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

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

[_Doctor Scratch]

LOL. You had to expect this kind of spin-doctoring. Get a load of the latest response:

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 information 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:

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.

[_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.

[_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 SeN 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.

[_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]

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.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

[_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.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

[_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.