinking: Do you remember how Dr. Peterson went ballistic a little over a month ago over the suggestion that he is sometimes unkind towards people of other religious dispositions? It would seem that he himself has already forgotten that episode, because just yesterday, he posted a thread called "An exceptionally stupid argument against the Restoration," and for anyone who is a student of Mopologetics, the whole entry will make you feel as if you've been transported back in time to the late 1990s. Just take a look at the second paragraph:
DCP wrote:There is some Catholic anti-Mormon activity; I picked up a little pamphlet attack the faith of the Latter-day Saints in the Colorado Rockies just a few weeks ago. In fact, I’ve even seen a Muslim anti-Mormon pamphlet. Still, it’s Protestants who are, by and large, the folks who set up “ministries,” publish newsletters, broadcast radio shows, travel on the lecture circuit, churn out pamphlets, teach divinity school classes, produce videos, hold public seminars, offer online courses, organize picket lines, air television shows, sponsor “mission trips,” author books, and run a myriad of websites aimed at criticizing Mormonism, and who, in a comparatively small but surprising number of cases, earn their livings by attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
LOL. It's weird: back in 1999, these exact same charges just seemed different. Today, though, you could look at that list of descriptions and you could legitimately wonder: Is this referring to EV ministries? Or to the exploits of the Mopologists? Book of Mormon Central; FAIRMormon; Interpreter; Neville-Neville Land. I mean, we can go through them one by one:

--"broadcast radio shows": yes, there is an 'Interpreter' radio show. And a number of Mopologetic podcasts.
--"travel on the lecture circuit": LOL. Oh, it's so abhorrent to do that! And yet I bet that the EV lecturers weren't getting their expenses covered by their official, centralized, and stunningly wealthy churches, were they?
--"churn out pamphlets": well, the Mopologists might win on this one. Has there ever been an EV ministry that has published an article every single week for like 500 weeks straight?
--"teach divinity school classes": How is this different from the religious ed classes at BYU?
--"produce videos": Uh, "Witnesses"?
--"hold public seminars": FAIR Mormon Conference?
--"offer online courses": Don't Interpreter, FAIRMormon, and the others offer "study resources"?
--"organize picket lines": What did Midgley do at the Whitesides vigil? Or at Sandra Tanner's bookstore? Or Gina Colvin's Husband's ward?
--"air television shows": Sorry, but the EVs win this battle.
--"sponsor 'mission trips'": Uh, Cruise Lady?
--"author books": well, hey: at least they manage to finish their books. And how often do their own churches yank their books off of church-sponsored shelves, like what happened with Gee?
--"run a myriad of websites": "Sic et Non"? "Neville-Neville Land"? "Forn Spoll Fira"?

You have to marvel at how far the Mopologists have come. They have spent so much of their time over the past 20 years battling secular critics, that they failed to notice that they've adopted all of the so-called "corrupt" practices of their old nemeses, the EV critics. At this point, their tactics are basically indistinguishable. And yet look at this remark, seemingly beamed straight out of SHIELDS from circa 1998:
DCP wrote:Thus, it’s not unexpected, given all their undertakings, that fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants have come up with most of the stupidest arguments against Mormon beliefs. (At some point, I’ll probably share an example or two of what I mean.)
Yeah: those EVs sure are "stupid," aren't they! Maybe if they believed in near-death experiences, or in the afterlife of Added Upon, or in seer stones, that would help? Regardless, this is clearly a cause for reminiscence, and Glen Danielson can't help but get into the spirit of the moment:
Gle Danielseon wrote:In the 1980’s, I had a close friend who worked for Ex-Mormons For Jesus. EMFJ actually had a storefront (!) in an obscure strip mall in Santa Fe Springs, CA, where my friend was a clerk. Unbelievable! Later I had to end the friendship because he couldn’t stop spewing sewage at me.

Recently I responded to an Evangelical YouTube boob who has made a hobby of trying to destroy our joy. Please forgive its length:

Evangelical brother, why not make a new standard, a whole new paradigm—one of respect and civil discourse. Polite is right. We Latter-day Saints have seen so much thought rot—the dominant pattern of Evangelicals attacking others’ Faiths. It is long-standing Evangelical spectacle. On the net and in their bookstores, we see landfills of anti-Latter-day Saint wordcraft. By contrast, visit any Latter-day Saint bookstore or website; you will not see a single anti-Evangelical book or piece of scrap paper, nor website or video. Evangelicals routinely use glib ridicule, smooth dishonest exposition, rant with slant, playground mockery, accusations that distort and omit context, half-truths, outright deceit, flat falsehoods, cherrypicked quotes from pioneer Church leaders’ personal opinions, and fragmented quotes and ellipses used to change meaning. They edit to discredit. They don’t want to convert, they want to hurt. They don’t want answers, they want to rapid-fire smear.

You see, misrepresenting someone else’s Faith is not “speaking the truth in love.” And being rude is not being ‘bold,’ it’s just being rude. You guys, if you have Christ then share Christ, not slander. In the eyes of God, lying about sacred things is a heavy matter. Propagandist brother Walter Martin and others have tried to justify spitting spite and sarcasm by using New Testament verses that mention “contend for the faith.” But reread those narratives; they don’t advocate assaulting others’ beliefs, but rather to contend *for* one’s Faith. Evangelical assassins, efforts at justifying inane behavior by proof-texting it in holy writ only makes hypocrisy more abhorrent. There is fault when you exalt assault. Misunderstanding Latter-day Saints is excusable; evil speaking is not.
We suggest James 3 for thee.

Cheers to you anyway, Evangelical jihadists with fourth-century view from the pew, of non-apostolic creed, of Nicene scream, of grace-only Lutherspeak. We disagree a wee, but I hope we can be friends with our pens and civil with our drivel. Instead of a beatdown, share Christ if you have Christ. You will never win anyone over by spitting on their cherished beliefs and using dishonest verbal gymnastics misrepresenting their history and teachings, using deceptive spins or sly lie. (I mean, do we really have to ask you not to lie?) To malign is a bad sign. Reflect on respect. Now go out and sniff seasonal air, but stay out of trouble. (I myself have trouble staying out of trouble).
Did he listen to "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" before he wrote this? It doesn't matter, because it clearly was in keeping with the blog proprietor's intentions:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I once visited that very place in that very strip mall in Santa Fe Springs. With Todd Compton. (That name will mean something to some readers.). It was a very weird experience. Among other things, they gave us a private showing of The God Makers and then marveled that we didn't resign our Church membership immediately at its conclusion.

I agree with your letter -- though you have a talent for rap that I lack. I'm astonished at the vitriol that I've encountered over the years, first mostly from Evangelical anti-Mormons and now mostly from secular anti-theists.
Wow, I don't even know where to begin. First, it seems clear that the "Witnesses" movie is meant to function in a similar way--rhetorically speaking--as The Godmakers. "Witnesses," I think it's fair to say, is meant to be the Mopologists' version of The Godmakers--a propaganda piece that is meant drive home the apologists' agenda. Second: "you have a talent for rap"...? WTF? What rap is DCP listening to? Good lord: talk about clueless.

In any case, Danielson makes an effort to bring the conversation back to his real interests:
Glen Danielson wrote:Yes, but I think most damaging now is the subtle corrosion of Church culture by secularists in the perimeter of the Church. That, I think, is our greatest scare at present. In recent days they have proved that they have the power to get a good, faithful book banned. Unprecedented. It is sickening to me.
I think that the Mopologists cycle through the various people that they perceive as threats. They go through periods where it's mainly the Heartlanders that they view as enemies. Sometimes it's the Mormon Transhumanists; sometimes it is LGBTQ+ people or people of color; most of the time it is atheists. But now we've circled back to their original nemeses: the EVs. The common thread here is that the Mopologists need people to hate (and notice that Dr. Peterson says that he "visited that very place"--meaning that he went out of his way to trek down to Santa Fe Springs). But, of course, they've accumulated so many enemies over the years that it gets tough to fight all of them, hence why there are sometimes efforts to make amends. But these are always--and have always been--disingenuous, and they seldom ever happen. (Imagine seeing some kind of outreach effort to the Heartlanders, who are actually fellow Latter-day Saints!) Instead, at the end of the day, they find it easier (or more entertaining?) to keep picking the same old fights.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 34086
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Jersey Girl »

Listen I didn't read your whole post yet. Question. Didn't Joseph Smith Jr. establish an entire religion based on criticism of the Protestant all churches?

None of them were true, right?

So what skin is it off his nose, if other churches criticize the church he belongs to?

What. Did I just fall through the Looking Glass here or has he?

Daniel you make an ass of yourself. Shut up.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

I have a question
God
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by I have a question »

DCP wrote:There is some Catholic anti-Mormon activity; I picked up a little pamphlet attack the faith of the Latter-day Saints in the Colorado Rockies just a few weeks ago.
“...when I was chastising others for not taking Covid-19 seriously.”

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21271
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Kishkumen »

Doctor, isn't Glen Danielson one of the DezNazis?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Analytics
God
Posts: 4220
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Analytics »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:47 pm
...they failed to notice that they've adopted all of the so-called "corrupt" practices of their old nemeses, the EV critics. At this point, their tactics are basically indistinguishable.
A notable example is their reaction to Christopher Hitchens and his book god Is Not Great. They have attacked and continue to attack this book and have done so across all mediums--conferences, journal articles, a book, dozens of blog entries. Surely they've talked about it on their radio show. What is interesting about this example is how acutely awful their criticisms are--it's as if they literally did not read it and are basing their criticisms on what they presume it says. My best guess is that their emotional reaction to the book was so intense it literally short-circuited their ability to intellectually understand and remember the book's actual arguments.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6578
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Philo Sofee »

Analytics wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:51 am
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:47 pm
...they failed to notice that they've adopted all of the so-called "corrupt" practices of their old nemeses, the EV critics. At this point, their tactics are basically indistinguishable.
A notable example is their reaction to Christopher Hitchens and his book god Is Not Great. They have attacked and continue to attack this book and have done so across all mediums--conferences, journal articles, a book, dozens of blog entries. Surely they've talked about it on their radio show. What is interesting about this example is how acutely awful their criticisms are--it's as if they literally did not read it and are basing their criticisms on what they presume it says. My best guess is that their emotional reaction to the book was so intense it literally short-circuited their ability to intellectually understand and remember the book's actual arguments.
All they have to know is that it is from an atheist, and a mighty powerfully popular one to send them into kaniptions of rage, all without grasping what it is he says because to even touch it, let alone read it will grieve the sensitive Holy Ghost, and they will never be able to find their car keys, and they just can't have that.

Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Gadianton »

"they have attacked and continue to attack this book and have done so across all mediums--conferences, journal articles, a book, dozens of blog entries. Surely they've talked about it on their radio show."

Good point, but I thought you were going to say, after launching their war against Hitchens, who I believe barely noticed Mormons, they virtually forced Gemli to register and post there. How many times as Lou whined that Sic et Non is the sacred living room that Gemli has interrupted?

And even so, they complain constantly that Gemli won't study Mormon specific claims. Were he to do so he'd be a full-blooded anti-Mormon, virtually of their own making.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Gadianton »

Kishkumen wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:39 am
Doctor, isn't Glen Danielson one of the DezNazis?
He posts in interpreter comments as an ally to Dennis Horne. Isn't DezNat a younger crowd? Would be interesting if he was.

I have to say, when he called for blood bath of excommunications, a "September 660", the Proprietor shot him down, and Danielson complied immediately. Shows just how much standing the Proprietor has among defenders of the Church. Imagine if he'd used his powers for good like this consistently throughout his career, instead of doing the opposite, and empowering the extremism of his acolytes? Maybe it would be a totally different legacy today.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Doctor Scratch »

I have a question wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:56 am
DCP wrote:There is some Catholic anti-Mormon activity; I picked up a little pamphlet attack the faith of the Latter-day Saints in the Colorado Rockies just a few weeks ago.
“...when I was chastising others for not taking Covid-19 seriously.”
I bet he's making this up. If he has an actual pamphlet, then let him post images of it and explain where/how he got it, etc. He won't do it: this is complete mythology. Then again, let him prove me wrong and I'll apologize for assuming that he was lying.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Analytics wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:51 am
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:47 pm
...they failed to notice that they've adopted all of the so-called "corrupt" practices of their old nemeses, the EV critics. At this point, their tactics are basically indistinguishable.
A notable example is their reaction to Christopher Hitchens and his book god Is Not Great. They have attacked and continue to attack this book and have done so across all mediums--conferences, journal articles, a book, dozens of blog entries. Surely they've talked about it on their radio show. What is interesting about this example is how acutely awful their criticisms are--it's as if they literally did not read it and are basing their criticisms on what they presume it says. My best guess is that their emotional reaction to the book was so intense it literally short-circuited their ability to intellectually understand and remember the book's actual arguments.
That's a great point, Analytics. There are people/groups that they will latch onto as enemies, and Hitchens is clearly one of the ones who irks them the most. To tell you the truth, though, I think Dr. Peterson hates Hitchens so much because he (DCP) is jealous of Hitchens's status as a "public intellectual." Hitchens was popular, sold millions of books, and was frequently invited as a guest on to TV programs. DCP, meanwhile, has had to slave just in order to drum up a measly $1 million for his "Witnesses" movie, and how many hits does "Sic et Non" get per day? Someone looked it up once, as I recall, and the results weren't exactly flattering.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:45 pm
And even so, they complain constantly that Gemli won't study Mormon specific claims. Were he to do so he'd be a full-blooded anti-Mormon, virtually of their own making.
This is the type of penetrating insight that shows, once again, why you are The Dean.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Doctor Scratch »

LOL. You had to expect this kind of spin-doctoring. Get a load of the latest response:
Sic et Non wrote:I’ve occasionally been asked, when I’m at academic conferences, what it’s like to teach at a religiously-affiliated university where I’m expected to expose the errors of other faiths. I’ve invariably responded that I wouldn’t have any idea what it would be like, since the university at which I teach has no such expectations. Indeed, quite the contrary. Fifteen or twenty years ago, we had a fellow who taught briefly at BYU — not an American, for whatever that may be worth — who thought it his duty to do precisely that in a world religions course. He was soon called in by university authorities and told to stop it.
Classic. The two main rebuttals here are: (1) an anecdote about how he's "occasionally been asked" about whether he attacks others' faith. So, who asked him this? (Richard Mouw?) At which "academic conferences" did this happen? And (2) there was apparently "a fellow who taught briefly at BYU"--a foreigner no less! (Was he non-white, too?)--who got into trouble for actively slamming others' faith in class! Gee, who was this person? Does he have a name? Can you identify what class he taught? It's all too convenient that neither of these rebuttals are verifiable. But Dr. Peterson could give us more info in order to make his story more convincing. Will he do that?

He continues:
It’s a matter of calm satisfaction to me that BYU offers no courses of the type that I’ve often seen in the catalogues of certain Evangelical Protestant colleges and seminaries (e.g., “Cults and False Religions,” “World Religions and Christian Counterfeits” and other such titles). While briefly visiting the tiny Catholic Chapel of St. Catherine of Siena in the Colorado Rockies a few weeks back, I noticed an anti-Mormon pamphlet, an anti-Mormon book, and an anti-Mormon CD on sale in their gift shop. You won’t find Latter-day Saint equivalents at Deseret Book of Seagull Books, and you certainly won’t find them in our visitor centers at Latter-day Saint temples and historical sites.
First, does St. Catherine of Siena even have a gift shop? And what were the titles of the "pamphlet," the "book," and the "CD"? I mean, already the story is dubious: Are there really still stores out there that are selling CDs? I have a CD player in my car, but it seems like an anachronism. (Maybe that's the point: to dump on other faiths by showing how hostile and comparatively "backwater" they are next to Mormon sophisticates like Dr. P.?) In any case, I'll just note in passing that earlier DCP said he "picked up" this pamphlet, whereas now he says that he merely "saw" it. So I guess that means he doesn't still have a copy of it, and can't prove that the thing actually exists. How convenient.

And talk about disingenuous:
Daniel Peterson wrote:If there are members of the Church out on the lecture circuit giving accounts of their “escape from the Assemblies of God” or revealing the sordid evils of their Catholic upbringing, I’ve never heard of them. Evangelical bookstores often have sections labeled something like “Sects, Cults, and World Religions”; I’ve never seen any Latter-day Saint bookstore with any such section. If the Church is publishing pamphlets attacking the Methodists or the Christian Scientists or even Jehovah’s Witnesses, I haven’t seen them. If Latter-day Saints are organizing picket lines against synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras, fire temples, ashrams, meditation centers, or other churches, I’ve entirely missed it. Moreover, I would expect, in such a case, that Church leaders would ask such organizers to cease and desist. If any member of the Church has launched a website assaulting any other faith, I’m unaware of it.
He's certainly aware of "Neville-Neville Land," since he posts links to it pretty much weekly. Maybe he's assuming that "Peter Pan" is *not* a member of the Church? That doesn't seem likely, but it's a neat little loophole, isn't it?

Whatever the case may be, there is ample evidence of the Mopologists attacking other faiths--ironically enough, a lot of this has been directed at other Mormons, including the Heartlanders, the Mormon Transhumanists, and the "new" Maxwell Institute folks: i.e., "Liberal Mormons," who Glen Danielson slammed in his comment. But DCP knows that he's peddling baloney, because just look at the way he is hedging and carefully tweaking his language:
And the same is true of the Interpreter Foundation’s sister organizations: If FairMormon has ever published anything devoted in whole or in significant part to attacking another faith, I don’t recall it. If any speaker at the annual FairMormon conference has ever focused principally or even secondarily on criticizing a non-Latter-day Saint religion or denomination, I’ve certainly missed it.
"in significant part." Sure. The argument there is that, Hey, we cite a dozen or so lines demonstrating that the piece was "attacking another faith," then the retort is: "It's only 12 sentences! The rest of the article is totally neutral!" And why is he saying "criticizing a non-Latter-day Saint religion"? Because he knows damned well that they've attacked *other* Latter-day Saints--tried to get them excommunicated, even.

But all this is spin-doctoring, like I said. The fact is that there is a long and well-documented history of the Mopologists' war with the EV critics, and as I said at the outset, the Mopologists have appropriated nearly all of their tactics. It is up to them to prove that they are using those tactics for the better good.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3560
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Dr Exiled »

Dr. P is conveniently not mentioning the missionary program that sends thousands out (not the 100K El Dodo predicted would happen, but many nonetheless) proclaiming that Mormonism is God's one and only, de facto attacking every single religion out there. He conveniently avoids D&C 1 where Joseph Smith claims that God proclaimed that the Mormon church is the only one that God supposedly likes. He also conveniently doesn't mention how in the 1838 rendition of Joseph Smith's fantasy vision, Joseph Smith says that God thinks all other religions are an abomination. So, perhaps it is true that Mormons don't attack other religions like the other religions do to the Mormon church, but that is only because the Mormons attack through missionary work. The other religions merely are responding.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Gadianton »

The main driver for any kind of "anti" campaign is simple economics. In my mission at least, it was a confirmed fact by the mission presidency that the easiest work was among the various anglo EV churches, 'anti-lit' notwithstanding. Mormonism poses a threat to them, so they protect their bottom line. If Southern Baptists came up with a sustained missionary program in Utah that proselyted with the same force as Mormon missionaries, then eventually there would be some kind of response. By the way, it's not just Mormons and JWs, inter-EV fighting can get pretty nasty. Again, it's all about territory. Sometimes its about gratuitous shock value and entertainment -- which is exactly what Sic et Non is doing with Christopher Hitchens -- but that's not the main driver.

Catholics and baptists aren't a recognized threat to Mormons, so why would there be any related anti-lit? The Mopologists have their radar of threats, such as liberal Mormons, transhumanist Mormons, mono-Cumorah Mormonism, and so on, and these are the groups that get the anti treatment. Not to mention atheists.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Physics Guy »

I think this is a good insight. I also think it’s not hard to see why evangelicals are easier targets for Mormon missionaries. Early 19th century New England was pretty fundamentalist evangelical by today’s standards, so Mormonism and evangelicalism diverged recently in evolutionary time. They share, like, 95% of their DNA.

I have a question
God
Posts: 9734
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by I have a question »

One could make the case that BYU is inherently slamming other religions in a number of ways. Under their honour code for instance, which includes the following requirements:
Men
A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, revealing, or form fitting. Shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extreme styles or colors, and trimmed above the collar, leaving the ear uncovered. Sideburns should not extend below the earlobe or onto the cheek. If worn, moustaches should be neatly trimmed and may not extend beyond or below the corners of the mouth. Men are expected to be clean-shaven; beards are not acceptable. Earrings and other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.
https://policy.BYU.edu/view/index.php?p=231
Beards are a religious requirement within some faiths.
Sunni[edit]
in Sunni Islam, allowing the beard (Lihyah in Arabic) to grow and trimming the moustache is ruled as mandatory according to the sunnah by scholarly consensus,[76] and is considered part of the fitra[77] (i.e., the way man was created).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard#Islam
So the Honor Code at BYU inherently slams Islam by enforcing an 'honour" standard that requires students to be clean shaven.

Not only that, Mormon scriptures slam other religions.
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
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.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng
In fact, the restoration and Mormonisms very existence is a condemnation of all other religions and faiths. Anyone promoting Mormonism is inherently slamming all other religions by cause of the reason it is founded in the first place, as noted by Joseph Smith in that passage above.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21271
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:07 pm
Kishkumen wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:39 am
Doctor, isn't Glen Danielson one of the DezNazis?
He posts in interpreter comments as an ally to Dennis Horne. Isn't DezNat a younger crowd? Would be interesting if he was.

I have to say, when he called for blood bath of excommunications, a "September 660", the Proprietor shot him down, and Danielson complied immediately.
I am pretty sure I have seen him in DezNazi gatherings on Twitter.

I am not surprised Dr. P shut him down. Despite his very bad reputation in these parts on that issue, he does not relish excommunications.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Gadianton »

Oh, let's not forget boundary maintenance for scripture. The apologists go into convulsions over EV's citing Rev. 22:18. They'll go "into the Greek" to explain why they Bible was never formally closed by God and can't they just be a little open minded? The Book of Mormon is a threat to protestant scripture. But oddly, bring up any potentially revealed "sealed portion" when Mormons acknowledge that such a thing is a reality, and that old wine doesn't go into new bottles, and that prophets are still called by God -- but they will give less time to a Sealed Portion translation then any hardened EV minister will give to the Book of Mormon. They'll immediately cite their own version of "revelation has ceased" toward a sealed portion translation such that they don't have to consider it for even 2 seconds. They are hypocrites to exponential powers that only exist in papers written by the Dales.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21271
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:51 pm
Oh, let's not forget boundary maintenance for scripture. The apologists go into convulsions over EV's citing Rev. 22:18. They'll go "into the Greek" to explain why they Bible was never formally closed by God and can't they just be a little open minded? The Book of Mormon is a threat to protestant scripture. But oddly, bring up any potentially revealed "sealed portion" when Mormons acknowledge that such a thing is a reality, and that old wine doesn't go into new bottles, and that prophets are still called by God -- but they will give less time to a Sealed Portion translation then any hardened EV minister will give to the Book of Mormon. They'll immediately cite their own version of "revelation has ceased" toward a sealed portion translation such that they don't have to consider it for even 2 seconds. They are hypocrites to exponential powers that only exist in papers written by the Dales.
According to my recollection, the usual response is this: "If God wants to reveal the Sealed Portion, he will have the prophet translate it. The prophet is the only person who has all of the keys and is authorized to use them."

It is not that they deny that it is possible for the Sealed Portion to come forth. What they deny is that is will be translated by Joe Blow and posted on the internet somewhere. That is what the LDS Church conditions its members to believe through its interpretations of such scriptures as D&C 132:7.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Gadianton »

right -- that's their effective way of saying "revelation has ceased"; having their cake and eating it. it's their license to be as close-minded as the EV lay ministers are.

Oh, one more thing about the marketing side of religion. That somebody uses anti-lit in their presentation is not the litmus test for a false religion, as contrasted with a better religion that focuses on their own "positive" message. Those kind of decisions are determined by marketing committees, not ethics committees. If the Church thought it could drastically increase membership by writing anti-Catholic tracts, it would do so without hesitation.

I think we all remember examples from the missionary guide that prove this. Example's like, a customer is at a car dealership, and asks about a car sold at the competing dealership down the road. How should the sales rep respond? It's better to stay positive, "Oh, you know, that is a good car, but allow me to show you some of the great cars we have!", than to criticize the competitor. In other words, suppose that you have good reason to believe the car at the other dealership has serious issues -- it would still be a better sales tactic (according to the Covey methodology, at least) to lie, and say the other car is good, in order to keep a positive atmosphere.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21271
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: A Blast from the Past: "SeN" Takes on EV Critics

Post by Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:23 pm
right -- that's their effective way of saying "revelation has ceased"; having their cake and eating it. it's their license to be as close-minded as the EV lay ministers are.

Oh, one more thing about the marketing side of religion. That somebody uses anti-lit in their presentation is not the litmus test for a false religion, as contrasted with a better religion that focuses on their own "positive" message. Those kind of decisions are determined by marketing committees, not ethics committees. If the Church thought it could drastically increase membership by writing anti-Catholic tracts, it would do so without hesitation.

I think we all remember examples from the missionary guide that prove this. Example's like, a customer is at a car dealership, and asks about a car sold at the competing dealership down the road. How should the sales rep respond? It's better to stay positive, "Oh, you know, that is a good car, but allow me to show you some of the great cars we have!", than to criticize the competitor. In other words, suppose that you have good reason to believe the car at the other dealership has serious issues -- it would still be a better sales tactic (according to the Covey methodology, at least) to lie, and say the other car is good, in order to keep a positive atmosphere.
Revelation hasn't ceased because it is impossible to come up with something that people will believe is a revelation. Revelation has ceased because it might rock the boat in a situation that looks more safe and manageable. In fact, the Church does have its cake and eat it too. It says, "Oh, we have revelation all the time when we are meeting together in the Holy of Holies; it's just not the kind of revelation that God wants us to add to the D&C."

I think the way that the LDS Church pitches itself is, as you note, partly determined by what they believe best sells, but it is also shaped by their clear knowledge that in reality they are a small fish in a very big pond. Given their disadvantages, they play their cards carefully. It is not a mistake that they are drawn into every losing battle of the culture wars. If they did not kowtow to theo-fascism, they would lose too much business. The fanatics in the pews demand it.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Post Reply