Offenders for a Word

[urroner]

The question that remains unanswered is why Mormons don't care whether they are understanding Scripture accurately.

The question that remains unanswered also is why Evangelicals don't care in the slightest whether they are understanding scriptures accurately?

So Rob, this is a block party, but that doesn't mean you can come to the block party and spout off, acting as if you are helping us find the light and the truth, while you and the people in your own block party are doing worse things than what you are accusing us of doing and then expect us to ignore what I perceive as sheer hypocrisy.

Didn't the Lord say something about cleaning his own house first?

Also, didn't Christ give his Apostles this charge when he first sent them out: "And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house."

How many anti-Mormons have I seen who, upon entering this "house" say nary word one about peace, but immediately want to start a fight. It's one negative comment after another negative comment. There is no love in any of the words they say, only anger mixed with hatred. They seek to prove us wrong, yet they do nothing or extremely little to give evidence that what they believe is right.

Is this type of anti-Mormons more like Christ or more like the Pharisees that Christ accused of being "like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men

[urroner]

I don't agree that I said that. I certainly don't believe that. I can't recall having ever believed that.

If I were you, I would do a CFR on Rob to point out specifically where you said that. He just might read your book for the first time then, but then again......

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I had written: "Dan actually claimed in the Introduction to his book that Isaiah had prophesied specifically about anti-Mormon rhetoric." You replied:

I don't agree that I said that. I certainly don't believe that. I can't recall having ever believed that.

I quoted it for you--and you left the quotation out of your two posts in reply (emphasis now added):

The somewhat cryptic title of this work

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

Ridiculous, since I had already given the quotation where he said it.

If I were you, I would do a CFR on Rob to point out specifically where you said that. He just might read your book for the first time then, but then again......

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

You wrote:

BTW, have you ever read the 1997 article by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" You might seriously consider doing it sometime. You might say you already have, but this time, read it seriously, because you are still using the tactics that they said aren't working too well these days.

Actually, I know Carl personally, and he would not agree with you.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

And Luke Wilson's gang pays you for research that poor? They should ask for their money back.

First, Luke passed away over three years ago. Second, your language is unjustifiably offensive and ad hominem. Third, your objection to my statement is vacuous. This is what you wrote:

Look, I realise you don't really know very much about LDS life and teaching; but the reality is that our missionaries go door to door inviting all to come unto Christ. The fact that the non-LDS Christians we encounter are not currently part of the true Church is a merely incidental detail. We don't lower ourselves to finding nitpicky little reasons to criticise the way they quote scriptures.

If your missionaries knock on a door and the people who answer are Baptists who have already come to faith in Christ, the missionaries do not rejoice with those believers and move on to find some people who haven't yet "come unto Christ." You surely know this. I do not consider your answer to be sincerely addressing the point I made.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I had written: "The question that remains unanswered is why Mormons don't care whether they are understanding Scripture accurately." You commented:

It's an insulting question, based upon an insulting and false presumption.

But Pahoran wrote:

You have worked yourself into a high state of indignation because some Latter-day Saints interpret a verse of scripture in a way that (perhaps) does not represent the original intent of the author. Well, woop-de-do; I can't imagine why it should matter to us.

And he isn't the only one to express such an attitude in this thread. So, just what was it that my question falsely presumed?

[Daniel Peterson]

Your response?

I tend to read Isaiah typologically -- and do so specifically with regard to this particular issue. Anti-Mormons behave pretty much the way opponents of the Gospel always have (and presumably always will).

Ah. I see. I am taking you too literally.

No. You're misreading me.

I had written: "The question that remains unanswered is why Mormons don't care whether they are understanding Scripture accurately." . . .

So, just what was it that my question falsely presumed?

It generalizes -- indeed, universalizes -- from your dubious presumption that a few Mormons have misused a rather minor scriptural passage regarding a peripheral and non-doctrinal subject, and from the fact that a few here have found your claim both debatable and trivial, to the proposition that Mormons in general don't care to properly understand scripture in general.

"All Indians walk in single file lines. At least, the fellow I saw (whom I assume to be an Indian) did."

[David Bokovoy]

The expression

[TAO]

Am I the only one who has picked up on the irony here?

I see said the blind man... to his deaf wife while the crippled children played with the dead dog.

.

Nah, you weren't the only one who notice that... it's just whenever I am about to say 'I see', I must include the entire 'I see' thing

[Stargazer]

Lets see, what are the words that come to mind... oh yeah, I remember...

Amateurish and Meritless....

ELF1024,

Thank you for your penetrating insights.

Well, I will not echo ELF on this, because I would like to witness to whom it may concern that Rob Bowman has in my opinion been battling valiantly and with commendable passion for his point, and deserves more than a cheapshot evaluation of his efforts (sorry ELF1024 that wasn't nice or even accurate). That being said, I must tell you all that Rob's arguments have not proven pursuasive for me, and I have to give Lehi the superior mark in this discussion. I don't think either of you is going to be able to top what you've already posted, so I will now desert the thread and go to bed.

Rob, I've seen you make better arguments, sometimes quite pursuasively, but your premise here was weak to begin with. I must say, however, for all that so many respondents (including me) felt that the whole matter was incredibly unimportant, much heat (and quite a bit of light) was nevertheless generated!

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I tend to read Isaiah typologically -- and do so specifically with regard to this particular issue.

I remind you, again, that in the Introduction to your book you used the word predictions.

Regarding my understanding of your statement in that Introduction, you had previously commented (all emphasis added):

You're being overliteral.

So I replied:

"Ah. I see. I am taking you too literally."

You now say:

No. You're misreading me.

No comment should be necessary here.

I had written: "The question that remains unanswered is why Mormons don't care whether they are understanding Scripture accurately." You found that statement offensive and claimed it was based on "false presumption." The word presumption in this context means that my statement was made without evidence. But as I pointed out, Pahoran and several other Mormons in this thread have stated quite clearly that they don't care whether they are understanding Isaiah 29:21 correctly. So now you say this about my statement:

It generalizes -- indeed, universalizes -- from your dubious presumption that a few Mormons have misused a rather minor scriptural passage regarding a peripheral and non-doctrinal subject, and from the fact that a few here have found your claim both debatable and trivial, to the proposition that Mormons in general don't care to properly understand scripture in general. "All Indians walk in single file lines. At least, the fellow I saw (whom I assume to be an Indian) did."

Find a Mormon who demonstrates that he or she cares what Isaiah 29:21 means and I'll acknowledge that my statement was a generalization that doesn't apply to all Mormons (which I never thought it did in the first place).

[Rob Bowman]

To all,

I think my point, for whatever it is worth, has been made, and there seems to be a general consensus among the LDS respondents here that it isn't worth much. Lest anyone mistakenly think I put a lot of weight on this one point, I will try to move on to other issues. In fact, I will start a new thread on a topic that I think is extremely important. I'm sure some of you will slough it off as well, but we'll see.

[Daniel Peterson]

I remind you, again, that in the Introduction to your book you used the word predictions.

You're right. I did.

Na und?

This works against me in what way, exactly?

You now say:

Yup. The more I've read what you've written here, the more I think you just don't know what you're talking about. Sorry.

Find a Mormon who demonstrates that he or she cares what Isaiah 29:21 means and I'll acknowledge that my statement was a generalization that doesn't apply to all Mormons (which I never thought it did in the first place).

I'll take you at your word about what you meant . . . despite the fact that, while you might perhaps be able to argue that what I wrote was ambiguous, what you wrote seems to be utterly clear.

I note with interest your refusal to allow me the same elementary courtesy.

This is a trivial non-issue, anyway. Why are you pursuing it? It doesn't do you any credit.

But here's a little maieutic device. If you permit it to work its magic, it might help you to grasp the fact that you don't understand the point of the title of Offenders for a Word: Please identify the word or words on the basis of which Latter-day Saints are being criticized. Who utters that word or those words?

Here's a pair of helpful hints for your little thought exercise:

The following modern translations bring out the sense rather clearly:

• [*]

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

You're right. I did.

Na und?

This works against me in what way, exactly?

Prediction and typology are two different phenomena.

You wrote:

Yup. The more I've read what you've written here, the more I think you just don't know what you're talking about. Sorry.

Since you choose to avoid addressing the obvious contradiction in which you entangled yourself (by affirming and denying that I took you too literally), I'll just drop it and move on.

You wrote:

I'll take you at your word about what you meant . . . despite the fact that, while you might perhaps be able to argue that what I wrote was ambiguous, what you wrote seems to be utterly clear.

I note with interest your refusal to allow me the same elementary courtesy.

Not at all. I have already acknowledged that my statement was a generalization, and I expressed willingness to acknowledge that it does not apply universally if you can produce an exception. So I agreed to be accountable for what I wrote and to acknowledge that it was an unfair generalization if real exceptions can be produced. I hold you to the same standard.

You wrote:

This is a trivial non-issue, anyway. Why are you pursuing it? It doesn't do you any credit.

I've already announced that I wish to move on to bigger issues. Perhaps you'd like to engage the argument I just posted concerning the dependence of Mosiah 14 on the KJV.

[Bernard Gui]

Please identify the word or words on the basis of which Latter-day Saints are being criticized. Who utters that word or those words?

According to the book, Fundamentalist Protestant critics unfairly use their definitions of the word "Christian" to condemn the LDS Church.

They also use the word "cult" to unjustly deprive the LDS of a fair hearing.

Is this not in accord with the meaning of Isaiah 29:21?

Bernard

[Daniel Peterson]

Prediction and typology are two different phenomena.

Not the way I'm using the terms.

As I say, anti-Mormons in all generations follow pretty much the same pattern (with variations).

Since you choose to avoid addressing the obvious contradiction in which you entangled yourself (by affirming and denying that I took you too literally), I'll just drop it and move on.

I addressed it. I said that, upon further familiarizing myself with what you've been saying on this thread, I revised my opinion of it downward.

Not at all. I have already acknowledged that my statement was a generalization, and I expressed willingness to acknowledge that it does not apply universally if you can produce an exception.

Your generalization, as written, extends beyond this thread.

That's why it's so insulting.

So I agreed to be accountable for what I wrote and to acknowledge that it was an unfair generalization if real exceptions can be produced. I hold you to the same standard.

Not quite. You hold me accountable for your misunderstanding of what I wrote.

I've already announced that I wish to move on to bigger issues. Perhaps you'd like to engage the argument I just posted concerning the dependence of Mosiah 14 on the KJV.

Already have.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

Not the way I'm using the terms.

This reminds me of the following exchange between Humpty-Dumpty and Alice:

'...There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

You wrote:

Your generalization, as written, extends beyond this thread. That's why it's so insulting.

All right. I apologize for the generalization. I hereby revise my statement: Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of the Bible is accurate.

[Daniel Peterson]

This reminds me of the following exchange between Humpty-Dumpty and Alice:

Which you probably borrowed from your extensive study of the first three pages of Offenders for a Word.

If you read the rest of the book with comparable attentiveness, you might begin to understand its thesis more accurately.

I hereby revise my statement: Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of the Bible is accurate.

Still insulting, and still far in excess of the evidence.

Which -- I hadn't paid any attention to you for a long time -- seems pretty much par for at least your recent course.

Professional criticism of other peoples' religious beliefs is, I suspect, bad for one's character.

[ELF1024]

All right. I apologize for the generalization. I hereby revise my statement: Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of the Bible is accurate.

Wow, that's quite a Non-Apologetic Apology.

A better and more accurate statement: "Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of the Bible jives with the likes of Rob Bowman."

[Daniel Peterson]

Even more precise: "Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of one particular rather peripheral verse in Isaiah jives with that of the likes of Rob Bowman."

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

Even more precise: "Most of the Mormons who have participated in this thread don't care whether their understanding of one particular rather peripheral verse in Isaiah jives with that of the likes of Rob Bowman."

You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but this isn't a fair representation of the facts. In response to my opening post, the chorus of Mormon responses were not attempts to show that Isaiah 29:21 means something other than what I (and most modern scholars) claim. Their response was to assert that it doesn't matter what Isaiah meant.

[Daniel Peterson]

You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but this isn't a fair representation of the facts. In response to my opening post, the chorus of Mormon responses were not attempts to show that Isaiah 29:21 means something other than what I (and most modern scholars) claim. Their response was to assert that it doesn't matter what Isaiah meant.

And, from that, you announced that Mormons don't care what scripture really means, and then, when challenged, that most Mormons here don't care what scripture really means.

You continue to generalize, in an insulting way, far beyond your evidence. And then, for my pointing it out, to accuse me of sticking my head in the sand.

What a charmer.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

And, from that, you announced that Mormons don't care what scripture really means, and then, when challenged, that most Mormons here don't care what scripture really means.

You continue to generalize, in an insulting way, far beyond your evidence. And then, for my pointing it out, to accuse me of sticking my head in the sand.

What a charmer.

My amended statement is easily documented from the LDS posts in this thread and in no sense goes beyond the evidence. Lehi, Pahoran, Stargazer, and Volgadon all expressed such a point of view, and no one contradicted them. But if you can find a few Mormons in this thread who agree that it does matter what Isaiah 29:21 originally meant, I will retract the whole statement.

[ELF1024]

My amended statement is easily documented from the LDS posts in this thread and in no sense goes beyond the evidence. Lehi, Pahoran, Stargazer, and Volgadon all expressed such a point of view, and no one contradicted them. But if you can find a few Mormons in this thread who agree that it does matter what Isaiah 29:21 originally meant, I will retract the whole statement.

Whatever, your knickers are in a twist because you went to all the effort to come up with some "brilliant" esoteric argument about Isaiah 29:21 and nearly all of us on the board were unimpressed to point of going... "Yeah? And?"

And since that point you have been unable to make a case as to why we should change our minds as to our inital reaction. You found it to be something "earth shattering" and most of us are still trying to stop yawning.