The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family

[Pahoran]

Yes, no more anti-Mormon fairy tales about the Book of Abraham, please Richard.

"Secular" scholars like John A. Wilson of the Oriental Institute?

<Snip the rest>

Rommelator,

that was a fine post, containing a great deal of substance.

And you had no right to post it.

You see, it is not for Abanes the Great to listen to mere us. It is for us, rather, to sit at his feet, in reverential silence, and be instructed by him. It is unacceptable for any of us to engage any of his arguments--especially with arguments that are better than his--because that means we're not listening!

You seriously need to get with the program--the Abanes program, that is.

What were you thinking?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sargon]

Romm, I don't know where you find the time to read, understand, remember, and then coherently link all of the things you do. It is impressive, especially from someone so young.

I wish had the time and talents that you do.

P.S. Don't get a big head over this, I still haven't forgiven you for your choice on Nov 4!

[Pahoran]

I prefer biblical, rather than comical. Beginning with someone's view of "God" is a perfectly reasonable and intelligent place to start out exploring whether or not they are a true prophet. I mean, if someone come sup to me and says, "I'm a prophet of the Most High God," and I ask, "Who's God," and they said, "God is the one, cosmic light of Seven Rays, who was born in the shadows of the Xenorian Moon in the Belorham a plane of Matter-Anti-Matter" --- well, I don't think I'll need to go much further. Or, if a "prophet" says God is a man, when the Bible says he's not a man, well.....oh, wait a minute. Uhm, , you get my point.

In other words, if Joseph had a sterling character, fed widows and orphans, was the most handsome guy around, and could preach a sermon to curl your toes, if he had the wrong God, then he's not a prophet of the one true God. So, that is why starting out with the "Who Is God" question is great. And far from being some kind of hair-brained notion of my own, I refer you to the Bible's qualifications of a prophet, which apparently also thinks it's important that they have the right God:

"If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, 13:2 and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, "

Let us follow other gods

" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them," you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul" (Deuteronomy 13:1-3).

This is what Joseph did, INMHO, when he said that all the church of Christendom were wrong, and that the God worshiped by Christendom was the wrong God, and then offered to the world his "man in form" God to worship. It's another God to me. And as a result, it's another Jesus. Add to that another Spirit, and another Gospel. And all of that, I believe, has been demonstrated quote clearly to many people - Mormon and non-Mormon (and Ex-Mormon) alike.

So you wish us to believe.

The reality is that this argument has more holes than a colander. I shall point out just four problems:

1. It is completely ad-hoc, being cobbled together with the accuser's eyes firmly fixed on his own caricature of Joseph's teaching.
   
2. It blatantly misrepresents the Bible passage it wrests, I mean rests, upon. The ancient Hebrews understood exactly what it meant: do not listen to prophets of Baal, or Dagon, or Molech, or any other false gods. It warned the Lord's covenant people about those who served deities other than him; it does not even remotely contemplate prophets who speak in the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but whose understanding varies from "traditional" orthodoxy.
   
3. It is a deliberate exercise in question-begging. What, if anything, does any mortal know about God? Only what He has chosen to reveal through His prophets. During the long centuries of the apostasy, earnest but unauthorised men set about trying to organise revealed truth and "harmonise" it with the teachings of the great thinkers of the time. The result is something called "systematic theology." Now, instead of embracing new revealed truth and including it within their systems, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitors and guardians of Orthodoxy[TM] are using the results of that effort to exclude any more revelation from God.
   
4. As such, it is so breathtakingly hubristic that no-one can possibly imagine that God would be pleased with it.
   

All in all, the argument is so mind-numbingly idiotic that I find it very hard to believe that any believing Latter-day Saint could be so desperately stupid as to fall for it. If (and it is a very big if) there are such people, then no doubt God will be merciful to them, in view of their diminished mental capacity.

But they would still stand as an example of what I have said before: anyone who leaves the Church of Jesus Christ to join the church of Richard Abanes will thus raise the IQ of both groups.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

ttribe: 1) you, again, fail to acknowledge the irrefutable fact that it is human nature for a person to protect one's livelihood and the subject matter of your writings on Mormonism demand objectivity; something you (or anyone in your situation) is extremely unlikely to provide

RA: Some reeality....

1. Whew! Good thing that writing about Mormonism for me has nothing to do with "protect one's livelihood." Writing about Mormonism for me is just part of a larger, broader field of writing.

And the reputational effects of having your credibility called into question in one aspect of your career would NEVER extend to the other aspects of your career. Right.

Oh, and thanks for continuing to follow the "snarky comment" pattern. It's good to see you don't break from form.

2. If you want to say that I am somehow a liar about Mormonism because of some greedy, sick, desire on my part to spin falsehoods for cash, then go ahead and also say the same thing about the books I've written: a ) against racism/anti-Semitism in the teachings of neo-nazis and the Klan; and/or b ) my critiques of evangelical/fundamentalists, including prophecy pundits who have falsely predicted the world's end (one of the most lucrative areas of evangelicalism, BTW, which I rejected being a part of and advancing because it's false and harmful).

ttribe: 2) the fact you can't admit such an inherent systemic bias in the approach of the anti-Mormon industry (of which you are undoubtedly a part), is further evidence of your failure to apply intellectual honesty

RA: I'm not part of any anti-Momron industry. That is laughable. Two of my books out of twenty have been on Mormonism. Do your research. And I have no newsletter dedicated to Mormons. Nor do I produce any pamplets, brochures, or flyers about Mormons. I also do not picket. And my scope of researchj and writing extends far beyond Mormonism.

First, you've set up an inappropriately strict definition of the term "anti-Mormon" specifically designed to place you outside that pleasant "circle of love". However, given that (by virtue of my membership in the Church) I am on the receiving end of all manner of anti-attacks, I place you firmly in that group simply because you seek to destroy the Church; that you foam at the mouth less in your criticisms is only a matter of degree, not inclusion or exclusion.

Second, it is surely possible for a person to be involved in multiple "industries" within the practice of their career. That you participate in several, does not exclude you from any single one.

ttribe: 3) the mere fact that you happen to write for a living does not, by default, make you a "professional"

RA: Actually, it does. I suggest you do a word study the word "professional."

Apparently, you have no appreciation for the operational virtues of "professionalism", which would be the hallmarks of a true "professional"; not just mercenary, as you've made your writings.

[rabanes]

Excellent. Exactly what I was looking for -- Pahoran comes up with the best arguments contra Abanes, and Abanes puts him on "ignore". That confirms the zing."... words ..."Priceless.

The level of fantasy here is truly remarkable. Pahoran and I go waaaayyyyyy back.

Ouch... Richard thats got to hurt.

First, it was actually rather boring. Second, as for the "hurt," is that what we're after here? Is that the goal? To play a game of hurting? To see who can tear, rip, pinch, wound, and "hurt" someone better and then cheer, "Oooh, ouch! Goodie, goodie! Wow, that one must have hurt. Hurray for you. Ha ha ha on the enemy!" IS that your goal? Hmm. Not mine.

Now, as for Romm's lengthy post, this is just rehashed FAIR/FARMS mumbo-jumbo. Look, of you want go to your extraordinary lengths to rationalize away the obvious truth about those common little Egyptian scrolls that Smith happened upon so long ago, then go ahead. But to those of us outside of teh Mormon Kingdom, your holding on to a fantasy.

Now, as for responding, MORE THAN ENOUGH has been said regarding the BoA. Goodness, this is what makes dialogue almost impossible. It's like being put on a nightmarish merry-go-round. The questions are answered. The light is given. The issues dealt with. The claims debunked. And then it's: Let's start all over again, with new excuses, extra-additional claims, re-worded arguments, and re-tooled/refurbished escape routes away from the painful truth.

For example: "Oh, uhm, wait, okay, well, let's see......Oh, Oh, okay, these aren't really ALL the papyri, uhm, but the ones that actually read anything remotely similar to the BoA are still....uhm, missing, yeah, yeah, they were never found...and...and THAT'S really where it says all that stuff."

But another faithful Saint thinks to himself, "Hmmmm, wait what if someday...."

NEW IDEA: "Oh, uhm, wait, okay, well, let's see......Oh, Oh, okay, these are indeed really the papyri, uhm, but they actually don't have to say anything remotely similar to the BoA....uhm, yeah, yeah, because they just i-n-s-p-i-r-e-d our perfect prophet, Joseph...and...and God by revelation just used those little papyri to get his prophetic mind kick-started to write all that stuff."

Pick your poison.

It's not faith, IMHO, to look at the situation surrounding the BoA and invent such twists and turns. That's not faith, IMHO, it's denial. But I understand the price to be paid for any of you to go in another direction -- loss of home, family, embeddedness, history, community, etc. It wouldn't be an easy thing for anyone to do.

But Jesus said, "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it" (Matthew 16:24-25). Also: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sistersâ??yes, even his own lifeâ??he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26).

Look, many ex-Mormons agree, so it's not like I'm saying something that's absurd or out in left field. And Juliann's precious scholars in the world look at the situation the same way, almost shocked by the level of resiliance in LDS faith in the BoA, contrary to the evidence....

Jan Shipps: "This story has been around since 1967 and I assumed it would undercut Mormon beliefs. But instead of being like a stone shattering a pane of glass, it was more like a stone being tossed into a pool of water and dropping to the bottom."

(

The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating A Remarkable Mormon Claim

) See

more information

.

David P. Wright of Brandeis University: "This documentary must be seen by all those who are interested in the origins of the Book of Abraham. In an artful and educational manner, it sets forth in clarity the basic evidence that establishes Joseph Smith, not the biblical Abraham, as the author."

(

The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating A Remarkable Mormon Claim

) See

more information

.

So you can believe this perspective, or not. It's the persepctive I take and I think it's the reasonable rational perspective -- i.e., Smith loved all this Egyptian stuff, ancient scroll talk, and history (evidenced by his BoM). And he got a hold of some basic Egyptian funerary texts, which he couldn't read or translate or anythng. But as was his way, as the renowned teller of tall tales and creator of alternate realities/stories (he should have been a novelist -- oh, kind of like the BoM), he concocted this riveting story about the scrolls belonging to Abraham and proceeeded to "translate" them and produce yet more religious teachings to be accepted by the faithful.

It was truly, IMHO, a very clever novel idea (no pun intended). I'll give one thing to Joseph -- the guy had a head full of creative ideas and the unbelievable hutspah to actual push plans through to completion. From his money-digging adventures, through to his BoA scroll stories, to his sneaking in polygamy -- I got to say it, JS was quite a guy. I mean that. I'm not be sarcastic. He was really something. Obviously, I mean, the guy was able to found a brand new homegrown religion -- and here you all are.

RA

[Zakuska]

Yep.... "na na na I can't hear you" Typical Abanes response.

Would you care to comment how JS rightly restored the missing parts? (ie God sitting on his throne, the 2 headed God in the middle)

[Tsuzuki]

"What is a fool? One who is somewhat more irrational than a dumb animal. He is a man who wants to run before he can crawl; a man who thinks he has mastered a subject as soon as he had made a little progress in it; a mathematician who looks down his nose at poetry; a poet who condemns mathematics; a painter who says that theology and the Qabalah are stuff and nonsense; an uneducated man who repudiates knowledge without taking the trouble to study it; a man who talks without knowing what he is talking about and makes assertions without certainty. Fools are the people who kill men of genius. Galileo was not condemned by the Church, but by the fools who, unfortunately, belonged to the Church. Folly is a wild beast which has the composure of innocence; it assassinates without remorse. The fool is the bear in La Fontaine's fable; he breaks his friend's head under a paving-stone to whisk away a fly; but do not try to make him admit he is at fault when things go badly wrong. Folly, like Hell and Fate, is inexorable and infallible, because it is always controlled by the magnetism of evil.

The animal is never a fool, because it openly and naturally plays the role of an animal; but man teaches folly to dogs and intelligent donkeys. The fool is the animal who despises instinct and poses as intelligent.

Progress is a possibility for the animal: it can be broken in, tamed and trained; but it is not a possibility for the fool, because the fool thinks he has nothing to learn. It is his place to dictate to others and put them right, and so it is impossible to reason with him. He will laugh you to scorn in saying that what he does not understand is not a meaningful proposition. 'Why don't I understand it, then?', he asks you, with marvellous impudence. To tell him it is because he is a fool would only be taken as an insult, so there is nothing you can say in reply. Everybody else sees it quite clearly, but he will never realize it."

- Eliphas Levi,

The Great Secret

[Bat-Man]

Didn't say it was, Bat man. I only said that is what our critics have to engage. They certainly aren't going to engage "God's priesthood".

They are engaging God's priesthood even now as we engage them, juliann.

... and they are still losing the war, as they have been for ages and ages and...

And you will notice the refusal starting...NOW.

Actually, it started a long, long... long time ago.

We have been in a repeat pattern like this for millennia... and it will go on forever.

... or at least until God puts us all in our place and prevents us from talking to others.

... which is why I, personally, am in favor of bringing out the big guns before it is too late.

[juliann]

RA: I'm not part of any anti-Momron industry. That is laughable. Two of my books out of twenty have been on Mormonism. Do your research. And I have no newsletter dedicated to Mormons. Nor do I produce any pamplets, brochures, or flyers about Mormons. I also do not picket. And my scope of researchj and writing extends far beyond Mormonism.

I did some research. This is what a leading on the "Christian countercult" has to say about Abanes:

Given that it is a decentralized, increasingly democratized social phenomenon with no established magisterium or institutional structure, authority and credentialing in the Christian countercult is a murky business at best. In fact, this circumstance present another discriminate continuum according to which the countercult can by typologized. At one end are those such as Beckwith, Blomberg, Bowman, Gomes, Groothuis, Hawkins, Lewis, Mosser, Owen, and Rhodes, who have (or are pursuing) degrees relevant in someway to the apologetic enterprise, and that were (or will be) granted by and accredited institutions. For others, such as Ankerberg, Martin, Weldon, and White, some dispute exists about the caliber of the institutions form which they claim relevant degrees, and , by implication, the actual legitimacy of the degrees themselves. Still others, such as Cumbey, Hanegraaff, Hunt, and Marrs, have degrees in fields unrelated to countercult apologetics. Finally, with the expanding democratization of the countercult, many now entering the field have no discernible academic credentials whatsoever. Of these, a numberâ??for example, Abanes, Baer, Decker, McCarthy, Montenegro, Scott, and Spencerâ??have felt called to countercult ministry out of their own involvement in new or controversial religious movements.

Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 200.

Cowan places Abanes squarely in the "Christian countercult".... right next to Ed Decker.

[rabanes]

- Eliphas Levi, The Great Secret

Ahhh, welcome, the Mormon-in-good-standing-occult-embracing-magick-practicing Saint joins us. Good to see you.

Someone here PLEASE speak to Tsuzuki, who stated: "Read that quote I posted by Brigham Young again. No area of study [i.e., the occult] is forbidden, nor is the application of knowledge gained therefrom. We are judged by our actions, not our interests. . . . I am a Mormon in good standing, and while I have not yet been through the temple, that is one of my immediate goals. . . . And yes, I do practice occult rituals, embrace occult beliefs, and practice magic (I hate the "k" spelling). It should also be noted that there are other Mormon occultists who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them.

Please. Somoene help him -- who was it that said Mormons have grown out of occult practice and magick ritual in this thread? Well, let's see it.

ttribe: snarky, snarky, snarky, snarky, snarky.............

RA: You've used this term several times. It's defined as: " sarcastic and irreverent, usually out of irritation." Let me be upfront -- I'm not irritated in the least. I thought I was posting inline with the attitude and tine of those who greeted me when I first posted here. Sorry, my mistake.

If you look back at my first post in this thread, you will see that it is very straightforward (#47). This was followed by my good friedn, Pahoran, who replied with: "The gossips' creed" in reply to my fairly benign statement, "And the farthest I would push this point is to simply say where there's smoke (and a lot of it) there's usually a fire of some kind."

And in reply to my comment about how I could understand Mormons being very sensitive about Joseph Smith, Pahoran slapped back: "Try just a little harder, Raybans. That well isn't quite poisoned yet."

I moved up the sarcasm one small notch in my next post (#51) to a level I found rather light-hearted and humorous: "(btw, I just love the way you guys mince and dice words when its convenient, but enjoy using great latitude when using other terms that serve your own purposes)."

Then you replied: "Said the pot to the kettle." By Post #56, you were saying, "Tell me RAbanes, care to disclose just how much of your personal income is tied up in anti-Mormon activities?"

And from their the personal attacks, baseless accusations, and straight up hate-talk went through the roof. And as for me, well, I thought no one would mind me being a little more sarcastic (a relatively harmless counter-response, I assumed). You read back through the posts, or shall I, and post the snarky comments from LDS "Saints" here and add to them the various accusations and very personal attacks. Then, make another assessment.

Pahoran, for example, is just pure nasty venom. Hence, I absolute unwilingness to engage him at all. I side with Wade Englund to a degree when he stated: "I have given up on debating--particularly the rancorous kind." With Pahoran, it will just go from bad to worse. Juliann is almost as bad, but asking her the right questions, however, seems to have made her disappear.

ttribe: And the reputational effects of having your credibility called into question in one aspect of your career would NEVER extend to the other aspects of your career. Right.

RA: The fact is that no one has a problem with my "career" except Mormons who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their faith.

Oh, and there are also the racist/neo-Nazi/skinhead/Christian Identy hate-based groups who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their racist religion.

Oh, and there are the evangelical/fundys who have made false predictions about when the rapture was going to happen who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their false predictions about the end times.

Oh, and there are the heresy-hunting, witch-hunting "counter-cult" discernment ministries who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their unbiblical/divisive/ungodly ranting and raving against fellow Christians like Erwin McManus, Rick Warren, and others. (so much for me actually being in the counter-cult community).

Oh, and there are the New Agers who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their latest guru-of-choice Eckhart Tolle.

Do you see a pattern here? The issue is not truth. The issue is what sacred cow is being touched in a less than worshipful way.

RA

[Bat-Man]

If I ever get a spiritual testimony that you're one of God's prophets, unbidden though it would be, I'm afraid, I would have to express my sincere sorrow that one of God's prophets could be so patently unreflective (though apparently, to be sure, in ignorance rather than cunning or malice).

Unreflective? How so? In what way do you think I have been unreflective?

I simply said you don't seem to have all of your lights turned on, after you suggested that I read Richard's book, with you thinking that until I read his book I wouldn't be privy to what he was saying.

... and what I was saying is that Richard is simply repeating what others have said before him.

It's not like Richard has received brand new original never before thought of ideas that this world has never heard about, and it's not like what Richard is saying in his book is true.

If you think that, and it appears you do, it appears to me that all of your lights are not on.

... but, hey, if you like going around without all of your lights on, for some reason, feel free to continue to have at it.

I've been there and done that and now I like to have all of my lights on.

PS. The last word is on me: have at it.

Thank you. I'm done, with you, for now, regarding this particular issue.

[juliann]

Uhm.... that's how the Mormons refer to these kinds of people, my friend. So I was using and LDS-like reference to them as Fundies. Get it?

Yes, we get it. You justify your bad acts by finding a few random instances on the internet and then claim "the Mormons" do it. This is a good example of your methodology. Please provide any example in a publication or event where someone who represents Mormons refers to Evangelicals as "fundies".

As for your refusal to answer a simple question about which mainstream scholars use ONUG as a source for their own research, your refusal to answer it is the answer. Demanding to know why I "want to know" before will giving anyone else the names of these scholars is odd but not unexpected. I am quite satisfied with your response and it is as expected.

[Bat-Man]

I answered this one but you must have missed it

My answer is prophecy

If a person makes true prophecies and doesn't get ANY wrong, you could consider them a prophet

You finally have your answer

I can't believe it took years to get an answer to this

I've had that answer for years. Did you just now get the memo?

Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, often told people that the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus, such that if a person claims to have received a testimony from Jesus, they have received the spirit of prophecy.

Prophecy isn't only the ability to tell the future, although a person who has received the spirit of prophecy can do that if Jesus has told that person about the future while sharing His testimony.

Prophecy is simply the act of revealing knowledge from Jesus which has been obtained from Jesus, so every minister of the gospel is or at least should be a prophet of God, but for some strange reason all ministers of the gospel don't even claim that they are.

[juliann]

But if you look at my writings, you will quickly see that I am all over the place topically: Mormonism, Easter/Lent (not cult related at all - you'd actually LIKE that book), Video Games (not cult related at all - again, you'd actually LIKE that book), a political-thriller novel (fiction, not cult related at all), Rick Warren (an actual defense of an evangelical AGAINST the cult industry). I think you see my point.

Cowan noticed that as well.

The issue becomes even more complicated when those who do self-credential often do not restrict themselves to the movements in which they were involved, those about which they might legitimately claim to speak with some authority. While Richard Abanes was a member of The Way International for a time, he now speaks and writes on virtually any topic that takes his interest. Cults, New Religious Movement, and Your family (Abanes 1998b), for example, is subtitles A Guide to Ten Non-Christian Groups Out to convert Your Loved Ones. The fact that at least one of the groups he considers does not proactively recruit notwithstanding, the question of that qualifies Abanes, as a former member of one group, to speak with authority on all these others is left unanswered. In the case of Satanism, at least, it seems all that is required is a passing familiarity with evangelical literature on the subject. While he does quote from two of Anton LaVeyâ??s published writings, the majority of Abaneâ??s sources on Satanism are from established counterculture sources. He very briefly cites one scholar of new religious movementsâ??J. Gordon Meltonâ??but ignores the growing body of nonevangelical scholarship on the topic.

Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 200-201.

[rabanes]

I did some research. This is what a leading on the "Christian countercult" has to say about Abanes:Cowan places Abanes squarely in the "Christian countercult".... right next to Ed Decker.

Cowan is a joke when it comes to objectivity. I've written something on him that's not yet posted -- i.e., a response to a truly absurd articel he write against me and a fairly innocuous comment I made about that Southpark episode on Mormonism. It was a ludicrous attack. I'll post that in the weeks to come when I get around to it.

By the way, I think you missed partially why I'm included in this bunch by Cowen: "Finally, with the expanding democratization of the countercult, many now entering the field have no discernible academic credentials whatsoever." I agree. I've never had any higher education and unlike others in my position, have never claimed otherwise. You know that. And as someone with no higher education, I am in good company there -- I'll let you come up with a list of names. You can start with the initials JS, then make a list going through the Bible.

So, apparently, to you, as a Mormon, having no higher eductaion isn't that big of a deal. But if that's the case, why are you so enamored, it seems, with "credentialed academics from real institutions"?

As for my being listed in the "countercult" - well, Cowen is simply wrong. I'm not in the countercult. I was at one time many years ago, having begun researching/writing at the Christian Research Institute (and starting off in a similar direction. But that's not where I am and that's where I haev been for many years -- much like Rick Warren was at one time long ago of the Church Growth Movement, but no longer.

Oh, and Juliann, why won't you answer my questions:

1. What difference at all will it make to you if secular scholars do/have quoted

ONUG

(as well as other books by my, btw)? How will this change your view of

ONUG

?

2. Where are your quotes from Owen and Moser against either

ONUG

or

Inside Today's Mormonism

. Please make those quotes available or retract your public assertion.

I would assume you found this Cowen quote while desperately trying to dig up something from Owen and Moser on me. Coming up dry? if they have indeed said something -- I would, in all seriousness, want to see it.

R.A.

[ttribe]

Ahhh, welcome, the Mormon-in-good-standing-occult-embracing-magick-practicing Saint joins us. Good to see you.

Someone here PLEASE speak to Tsuzuki, who stated: "Read that quote I posted by Brigham Young again. No area of study [i.e., the occult] is forbidden, nor is the application of knowledge gained therefrom. We are judged by our actions, not our interests. . . . I am a Mormon in good standing, and while I have not yet been through the temple, that is one of my immediate goals. . . . And yes, I do practice occult rituals, embrace occult beliefs, and practice magic (I hate the "k" spelling). It should also be noted that there are other Mormon occultists who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them.

Please. Somoene help him -- who was it that said Mormons have grown out of occult practice and magick ritual in this thread? Well, let's see it.

I'm the one who said we, as a Church, have grown out of such practices, and I've already said that I think Tsuzuki is incorrect in his interpretation of BY's comment. Beyond that, it is between him, God, and his duly called leadership.

By the way, your continued effort to shine the light back on him is a blatant effort to take the light off you. Not going to happen.

ttribe: snarky, snarky, snarky, snarky, snarky.............

RA: You've used this term several times. It's defined as: " sarcastic and irreverent, usually out of irritation." Let me be upfront -- I'm not irritated in the least. I thought I was posting inline with the attitude and tine of those who greeted me when I first posted here. Sorry, my mistake.

If you look back at my first post in this thread, you will see that it is very straightforward (#47). This was followed by my good friedn, Pahoran, who replied with: "The gossips' creed" in reply to my fairly benign statement, "And the farthest I would push this point is to simply say where there's smoke (and a lot of it) there's usually a fire of some kind."

And in reply to my comment about how I could understand Mormons being very sensitive about Joseph Smith, Pahoran slapped back: "Try just a little harder, Raybans. That well isn't quite poisoned yet."

I moved up the sarcasm one small notch in my next post (#51) to a level I found rather light-hearted and humorous: "(btw, I just love the way you guys mince and dice words when its convenient, but enjoy using great latitude when using other terms that serve your own purposes)."

Then you replied: "Said the pot to the kettle." By Post #56, you were saying, "Tell me RAbanes, care to disclose just how much of your personal income is tied up in anti-Mormon activities?"

And from their the personal attacks, baseless accusations, and straight up hate-talk went through the roof. And as for me, well, I thought no one would mind me being a little more sarcastic (a relatively harmless counter-response, I assumed). You read back through the posts, or shall I, and post the snarky comments from LDS "Saints" here and add to them the various accusations and very personal attacks. Then, make another assessment.

Pahoran, for example, is just pure nasty venom. Hence, I absolute unwilingness to engage him at all. I side with Wade Englund to a degree when he stated: "I have given up on debating--particularly the rancorous kind." With Pahoran, it will just go from bad to worse. Juliann is almost as bad, but asking her the right questions, however, seems to have made her disappear.

ttribe: And the reputational effects of having your credibility called into question in one aspect of your career would NEVER extend to the other aspects of your career. Right.

Oh what a pitiful attempt at blame-shifting. Your pattern, since the moment you re-arrived, has been to reply with dismissiveness and sarcasm whenever the questions become too difficult. You can stop acting like you have the moral high-ground here. Nothing could be further from the truth.

RA: The fact is that no one has a problem with my "career" except Mormons who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their faith.

Oh, and there are also the racist/neo-Nazi/skinhead/Christian Identy hate-based groups who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their racist religion.

Oh, and there are the evangelical/fundys who have made false predictions about when the rapture was going to happen who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their false predictions about the end times.

Oh, and there are the heresy-hunting, witch-hunting "counter-cult" discernment ministries who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their unbiblical/divisive/ungodly ranting and raving against fellow Christians like Erwin McManus, Rick Warren, and others. (so much for me actually being in the counter-cult community).

Oh, and there are the New Agers who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their latest guru-of-choice Eckhart Tolle.

Do you see a pattern here? The issue is not truth. The issue is what sacred cow is being touched in a less than worshipful way.

Oh really...it's just us "cultists" who have a problem with you? That's interesting, let's look around, shall we: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5, Link 6, Link 7, Link 8, Link 9, Link 10. It seems your reputation precedes you. At least your consistent in you're drive-by posts and your arrogance everywhere. I'd hate to think you just reserve that for us "lost" Mormons.

[rabanes]

As for your refusal to answer a simple question about which mainstream scholars use ONUG as a source for their own research, your refusal to answer it is the answer. Demanding to know why I "want to know" before will giving anyone else the names of these scholars is odd but not unexpected. I am quite satisfied with your response and it is as expected.

This is sad, Juliann, just plain sad. You asked me three questions. I answered two:

1) if my book is widely used, and I said no, probably not; and

2) if I knew the number of scholars, and I said, no, I didn't know the total number because a) I don't follow such things and b ) that would be an impossible, and rather silly, thing to try to do -- i.e, trace the writings, papers, article, books of every scholar in the world.

Now, because you seem to be putting so much weight on whether or not any secular scholars have quoted, referenced, or cited ONUG, I want to know what difference it will make to you if I take my time to go to the trouble of reaching into my files and/or searching through my database for those scholars. You won't answer me. Fine. Don't answer me, but please don't continue on under the above delusion. It's just tragic.

Moreover, you made previous assertions that Moser and Owen have both slammed ONUG and/or Inside Today's Mormonism. Please document that or retratc your false assertion and apologize. That would be the nice/Christian thing to do when you claim that two respected scholars dissed my work. And as I said, if this is true, I absolutely want to know about it.

RA

[Bat-Man]

There could indeed be true prophets of God on earth today. Joseph wasn't one of them.

Joseph Smith actually was a true prophet of God, and the fact that you disagree simply tells me that you are not a credible person on whom I can rely regarding anything you are saying.

Oh, I see, you mean like the ones written by everyone at FAIR and FARMS. Awesome.

Yes, even prophets of God borrow thoughts from other people, including God, but the people you are borrowing your own thoughts from to make the point that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet of God are not true prophets of God, otherwise you would be in agreement with other true prophets of God rather than now being in agreement with false prophets and false teachers.

Interesting, I've heard that from Branch Davidians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, and assorted other.........religious belief systems.

Yes, I know, all kinds of people say all kinds of things, which is why it is important for you to know who you should learn from to find out what is true.

Cool, everyone here is a prophet of God.

No, Richard. You are obviously not a true prophet of God, at least regarding Joseph Smith.

The fact that you don't know Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God while knowing the actual teachings of Joseph Smith shows very clearly that you are not a true prophet of God, because the testimony of Jesus would not be telling you that Joseph was not one of His (our Lord's) prophets.

Talking with you any further on this point would simply be a waste of my time.

[ttribe]

Cowan is a joke when it comes to objectivity. I've written something on him that's not yet posted -- i.e., a response to a truly absurd articel he write against me and a fairly innocuous comment I made about that Southpark episode on Mormonism. It was a ludicrous attack. I'll post that in the weeks to come when I get around to it.

As if you had any idea what "objectivity" was....

[rabanes]

Oh really...it's just us "cultists" that have a problem with you?

Ttribe, are you actually reading what you're highlighting? You seem to have missed this ---

"Oh, and there are the

heresy-hunting, witch-hunting "counter-cult" discernment ministries

who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their unbiblical/divisive/ungodly ranting and raving against fellow Christians like Erwin McManus, Rick Warren, and others. (so much for me actually being in the counter-cult community).

Read, bro. Slow down and actually read. And for the caliber of these people's ability to discern anything, here's one you missed: "Apologist Richard Abanes: Going soft on Mormonism." This guy seems to think I'm seeking to create a synthesis between Mormonism and Christianity and that I want to blend the two and that I am pretty much in full support of Mormonism. I'd REALLY like to see is you two going at it -- with him screaming about how much I'm for Mormonism, and you yelling about how I am so anti-Mormon.

RA

[ttribe]

Ttribe, are you actually reading what you're highlighting? You seem to have missed this ---

"Oh, and there are the

heresy-hunting, witch-hunting "counter-cult" discernment ministries

who are ticked off that I dared say anything negative about their unbiblical/divisive/ungodly ranting and raving against fellow Christians like Erwin McManus, Rick Warren, and others. (so much for me actually being in the counter-cult community).

Read, bro. Slow down and actually read. And for the caliber of these people's ability to discern anything, here's one you missed: "Apologist Richard Abanes: Going soft on Mormonism." This guy seems to think I'm seeking to create a synthesis between Mormonism and Christianity and that I want to blend the two and that I am pretty much in full support of Mormonism. I'd REALLY like to see is you two going at it -- with him screaming about how much I'm for Mormonism, and you yelling about how I am so anti-Mormon.

RA

So, you answer with the "I've been accused of being soft on Mormons" line again. I said it before, and I'll say it again - it is a measure of degrees Richard. That you are less frothing at the mouth than the critic you cited is irrelevant to me.

BTW, I read what you wrote (and frankly your condescension towards me is growing tiresome), but I find it intersting that you have sown so much discord within "mainstream"-Christianity and yet claim that it's just the fringe groups that don't like you.

More: Link 11, Link 12

[rabanes]

but I find it intersting that you have sown so much discord within "mainstream"-Christianity and yet claim that it's just the fringe groups that don't like you.

First, I wasn't beingcondescending, I was actually, literally, tellingyou to SLOW down. Because I had ALREADY noted in my response these VERY PEOPLE you noted, as if I had left them out. I said, heresy-hunting, witch-hunting "counter-cult" discernment ministries. And I also never said ANYTHING about "fringe." Please tell me where I said "it's just the fringe groups" that don't like me. I mentioned TWICE non-fringe groups:

"the evangelical/fundys who have made false predictions"

"the heresy-hunting, witch-hunting "counter-cult" discernment ministries"

Again, I say, slow down. We can't talk. And with regard to "the heresy-hunting, witch-hunting 'counter-cult' discernment ministries," this is a very particular in-house, widespread, fracturing that is occuring within the community that you know NOTHING about.

RA

[ttribe]

First, I wasn't beingcondescending, I was actually, literally, tellingyou to SLOW down. Because I had ALREADY noted in my response these VERY PEOPLE you noted, as if I had left them out. I said, heresy-hunting, witch-hunting "counter-cult" discernment ministries. And I also never said ANYTHING about "fringe." Please tell me where I said "it's just the fringe groups" that don't like me. I mentioned TWICE non-fringe groups:

"the evangelical/fundys who have made false predictions"

"the heresy-hunting, witch-hunting "counter-cult" discernment ministries"

Again, I say, slow down. We can't talk. And with regard to "the heresy-hunting, witch-hunting 'counter-cult' discernment ministries," this is a very particular in-house, widespread, fracturing that is occuring within the community that you know NOTHING about.

RA

How would you know what I know "NOTHING" about? Can you read minds too?

BTW, since when did you want to "talk"? It seems all you really want to do is TELL and since there's no listening on your part, how can we really "talk"?

[Anijen]

RA; Cowan is a joke when it comes to objectivity.

Oh that's rich

Edited to add Ttribe beat me to it.

[juliann]

I would assume you found this Cowen quote while desperately trying to dig up something from Owen and Moser on me. Coming up dry? if they have indeed said something -- I would, in all seriousness, want to see it.

I own Cowan's book, Richard. I own many others that deal with or mention the countercult as well as many articles. This was part of a course given at Claremont Graduate School....sociology of religion/Mormonism. I am not very motivated to go through everything I have because you never change...no matter how much courtesy is shown you by Mormons, such as the help you were given when sued by one of the countercult group, you never take on a kinder tone.

As for how scholars are expected to behave nowadays...regardless of their personal opinon of Mormonism, you might find this useful:

http://summatheologica.wordpress.com/2007/...s-on-mormonism/

It does no good for our cause as Creedal Christians, when we fail to present Mormon viewpoints in a way which their most competent voices would consent to. Our arguments with the Mormons need to be based upon our disagreements with their most carefully nuanced views, not with the easiest soup cans we can knock down. Listen to the simplistic presentations of Mormon theism which you will find in so much of our apologetics, and then sit down and read someone like Blake Ostler, or Stephen Robinson. You will quickly discover that we have over-simplified the range of perspectives which Mormons can in good faith hold to.

I was again struck by the fact that typical Evangelicalism all too often lacks the resources to deal constructively with Mormon thought. Evangelicalism lacks a robust understanding of the efficacy of the sacraments, an appreciation for ritual, an acknowledgment of the teaching authority of the Church, a sense of the identity of the visible Church (outside of which there is no ordinary way of salvation), the continuation of a ministerial priesthood (including apostolic succession) in the Church conveyed through the laying on of hands, and a recognition of the necessity of good works for salvation (and not merely their inevitability as the fruits of faith).

Which of these observations by Paul Owen do you share? Do you think you are not part of the "typical Evangelicism" that he speaks of?