The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family

juliann · November 24, 2008

"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.

But others do and they write books as well.

At the broadest level, the anticult movement in North America can be subdivided into two wings, consisting of secular anticultists and conservative Christian anticultists. While these two wings share certain traits and in the past have occasionally cooperated with each other, the target of much Christian anticultism is a minority religionâ??s deviation from traditional doctrineâ??a concern most secular anticultists do not share.
James R. Lewis, ed., Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2001), 24.

Where Cowan uses "countercult" Lewis uses "Christian anticultist". However, the conclusion is the same. There are two groups who share certain traits and who used to cooperate with one another. However, this is becoming more difficult as secularism eventually has to denounce all religion. Secularists have the decided advantage of only having to destroy religion....countercultists have the additional burden of having to steer their targets to the "truth".

Both groups seek to provide a countervailing pressure to what they regard as a clear and present social danger. The countercult, however, serves another, more fundamental functionâ??the ongoing legitimation and maintenance of the worldview of its target audience. In an open religious economy the presence of alternative worldviews presents a multiplicity of potential disconfirmations of the evangelical or fundamentalist construction of reality. In the face of this latent instability, countercult apologists serve as significant others in the ongoing maintenance of those aspects of the evangelical worldview threatened by the existence of other, competing religious groups. In this, they function both as movement intellectuals and as principal negotiators of the â??conceptual machinery of universe-maintenance: (see Berger and Luckmann 1966).
Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 23.

The problem is apparent. This squabbling group of countercultists don't have the same worldview and it seems to be fracturing into ever smaller pieces. So although they can cooperate on bringing a target out of satan's clutches they must still bring them into their own clutches and at that point...those who do not share worldviews become competitors. This has been going on for a long time:

David Sproul described Texas pastor W.A. Criswell as "perhaps second only to Billy Graham in being the biggest Judas-goat of the century". Bob Jones, Jr. called Falwell, "the most dangerous man in America", characterizing Falwell's political maneuvering as "spiritual fornication.".
(Lloyd J. Averill, Religious Right, Religious Wrong (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1989), p 51

juliann · November 24, 2008

http://www.smpt.org/element.html

"Narrowing the Divide: How Being an 'Anglo-Catholic' Has Changed My View of the LDS Church"

Paul L. Owen

Unfortunately, this is not online but it is a must read. Dr. Owen no longer advocates dialogue with evangelicals for reasons we see above. Richard, do you think that only you are exempt from his analysis?

juliann · November 24, 2008

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.

Cowan is a joke? If a "joke" is teaching in accredited universities and publishing with recognized scholars why aren't you?

http://www.amazon.ca/Cults-New-Religions-B...3997&sr=1-2

The first few pages of his latest book are open for view. It is quickly apparent why RA fears Cowan and his peers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_E._Cowan
Cowan was born in Canada and received his undergraduate tertiary education at the University of Victoria where he was awarded the B.A. degree in English literature. He then proceeded to theological studies and received the M.Div (Honours) from St. Andrews Theological College. His doctoral work, which involved an examination of the Christian countercult movement through the prism of the sociology of knowledge and propaganda theory, was undertaken through the University of Calgary. His dissertation supervisor was Professor Irving Hexham, who in turn was a student of the eminent British scholar Ninian Smart, the founder of the first Religious Studies Department in Britain.
While Cowan currently describes himself as a methodological agnostic, he was ordained to the Christian ministry in the United Church of Canada, and held pastoral positions during his doctoral studies. After graduating with the Ph.D in 1999 Cowan received a joint appointment in the Department of Sociology/CJC and the UMKC Center for Religious Studies. During 2005 he relocated from the USA to his current teaching post at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.
Cowan's research interests include religion and the Internet, religion and film, modern paganism, new religious movements, and method and theory in the study of religion.
A prolific publisher Cowanâ??s best known work has focused on religion and the Internet and a variety of issues related to boundary-making and identity maintenance in assorted religions and how challenges are met and resolved by religious adherents. Cowan regularly presents his work at academic conferences, including the annual meetings of the American Academy of Religion, the Association for the Sociology of Religion, the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, and the Center for the Study of New Religions (CESNUR).
In addition to providing peer-review for numerous scholarly journals, he is one of the co-general editors for Nova Religio: The Journal of New and Emergent Religions, and the editor-in-chief of the Religious Movements Homepage Project (www.religiousmovements.org).

rabanes · November 24, 2008

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

RA: How do I know? I know by your simple reference to these people in connection to me, including how you don't seem to know the "why" for the division between me and them, your apparent lack of understanding of who they are (their extremism), your unawareness of how/where they fit into the evangelical/fundamentalist community, the roots of the controversy between us, how such persons are forming an extremist faction within mainstream Christianity of so-called Online Discernment Ministries (often called ODMs).

ttribe: It seems all you really want to do is TELL and since there's no listening on your part

RA: Alright. Shoot. What would you like me to listen to from you.....(everyone else, be quiet). Ttribe, tell me what you want me to listen to from you, and only you. Go......

juliann: This was part of a course given at Claremont Graduate School....sociology of religion/Mormonism.

RA: Ahhhh, I see. So, you'd consider any teachers or courses at Claremont Graduate School to be part of those scholars whose names you'd like to see? Careful, Juliann.

And please, before you answer that one, now I'd REALLY like you to answer to the question I have been asking, and asking, and asking: "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?"

Why won't you answer? I'll tell you why: I think it's becuase it won't matter at all to you, and you know it. That is a guess, I admit. But it's my guess.

Juliann: I am not very motivated to go through everything I have because you never change

RA: Ahhhh, I see. So you will make an accusation against me using your beloved Moser and Owen, and then when I sincerely ask for documentation to prove that they as scholars have slammed by work, suddenly you're "not very motivated to go through everything I have." Excellent. Thank you. And since you will not produce your documentation, will you retract your accusation? That would have nothing to do with whether I change or not, or with my views of Mormonism.

Juliann: 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.

RA: ?????????????????????????????????? I was "sued by one of the countercult group." What in the name of all that is sane are you talking about??? I was never sued by anyone!!!

Juliann: "'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.'"

RA: Well, I quoted about as many FARMS and FAIR guys as I could in Inside Today's Mormonism, which was very favorable viewed by folks like.....remember...Frank Beckwith (now a Roman Catholic), the editor with Moser and Owen of The New Mormon Challenge. And I asked Dan Peterson to even write his own "Why I Am A Mormon" for that book and published it as written by him -- in my book to evangelicals.

That book was so conciliatory and even-handed to Mormons (IMHO), that the more radical true Momron-haters turned around and started hating me! So, you know, it seems I can't win unless I fall on my face and accept JS, tout the BOM as divine, and get baptized in the church. Or, I turn around and say you are all a bunch of Satanists who deserve to have their temples picketed, marriage ceremonies interrupted, and verbally abused/mocked during Confrences. Sorry -- I'm not going to do either.

Juliann: [QUOTING OWEN - 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?

RA: Just out of curiosity, is the place where you say Owen criticized my work? Please tell me it isn't, because I am nowhere mentioned here (and nothing is here from Moser). I would say, no, I am NOT a part of this kind of "typical Evangelicalism." I notice that this same artilce you linked includes remarks by Frank Beckwith. Are you utterly discounting Beckwith's endorsement of my doctrinal/theological reponse to Mormonism as contained in Inside Today's Mormonism? I want to be clear in my understanding of your views on beckwith and his views of my work in that area.

As for the quote, I'd want to listen to the whole thing before dealing with every point. But in short, I do believe that I can "deal constructively with Mormon thought." That does'nt mean agree with Mormon thought. And that's what I tried to do in Inside Today's Mormonism, which has been, as noted, well-received and helpful to many people -- including, a good number of now Ex-Mormons.

RA

juliann · November 24, 2008

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.

Something tells me that you won't be getting around to it any faster than you can pull up any scholars who use ONUG as a source for their own work. So I googled this for you:

http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art10-southpark.html

In terms of the cultural construction of religious critique and ridicule, it is not unimportant that Abanes considers himself an â??anti-Mormon,â? and that one of my former graduate students who made similar comments about the show is a convert from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now the Community of Christ) to conservative evangelical Christianity. The question, then, is what made this episode of South Park â??hystericalâ? or â??an absolute scream,â? in Abanesâ?? words, and what does that designation mean in the cultural construction of religious ridicule and rivalry?

[41] When he learned that I was writing this essay, Richard Abanes protested that he didnâ??t really mean anything by calling the attention of the AR-forum list to the program. He pointed out that one of his favourite episodes (though from a show he apparently â??rarely endorsesâ?) had to do with Easter and the Passion of the Christ. Significantly, however, he did not call this episode to the attention of his countercult colleagues, nor did he point out that its hilarity was particular for â??all of us evangelical Christians.â? He did, however, direct his colleagues to the â??ridiculousnessâ? of Latter-Day Saintsâ?? beliefs.
[42] So, why is any of this important? Among a host of other contributions, theorists ranging from Sigmund Freud ([1901] 1960) to Harold Garfinkel (1967), and from Erving Goffmann (1959, 1967, 1971) to Pierre Bourdieu (1977, 1991, 1993), have taught us that small things matter. Seemingly mundane conversation, throwaway comments, the unspoken assumptions that allow for meaningful communication and significant interaction among social groupsâ??all of these contribute to the functioning of human collectivities as groups, and not simply as random aggregates. In this, the throwaway comments of an evangelical Christian apologist and a former student converted from the RLDS to evangelical Christianity have led to a consideration of the foundational manner in which ridicule contributes to the process of religious rivalry.

rabanes · November 24, 2008

J: Cowan is a joke? If a "joke" is teaching in accredited universities and publishing with recognized scholars why aren't you?

RA: There are all sorts of clowns, jokers, godless, ignorant, self-serving, arrogant, narrow-minded people teaching at "accredited universities and publishing with recognized scholars." Are you seriously telling me that absoluetly everyone who teaches for "accredited universities" and who published "with recognized scholars" could not posisbly say anything aburd or incorrect to the point of silliness? It sounds like you are a bot enamored with education (except, of course, when the educated people happen to stand against Mormonism. Then, they are jokers, ignorant, just greedy, fueling an "anti" industry, etc. etc. etc.).

And just FYI, in my post I believe I referred to some SPECIFIC issues. Not every aspect of Cowen's entire life, career, or work. So, please, remain consistent and accurate (still waiting from your quotes from Owen and Moser about my work -- but I see you're tryingto bring up everything else but...).

J: It is quickly apparent why RA fears Cowan and his peers.

RA: Fears Cowen? J., how can you invent these tales and fantasies. Goodness, dear lady, wake up, I implore you. You can't even produce evidence to back up your charge against me anpit Owen and Moser. Instead, you sift through however many sources to find one guy who's a known hostile source to evangelical critics of alternative religions and pseudo-Christian groups.

His ramblings about a silly aside comment I made on AR-Talk about the Southpark episode on Joseph Smith is nothing but intellectual masturbation, IMHO. He is so caught up in being a scholar, he invented an entire bizarre scenario to present an academic observation on the psychology of counter-cult people that was laughable. It was one of the silliest things I'd ever read from a "scholar."

You don't think scholars have agendas? You don't think scholars have biases? You don't think scholars can be just a prone to errors and saying intellectually dumb things? Juliann, wake up.

I have a response to that whole Southpark analysis Cowan made that maybe I'll post online sometime.

RA

juliann · November 24, 2008

Juliann: 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.
RA: ?????????????????????????????????? I was "sued by one of the countercult group." What in the name of all that is sane are you talking about??? I was never sued by anyone!!!

If your fellow countercultist never followed through you were certainly expecting it and worried enough to speak to DCP about it...as well as post about it. Are you denying this too? I readily admit I don't keep close tabs on your activities. Like most of us...we also expect to be sued by countercultists....we just find it sadly ironic that you turn on one another.

Cold Steel · November 24, 2008

The Smithâ??s farming techniques, it seems, were virtually a textbook illustration of the best recommendations of the day....

Yes, and why did they adopt these newfangled farming techniques? Because they were too LAZY to do it the old fashioned way!

Furthermore, in order to pay for their farm, the Smiths were obliged to hire themselves out as day-laborers....

Yes, TYPICAL of people who spend more than they have! No one could have run a farm and hired themselves out without sluffing their work. Many of the same people who hired them said they did it so the Smiths wouldn't steal their tools and their sheep.

...The 1830 tax records for Manchester Township appraise the familyâ??s holdings at the average level per acre for farms in the vicinity.

What! And they would have the audacity to cheat on their taxes in addition to everything else! For shame!

The conclusion to be drawn?

How can anyone believe that Joseph Smith could have done all this work when EVERYONE knows he spent all of his time researching Nahom, chiasmus, Arabian geography, apocryphal literature, Hebrew and Greek at the local libraries and universities? When would he have had the time to do all this other work?

Truman Madsen said he's often told there are two Joseph Smiths and is criticized for speaking only about one of themâ??the good one. His reply is that there is only one. The other is a figment of people's fears, hatred and violence. Those who knew Joseph Smith his entire life were completely consistent in their descriptions. Those who published stories claiming to know what he was thinking or, worse, what they thought was going on behind closed doors, are the ones who claim the greatest virtue, but in truth were some of the vilest vermin of their times.

rabanes · November 24, 2008

If your fellow countercultist never followed through you were certainly expecting it and worried enough to speak to DCP about it...as well as post about it. Are you denying this too?

Ohhhhhhh, that!!!? The KVG thing. Sure I talked to DCP about KVG, who at the time was either threatening to sue, or actually suing, all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons. That was one of the strangest, oddest episodes ever, which I think DCP can attest to.

I still have no idea what KVG really wanted, what he was after, how he could be appeased. And it all just fizzled and died. Very bizarre. There's actually all kinds of stange things that went on behind the scenes with that one, and I think, if you talked to DCP, he and I would pretty much see everything eye to eye concerning he who's name must not be spoken.

R.A.

PS. Where are your Owen and Moser quotes against my work, which you mentioned. Please provide information, or retract your accusation and apologize. Again, it would be the Christian thing to do, I think (rather than dredging up Cowan's quirky irritation over me making a light-hearted comment to a private newsgroup about how amusing the Southpark episode was on Joseph Smith -- and lest this be exalted as proof of my hatred for Mormons, I also thought the Southpark episode that lampooned aspects of the Christian music industry was equally fascinating).

OH AND BTW: This statement from Cowan -- "it is not unimportant that Abanes considers himself an “anti-Mormon" -- is an absolute lie. And you can tell Cowan I said it was a lie. And I would be oh so happy to point out why. Here is the full quote from my post:

I thought I would post this announcement for a show I rarely endorse—SOUTH PARK. They are going to run an absolutely hysterical episode about a Mormon family that moves to South Park. GET YOUR VIDEO RECORDERS READY FOR THIS ONE. It is an absolute scream, especially for all of us anti-Mormons (Abanes 2003; emphasis in the original).

Cowan is too much of an idiot to understand that I am using sarcasm when I say "all of us anti-Mormons." Rather than simply asking me if I considered myself an anti-Mormon, he missed the obvious. It is a play on words, a sarcastic reference to how LDS refer to anyone who says anything negative about the LDS Church as an "anti-Mormon." I have my own definition, which I think I could prove quite easily, of what a true anti-Mormon is. And I am not one. I'd debate Cowan on this article of his and its references to me (including his bizarre psycho-analyzing) anytime, and anywhere. I am telling you -- straight from the horse's mouth -- that he utterly ripped this thing out of its context to write his silly little paper.

juliann · November 24, 2008

An entire book could be devoted to the social histories and internecine conflicts of various organizations in the Christian countercult. . . First, at the core, these battles are about hubris and power, specifically . . . the apologetic hubris of orthodoxy, and a concomitant arrogation of the power to determine who fits that orthodoxy and who does not. The Pasantinos begin Witch Hunt, for example, stating that â??without knowing what is orthodox, we cannot know the difference between what is genuinely heretical and what has been labeled falsely as heresyâ?. . . The clear establishment of oneâ??s own orthodox credentials is considered a necessary prelude to the public criticism of another Christian.
Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 197.

Thus, the battles within the countercult. Richard, if you think that Dr. Owen embraces ONUG in spite of how he feels about the level of evangelical apologetics, why don't you cut to the chase ask him for a recommendation of ONUG?

LeSellers · November 24, 2008

I am using sarcasm when I say "all of us anti-Mormons." ... I have my own definition, which I think I could prove quite easily, of what a true anti-Mormon is. And I am not one.

Hmmm. One wonders if the occasional use of "Fundies" by LDSs might be of the same type.

Nah. You're perfect, and we are evil.

I am telling you -- straight from the horses mouth ...

As a writer, I'm sure you know that it's really "horse's mouth".

Lehi

rabanes · November 24, 2008

Thus, the battles within the countercult.

Why bring this up? I've never said otherwise. I'm not sure the relevance of this. I know better than Cowan about these battles, from the insider -- I could write a book.

If you're referring to the current in-house fracturing I mentioned, this is a different issue than what Cowan is discussing -- it's newer. And apparently, you have no idea what's going on with the ODMs. The ODM's is a new breed with different issues affecting things of more recent origin (apparently something you are unaware of).

Richard, if you think that Dr. Owen embraces ONUG in spite of how he feels about the level of evangelical apologetics, why don't you cut to the chase ask him for a recommendation of ONUG?

WAIT!

Hold everything. No. I am not going to allow that one to slip in there, J. Do not try to re-direct this. I have said NOTHING about Owen or Moser embracing anything of mine. So, don't put words in my mouth. What's going on here is NOT me trying to prove to you that Owen and Moser accept my work. I ONLY referenced Frank Beckwith and his endorsement for my book Inside Today's Mormonism. And the only connection there to Moser and Owen is that Beckwith edited The New Mormon Challenge with Owen and Moser. Beckwith was an evangelical scholar then, and he's a Roman Catholic scholar now, and he still stands as a scholar behind Inside Today's Mormonism.

You are the one who directly stated that both Owen and Moser have slammed my work, not only ONUG, but I believe you also intimated Inside Today's Mormonism. Must we go back and look at your statements? So now, YOU are the one who needs to produce material to back up your assertion. Otherwise, retract it and apologize.

This would be like me saying to Scott Gordon that DCP slammed his work at FAIR as amateur, unloving, and non-scholarly. Then, when Gordon asks me where Peterson said that, I say, "Oh well, sorry, I have no quotes for you, but if "you think that DCP embraces FAIR in spite of how he feels about the level of some Mormon apologetics, why don't you cut to the chase ask him for a recommendation of FAIR?"

Say whaaaaat?

You made an accusation -- Moser and Owen have slammed ONUG and Inside Today's Mormonism. Now, prove it.

R.A.

rabanes · November 24, 2008

As a writer, I'm sure you know that it's really "horse's mouth".

ROFL. Yes. Evr hearr of a tttypo? But then again, maybe after writing twenty books I still just don't know what possessive is. I see you go to the FAIR school of content analysis. Amazing. Will it make you feel better if I go back and correct the typo. Yeah, I'd better. Sigh - such silliness.

Or, perhaps, you were just making a joke and not seriously trying to point this out in any meaningful way. If so, then yeah, cool that's funny, I do agree with you -- typos can be funny. I've seen some real amusing ones in my day. I think there's a website that has a link to some real ones that appeared in newspapers, church bulletins, etc. that are fairly amusing.

RA

Pahoran · November 25, 2008

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

The level of unanswered, substantive points is considerably higher. But you've got your fingers in your ears and are chanting loudly, so I don't expect you to hear them.

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.

The only "painful truth" that anyone is trying to "escape" is that your dismissive epithets fail entirely to account for the Book of Abraham.

They do not account for its existence.

They do not account for its contents.

And your dismissal of Rom's post as "mumbo-jumbo" is a typically dishonest dodge.

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."

I'm sorry, but did you just imagine to yourself a completely unrealistic monologue in which a Latter-day Saint used the word "perfect" to describe Joseph Smith?

Did you do that because you are completely clueless about the kind of discourse believing Latter-day Saints engage in, or did you do it because you hoped to deceive someone?

Which is it, Ricky boy?

Pick your poison.

That is indeed what you are peddling, yes.

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.

You understand nothing at all. Your condescending claims to "understand" something you merely project from your own strange mind are insulting and offensive.

The real reason we hold to the Book of Abraham is because we are convinced that it is true. Truth, you see, matters to us.

And no, you don't understand that, and we don't for a moment expect you to.

For obvious reasons.

Snip gloating citations of irrelevant opinions.

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

Your fabrications might be amusing to you and yours; but they are really quite worthless to us.

And they are entirely without explanatory power.

Regards,

Pahoran

Zakuska · November 25, 2008

As a writer, I'm sure you know that it's really "horse's mouth".

Wrong end...

Confidential Informant · November 25, 2008

You don't think scholars have agendas? You don't think scholars have biases? You don't think scholars can be just a prone to errors and saying intellectually dumb things?

You mean like Francis Beckwith extolling your book?

C.I.

LeSellers · November 25, 2008

ROFL. Yes. Evr hearr of a tttypo? But then again, maybe after writing twenty books I still just don't know what possessive is.
...
Or, perhaps, you were just making a joke and not seriously trying to point this out in any meaningful way.

Well, two tries, but you got it.

Lehi

rabanes · November 25, 2008

A Look at Douglas E. Cowen vs. Richard Abanes

(all citations are from Cowen's book, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult)

Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult by Douglas Cowen is a poor example of scholarship, IHMO, not only with regard to his understanding of the countercult community in general, but more specifically, his understanding of me and my work. (I can't speak for anyone else.) The book also does not include any reference, or understanding of, the differences between:

1. what I call high-end, or more mainstream countercult ministries;

2. mid-level countercult ministries; and

3. a new breed of countercult individual/organizations commonly referred to now as Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs). To be fair, his lack of material on ODMs is likely because the ODMs have only risen in force over the last 5 years or so.

I am connected to none of these groups/organizations. I am an independent journalist with my own course of work, study, outreach, subject interests, and approach.

Although much could be said about the new ODMs and other issues, this post will simply look at a couple of Cowan's statements about me in connection to the broader and older countercult community. I say only "a couple" because his understanding of my work is, in a word, atrocious -- and to go through every reference would take pages and pages. I offer the very first time he mentions me in his book (at least I tihnk it's the first time):

"Countercult journalist Richard Abanes, for example, in

Cults, New Religious Movements, and Your Family

, writes of 'ten non-Christian groups out to convert your loved ones' -- among others, the Church of Scientology, the Church of Satan, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (p. 40).

Cowan immediately gets my entire ministry/career/profession (whatever you want to call it) wrong. He does so -- whether intentionally or unintentionally -- in an apparent effort to rope me into the countercult community. He calls me a "Countercult journalist." But the truth is that I am not now, nor have I ever been, known as a "countercult journalist." I haven't ever used the term for me. My publishers haven't ever never used the term for me. My peers haven't ever used the term for me. In other words, it is a term/occupation invented for me by Cowan! That's scholarship?

Interestingly, a Google search for "countercult journalist" + Abanes on the Internet pulls up only four hits. And surprise, surprise....all four hits are either FAIR or FARMS. Talk about predictable:

#1 - The PDF version of a Lou Midgley article --

Editor's Introduction: On Caliban Mischief

-- from "FARMS Review" (Volume - 15, Issue 1) that refers to me as a "countercult journalist." And is quotes none other than Cowan's book.

#2 & #3 - This same Midgley article -- Editor's Introduction: On Caliban Mischief -- at the official LDS FARMS/BYU website (

read

and

print-friendly

versions).

4. An article attacking my book

One Nation Under Gods

(ONUG)

published by FAIR

. Here the non-existing occupation of a "countercult journalist" appears in the footnote (#7), which once more quotes the ever-popular Doug Cowan and his book.

That's it. No one else in the known Google universe recognizes me as someone working in a capacity of the Cowan-invented "countercult journalist" career. Throughout the publishing industry, the professional world, the academic world, I am referred to variously as "religion journalist," "best selling author," "award-winning author," "investigative journalist," and similar permutations. None of them bear any resemblance to a "countercult journalist."

Dear Dr. Cowan, if you are out there, please at least get my occupation correct.

Thank you. R. Abanes

But wait, there's more (he sez in his best info-mercial imitation). In context, beginning on page 38, Cowan is referring to me as an "example" of a person who embraces some kind of religious conspiracy that plays into "the cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil" (p. 38). He presents various countercult quotes, beginning on p. 38, that show a preoccupation with this kind of dualistic-duelistic struggle, concluding that the "proliferation of new religions, and the increasing popularity of non-Christian world religions in what is often considered a Judeo-Christian culture, is regarded by many countercult apologists as compelling evidence that the cosmic battle is heating up" (p. 39).

Well, this might be true for many people who are indeed in the countercult community. But it's not true for me. This is but one aspect of my work that separates me from much of the countercult community. And I have no interest whatsoever in getting caught up in that type of mindset. In fact, I have fought against it, and because of my actions, have been ostracized/attacked by some persons in various countercult circles who truly do hold such a mindset. Consequently, this so-called "conspiracy" and/or "conspiricism" that Cowan has applied to me is completely misapplied, derogatory, and false.

In leading up to his note of me, Cowan cites Daniel Pipes, who stated, "Conspiracism resembles other 'isms' in defining an outlook that can become an all-encompassing concern." Cowan continues: "Conspiracism recognizes that there are certain tihngs happening in the world and, as Pipes puts it, 'has many facts right but goes wrong by locating causal relationships where none exists" (Cowan, p. 39).

Once more, this might indeed be true of a good many people in the countercult community, but it is not true of me. I am not interested in such things, and again, have spoken out a great deal against these bizarre ideas that have targeted people as benign as Rick Warren and labeled him as being involved in some kind of global cult-conspiracy that will culminate in the Anti-Christ's unveiling.

And yet, rather than asking me what exactly I believed regarding these issues, Cowan cites me as an example of someone who holds to conspiracism -- to be more specific, according to Cowan, I am someone whose work illustrates his "second component" of conspiricism, which he describes as follows: "If someone faults the exegesis, logic, interpretation, or conclusions of these apologists, then that person either (1) is an active participant in the conspiracy or (2) has been deceived by those who are active participants" (Cowan, p. 40).

This is yet another absolute falsehood when it comes to me. Not only do I NOT hold to Cowan's little conspiracism worldview, but I categorically deny that those who disagree with me are, as Cowan said, "(1) is an active participant in the conspiracy or (2) has been deceived by those who are active participants."

Dear Mr. Cowan,

if you are out there,

please correct your charge that I hold to any kind of "conspiracism" or "conspiracy" that is part of some "cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil" which is "heating up."

Thank you, R. Abanes

And this is JUST Cowan's first reference to me in the book!!!!! Juliann, that's what you call good scholarship from the world of "credentialed academics from real institutions." All Cowan had to do was ask me what I believed, where I stood on such issues, how I viewed my work, and how I viewed this so-called "cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil." But that would not have served his agenda. So much much for Cowan. I might just have to take a look at everytihng he wrote about me in that diatribe t some point and respond. It's so hard, however, to respond to such absurdities. The Southpark lunacy from Cowan about me is just another example of his really strange views.

R.A.

William the Conqueror · November 25, 2008

To: Richard I Abanes,

It sounds like Yellow Journalism to me (your critcs).

cksalmon · November 25, 2008

but I categorically deny that those who disagree with me are, as Cowan said, "(1) is an active participant in the conspiracy or (2) has been deceived by those who are active participants."

Hi Richard--

I'll take your word for it. What I have noticed around the interwebs, however, is that those who disagree with or critique you (or Warren) in any way are somehow always and inevitably just plain wrong.

Best.

cks

------------

Folks:

When RA speaks, the thinking has been done. I believe with him that Mormonism is false, but goodness.

Here's an interesting counterpoint:

Abanes states: As for John MacArthur, he simply does not know what he is talking about and has shown himself to be a loose cannon when it comes to Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, and Saddleback Church. I am not sure who is feeding him information, but it is false. But perhaps MacArthur just doesn't care enough about truth to be careful in his own research. Therefore, I fault MacArthur for either: a) not doing his own research; or B) not doing his own research carefully enough before falsely accusing Warrren of things that Warren has never taught. A good example would be MacArthur's outrageous statement in CNN about what Warren preaches. In my book, I contrast MacArthur's false CNN accusation about the purpose driven message with what Warren has actually statedâ??it is the exact opposite of what MacArthur alleged!

The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members