LDS "world famous scholar" publishes book

[_Chap]

Ray A:

the long, smoothed faced HYPOCRITE.

Who he (in your view, I mean, not Joseph Smith's)?

And whoever it is, what grounds are there for this accusation? I presume you don't feel free to call people bad names just because you disagree with them or dislike them, do you? Of course if that is the way you feel, you have only to say and no-one will bother you by asking this kind of question in future.

[_Ray A]

Ray A:

the long, smoothed faced HYPOCRITE.

Who he (in your view, I mean, not Joseph Smith's)?

And whoever it is, what grounds are there for this accusation? I presume you don't feel free to call people bad names just because you disagree with them or dislike them, do you? Of course if that is the way you feel, you have only to say and no-one will bother you by asking this kind of question in future.

I was talking about the wolfies dressed up as Sheep. You know, I like my anti-Mormons up front. Not some blathering hypocritial idiot who praises Mormons with one breath, then goes on exmo boards to drop bird s*** on them. We are all hypocrites, but some hypocrites stink more than others.

[_Pumplehoober]

The best books written on Islam are those which are not published by academic presses, mainly because they are not bound by their politically correct standards.

Which is a completely absurd statement. What you really mean to say is that you disagree with the opinions of those who are pursuing knowledge dispassionately and thus have to turn to pseudo scholarship to support your opinions.

The fact is, even Oxford University Press publishes some truly crap apologetic nonsense when it comes to Islam. Karen Armstrong for example, is not an Islamic scholar. She is not able to read Arabic or analyze the relevant material. She is an ex-Catholic with an axe to grind and she does so by praising Catholicisms historic enemy. ¯et ,people at Oxford will publish her on things Islamic because of her pro-Islam/anti-Christian views. Her views are so absuurd that they even make Dan raise his eyebrows (I.e. Muhammad was like Ghandi!).

How odd. Which books of Armstrong (who I like as an author) has Oxford published?

Also how hypocritical, you criticize and ex-Catholic as having an axe to grind against Catholicism, but cannot see yourself as an ex-Mormon with an axe to grind against Mormonism.

[_Chap]

The best books written on Islam are those which are not published by academic presses, mainly because they are not bound by their politically correct standards.

Which is a completely absurd statement. What you really mean to say is that you disagree with the opinions of those who are pursuing knowledge dispassionately and thus have to turn to pseudo scholarship to support your opinions.

The fact is, even Oxford University Press publishes some truly crap apologetic nonsense when it comes to Islam. Karen Armstrong for example, is not an Islamic scholar. She is not able to read Arabic or analyze the relevant material. She is an ex-Catholic with an axe to grind and she does so by praising Catholicisms historic enemy. ¯et ,people at Oxford will publish her on things Islamic because of her pro-Islam/anti-Christian views. Her views are so absuurd that they even make Dan raise his eyebrows (I.e. Muhammad was like Ghandi!).

How odd. Which books of Armstrong (who I like as an author) has Oxford published?

Also how hypocritical, you criticize and ex-Catholic as having an axe to grind against Catholicism, but cannot see yourself as an ex-Mormon with an axe to grind against Mormonism.

Sometime long ago when I was a kid there used to be a newspaper circulation stunt. For instance, The Potatoville Idaho Enquirer would say that their representative (Enquirer Ike) would be at the World Potato Fair that year, wearing a flat fedora. He would give $50 to anyone who identified him, went up to him carrying a copy of the Potatoville Idaho Enquirer and uttered the set phrase: "You are Enquirer Ike, and I claim my $50".

So, clutching my keyboard tuned to this board - "You are Dr Daniel Peterson, and I claim my free donut!". For thy speech bewrayeth thee.

Only problem - what are you doing up at this time of the morning?

[_beastie]

Who are you calling Porter?
Please do not confuse me with any of the schizoid personalities of Ray.

Whoops, sorry for the confusion. I was calling Ray "Porter Rockwell", because it appears to me that he is his idol and role-model. I forgot part of your name is Porter as well.

[_guy sajer]

Also how hypocritical, you criticize and ex-Catholic as having an axe to grind against Catholicism, but cannot see yourself as an ex-Mormon with an axe to grind against Mormonism.

And this is relevant just how . . . ?

Whether Dartangnan is guilty of ax-grinding anti-Mormon bias is irrelevant and has no bearing on his assertion that Armstrong is guilty of ax-grinding anti-Catholic bias. His statement is accurate or not regardless of his character issues.

Now, since you are such an astute observer and critic of hypocrisy, perhaps you'd like to join us here in noting some of the many hypocrisies practiced by men who claim to be God's only authorized mouthpieces on earth?

How about, say, exhorting the rest of us to scrupulous honesty, while willfully withholding material aspects of Mormon history and doctrine from potential recruits?

Apologists seem to have a keen eye for ferreting out the faults in their critics, yet possess some odd blind spot in noting similar faults in their beloved leaders.

Sorry for the thread hijack.

Perhaps DCP's book is a tour-de-force; for his sake, I hope it is, really.

Before he retires, he probably deserves at least one thing on his CV that is not some Mormon fluff piece or some piece of Mormon apologetic crap. I mean, the guy's had, what, 30 some odd years to do it. That he finally did something of scholarly merit, well good for him.

[_Analytics]

I would guess that Peterson’s book is an expression of the Golden Rule: treat others as you’d like them to treat you.

I think Peterson wants other people to see the good and the divine in Mormonism and to judge it on its own terms from the paradigm of its believers. If people approach it that way, they might inconsistently say that Joseph Smith was a “prophet of God” and yet not embrace the religion he founded. Perhaps he wants the religious people of the world to collectively come to the realization that they all live in glass houses and should stop throwing stones at each other.

I’m sure apologists will use this book as ammo against people who look critically at Mormonism. “Mormons don’t attack other religions. In fact, Daniel Peterson himself wrote a flattering book about Islam! That proves that Mormonism is true! Only false religions feel the need to lift themselves up by tearing others down!”

[_barrelomonkeys]

I was talking about the wolfies dressed up as Sheep. You know, I like my anti-Mormons up front. Not some blathering hypocritial idiot who praises Mormons with one breath, then goes on exmo boards to drop bird s*** on them. We are all hypocrites, but some hypocrites stink more than others.

I hope you don't mean me. I'm no anti-Mo. I'm here because I'm bored. Isn't that why you're here Ray? I'm not pro-Mo or anti-Mo. I'm just Mobored.

[_why me]

I do believe that Tal is just a little jealous of DCP. I can understand the envy that Tal is showing. After all, it is quite clear that Dan's book is a demonstration that DCP is a first rate scholar. For countermo's like Tal, it is a bitter piece of fruit to swallow to see a Mormon 'apologist' publish a scholarly work. Get used to it Tal.

I too have respect for Daniel. He is a good guy who defends the LDS church quite well. For Tal et, al, he is a thorn in their sides. Why don't you publish your own book Tal and demonstrate just how inferior Dan's book is.

[Guest]

Which is a completely absurd statement. What you really mean to say is that you disagree with the opinions of thse who are pursuing knowledge dispassionately and thus have to turn to pseudo scholarship to support your opinions.

If you think people who apologize for Islam are not passionate in their apologetics, then you are out of touch with them. I see more passion from the apologists than I do with Kramer, Cook, Pipes or Spencer. Passion, usually in the form of political fanaticism (i.e. anti-Israel), is what drives the most "reputable" scholars; those favored by Muslims, like Juan Cole, Edward Said, John Esposito, and of course, Karen Armstrong.

My opinion has been and will contnue to be developed by critically analyzing both sides and reaching a conclusion based on the evidence. There are learned professors who argue point A and there are a ton who argue point B. The point A crowd wins my mind, not because I had my mind already made up as you like to believe, but because the point B crowd never debates the issues. Instead they offer fluffy apologetic nonsense that is repeatedly refuted by the A crowd.

Take for instance the absurd notion that jihad only refers to warfare when it is defensive. Only two types of people would make this statement: 1) a complete idiot or 2) an apologist for Islam. This is what's being passed around as gospel by the BYU Islam experts. I can cite a dozen or so experts who refute this assertion, which I have in the past.

Take another example. Bill Hamblin said that the people under Islamic rule "could do whatever they wanted." This is a direct quotation and it is available on mp3 for download. He denied saying it apparently because he is blinded by his own apologetic tendency and can't keep up with his own knee-jerk apologetics.

They could do whatever they wanted huh? This is the type of "expertise" people are being fed about Islam over in Utah. But hey, that's just good business, because in the field of MES, you pretty much have to take this obsequent approach if reputation has to come before precision. Otherwise you're going to be in danger of social homicide from the academic crowd. In MES political correctness comes first, while truth and accuracy is just a nuisance.

Now if you can make an argument that these two assertions are in fact historically accurate, I promise to abandon the A crowd and accept whatever else you say about the subject. But we both know you won't, mainly because you can't.

By contrast, please illustrate just two points where, oh let's say, Robert Spencer wrote inaccurately about Islam. Just two. He is considered the least educated and most polemical of group A, so this should be an easy task for you.

How odd. Which books of Armstrong (who I like as an author) has Oxford published?

I didn't said it did, only that it would. Daniel Pipes offered a blistering assessment of an Oxford Encyclopedia on Islam that was merely an apologetic tome in and of itself.

Also how hypocritical, you criticize and ex-Catholic as having an axe to grind against Catholicism, but cannot see yourself as an ex-Mormon with an axe to grind against Mormonism.

If I were an ex-Mormon you might have something to work with there, but only if I were an ex-Mormon who was also writing a book that sings praises for Evangelical Christainity, would you even begin to establish a point of hypocrisy.