Peterson Speaks for Himself on "Anti-Mormonism"

[_Buffalo]

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.

So, what you're saying, Cultmeister* Peterson, is, "Perhaps the best approach would not be to apply to each group the name that its adherents use in referring to themselves." I'm glad we could amended your previous statement to bring your thought into line with your current opinion, which is not in harmony with your earlier opinion.

*Not pejorative

[_MsJack]

And I will feel free to respond or not to respond.

Fair enough.

However, if you're serious about not initiating public contact with me, I'd strongly recommend you not make snarky remarks in this forum on things I say in the lower forums without naming me. I don't think such passive-aggressive conduct is very becoming of a forum that aims to be "an upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions."

Others, though, and you yourself, should understand that, when I don't respond, that will be on account of a prior situation.

Likewise, I hope you understand that I will not respond to private messages from you on account of a prior situation.

I would once have agreed.

Your call.

I think I have a good description for books like How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God: anti-creedal-Christianity. What do you think?

I've certainly heard some Mormons around the blogosphere use "creedal Christianity" in a pejorative manner, but I don't think it needs to be understood that way.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So, what you're saying, Cultmeister Peterson, is, "Perhaps the best approach would not be to apply to each group the name that its adherents use in referring to themselves."

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to refer to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei by that name, and by the alternative English name "Nazi Party," but I also think that it does them no injustice, and, for those few who may be unaware of them, adds valuable information, to also refer to them as "anti-Semitic."

I think it's perfectly appropriate to characterize the Human Rights Review as an anti-abortion journal, but I don't advocate never calling it by its proper title.

I have no objection to describing Bill McKeever as an evangelical critic of Mormonism, but also none to calling him an anti-Mormon. He works full-time at opposing Mormonism, writing against Mormonism, demonstrating against Mormon temples, speaking against Mormonism, seeking to counsel people out of joining the LDS Church or remaining members of the LDS Church. He's even moved to Utah to devote himself to his cause. (None of this can be said about Mosser, Owen, Heiser, Blomberg, or Musser.) He's not just an "evangelical critic." He's an anti-Mormon. I don't think this is particularly controversial or difficult to understand.

Come on. Present some new data or an actual argument. Simply reiterating your position and adding a bit of none-too-witty name-calling isn't very interesting.

However, if you're serious about not initiating public contact with me, I'd strongly recommend you not make snarky remarks in this forum on things I say in the lower forums without naming me.

I may have done that, but, off hand, I don't recall it.

On the whole, I haven't been paying much if any attention to your posts (if, in fact, you've even been posting).

I don't think such passive-aggressive conduct is very becoming of a forum that aims to be "an upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions."

Just for the record, I think the pop-psychological use of the term "passive-aggressive" is overdone.

Moreover, my technique of sometimes quoting something in order to respond to it, without citing the author's name, is largely designed to avoid the dispute becoming personal. As, on this board, it almost invariably does -- something that I find very distasteful and without much value.

In any event, since I have resolved not to post in the "Terrestrial Forum" -- a course that was long recommended to me by others here, though some have attacked me for it, and that I have found quite satisfactory -- I can only post here. And, since I'm not infrequently a subject/target in the "Terrestrial Forum," I intend to continue, when I think it advisable, to defend myself and/or to clarify things here. And, of course, to announce things here that I desire to be better known.

Likewise, I hope you understand that I will not respond to private messages from you on account of a prior situation.

That's perfectly fine with me.

I think I have a good description for books like How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God: anti-creedal-Christianity. What do you think?

Not bad. I don't think I would object.

I've certainly heard some Mormons around the blogosphere use "creedal Christianity" in a pejorative manner, but I don't think it needs to be understood that way.

Nor do I.

[_Buffalo]

I think it's perfectly appropriate to refer to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei by that name, and by the alternative English name "Nazi Party," but I also think that it does them no injustice, and, for those few who may be unaware of them, adds valuable information, to also refer to them as "anti-Semitic."

Right, and on a similar note, I think it's perfectly appropriate to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by that name, and by the alternative name "Mormon Church," but I also think that it does them no injustice, and, for those few who may be unaware of them, adds valuable information, to also refer to them as "The Mormon Cult."

:)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Right, and on a similar note, I think it's perfectly appropriate to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by that name, and by the alternative name "Mormon Church," but I also think that it does them no injustice, and, for those few who may be unaware of them, adds valuable information, to also refer to them as "The Mormon Cult."

Okay. It's plain enough that you have no intention of engaging in serious conversation, but, rather of simply repeating your position despite what I've said.

Fine. I'll bow out. There's no point in doing the same thing over and over and over again, as I've been doing here, and expecting different results.

I'll just remind those who may not have followed this entire . . . er, "dialogue" that I have, in fact, published an article on the use and abuse of the term cult in which, in a rather sustained way, using actual data, I make what is known as an "argument." I contend that the popular use of the term cult is incoherent, largely if not entirely polemical, and without sufficient value to justify its continued deployment in serious, non-polemical discourse. I have also laid out here, in brief, some of my reasoning for maintaining that the term cult/cultist, as it is commonly used outside of anthropology/archaeology/sociology, does not present a relevantly parallel case to the term anti-Mormon.

[_Buffalo]

Right, and on a similar note, I think it's perfectly appropriate to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by that name, and by the alternative name "Mormon Church," but I also think that it does them no injustice, and, for those few who may be unaware of them, adds valuable information, to also refer to them as "The Mormon Cult."

Okay. It's plain enough that you have no intention of engaging in serious conversation, but, rather of simply repeating your position despite what I've said.

No, I'm simply repeating your position, but applying it to the Mormon church. Obviously you're using two different standards here to judge what is appropriate and what is not. That's the whole point. :-)

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, I'm simply repeating your position,

No. You're not.

Obviously you're using two different standards here to judge what is appropriate and what is not. That's the whole point.

I have a single standard. I've laid out my position. You haven't seriously engaged it.

Basta.

[_MsJack]

I may have done that, but, off hand, I don't recall it.

viewtopic.php?p=400058#p400058

On the whole, I haven't been paying much if any attention to your posts (if, in fact, you've even been posting).

I have not. I don't think I've checked into this message board in over a month.

Just for the record, I think the pop-psychological use of the term "passive-aggressive" is overdone.

I wouldn't know. It's certainly the first time I've ever used it in the history of my membership at MDB.

Moreover, my technique of sometimes quoting something in order to respond to it, without citing the author's name, is largely designed to avoid the dispute becoming personal.

I'll not second-guess your intentions, but I'm not sure how feasible this goal is. It's not like it's a secret that you post in this forum, and it looks like most of the people you've replied to made their way up here and responded anyways. The ones who are prone to taking things personally are probably going to take things personally and the ones who aren't won't.

I've long been a defender of your right to post where you want, when you want, as yourself or with a pseudonym. How you spend your time online is only my business when our paths cross. If you want to post in only the Celestial Forum, you'll not find me among your attackers. However, the Celestial forum is for Celestial posts, not moderator-protected Terrestrial posts. If you aren't going to elevate the level of discussion---sometimes you do this, sometimes you don't---then there isn't much point in commenting here on things being said in Terrestrial.

Not bad. I don't think I would object.

I'm glad to hear we can tentatively agree.

[_Buffalo]

No, I'm simply repeating your position,

No. You're not.

Obviously you're using two different standards here to judge what is appropriate and what is not. That's the whole point.

I have a single standard. I've laid out my position. You haven't seriously engaged it.

Basta.

Your position must be so fluid that it changes with every post. In any case, I simply repeated your position of five minutes ago. I can't be responsible for what your position might be five seconds from now.

[_Obiwan]

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.

I think you actually misunderstand then if you think that.

Most Mormons use it to describe the "pajorative" actions of most who are critical of Mormons and Mormonism. The word itself is not pajorative. It's a word generally used by Mormons to separate the respectful critic or those who disagree, compared to those who are bigots. Daniel Peterson is describing how he generally uses it, that in a scholarly intellectual manner, while the rest of us tend to use it to describe the lower behaviors of critics. Though, he likely uses it the same sometimes. But the word itself as he has said is not a pajorative, it's used to describe a certain class of critics. Of course, as he said, the technical definition simply means "against". That definition doesn't necessarily get into "how much, or how" someone is against a thing.

Anti's should be actually giving Mormons credit because most of us only use the term to describe the dishonorable actions of critics, not every single critic. We are actually trying to use "restraint" in labeling people. But, darned if we do, and darned if we don't. With people with an immoral destroying agenda, nothing a person does is good enough.

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."

Statements of belief and general criticism is not in and of themselves "anti" that other thing. Sure, in a most basic technical sense yes, but not in any way close to the way anti-mormons behave and respond in relation to Mormonism. Thus, it's a stawman by anti-mormons that Mormon simple existance and disbelief in other groups somehow "automatically" makes US anti that other group. We are accepting of other Christians and otherwise, anti-mormons are not.