Peterson Speaks for Himself on "Anti-Mormonism"

[_Simon Belmont]

Also, although you are dressing this whole thing up as Jedi versus Sith, I think it is time for someone to inform you that Star Wars is not real. It's pretend.

Also, Obiwan, two people cannot like Star Wars. If this occurs, one is the sockpuppet of the other.

[_Darth J]

Also, although you are dressing this whole thing up as Jedi versus Sith, I think it is time for someone to inform you that Star Wars is not real. It's pretend.

Also, Obiwan, two people cannot like Star Wars. If this occurs, one is the sockpuppet of the other.

I thought this thread was missing something, and now I realize that it was irrelevant banter betraying an inability to address the issues.

Thanks for correcting that oversight, Simon.

[_Simon Belmont]

You sure know how to turn a thread into Terrestrial material, DJ.

[_Buffalo]

It seems that your argument for pejorative vs non-pejorative is based purely on your assertion that it is thus.

No. It's not.

I've published an argument regarding the term cult that was based on fairly extensive reading in primary source materials to see how the word was used. I've invited you to survey how I myself actually use the term anti-Mormon. I think that any fair-minded person making such a comparison will readily see the difference.

In deference to your disdain of political correctness, alleged victimhood and carefully cultivated hypersensitivity, I will henceforth refer to you as Dan "Cultmeister*" Peterson.

*Not pejorative

Go ahead. I'm often called much worse things here.

You don't feel that you use the word "anti-Mormon" pejoratively, even though some see it as an insult. Rather than avoid giving offense as the brethren and Jesus himself taught, you insist on using your own definition. "They shouldn't be offended," you reason, "because I don't mean it to be offensive." You should take a freshman level course on communication, where you'll learn that the process of communication does not begin and end with you.



I would suggest you try out the same reasoning with the n-word in an all-black neighborhood. You're not a racist, so obviously you can't use the word pejoratively. Try it out and see what reactions you get, Cultmeister* Peterson.

*Not pejorative, because I say so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think, Buffalo, that we're just repeating ourselves at this point, and there doesn't seem much use in that.

I've published an argument regarding the term cult that was based on fairly extensive reading in primary source materials to see how the word was actually used. I've posted a link to that article in this very thread. I've also invited you and anybody else who cares about this to survey how I myself actually use the term anti-Mormon. Any fair-minded person making such a comparison will readily see the difference. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I think, when I've used the term, the people to whom I've applied it would not complain and have not complained, and would be generally recognized by just about every observer as having earned the title.

Terms like fascist, racist, anti-Semite, and socialist are much more charged, much more divisive, and much more negative than anti-Mormon is, and, far more so than anti-Mormon they're very, very often misapplied for purely polemical purposes, in order to gain unjust rhetorical advantage. Yet they are entirely legitimate terms, conveying -- when properly used -- real information about those to whom they are applied, and they should not be abandoned or banished simply because they're liable to misuse. There really are genuine racists, genuine fascists, genuine socialists, and genuine anti-Semites. (I've met them. They would not deny the description.)

Still, at least a few people who really are racists and/or fascists and/or socialists and/or anti-Semites presumably object to being labeled as such. But, although one should be very, very careful when applying such potentially explosive labels, there are cases where they simply fit, where they convey important true information and are appropriate.

Ed Decker is an "anti-Mormon." So is Bill Schnoebelen. So is Bill McKeever. So was Walter Martin.

It simply doesn't convey the same information to call them, say, "evangelical critics of Mormonism." They are definitely a subclass of that larger group, but there is a world of difference -- in approach, in manner, in focus, in goals, and in other salient respects -- between them and people like Craig Blomberg, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, Michael Heiser, and Donald Musser, who are certainly evangelicals and are definitely critics of elements of Mormonism but who are absolutely not anti-Mormons in any normal sense of the term.

Unless you come up with new data or a distinct new argument, this is probably the last time I'm going to respond to you on this topic. I've laid out my position, and I'm content with it. I see no persuasive reason to change it in anything you've said thus far.

[_MsJack]

Ed Decker is an "anti-Mormon." So is Bill Schnoebelen. So is Bill McKeever. So was Walter Martin.

It simply doesn't convey the same information to call them, say, "evangelical critics of Mormonism." They are definitely a subclass of that larger group, but there is a world of difference -- in approach, in manner, in focus, in goals, and in other salient respects -- between them and people like Craig Blomberg, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, Michael Heiser, and Donald Musser, who are certainly evangelicals and are definitely critics of elements of Mormonism but who are absolutely not anti-Mormons in any normal sense of the term.

Hello Daniel,

Out of curiosity, could you please tell me:

(1) Do you agree with John Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper's description of "Mormon Apologetics, Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" by Mosser and Owen as a "call for better anti-Mormon attacks by evangelicals"? (Source, p. 49)

(2) Do you agree with David Paulsen's classification of The New Mormon Challenge (which Mosser, Owen and Blomberg all worked on) as "an anti-Mormon book"? (Source, p. 2)

Thanks in advance.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Out of curiosity, could you please tell me:

Because it's substantive and relevant, and as a temporary suspension of my decision to have no further interaction with you, I will.

(1) Do you agree with John Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper's description of "Mormon Apologetics, Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" by Mosser and Owen as a "call for better anti-Mormon attacks by evangelicals"? (Source, p. 49)

I think that, at least in part, that's what their article was. Remember that I do not see "anti-Mormon" as a pejorative term.

Works that are wholly devoted to critiquing Thomism or Platonism would be justly categorized as anti-Thomist or anti-Platonist, so I really don't see anything wrong with labeling something wholly devoted to critiquing Mormonism as, in that very precise sense, anti-Mormon. They were calling upon evangelical critics of Mormonism to be more honest and more intellectually serious.

But their article itself was not "anti-Mormon," and both Carl and Paul are quite capable of interacting with Latter-day Saints in a non-polemical way, and have done so. (Bill McKeever, Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Bill Schnoebelen, and others of that sort have never, ever, demonstrated any such capability.) Carl Mosser, in fact, will be the host for the 2012 meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology if, as current plans have it, we meet at his school, Eastern University, next year. He's also serving as a co-editor for a book on Mormonism to be published by Routledge, for which several believing Latter-day Saints (including myself, at least as of right now) are writing chapters. It's impossible to imagine a genuine anti-Mormon playing such a role.

(2) Do you agree with David Paulsen's classification of The New Mormon Challenge (which Mosser, Owen and Blomberg all worked on) as "an anti-Mormon book"? (Source, p. 2)

Yes. Again, though, in the non-polemical sense sketched above. It was entirely devoted to critiquing Mormon claims. No Mormons contributed to it. Comparable books on the opposite side (e.g., those published by the Maxwell Institute) are justly categorized as "pro-Mormon" books; I see nothing particularly inflammatory in terming it an "anti-Mormon" book.

Thanks in advance.

You're welcome.

[_MsJack]

Because it's substantive and relevant, and as a temporary suspension of my decision to have no further interaction with you, I will.

This is the first that I've heard of such a decision.

I will, however, continue to comment on and respond to your public forum posts as I see fit. We had an amicable relationship for nearly ten years without any public falling out. I'm sure we could go at least another ten if we wanted to.

I think that, at least in part, that's what their article was.

Thank you for answering my question.

Remember that I do not see "anti-Mormon" as a pejorative term.

All right, but I don't think that the majority of your fellow Mormons understand it in a non-pejorative sense.

Works that are wholly devoted to critiquing Thomism or Platonism would be justly categorized as anti-Thomist or anti-Platonist, so I really don't see anything wrong with labeling something wholly devoted to critiquing Mormonism as, in that very precise sense, anti-Mormon.

I see. By the same token, would it be correct to label books such as How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God as something along the lines of anti-Christian / anti-historic-Christianity / anti-Protestant / anti-Catholic / anti-Orthodox? Forgive me, but there just isn't a handy, concise label to describe the body of non-LDS Christianity that professes the historic Christian God without implying that Mormons aren't Christians, the latter not being my intention.

I'm also curious to know if you would agree that the same label (whatever we settle on) applies in part to the First Vision since it is at least partially devoted to critiquing historic Christian claims and specifically names one Protestant group, the Presbyterians, as "not true."

Yes. Again, though, in the non-polemical sense sketched above.

Again, thank you for answering my question.

[_stemelbow]

nevermind...i think that was all too hasty on my part, so I edited and erased. nothing to see here folks.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I will, however, continue to comment on and respond to your public forum posts as I see fit.

I cannot decree otherwise, and would never think to try.

And I will feel free to respond or not to respond. Others, though, and you yourself, should understand that, when I don't respond, that will be on account of a prior situation. It may or may not have anything to do with the situation immediately at hand.

We had an amicable relationship for nearly ten years without any public falling out. I'm sure we could go at least another ten if we wanted to.

I would once have agreed.

All right, but I don't think that the majority of your fellow Mormons understand it in a non-pejorative sense.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm aware of no data that would settle the question.

In any event, I've set out my position on the matter, and I use words in ways that I find justifiable, reasonable, and helpful.

By the same token, would it be correct to label books such as How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God as something along the lines of anti-Christian

No.

anti-historic-Christianity

Possibly, given the proper definition of "historic Christianity," and provided that that definition were made explicit.

anti-Protestant / anti-Catholic / anti-Orthodox?

No, because, unless I'm forgetting, those specific groupings aren't explicitly addressed.

Forgive me, but there just isn't a handy, concise label to describe the body of non-LDS Christianity that professes the historic Christian God without implying that Mormons aren't Christians, the latter not being my intention.

"Mainstream Christianity" or "historic Christianity" might serve, provided, as indicated above, that it is suitably and explicitly defined.

I'm also curious to know if you would agree that the same label (whatever we settle on) applies in part to the First Vision since it is at least partially devoted to critiquing historic Christian claims and specifically names one Protestant group, the Presbyterians, as "not true."

In a limited sense, yes.

But not for expansive polemical or pejorative purposes.

And it should be noted that Latter-day Saints (including Joseph Smith) don't have much of a track record, if any, of being "anti-Presbyterian" or anything of that sort. At least in any non-trivial sense.