Is This Pick On Rob Bowman Week? How Much Does Sincerity Count For In Regard Tocritics?

[sethpayne]

It has been interesting to read all of the threads this week regarding Rob Bowman and IRR. I must admit I've been a bit surprised at the animosity shown towards Rob.

In my view, Rob and IRR are certainly "anti-Mormon" but to me, not in the obnoxious or offensive way. Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Bill Schoebelen are the obnoxious and deceitful no-talent hacks. Their approach is so absurd and offensive it eventually becomes funny, and then just sad.

I find Rob's approach refreshing as it appears that Rob has a sincere concern for the salvation of Mormons. He views Mormon doctrine as incorrect and lays out his reasoning in the hopes of encouraging Mormons to question their doctrine and evaluate the very modern evangelical theology. Although certainly not analagous, is this approach fundamentally different from our own missionary efforts? Obviously, we do not explicitly condemn specific doctrines as IRR does but when we make the claim that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, the clear implication is that the modern theology of which biblical inerrancy is a component is incorrect. By espousing our own doctrines we encourage them to evaluate our doctrines in comparison to doctrines they may already hold dear.

Another thing I appreciate about Rob is that he is, or seems to be, fairly well read. Anyone who takes the time to learn Greek and Hebrew in an effort to better understand the scriptures gets a gold star in my book. I know LoaP took Rob to task the other day for not engaging certain texts etc .... a point I found valid. But this got me to thinking that Rob never claimed to be a professor of history/theology/language/Mormonism etc.... All Rob claims to be is a minister, a preacher. Is Rob's representation of the Book of Mormon doctrine of the Godhead truly representative of how modern Mormons interpret the text? No. Absolutely not. But Rob never claimed to be representing BoM doctrine *from a Mormon* perspective. Rather, he claims to represent the BoM doctrine from the perspective of an evangelical.

I have a lot of respect for a person who is so devoted to their sincere religious beliefs.

Am I way off base here? Have I just not read enough IRR material? Or, is Rob just a nice, sincere guy with genuine concern for Mormon souls?

What has your experience been with sincere and genuine critics? Are there critics which you openly appreciate or admire (even though we obviously disagree with their views)?

Mods -- maybe this thread is too personal. I'm more curious about the concept of sincere critics than I am with Rob, specifically. Rob is just well-known here and his evangelical views are quite illustrative.

Edited February 10, 2012 by sethpayne

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

You totally stole my idea for a thread. *wrath*

Peeps, y'all know I disagree with Rob on practically everything under the sun, but I gotta say, I far prefer his brand of disagreement than the usual anti-Mormon stuff I see, because his quite obviously arises from sincere concern.

Edit: As to the larger question, I agree with Hugh Nibley when he said that the Church needs more critics, because they keep us on our toes. A lot of times I see critics bringing up issues that members quite frankly haven't dealt with, and it forces us to think things through a little deeper. It's really frustrating to me to see some of their concerns - when they are legitimate - hand-waved away.

Out goal should be to examine the evidence and answer any questions we are posed, or just admit it if we can't. Questions about the Gospel are not dangerous, they're just questions - we simply don't know everything, and it's a fundamental tenet of the Restoration that we believe that God will yet reveal many great things that we don't have now. Since the Book of Mormon explicitly says that God remembereth the "heathen" and treats Jew and Gentile alike, and we are to accept truth wherever it comes from, there's no reason we can't learn from "outsiders". So let's be civil, fer cryin' out loud.

Edited February 10, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't mind Rob, and see little if any reason for animosity.

He thinks I'm wrong. That's fine. I return the favor.

And I agree that the Church can use better critics. (I even said so, or something to that effect, on the back cover of the 2002 Beckwith/Mosser/Owen book The New Mormon Challenge.) Heretofore, far too many of our critics have been . . . well, to be candid, some combination or other of dishonest and incompetent.

[sethpayne]

And I agree that the Church can use better critics. (I even said so, or something to that effect, on the back cover of the 2002 Beckwith/Mosser/Owen book The New Mormon Challenge.) Heretofore, far too many of our critics have been . . . well, to be candid, some combination or other of dishonest and incompetent.

Perhaps Fawn Brodie is the first critic to admire? Her work has a lot of problems to be sure -- not as severe as Hugh Nibley believed -- but problems nonetheless. Yet, she was the first critic of Mormonism to mostly avoid "yellow journalism" and also to consult, and stay true to, primary sources.

Her psychoanalysis is tiresome but she was the first (I can think of ...) to criticize Mormonism so explicitly from an academic perspective.

[Calm]

It has been interesting to read all of the threads this week regarding Rob Bowman and IRR. I must admit I've been a bit surprised at the animosity shown towards Rob.

Perhaps I have just lost track of the conversation not reading as many threads or posts the past couple of days, but if you are interpreting the number of threads focusing on IRR and Mr. Bowman, I was under the impression this was in response to his challenge on the topic of his Gospel Principles Study Guide.

[JDave]

Another thing I appreciate about Rob is that he is, or seems to be, fairly well read. ... Rather, he claims to represent the BoM doctrine from the perspective of an evangelical.

Am I way off base here? Have I just not read enough IRR material? Or, is Rob just a nice, sincere guy with genuine concern for Mormon souls?

I agree that Rob generally and consistently comes across as a nice guy. I know I let my frustration get the better of me more often than I should, especially since one of the main reasons that I decided to even post to this forum is that the general tone of discussion was one of respect. Whether you are off-base or not really doesn't matter. We shouldn't be setting our level of professionalism or decency based on the other individual.

Rob's challenge certainly hasn't been ignored, though I think he wanted some response more along the lines of "Yeah, you appeared to make a good effort." Certainly it must have taken quite a bit of effort to produce something that large, and so it has to be annoying to have people pick at little details and not notice the overall effort. As would be expected though, asking for the LDS response to an anti-LDS effort will inevitably lead to more attention to perceived faults than recognition of what was done right.

[Stargazer]

Except for this post, I have decided to assiduously avoid all threads which take Mr. Bowman to task. I disagree with him and IRR on so many levels I cannot count them all, but I think he gets beat up a lot more than he deserves. Maybe a few lashes from cooked spaghetti would be OK, but aside from being wrong generally about Mormonism, he's a mostly respectful critic, and he has my respect for that.

Another reason why I am going to avoid these threads is that I have watched him so completely miss the point of a number of lines of argumentation against his positions that I don't think it is very productive to try to argue with him. Sorry, Rob.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Stargazer

[Calm]

Except for this post, I have decided to assiduously avoid all threads which take Mr. Bowman to task. I disagree with him and IRR on so many levels I cannot count them all, but I think he gets beat up a lot more than he deserves.

The sheer number of responders can definitely inflate the negativity.

[sethpayne]

Rob,

For what it's worth, I think your presentation of Mormon doctrine would be enhanced by reading the work of sympathetic critics. I'm thinking of works like "Faithful History" or "An American Apocrypha." These works aren't perfect but will provide some level of objectivity. Most scholars agree, for example, that Joseph Smith's views on God changed over time. However, they seem to all recognize that Joseph's views on the nature of God were *very* different from the Protestant New England Theology descriptions of God. The mere fact that you have the holy spirit in human form speaking to Nephi and then an appearance of the pre-Mortal Jesus were (and are) incredibly radical description of God's nature. At best, the Book of Mormon contradicts itself on the nature of God.

We also have to remember that Joseph reported in his vision with Sidney Rigdon that he saw both God and Jesus (much like Stephen, I suppose) long before the 1838 FV account.

Also, this issue wasn't a big concern to the Mormons of the 1830's as they understood that Joseph received new information as time went along and his understanding changed. I do think the post-Joseph Church has made FAR too much about the first vision's "revelation" of God's true nature to 14( 15? , 16? ) JS but this isn't Joseph's fault. I think you may be attributing to Joseph claims that he himself never made about the formation of Mormon systematic theology .....

Had Joseph Smith lived another few years I'm sure Mormonism would be quite different, just as if he had died before 1840.

Seth

[Bernard Gui]

I shared similar feelings about Mr. Bowman...that is until he published the

temple ceremony on his website. In my view, that has reduced him to the level

of the Ed Deckers of anti-Mormonism. There is little that can be more offensive

than this to a Latter-day Saint. Sorry for your loss, Rob.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

It has been interesting to read all of the threads this week regarding Rob Bowman and IRR. I must admit I've been a bit surprised at the animosity shown towards Rob.

Mr. Bowman issued a direct challenge to me personally to find errors in his work.

I take my assumed duty as editor of the Mormon section of his website seriously.

It would be nice to get some sort of credit, monetary remuneration, mention in his bio,

whatever.

Bernard

[Storm Rider]

Does a critic become a good critic because (s)he is viewed as a good person? Is a good critic one that takes Book of Mormon verses out of an LDS context, reinterprets them by, and then presenting them as LDS thought? Are they good when they do quote mining and then present those as LDS teaching when they are not doctrine and are not taught by the LDS Church or believed to be doctrine?

To me an honest, good critic is one that disagrees with LDS doctrines as they are and explains why. They do not twist, remove from context, or anything else that I think is dishonest. It does not matter to me if the individual is well-read, speaks five languages, or anything else. For them to be good they absolutely must be honest. For example, compare the doctrine of the Godhead with the doctrine of the Trinity and why the Trinity as a stronger biblical case. Take any major doctrine and present the case versus the teachings of the LDS Church.

There is a huge difference between the critic who is ignorant and incompetent and the one who is learned. I find Rob to be more of the wolf in sheep's clothing variety of critic. He smiles, he studies and reads, and then he twists. I find it dishonest and less than acceptable for a disciple of Jesus Christ.

[zerinus]

Perhaps I have just lost track of the conversation not reading as many threads or posts the past couple of days, but if you are interpreting the number of threads focusing on IRR and Mr. Bowman, I was under the impression this was in response to his challenge on the topic of his Gospel Principles Study Guide.

He has challenged me (and others) many times to find errors in his anti-Mormon literature in IRR; but I have never been inclined to respond because every time I have tried to read them, I get the impression of someone whose heart is not in what he is writing, but is paid to do a job, and has a quota of words to fill in order to receive his next pay-check. It doesn't inspire me with the desire to want to respond to his challenge. He is not a genuine Mormon critic, and his heart is not in what he is writing. He is paid to do a job, and that is it. You can't be a genuine critic with that kind of approach.

You totally stole my idea for a thread. *wrath*

Peeps, y'all know I disagree with Rob on practically everything under the sun, but I gotta say, I far prefer his brand of disagreement than the usual anti-Mormon stuff I see, because his quite obviously arises from sincere concern.

I don't believe he is "sincere" in his concern at all. He has been paid to do a job, that is it. There is no excuse to bash him though. He does have a good intellect, and he can come up with interesting challenges occasionally, and I see that as a good thing.

[altersteve]

I agree with everything that was said in the first post.

[sethpayne]

I shared similar feelings about Mr. Bowman...that is until he published the

temple ceremony on his website. In my view, that has reduced him to the level

of the Ed Deckers of anti-Mormonism. There is little that can be more offensive

than this to a Latter-day Saint. Sorry for your loss, Rob.

Bernard

Bernard,

I would have to agree that publishing the temple ceremony is pushing the envelope and is something I strongly disagree with. However, I'm not sure this alone put's IRR in the Ed Decker column. I'll have to visit the IRR website again but IIRC, IRR doesn't mock the ceremony or misrepresent/distort the ceremony like Saint's Alive. This is a big difference IMO.

Rob -- as I'm sure you are aware, publishing the temple ceremony is very offensive to Mormons. If you wan't Mormons to take a serious look at your work, you really need to remove the contents. You are essentially putting up an impenetrable wall by posting the ceremony. By posting the ceremony you immediately put Mormons on the defensive (very very very much so). There are ways you can discuss your theological opposition to the temple without being offensive.

[Lightbearer]

I have a lot of respect for a person who is so devoted to their sincere religious beliefs.

Am I way off base here? Have I just not read enough IRR material? Or, is Rob just a nice, sincere guy with genuine concern for Mormon souls?

What has your experience been with sincere and genuine critics? Are there critics which you openly appreciate or admire (even though we obviously disagree with their views)?

Mods -- maybe this thread is too personal. I'm more curious about the concept of sincere critics than I am with Rob, specifically. Rob is just well-known here and his evangelical views are quite illustrative.

I am sure Mr. Bowman is sincere in his beliefs, so was Saul before his conversion. Being zealous does not mean one is right. A critic is still a critic even if he is smooth spoken and well read.

I usually try to avoid Mr. Bowman's threads, I recall a thread early on when he first came here and although I made what I considered an unanswerable response he just disreguarded it and twisted it as if his criticism was likewise unanswerable. After that I considered any discussion with him fruitless and a waste of time. I was not going to change his mind and he certainly was not going to change mine. Just arguing and contending is pointless and so I sometimes read the threads I rarely participate in them. I consider his tone rather smug and condesending so that he dismisses most rebuttals to his criticisms as beneath his response to them. Perhaps he is very sincere in his desire to destroy Mormonism, something he considers an evil and devil inspired destructive cult... I find it difficult to like or even dialogue with someone who seems to be a devout enemy of what I consider to be the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. During my Mission I met a man who reminds me very much of Mr. Bowman, he was very learned in Greek and Hebrew (or so he said) also he was smooth and sincere in his manner yet the things he accused the Church and it's leaders of were false and maddening, of that I am certain. I am not sure God wants us to argue with those who criticize the Church, rather ignore them, and perhaps pray for them. I think the time has arrived in which none of us can live on borrowed light and I am not sure that apologetic arguments are necessary or even desirable. I know it is tempting to argue but we must have faith in the Lord that He will reveal the truth of all things. Those who harden their hearts will be damned, those who will listen to the truth will have it revealed to them.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It has been interesting to read all of the threads this week regarding Rob Bowman and IRR. I must admit I've been a bit surprised at the animosity shown towards Rob.

In my view, Rob and IRR are certainly "anti-Mormon" but to me, not in the obnoxious or offensive way. Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Bill Schoebelen are the obnoxious and deceitful no-talent hacks. Their approach is so absurd and offensive it eventually becomes funny, and then just sad.

True...

Don't forget Theo1689 whom you featured on your blog.

[sethpayne]

True...

Don't forget Theo1689 whom you featured on your blog.

Good point, Pa Pa. But you have to admit there is a big difference between Theo and Rob. Theo outright lies, distorts, abuses, and berates Mormons and Mormonism. Perhaps I should have been more charitable regarding Theo, though. I wrote an "open letter" to Ed Decker on my blog too .... Perhaps I need to re-read the sermon on the mount and the book of John.

[Ares]

The volume of discussions comes from Mr. Bowmans direct challenge to board members to show what is in error at the IRR website. The moderation team asked people to list issues one at a time and not cause confusion with one general critique.

We will deal with reported "abuses" on a case by case basis. If you see posts that break board rules report them.

I encourage all participants to remind themselves of the board rules for engaging others in conversation and debate.

I remind everyone that participation on the MDDB is voluntary and no one is forced to give or take perceived abuses.