Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[CASteinman]

I agree that the Lord uttered very harsh rebukes when necessary however let's look at the target of those words. He never decried others as heretics.

Unless you want to split hairs, I do not think the record agrees with you on this. The word "hypocrite" that he used is Greek and there is no exact counterpart in Aramaic that he actually spoke, but what scholars believe is that the word that he would have originally used meant something like "reprobate" or "evil doer". He's pretty much condemning them.

He treated those outside the tribe with dignity and compassion.

We do not know how He treated them all. We have very limited accounts of that. We do not have any accounts of Him facing someone outside the tribe who was not open to His message. All of the accounts we have are of individuals who believed or were inclined to believe and in any case, they were not represented as hostile to Him or His message nor where they attempting to impede his Holy Work.

Nevertheless, you bring up an interesting point: The record we have shows him to be rather harsh, even vicious, to those who are (or were) part of the true faith and either opposed His Work or were in some way departed from that Truth and Faith and in that departing, sought to injure others (although they would object to this description, no doubt).

The Savior's rebukes were for those who ought to have known better

Like former Mormons who have now decided to attack the adherents of their abandoned faith or like so-called Christians who insist on injuring the faith of members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I think Jesus was right to revile these wicked people -- and I think his valiant followers today are also right when they do that toward those who would injure the little lambs. They are ravening wolves seeking the blood of the Saints.

To imply that verbal bombs lobbed on this board are even remotely similar to His knowledgeable, inspired, and measured rebukes is, in my opinion, folly.

I am not really aware of these "Verbal Bombs" on this board (too new I suppose). However, it is possible that you have an opinion different from mine. So who is right and how is this decided?

It's easy to attack individuals. It's easy to call names, make inferences, but those acts are impotent.

And yet, Jesus did just that. Will you correct Him?

On this board alone I've been pejoratively named a "wide eyed ingenue" and a "progressive", and my loyalty to the church has been called into question. Hardly violent in the defense of their faith, these impotent shadow boxers don't even bruise.

So, such things are not a big deal after all? On that, I would disagree. I think words have great power. I suspect there has been some hurt in the things you have read about yourself if it is as you described.

FYI -- so far I like your posts, though I do not think we agree. I also like your avatar.

[Daniel Peterson]

"Significant players in Mormonism" would also include serious academic scholars respected by the academic community, including such individuals as Hardy, Givens, Bushman, and Walker (just to name a few), all of whom have expressed publicly a desire to see less BYU style apologetics and more serious academic rigor in Mormon studies.

All of them are free to contribute -- and Hardy, Givens, and Bushman at least (are you talking about Ron Walker?) have contributed -- to publications of the Maxwell Institute and participated in seminars/symposia sponsored by the Maxwell Institute. Givens and Bushman, in particular, have led several significant summer symposia under the auspices, with the sponsorship, and, several times, on the very premises of the Maxwell Institute. This will be true this summer, too. In fact, we'll be providing office space in our building.

To the extent that there is a "BYU style" in these matters, by which I assume you intend to say a "Maxwell Institute style," they've contributed substantially to creating it.

[CASteinman]

"Significant players in Mormonism" would also include serious academic scholars respected by the academic community, including such individuals as Hardy, Givens, Bushman, and Walker (just to name a few), all of whom have expressed publicly a desire to see less BYU style apologetics and more serious academic rigor in Mormon studies.

Can you provide some evidence that they object to "BYU Style Apologetics"?

[Cushan Rishathaim]

CFR for specific wording that identifies the problem as the "BYU style" or thereabouts.

Calmoriah, I'm afraid I was sucked further down into this type of exchange than I intended. I have no desire to present the evidence that would publicly embarrass BYU beyond what is common knowledge (for example the unfortunate Randy Bott affair). I would rather simply retract my statements and say I was wrong.

[Daniel Peterson]

Calmoriah, I'm afraid I was sucked further down into this type of exchange than I intended. I have no desire to present the evidence that would publicly embarrass BYU beyond what is common knowledge (for example the unfortunate Randy Bott affair). I would rather simply retract my statements and say I was wrong.

What does Randy Bott have to do with the Maxwell Institute?

[ttribe]

And yet, Jesus did just that. Will you correct Him?

When you are the actual Son of God and have access to the thoughts and desires of your targets, then you get the privilege of doing such a thing. Until then, I'd suggest, no such privilege.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

All of them are free to contribute -- and Hardy, Givens, and Bushman at least (are you talking about Ron Walker?) have contributed -- to publications of the Maxwell Institute and participated in seminars/symposia sponsored by the Maxwell Institute. Givens and Bushman, in particular, have led several significant summer symposia under the auspices, with the sponsorship, and, several times, on the very premises of the Maxwell Institute. This will be true this summer, too. In fact, we'll be providing office space in our building.

To the extent that there is a "BYU style" in these matters, by which I assume you intend to say a "Maxwell Institute style," they've contributed substantially to creating it.

I didn't mean to suggest that good academic work in religious studies hasn't come out of BYU. It has, and you've certainly been a part of it. I'm not trying to offend.

But do you think, for example, that a book like Rough Stone Rolling could have been written at BYU? Hopefully in the future, the answer will be yes.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

What does Randy Bott have to do with the Maxwell Institute?

Nothing to my knowledge. You would know better than I would. The comment you cited wasn't linking Bott directly with the Maxwell Institute, only BYU and its religious education/scholarship of which Bott was/is clearly a part.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Calmoriah, I'm afraid I was sucked further down into this type of exchange than I intended. I have no desire to present the evidence that would publicly embarrass BYU beyond what is common knowledge (for example the unfortunate Randy Bott affair). I would rather simply retract my statements and say I was wrong.

I think you are blowing smoke. All the people crying foul have seemed to not be able to come up with any real evidence for what is being talked about in this thread. I find the quite telling.

More well poising? Yup.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I think you are blowing smoke. All the people crying foul have seemed to not be able to come up with any real evidence for what is being talked about in this thread. I find the quite telling.

More well poising? Yup.

That's fine. I've already stated I was wrong, and have retracted my statements. I apologize for poising the well.

[CASteinman]

When you are the actual Son of God and have access to the thoughts and desires of your targets, then you get the privilege of doing such a thing. Until then, I'd suggest, no such privilege.

So you do not advocate that we should follow the example of our Lord and Savior.

I am not in agreement with such rebellion.

[ttribe]

So you do not advocate that we should follow the example of our Lord and Savior.

I am not in agreement with such rebellion.

You have got to be kidding me.

What I don't advocate is overstepping my bounds.

[mercyngrace]

So, such things are not a big deal after all? On that, I would disagree. I think words have great power. I suspect there has been some hurt in the things you have read about yourself if it is as you described.

I'm not going to address your unique reading of the text because I doubt it will prove useful and it isn't pertinent to the thread but I will address this.

Yes. Being wounded in the house of your friends hurts.

At least it did. Now it is more likely to simply engender sorrow because I see it for what it is - pitiful.

[volgadon]

So you do not advocate that we should follow the example of our Lord and Savior.

I am not in agreement with such rebellion.

Not when it is a cloak for contention and personal nastiness. If that is rebellion, count me in.

[ttribe]

Not when it is a cloak for contention and personal nastiness. If that is rebellion, count me in.

+1

[CASteinman]

You have got to be kidding me.

What I don't advocate is overstepping my bounds.

No. Not kidding. I can see that you wish to set bounds for yourself and others -- bounds you will not overstep. But it's not quite fair to say that this is the only thing you don't advocate. You also castigated me for wanting to follow the Example of Christ - Everyone is different though and we have our agency in this regard. The world is full of people who do not feel that Christ is a good exemplar and you have your place! I am just not in agreement with you.

Shall we accept this difference of views?

[CASteinman]

Not when it is a cloak for contention and personal nastiness. If that is rebellion, count me in.

Per your request, I am willing to count you as a rebel against the standards set by Christ. Why do you want to be known that way?

[ttribe]

No. Not kidding. I can see that you wish to set bounds for yourself and others -- bounds you will not overstep. But it's not quite fair to say that this is the only thing you don't advocate. You also castigated me for wanting to follow the Example of Christ - Everyone is different though and we have our agency in this regard. The world is full of people who do not feel that Christ is a good exemplar and you have your place! I am just not in agreement with you.

Shall we accept this difference of views?

LOL! Where did I "severely" criticize you? http://www.merriam-w...onary/castigate I suggested there were limits that we don't cross. You don't agree? I don't much care, but nothing I said warranted your accusation of rebellion. If nothing else, this exchange exemplifies the VERY type of ham-fisted approach being decried by many of us for years now.

Edited May 11, 2012 by ttribe

[volgadon]

You also castigated me for wanting to follow the Example of Christ

There is a supposed form of imitatio Dei which really is little more than an attempt to justify poor behaviour. If I'm allowed to paraphrase, it takes aspects of Christ's life and teachings and twists them in order to cover one's sins, gratify pride and vain ambition, or excersize dominion over people in varying degrees of unrihteousness. In a word, pious bullying.

[CASteinman]

LOL! Where did I "severely" criticize you? http://www.merriam-w...onary/castigate

I said "castigate". Are you now trying to make me an offender for a word -- a word I did not even say? Do you want to debate the quality of "severity" in your words? Seems pointless. But here is where you did it:

When you are the actual Son of God and have access to the thoughts and desires of your targets, then you get the privilege of doing such a thing. Until then, I'd suggest, no such privilege.

Did I get it wrong? Were you not trying to put me in my place? What exactly was it you were seeking to do if not object to my position -- and by making it a matter of my personal qualities?

I suggested there were limits that we don't cross. You don't agree?

I agree you that you suggested it. And I agree that there are limits we do not cross. What I do not agree with, however, is that you get to legitimately set those for me.

nothing I said warranted your accusation of rebellion.

I am sorry that I offended you. It seems that following the example of Christ when faced with the wolves who seek to slay the flock is a good thing and that you don't want people to do that.

If nothing else, this exchange exemplifies the VERY type of ham-fisted approach being decried by many of us for years now.

Hmm.. why did you give up on that position in this exchange? What has changed?

[CASteinman]

There is a supposed form of imitatio Dei which really is little more than an attempt to justify poor behaviour. If I'm allowed to paraphrase, it takes aspects of Christ's life and teachings and twists them in order to cover one's sins, gratify pride and vain ambition, or excersize dominion over people in varying degrees of unrihteousness. In a word, pious bullying.

Well, I never advocated that. Maybe you misunderstood something I said.

[volgadon]

Per your request, I am willing to count you as a rebel against the standards set by Christ. Why do you want to be known that way?

Except in extremely rare situations, I'd much rather emulate the Christ who could have called fire from heaven upon a Samaritan town which had rejected Him, yet did not; the Christ who could have summoned myriads of angels to war on His enemies, yet healed the bleeding wound of his captor. Rarely is there a case in which a more compassionate answer would not have served better than a mean one, so why choose to be mean.

[volgadon]

I said "castigate". Are you now trying to make me an offender for a word -- a word I did not even say? Do you want to debate the quality of "severity" in your words? Seems pointless.

Castigation, by its very deifnition, isn't mild.

[volgadon]

Well, I never advocated that. Maybe you misunderstood something I said.

In essence, you claimed that Because the Saviour said means things, so could you. Indeed, refraining from saying mean things could even come across as rebellion against God.

[Log]

Except in extremely rare situations, I'd much rather emulate the Christ who could have called fire from heaven upon a Samaritan town which had rejected Him, yet did not; the Christ who could have summoned myriads of angels to war on His enemies, yet healed the bleeding wound of his captor.

Then let us pass by the sins of our brethren, throwing a cloak of charity over them, that we may be the Sons of God, and have that power you would like to not exercise.