Owen & Mosser - Their Words/their Views

[Aquilifer]

But since, for whatever reason, I can't say these very same words without having the entire board convulsing and gnashing their teeth, I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them.

Interestingly, many of the critical points and reasonings they offered in their chapter in response to Mormonism mirror a good number of my own arguments (as voiced in Inside Today's Mormonism / Becoming Gods), although my arguments are greatly expanded and more detailed since I presented an entire book on LDS doctrine.

So, again, this is for all of you who find Owen and Mosser to NOT be "anti-Mormon." I agree with them completely and honor their scholarship and academic training that has led them to their conclusions.

As you seem to labor under the impression that your scholarship is equal to that of Owen and Mosser, and therefore you take it personally when you are labelled an anti-Mormon and they are not, I think that a comparison is in order.

Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is the most recent and likely the most comprehensively researched biography of Joseph Smith. Instead of the standard hagiography, Bushman doesn't shy away from dealing with more controversial issues. A flip through his bibliography lists sources by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Michael Quinn, Dan Vogel, even Mosser and Owens. While Bushman may disagree with the ultimate conclusions of these authors, he respects their work enough to cite to them.

But there's no Abanes. I'm not sure how scholarly or groundbreaking your work can be considered when it doesn't merit even a casual mention in the considerable bibliography of a book on Joseph Smith. Stop kidding yourself.

[urroner]

The OP reminds me a little bit of the NO ON 8 people in a little way. They want respect and they are demanding respect and the expect respect from us LDSers, but, so far, it isn't forthcoming and why, because they haven't earnt it.

For most of my career, I have been a programmer and I love programming. Several years ago, I was placed on a project that was having a lot of problems with its software and they were hoping that another programmer and I could find a solution with a fresh set of eyes. It took us five minutes to find out what the problem was. One of the programmers had written 18,000 lines of code which isn't too uncommon, but in this 18,000 lines of code, there was only 6 different modules or subroutines, usually there is a module for every 50 to 75 lines of code, and there were no comments in the code. NONE!!!!!! It took three weeks to finally figure out what he was trying to do and what he was doing was terrible. He didn't look at information at the byte or word level, rather he was looking at the info at the bit level. And the reason he didn't use subroutines was because if he had to do something similar, he just did a cut and paste and changes a few things he looked at. This would have been fine, though very, very inefficient, if the original code was good, but it was crap and when he realized the error in the original code, he went back and changed it, but he didn't update it in many of the copied and pasted areas.

When we explained to the project leads what the problems were, he defended himself by saying that he had worked very hard on the code and that a lot of thought went into it also, therefore he should be respected as a progammer and not suffer anything because of our findings.

Several things happened, firstly, he was put on another project and was told to learn how to program properly. Secondly, just because a lot of hard word and thought went into something doesn't make it good. There is a big difference between working hard and working smart. Thirdly, if he wanted respect, then he needs to learn what it takes to earn respect. He didn't get to decide what the rules are.

I kind of see Richard doing the same this guy did. He says that he worked on his book and put a lot of thought into it and therefore we should respect him and that we should realize just how groundbreaking of a book it is. Sorry Richard, it doesn't work like that.

A good friend of mine, an atheist who died several years ago, who was also a homosexual and was a critic of the Church, had my respect because his comments were well thought out and were of a nature that wasn't degrading. He never attacked my faith, he never used denigrating terms even when I was really frustrating him and he showed me how to use logic in my arguments and to get rid of as much emotions from them as possible. He never gave an inch, though he did say that if he ever did start believing in God and could overcome his sexual orientation, he would become a Mormon. He died suddenly about 10 years ago and I still miss him.

He ran circles around me in discussions, but he never gloated about it. He told me several times that he didn't want to destroy my faith, rather he wanted to teach me how to discuss things and how to prepare myself for those discussions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Second, I can certainly think, move, and respond independently from anything Pahoran says. To be honest, he is under my ignore button, so, anything he's written after being under that button, to be honest, I haven't even read.

A pity, because you need to know what Pahoran had to say with regard to your ploy. Assuming you don't (yet) have me on ignore, I'll reproduce here for you what Pahoran wrote in that post:

This is, of course, entirely the wrong question. "Who is not an anti-Mormon?" is structurally equivalent to "who is not a skateboarder?" I'm not, except that tomorrow I might just step on a skateboard. Actually, given your track record and your serious lack of candour, I can only surmise that there is an agenda behind your question.

I predict that we shall see, in time to come, something from your keyboard--possibly in this forum, possibly in book form--in which you will make anti-Mormon arguments based wholly or mostly upon quotes you have mined from sources that various people have told you here are not anti-Mormon. Then when we rebut those arguments, you will protest, with feigned innocence, "but gawrsh, I thought you said them guys wasn't anti-Mormunz!"

That, or something like it, would then be the "other shoe" you have assured Scott will never drop.

I think it will.

QUOTE(rabanes @ Nov 25 2008, 05:14 PM) *

Don't vilify? Hmm, so teh following is not vilifying, it's just preaching the truth in love. According to various LDS leaders, we in Christendom, donâ??t have the correct concept of God at all! That's basically the same thing the so-called anti-Mormons say about the LDS Church. Those of us in Christendome allegedly:

1. believe in a false god we worship â??in vain,â?

CFR, please. What is your source for that claim? And no, referring to your own book will not cut it; your book is not a recognised source of LDS teaching.

QUOTE(rabanes @ Nov 26 2008, 08:39 AM) *

As for me cherry-picking quotes -- my above response/quotes was a not a full scope investigation of anything/everything ever taught by LDS leaders. It was a focused response to the very broad-based, generalized assertion made previously that the LDS Church in general never attacks anyone or says anything negative about anyone. I've heard this again and again and again. And it's made evangelicals rather weary, not to mention how grating it is on the psyche. It's not only false, but patently offensive.

Actually it is entirely true. That's why you find it offensive.

No Latter-day Saint would lower himself to write a book with a title like "Inside Todayâ??s Methodism," attacking that Church, or "The Saint Makers" having a go at the Catholics, or "One Nation Under Angels," sticking it to the Baptists. We have no "ministries" or "outreaches" dedicated to "exposing" the "falsehoods" of other churches. We run no publishing houses or imprints churning out "counter-mainstream" literature. We do not protest or otherwise try to block the building of your churches. We do not go to message boards dedicated to other faiths to tell the people there what is wrong with their belief systems, and why they should leave them.

Such activities are utterly unChristian, and therefore completely beneath us.

They're not beneath you, but they are beneath us.

QUOTE(rabanes @ Nov 26 2008, 08:39 AM) *

Your whole religion was founded on the claim that god himself said the whole Christian world had gone apostate!!!

People who are not trying to be deliberately offensive know how to capitalise "God."

But that is pretty much what He said, yes.

QUOTE(rabanes @ Nov 26 2008, 08:39 AM) *

And that's what you STILL believe, and teach, and preach -- consistently, repeatedly, and relentlessly. In your eyes, we all have the wrong God!

In whose eyes?

I repeat my CFR, above. What LDS source asserts this?

Or is this just a conclusion of your own, which you then arrogantly foist upon us?

QUOTE(rabanes @ Nov 26 2008, 08:39 AM) *

Nevertheless, I can't count the number of LDS who have played the persecution/martyr card (still, after all these years): "Oh, poor us, poor God's Saints, so persecuted and we never criticize the faith of anyone, and never say anything at all that might be considered hurtful, confrontational, or degrading to Christendom."

While you are exaggerating mightily to try to create a straw man, the fact remains that there is absolutely nothing that we do vis-a-vis your churches that is in any way parallel to what you do vis-a-vis the Church of Jesus Christ.

And that is a fact. You can dishonestly call it "false," or whine about how "offensive" it is all you please, but you will not fool us into thinking otherwise.

QUOTE(rabanes @ Nov 26 2008, 08:39 AM) *

LifeOnaPlate, your entire chruch structure is a "ministry" built on "proving the falsity of any other faith."

That is completely false. If you genuinely believe this utter falsehood, then that just goes to prove how completely uninformed you are about what the Church of Jesus Christ is and does.

Like many here, I served a mission for two years. I never once told anyone that the church they were in was false and/or terrible, and that they should leave it. Never once. Nor has any other missionary of my acquaintance. That is not what we do. I will go farther: I have never met a single Latter-day Saint who claimed, professed or proposed to "prove the falsity of any other faith."

We don't do that.

I recommend you refrain from repeating that false claim.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Confidential Informant]

"More than any other new religious movement, Mormonism presents a challenge to the health and growth of authentic Christianity.

This is my favorite part of this quote, because the whole statement begins from a flawed premise. Had someone made this quote in a court room, I would have objected on the basis that it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who is the arbiter of what constitutes "authentic" Christianity? What randomly chosen and arbitrarily applied doctrines and beliefs constitute "authentic" Christianity? It seems to me that if you are looking for "authenticity" then your first step ought to be to look at what faith is the oldest. From an organizational standpoint, the Catholic Church is far older than the strains of Evangelicism that Owens and Mosser and Abanes adhere to. Surely the Catholics have a much stronger claim to "authenticity" than the Evangelicals do.

Then again, Lutheranism arose prior to Calvanism, so is Lutheranism more "authentic" than Calvanism?

So, how do we determine "authenticity?" Via the bible? Well, that doesn't seem to have worked out so well. Francis Beckwith, whom Richards apparently respects, decided that Catholicsm was more "authentic" than Evangelicism. I assume he knows the Bible sufficiently well, yet I don't see Abanes -- or any others -- clamoring to join him.

In short, this conversation goes nowhere until you can provide a satisfactory definition of what constitutes "authentic" Christianity.

Until then, it's all just shotgun speculation.

C.I.