Fair Journal - May 2012

[Rob Bowman]

Wiki Wonka,

You wrote:

FAIR does respond to specific claims that Walter Martin makes in "The Kingdom of the Cults," but it appears that the response makes no mention of his degree or lack thereof. (If someone found that it did, I would remove it as being irrelevant).... I personally don't care if he had a degree or not - I am really only interested in responding to his critical claims about the LDS Church. The validity of those claims has nothing to do with Martin's degree status.

Here's a good example from FAIR's website of an article repeatedly making an issue out of Martin's doctorate in ways irrelevant to "his critical claims about the LDS Church":

“Doctor” Walter Martin, a long-time gainsayer of the LDS Church….

“Dr.” Walter Martin’s expectations of the Book of Mormon are unjustified….

“Dr.” Martin is referring to Joseph Smith’s claim that….

For reasons he leaves unexplained, “Dr.” Martin apparently thinks….

Considering that Martin claimed to have four advanced degrees in religion, his lack of understanding of rudimentary Hebrew is surprising….

Regarding the legitimacy of “Doctor” Martin’s degrees, see Robert L. Brown and Rosemary Brown….

Michael Parker, “The Book of Mormon and the Fulness of the Gospel”

See also the following:

"Dr." Walter Martin

“Specific Works/Mormon Enigma”

The Kingdom of the Cults, by “Dr.” Walter Martin

A FAIR Analysis of The Kingdom of the Cults by “Dr.” Walter Martin

“FAIR Reviews”

Note the entirely pointless use of the quotation marks except as a personal dig.

[mfbukowski]

I am trying to be more charitable toward Rob, but seriously I have never seen anywhere in a philosophy department a serious discussion of the definition of the kinds of "logical fallacies" he is arguing about here

Even teaching "logical fallacies" is usually restricted to "critical thinking" classes taught to freshmen in humanities classes. Symbolic logic doesn't concern itself with such things

I would like to see one example of such a class being taught even on upper division level for philosophy majors in a major university. I maintain such classes don't exist.

Why? Because it is not a serious subject. It is something you teach kids to help them understand that sometimes people try to "hoodwink" you into believing something wrong.

And of course I have never ever seen a serious scholarly discussion arguing such nonsense, attempting to hone the definitions of common "logical fallacies". It just doesn't happen.

[mfbukowski]

Rob, straight up?

Compared to what we have to put up with, your complaints just look like you're being a cry baby.

I'm just saying what everyone else here is thinking.

How about a major hit Broadway play making fun of fundamentalistic interpretations of the Bible? Songs about how stupid you are for not believing in evolution or a world wide flood?

You could do Genesis in six minutes instead of six days.

Maybe a cute little number and dance routine staged in the belly of a Whale? How about a few talking and singing donkeys?

And maybe three guys in a big suit all squished into one to represent the trinity?

Ha ha- funniest thing in years!!

Wouldn't that be fun??

(Seriously- someone should write something up and submit it to the New York Times tongue in cheek just so they can see how politically incorrect THAT would be!)

Edited June 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

Rob, straight up?

Compared to what we have to put up with, your complaints just look like you're being a cry baby.

I'm just saying what everyone else here is thinking.

It's quite possible you don't speak for everyone's thoughts.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Gervin

[Bob Crockett]

Note the entirely pointless use of the quotation marks except as a personal dig.

I agree that the constant attacks on his credentials are tedious, as they have been upon James White's.

But if you rely upon your credentials to bolster your argument, those attacks are fair.

If somebody said he was an LDS bishop as a means to bolster his anonymous posts here, I say that such assertions are fair game for criticism.

[Wiki Wonka]

Wiki Wonka,

You wrote:

Here's a good example from FAIR's website of an article repeatedly making an issue out of Martin's doctorate in ways irrelevant to "his critical claims about the LDS Church":

See Note the entirely pointless use of the quotation marks except as a personal dig.

I agree that pointing out the ambiguity of Martin's degree (i.e. the use of the term "Dr.") has nothing to do with the responses to his claims. In the review section itself, the authors are listed on all sub-pages as "Walter Martin, Hank Hanegraaf (editor)." However, in the top level summary article, the term "Dr." was used. I have now edited that top level description to read as follows in order to make it consistent with the sub-articles:

The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin, Hank Hanegraaff (editor) (Link)

• Index of claims—A claim-by-claim examination of the chapter dealing with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Link)
  

If you spot any other instances such as this, I'll be happy to change them.

WW

[Rob Bowman]

Wiki Wonka,

Thanks for the feedback. I applaud your willingness to make such a reasonable correction.

The Parker article is in my opinion the worst example, but I'm not pushing you to eliminate all such ad hominem remarks. Allen's article asked for examples and I thought I would oblige. As the editor of our organization's website, I understand that judgment calls must be made, that decisions about such matters cannot always be made unilaterally, and that you can't please all the people all the time.

Thanks again.

[Rob Bowman]

One other point I'd like to make is that very few evangelicals known for their work critiquing the claims and teachings of the LDS Church can in any way be characterized as overstating their credentials. Those who are not scholars are, generally speaking, very humble, unassuming men and women who are quick to deny being scholars. It is really unfair to them to broadbrush them with guilt-by-association arguments suggesting they are similar in this matter to someone who has been dead for nearly a quarter of a century. Meanwhile, there are genuine, bona fide evangelical scholars who have written on LDS topics; it is also unfair to try to discredit them by bringing up the failings of someone else who isn't even around any more.

[Vance]

. . . it is also unfair to try to discredit them by bringing up the failings of someone else who isn't even around any more.

But that doesn't apply to Mormons tho, right?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

But that doesn't apply to Mormons tho, right?

Care to be specific?

[Vance]

Care to be specific?

Oh, so you haven't read the standard anti-Joseph Smith screed produced by your "friendly" neighborhood anti-Mormon?

Even your own anti-Mormon web site is promoting accusations without proof and JS has been dead a lot longer than any of your dead anti-Mormons friends.

But it is standard procedure for anti-Mormons to use a separate standard for Mormons and things Mormon than the ones they insist upon for themselves and things of their own.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

It's really gratifying to see that your "specific" example is just what I thought it would be, a completely irrelevant comparison that provides such a nice teachable moment. I had written:

"Meanwhile, there are genuine, bona fide evangelical scholars who have written on LDS topics; it is also unfair to try to discredit them by bringing up the failings of someone else who isn't even around any more."

You quoted only the second part of the sentence as follows:

. . . it is also unfair to try to discredit them by bringing up the failings of someone else who isn't even around any more.

The reason for omitting the first part of the sentence was obvious, but I gave you an opportunity to show otherwise. So I asked you to be specific. You replied:

Oh, so you haven't read the standard anti-Joseph Smith screed produced by your "friendly" neighborhood anti-Mormon?

Even your own anti-Mormon web site is promoting accusations without proof and JS has been dead a lot longer than any of your dead anti-Mormons friends.

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God. In that capacity, the evidence shows that he produced fraudulent scriptural texts (most obviously the Book of Abraham), asserted that God had told him to marry other men's wives and a large number of other women and yet lied about practicing plural marriage, announced as revelation the "word of wisdom" that he himself clearly didn't take seriously, and made false predictions in the name of the Lord recorded in LDS scripture. These conclusions are either true or false, but one thing is certain: they are entirely relevant to Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet of God. Since this claim is the cornerstone of the LDS religion today, addressing these issues is absolutely relevant and appropriate in discussing the authenticity of the LDS Church's claim to be the only true and living church on the earth today.

Now, you claim that IRR's website makes such accusations "without proof." If you want to discuss the factual evidence presented on our site and dispute the cogency of the arguments presented for our conclusions, have at it. But it is downright silly to suggest that these issues concerning Joseph Smith are irrelevant to the truth claims of Mormonism, or to suggest that such criticisms of Joseph Smith are ad hominem fallacies comparable to attacking the credentials of a long-dead critic whose claims for himself were then and still are irrelevant to the question of whether Mormonism is true or false.

[Vance]

It's really gratifying to see that your "specific" example is just what I thought it would be, a completely irrelevant comparison that provides such a nice teachable moment.

If only you had something worth listening to.

I quoted the second part to expose the double standards you use.

And you didn't disappoint in showing that you do indeed use a double standard.

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God. In that capacity, the evidence shows that he produced fraudulent scriptural texts (most obviously the Book of Abraham),

You are not in a position to give anything more than your opinion in this regard. You have no authority from God to make any such declarations for Him.

. . . asserted that God had told him to marry other men's wives and a large number of other women and yet lied about practicing plural marriage,

Nice misrepresentation of the doctrine and the events surrounding it.

. . . announced as revelation the "word of wisdom" that he himself clearly didn't take seriously,

So, something that was non-binding at the time is going to be the standard with which you are going to measure a better man than you, got it.

. . . and made false predictions in the name of the Lord recorded in LDS scripture.

You mean those verses that you claim mean something they don't say cause you a problem? Too bad for you.

These conclusions are either true or false,

They are false conclusions based on your distortion of the facts. Nothing new about you distorting the facts.

Now, you claim that IRR's website makes such accusations "without proof."

Yup! There is no proof that JS engaged in sexual activity with ANYONE other than Emma. But this FACT means nothing to your defamation of a man long dead.

So, take your whining about the treatment of dead anti-Mormons and add to it a tantrum and cry yourself to sleep.

If you want to discuss the factual evidence presented on our site . . .

IF I could find any "factual evidence" there worth more than spit, it might be interesting to discuss. But since there isn't any, why bother?

and dispute the cogency of the arguments presented for our conclusions, have at it.

It is the same old dry drivel produced by same old dry anti-Mormons. Distorted, misrepresented, exaggerated, hyperBULL.

But it is downright silly to suggest that these issues concerning Joseph Smith are irrelevant to the truth claims of Mormonism, or to suggest that such criticisms of Joseph Smith are ad hominem fallacies comparable to attacking the credentials of a long-dead critic whose claims for himself were then and still are irrelevant to the question of whether Mormonism is true or false.

LOL!!! Only to a silly anti-Mormon such as yourself.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I quoted the second part to expose the double standards you use.

I am serious, I am not sure what you are talking about here.

[Vance]

I am serious, I am not sure what you are talking about here.

Bowman complains when someone accurately represents the accomplishments of dead anti-Mormons because they are dead.

He, (not able to use the same standard), distorts the facts about dead Mormons (JS specifically) well after his death.

Nice double standard he uses there.

Also, he claim that JS's (anti-Mormon manufactured) character defects reflects up JS's work, but the dishonesty/deception of his anti-Mormon cohorts don't reflect upon their work.

Nice double standard he uses there.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

I have always found these words of Martin Luther, the man who started the "Reformation" fascinating:

God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. . . . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner." (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, "Luther's Works," American Ed., Vol 48. p. 281- 282)

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

http://www.scrollpub...Sin-Boldly.html

After all, "Christians" are not perfect, just forgiven.

Killing or adultery thousands of times a day is acceptable?

Now THERE is a true man of God if I have ever seen one. For some reason though, it doesn't sound much like what Jesus said.

Edited June 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Most of your response to me is not worth any comment. But let me see if I can extract some specific assertions to address.

I quoted the second part to expose the double standards you use.

The question was not why you quoted the second part. The question was why you excised the first part of the sentence. Vance, we all know why.

Regarding my opinion of Joseph Smith, you wrote:

You are not in a position to give anything more than your opinion in this regard. You have no authority from God to make any such declarations for Him.

Actually, I do. I have God's word in Scripture (real Scripture). God says to watch out for false prophets and false teachers and tells believers, especially those who are themselves teachers, to warn others about them (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22; Jer. 14:13-18; 23:9-37; Micah 3:5-6; Mal. 3:18; Matt. 7:15-23; 24:11, 24; Acts 20:28-31; Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11-13; Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Peter 2:1; 3:15-17; Titus 3:10-11; 1 John 4:1-6). I am simply acting on God's instructions through his real inspired apostles and prophets in what is genuine Scripture.

But even if (as of course is your "opinion") I have no authorization from God for identifying someone as a false prophet, I certainly have a right to my opinion, and a right to express my opinion and to give my reasons for it.

You wrote:

Yup! There is no proof that JS engaged in sexual activity with ANYONE other than Emma. But this FACT means nothing to your defamation of a man long dead.

I actually don't care whether Joseph engaged in sexual activity with any of his plural wives. My claim is that Joseph took a large number of women, including other men's wives, as his own wives, and that he lied about it. These FACTS apparently mean nothing to you. What he did with the women behind closed doors is absolutely of no interest to me. And your "defense" comes back and bites you when we move on to Joseph's successor, Brigham Young, whom everyone acknowledges fathered children by many though not most of his wives (the usual count is that he had 55 wives and fathered children by 16 of them).

You wrote:

So, take your whining about the treatment of dead anti-Mormons and add to it a tantrum and cry yourself to sleep.... IF I could find any "factual evidence" there worth more than spit, it might be interesting to discuss.... It is the same old dry drivel produced by same old dry anti-Mormons. Distorted, misrepresented, exaggerated, hyperBULL.

I frankly find it astonishing that the moderators continue to allow you to participate here, given the forum's stated rules. Perhaps you are the comic relief.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

One word...hyperbole.

[Vance]

Vance, we all know why.

Yes, we do. It had nothing to do with my intent to expose your double standard.

Actually, I do.

Actually you don't.

I have God's word in Scripture (real Scripture).

So does everyone else here. So what?

God says to watch out for false prophets

Yes, he does. And it is a useless warning if there were not going to be true prophets around.

. . . and false teachers . . .

Yes, such as yourself, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Walter Martin and a host of other teachers of the false notion that authority can come from merely reading the scriptures.

especially those who are themselves teachers,

Yes, like those I mentioned above.

to warn others about them (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22; Jer. 14:13-18; 23:9-37; Micah 3:5-6; Mal. 3:18; Matt. 7:15-23; 24:11, 24; Acts 20:28-31; Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11-13; Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Peter 2:1; 3:15-17; Titus 3:10-11; 1 John 4:1-6).

Yes, yes, and even the Devil quotes scripture. So what?

I am simply acting on God's instructions through his real inspired apostles and prophets in what is genuine Scripture.

You are simply taking an honor unto yourself. It isn't divinely given to you any more than it is given to ANY OTHER reader of the scriptures. Nothing more.

But even if (as of course is your "opinion") I have no authorization from God for identifying someone as a false prophet, I certainly have a right to my opinion, and a right to express my opinion and to give my reasons for it.

You do have a right to your opinion. And that is all it is, your opinion.

Even your false doctrine of "sola scriptura" denies you authority. No where in scripture are you, Rob Bowman (nor any group to which you belong), given authority. It isn't in there, so for you to claim it is, is a violation of your own false doctrine. How delicious.

I actually don't care whether Joseph engaged in sexual activity with any of his plural wives. My claim is that Joseph took a large number of women, including other men's wives, as his own wives, and that he lied about it.

So, these unconsummated "sealings" are a problem for you. So what?

And when Biblical prophets lied, that doesn't cause you any problems though, right?

More of the Bowman double standard exposed for all to see.

These FACTS apparently mean nothing to you.

You are projecting again.

What he did with the women behind closed doors is absolutely of no interest to me.

Right, that is why you make a big deal about it (and falsely so) on your web site. And that is why you couldn't resist bringing it up here.

Me thinks thou doest protest too much.

And your "defense" comes back and bites you when we move on to Joseph's successor, Brigham Young, whom everyone acknowledges fathered children by many though not most of his wives (the usual count is that he had 55 wives and fathered children by 16 of them).

And he was married to every one of those women and they to him. And he provide for them all.

We all know that polygamy was sanctioned by God in the Bible. Even some of our non-LDS fellow Christians recognize this.

http://www.christianpolygamy.com/

and,

http://www.christianpoly.org/

and,

http://www.truthbearer.org/

and,

http://www.lovenotforce.com/

Even you know that Martin Luther was willing to justify polygamy.

I frankly find it astonishing that the moderators continue to allow you to participate here, given the forum's stated rules.

We both know I am not violating the rules, for if I did so you would waste no time in whining and crying to the Mods.

Perhaps you are the comic relief.

Projecting again.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

I have always found these words of Martin Luther, the man who started the "Reformation" fascinating:

http://www.scrollpub...Sin-Boldly.html

After all, "Christians" are not perfect, just forgiven.

Killing or adultery thousands of times a day is acceptable?

Now THERE is a true man of God if I have ever seen one. For some reason though, it doesn't sound much like what Jesus said.

And let us not forget what a gem John Calvin was.

Michael Servetus anyone?

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

Edited June 20, 2012 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

One word...hyperbole.

Please show me one place in the Bible where Jesus - no one else- encourages us to sin- even just a little bit, if indeed this is just "hyperbole" and not doctrine antithetical to the true doctrine preached by Christ.

Funny. All I can recall is "Go and sin no more".

Yes, we are all sinners, but the point is that even should I grant that Joseph was a sinner- and he was- that makes no difference whatsoever about his role as a prophet.

Moses was a sinner. Isaiah was a sinner, Paul was a sinner, Matthew Mark Luke and John were sinners. Peter was a sinner. How many do I have to mention to make the point?

EVERY prophet was a sinner. Because every prophet was a HUMAN BEING.

Your point?

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You are doing precisely what you would condemn if done to Ezra Taft Benson or any other LDS leader: you are ignoring the entire body of Martin Luther's writings and construing one statement in the worst possible way. Your claim that Luther was seriously advocating that people deliberately go around committing sin is historical nonsense, as any church historian could tell you. Luther's point is obvious: those who would be genuinely forgiven of the sins must be forthright and even bold in acknowledging their real sins, not feigning repentance by confessing peccadilloes or making vague, safe admissions. Luther definitely taught that Christians should do good works, not that they should intentionally commit sin.

For example, in the Smalcald Articles, an early confession that Martin Luther composed in 1537, we read the following: "And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works.... We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true."

Such statements could be multiplied from Luther's works. This has now been explained to you. If you persist in this misrepresentation, you will simply be bearing false witness.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Since you danced around my complaint about your deliberate misrepresentation of what I said and refused to address the point squarely, this exchange between us is over.

[Vance]

Bowman,

Since you danced around my complaint and refused to address the point squarely, this exchange just goes to show that you are very comfortable with the hypocritical use of double standards in your attack of Mormons and Mormonism.

Color me unsurprised.

[Vance]

. . . you are ignoring the entire body of Martin Luther's writings and construing one statement in the worst possible way.

Physician, heal thy self.

That is EXACTLY what you do as a standard method.

Just another example of a double standard.