Falsifying Mormon History

 

A beloved and directly relevant Disney character

 

I’ve just now read an interesting item, by an aggressively hostile pseudonymous critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — for purposes of this blog entry, let’s call him/her ‘Abd al-Kadhib — in which s/he alleges that “regarding intellectual honesty, the LDS church is being intentionally deceptive.”  Believing Mormons who defend their faith, s/he suggests, are characterized by “failure to answer simple questions, deception/distortion used to hide the truth, and . . . failure to acknowledge the truth.”  “The only people set out to deceive,” s/he says, using a remarkably clever term of mockery formed (I point it out just so you don’t miss the subtle artistry of the invention) from combining the words Mormon and apologist, “are the Mopologists.”  ‘Abd al-Kadhib’s post directly follows one by another pseudonymous critic of Mormonism who describes himself or herself as “someone who is concerned with how the Church misrepresents its history.”

 

“All one needs to do in deciding Joseph Smith’s motives regarding polygamy,” writes ‘Abd al-Kadhib, “is to reference the letter he wrote to Sarah Ann Whitney’s parents. The only condition it was not safe for them to come, was if his wife Emma was there (stated twice). There were no other conditions, and he stated that he was lonely and wished to be with his child bride.”

 

Now, in that light, please read the very first few pages of this article, written by Dr. Gregory Smith, one of the participants in The Interpreter Foundation’s recent roundtable on early Mormon polygamy.  (Curiously, this first section of his essay is called “The First Page.)

 

It won’t take long, but I think you’ll find it amusing.

 

 

 

Print Friendly

  • Jon

    Actually, he wrote: “Regrading intellectual honestly, the LDS church is being intentionally deceptive in their artwork.”

    http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=746525#p746525

    • DanielPeterson

      That’s strictly true. (See above.) But the context of the overall discussion is, beyond dispute, the Church’s general “intentional deceit.” Feel free to go on that board, if you want, and ask whether the Church is only intentionally deceptive in its artwork but isn’t so anywhere else.

  • Markk

    Hi Daniel,

    The LDS church is founded on the premise that the Christian church was and is in apostasy, and has no authority to act in Gods name. It also teaches our creeds were/are an abomination to God. It has spent millions, if not billions, of dollars world wide to tell folks this .

    By your logic doesn’t this make the LDS church an “aggressively hostile …critic” of orthodox Christianity? How much money has “Abd al-Kadhib” spent telling folks the LDS church is deceiving, VS. the LDS church telling anyone that will listen that what I believe is an abomination to God.
    Something to think about Daniel?
    take care
    Mark

    • DanielPeterson

      Markk: “The LDS church is founded on the premise that the Christian church was and is in apostasy, and has no authority to act in Gods name.”

      Not quite. The LDS Church doesn’t believe that “the Christian church” is in apostasy. It believes that non-LDS Christian churches are in apostasy. That’s an important difference.

      Properly phrased, though, that’s one of the premises upon which Mormonism rests — but certainly not the only one or the most important one.

      Markk: “It also teaches our creeds were/are an abomination to God.”

      God seems to feel that way. Sorry, but I doubt that I can change his mind on that.

      But my church spends little if any time or effort emphasizing that particular point. It spends its time and its effort teaching its own positive message — that God lives, that he sent his Son to redeem us, that he’s actively involved in the world today, that he has sent modern prophets and apostles, and so forth.

      Markk: “It has spent millions, if not billions, of dollars world wide to tell folks this .”

      Indeed it has.

      Markk: “By your logic doesn’t this make the LDS church an ‘aggressively hostile …critic’ of orthodox Christianity?”

      Not. Not even close.

      Preaching our affirmative message, even if our message entails the fact that your version of Christianity is seriously wrong, is not a hostile act — and more than my saying that we should re-elect Senator X is a hostile act against you because you prefer Mr. Y.

      Markk: “How much money has ‘Abd al-Kadhib’ spent telling folks the LDS church is deceiving, VS. the LDS church telling anyone that will listen that what I believe is an abomination to God.”

      First of all, I don’t think the Lord’s Church has spent much money at all telling telling the world that your views are abominable. Second, I haven’t the slightest idea how much ‘Abd al-Kadhib may or may not have spent, and I don’t care. It’s not relevant. ‘Abd al-Kathib is aggressively hostile toward my beliefs, whereas my church is aggressively hostile toward nobody’s. Rather, it’s an enthusiastic advocate of its own.

      Markk: “Something to think about Daniel?”

      No, not really.

      • Markk

        Hi Daniel,

        Has the Missionary lessons changed so much that they do not teach the Christian Creeds are an abomination before God and they have no authority to act in Gods name, and that the LDS church is the only true church? Typically do investigators just say “okay” when a missionary teaches this, or is it expounded on?

        “Preaching our affirmative message, even if our message entails the fact that your version of Christianity is seriously wrong, is not a hostile act — and more than my saying that we should re-elect Senator X is a hostile act against you because you prefer Mr. Y.”

        Well… when senator x is running on hostile platform, s/he should not call folks that debate it hostile, per the “flavor” of your OP.

        “God seems to feel that way. Sorry, but I doubt that I can change his mind on that.”

        Of which your church spends millions of dollars on teaching that it alone is the only true church…amazing that one can be so arrogant as to say everything one believes is wrong, and God thinks what they teach and believe is an abomination, and then when they question and refute personal and LDS claims against them, they are the subject of assertions like your OP here.

        “Not quite. The LDS Church doesn’t believe that “the Christian church” is in apostasy. It believes that non-LDS Christian churches are in apostasy. That’s an important difference.”

        In one breath you and the church say God believes the Christian church is wrong and what we teach and believe is an abomination, and then you get offended because the Christian world will not accept Mormonism as Christian? Kid x calls kid y an idiot, and then kid x gets upset because kid y call him a name back? What do you expect Daniel, what do you expect kid x to say?

        “It’s not relevant. ‘Abd al-Kathib is aggressively hostile toward my beliefs, whereas my church is aggressively hostile toward nobody’s. Rather, it’s an enthusiastic advocate of its own.”

        Classic Daniel…LoL…spoken in true DCP form. BTW, what does Abd al-Kathib mean, I goggled it and did not get a clear hit?

        Thanks
        Take care
        MG

        • DanielPeterson

          Markk: “Has the Missionary lessons changed so much that they do not teach the Christian Creeds are an abomination before God and they have no authority to act in Gods name, and that the LDS church is the only true church?”

          I would imagine that this is mentioned, though I don’t believe that much time or emphasis is devoted to it. It’s certainly not the major portion of the missionary message. (I haven’t been a missionary for decades now, and the lesson plans have changed since I was out; but we didn’t emphasize the apostasy a lot then, and I understand that it’s emphasized even less now.)

          Markk: “Typically do investigators just say ‘okay’ when a missionary teaches this, or is it expounded on?”

          That varies from investigator to investigator. But, in any case, the apostasy isn’t the major focus of missionary teaching.

          Markk: “Well… when senator x is running on hostile platform, s/he should not call folks that debate it hostile, per the ‘flavor’ of your OP.”

          If a candidate is running only a negative campaign, based solely on attacking his rival and with no positive ideas of his own, the media will notice it, the voters will notice it, and the candidate will probably lose — and will deserve to lose.

          The LDS Church isn’t running only a negative campaign. In fact, it’s doing nothing of the sort. It has plenty of unique ideas and claims — e.g., separate and embodied persons in the Trinity, the premortal existence of spirits, exaltation, the Book of Mormon, modern prophets, eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, and so on and so forth — and it advocates them.

          Of course, the mere fact that Mormonism exists — or, for that matter, Catholicism, or the Greek Orthodox Church, or Unitarianism — entails that your particular view of Christianity is false. But that doesn’t mean that their existence is based on attacking YOU.

          Moreover, I suspect that you believe that Jesus is the way to salvation — which entails that Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Baha‘ism and etc. are false. Does that mean that your religion is all about, or even largely about, attacking them? I hope not, and I don’t think so.

          Markk, quoting DCP: “God seems to feel that way. Sorry, but I doubt that I can change his mind on that.”

          Markk: “Of which your church spends millions of dollars on teaching that it alone is the only true church…amazing that one can be so arrogant as to say everything one believes is wrong, and God thinks what they teach and believe is an abomination, and then when they question and refute personal and LDS claims against them, they are the subject of assertions like your OP here.”

          Do Christians of your type ever claim that Jesus is the only way to salvation? Doesn’t that imply that Muhammad, Krishna, Confucius, Guru Nanak, and the authors of the Principal Upanishads AREN’T the way to salvation?

          If so, in what way is the Mormon claim arrogant while yours isn’t?

          Or do you believe that salvation is available to humanity through the Qur’an as well as through the Bible?

          Markk, quoting DCP: “Not quite. The LDS Church doesn’t believe that “the Christian church” is in apostasy. It believes that non-LDS Christian churches are in apostasy. That’s an important difference.”

          Markk: “In one breath you and the church say God believes the Christian church is wrong and what we teach and believe is an abomination,”

          Please read what I actually said. I said that we believe that OTHER Christian churches are wrong. I didn’t say that “the Christian church” is wrong. (a) Because I don’t typically speak of “the Christian church” but of “Christian churches,” and (b) because, if I were to speak of “the Christian church,” I would include my own church within that description.

          Markk: “and then you get offended because the Christian world will not accept Mormonism as Christian?”

          I said nothing about being “offended” and I didn’t raise that issue — and, anyway, I don’t think you’re right. Why don’t I believe you’re right? (a) Because I know plenty of non-Mormon Christians who are wiling to accept Mormons as fellow Christians (even if they consider us heretical); not everybody agrees with the Evangelical Protestant tendency to define us out of Christendom. (b) Because, as Christians, — i.e., as part of “the Christian world” — my Latter-day Saint friends and family and fellow-believers and I certainly DO consider us Christians. (I anticipate your response on this, and warn you against the fallacy of “begging the question.” But we’ll cross that bridge when and if you come to it.)

          Markk, quoting DCP: “It’s not relevant. ‘Abd al-Kathib is aggressively hostile toward my beliefs, whereas my church is aggressively hostile toward nobody’s. Rather, it’s an enthusiastic advocate of its own.”

          Markk: “Classic Daniel…LoL…spoken in true DCP form.”

          Indeed. Truthful, patient, logical, and clear. Thanks for noticing.

          Mark: “BTW, what does Abd al-Kathib mean, I goggled it and did not get a clear hit?”

          I suggest using Google in the future, rather than Goggle. It’s a much better search tool.

          “‘Abd al-Kadhib” means “slave of the liar.” Read the link that I supplied, compare it to the claim made by ‘Abd al-Kadhib, and you’ll see what I had in mind.

          • RogersDW

            This is cool. You are cool.

          • DanielPeterson

            LOL.

          • Markk

            Hi Dan,

            “I would imagine that this is mentioned, though I don’t believe that much time or emphasis is devoted to it. It’s certainly not the major portion of the missionary message. (I haven’t been a missionary for decades now, and the lesson plans have changed since I was out; but we didn’t emphasize the apostasy a lot then, and I understand that it’s emphasized even less now.)”

            ” You imagine, ” so I’ll take that as you’re not sure.

            If not much time is indeed spent on the apostasy, then that is a problem in it’s self. The supposed reason that Joseph Smith was visited by God in the grove was to tell him the Christian churches were wrong. Are you saying that the vision does not have “much time or emphasis… [is]devoted to it.” May be we should see what LDS .org says?

            “The Great Apostasy

            Investigators must understand that a universal apostasy occurred following the death of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. If there had been no apostasy, there would have been no need of a Restoration. As a diamond displayed on black velvet appears more brilliant, so the Restoration stands in striking contrast to the dark background of the Great Apostasy. As guided by the Spirit, teach investigators about the Great Apostasy at a level of detail appropriate to their needs and circumstances. Your purpose is to help them understand the need for the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

            This is just a small portion of what Missionaries are supposed to teach in the [url=https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/what-do-i-study-and-teach/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng]1st lesson.[/url]

            “Do Christians … ever claim that Jesus is the only way to salvation? Doesn’t that imply that Muhammad, Krishna, Confucius, Guru Nanak, and the authors of the Principal Upanishads AREN’T the way to salvation?”

            Absolutely, and if they were to come to me as critics, I hopefully would understand that. I would not play the victim and pretend what I believe is not offensive to them, and then call them “hostile” and other names. I would not, and could not, cry foul. Then by the Word I would hopefully reason with them and show them what I believe and why I believe it. And as you did in the first paragraph, would not down play or be ignorant of what I (in your case LDS missionaries) teach.

            “I said nothing about being “offended” and I didn’t raise that issue — and, anyway, I don’t think you’re right. Why don’t I believe you’re right? (a) Because I know plenty of non-Mormon Christians who are wiling to accept Mormons as fellow Christians (even if they consider us heretical); not everybody agrees with the Evangelical Protestant tendency to define us out of Christendom. (b) Because, as Christians, — i.e., as part of “the Christian world” — my Latter-day Saint friends and family and fellow-believers and I certainly DO consider us Christians. (I anticipate your response on this, and warn you against the fallacy of “begging the question.” But we’ll cross that bridge when and if you come to it.)”
            So you base what a Christian is by what other folks say?
            LDS theology is not Christian theology, it is that simple. LDS theology teaches that worthy members, can have the same power, knowledge, dominion, and glory as HF. That is heresy and will forever keep LDS and Christian theology apart.
            Take care
            Mark

          • DanielPeterson

            Markk: “‘ You imagine, ‘ so I’ll take that as you’re not sure.”

            I was a missionary, but it was decades ago. Did you ever serve as a missionary? I can speak with considerable authority about what we taught, and we emphasized the Restoration over the Apostasy. I have a pretty good sense of what missionaries teach today — I suspect that I’m closer to the LDS missionary program than you are — and my understanding is that they also emphasize Restoration over Apostasy. More so, even, than we did in my day.

            Markk: “If not much time is indeed spent on the apostasy, then that is a problem in it’s self. The supposed reason that Joseph Smith was visited by God in the grove was to tell him the Christian churches were wrong. Are you saying that the vision does not have ‘much time or emphasis… [is]devoted to it.’”

            No, I’m not.

            But the First Vision is about a number of things, only one of which is the apostate character of your beliefs.

            Markk: “May be we should see what LDS .org says?

            ‘The Great Apostasy’”

            You know, Markk, it doesn’t really surprise me that, if you look up the entry for “The Great Apostasy,” it’s going to be about The Great Apostasy. But that doesn’t mean that the bulk of the teaching effort or time of LDS missionaries is devoted to talking about The Great Apostasy. It simply isn’t.

            Using the same logic, you could look up “Mormonism” on Wikipedia and discover that the entry about Mormonism is entirely about Mormonism (!), and then conclude therefrom that Wikipedia devotes most of its time, effort, and attention to Mormonism.

            I’ve never denied that missionaries teach about the apostasy. I did. They do. And I’m perfectly fine with that. But to claim that it’s the major focus of the LDS missionary message simply isn’t true.

            Anyhow, please keep your eye on the ball: Mormon missionaries don’t spend their time attacking other churches. You’ve tried to draw some sort of equivalence between ‘Abd al-Kadhib’s continuous hostile attacks on Mormonism and LDS missionaries’ preaching of the gospel as Mormons believe it. The two simply aren’t analogous.

            Give it up. This dog won’t hunt, and I don’t have the time or interest to keep playing this game with you.

            Markk, quoting DCP: “Do Christians … ever claim that Jesus is the only way to salvation? Doesn’t that imply that Muhammad, Krishna, Confucius, Guru Nanak, and the authors of the Principal Upanishads AREN’T the way to salvation?”

            Markk: “Absolutely, and if they were to come to me as critics, I hopefully would understand that.”

            Fine. Then your charge of arrogance applies to you and your position at least as well — I would say better, but that’s another discussion — to you yourself. And for precisely the same reasons.

            Markk, imagining that he’s responding to DCP: “I would not play the victim and pretend what I believe is not offensive to them.”

            I think that you’re insinuating that I’ve done this. But I haven’t. You need to start reading what I actually say. Or, if you’re unwilling to do that, you should stop commenting here.

            Markk: “and then call them ‘hostile’ and other names.”

            Describing somebody as “hostile” isn’t name-calling. Whether accurate or not, it’s just a description.

            The fact is that ‘Abd al-Kadhib is hostile. One can disagree in hostile or non-hostile ways. ‘Abd al-Kadhib, in my experience with him/her, typically chooses the former approach.

            Markk: “I would not, and could not, cry foul.”

            Who’s crying foul?

            Markk: “Then by the Word I would hopefully reason with them and show them what I believe and why I believe it. And as you did in the first paragraph, would not down play or be ignorant of what I (in your case LDS missionaries) teach.”

            I think you expect me to grant your superior knowledge of what LDS missionaries teach, but — sorry — I won’t. It would be a lie.

            Markk: “So you base what a Christian is by what other folks say?”

            What?

            Markk: “LDS theology is not Christian theology, it is that simple.”

            No, it’s not that simple. I believe that LDS theology is a Christian theology. We disagree on this, and I’m under not the slightest obligation to accept your definition.

            You really should look up a good discussion of the logical fallacies known as “begging the question” and “circular reasoning.” There are good ones online.

            Markk: “LDS theology teaches that worthy members, can have the same power, knowledge, dominion, and glory as HF.”

            True.

            Markk: “That is heresy”

            In your opinion. Not in mine.

            Markk: “and will forever keep LDS and Christian theology apart.”

            Please read some good articles on “circular reasoning” and “begging the question.”

          • Markk

            HI Daniel,
            Before I move on to your remarks

            The Great Apostasy

            “Investigators must understand that a universal apostasy occurred following the death of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. If there had been no apostasy, there would have been no need of a Restoration. As a diamond displayed on black velvet appears more brilliant, so the Restoration stands in striking contrast to the dark background of the Great Apostasy. As guided by the Spirit, teach investigators about the Great Apostasy at a level of detail appropriate to their needs and circumstances. Your purpose is to help them understand the need for the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

            You did not post this from my last post, pasted from the missionary manual. The missionary “must” make sure investigators understand the universal apostasy, and that it is the missionary’s “purpose” to help the “understand the need for the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
            Lets be fair Daniel. Whom ever printed the manual certainly feels different about the need for the apostasy to be understood. I also gave a link to the whole chapter, which seems to contradict your assertion that the apostasy is not as relevant for new Mormons to understand in relation to the restoration. The great apostasy is the foundation of the restoration, neither can “survive} without the other.
            take care
            mark

          • DanielPeterson

            Markk: “You did not post this from my last post, pasted from the missionary manual.”

            I feel no obligation to reproduce the entirety of your posts. They’re already available for anybody who cares to read them.

            Markk: “The missionary ‘must’ make sure investigators understand the universal apostasy, and that it is the missionary’s ‘purpose” to help the ‘understand the need for the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.’”

            Of course it is. But that’s not the same thing as saying that that is the missionary’s SOLE purpose, or the major focus of the missionary’s time and effort. It never was that, and it still isn’t.

            Markk: “Lets be fair Daniel.”

            Yes. Let’s.

            Markk: “Whom ever printed the manual certainly feels different about the need for the apostasy to be understood.”

            I don’t see any difference. I also see that need. You haven’t provided a shred of evidence, though, that preaching the apostasy is the major focus of a missionary’s assignment.

            And you haven’t come within LIGHT YEARS of demonstrating that preaching the Gospel is the equivalent of ‘Abd al-Kadhib’s incessant criticisms of Mormonism.

            If you tell somebody that the number pi equals 4.623, I’m probably going to feel an obligation to inform him that you’re wrong, and that pi really equals 3.14159. The fact that you’re wrong is inextricably a part of what I have to say, and the person to whom I’m speaking needs to understand that you’re wrong. But if I move on from that to explain the uses of pi in calculations, and etc., it would be unjust to characterize what I’ve done as an attack on you. By contrast, if I point out that you’re wrong, and then proceed to harp on that fact, emphasizing your incompetence as a mathematician, your defects as a guide to reality, and so on and so forth, and if I keep doing that over and over and over again, it would be entirely fair to describe what I’m doing as a continual attack on you.

            The effort of the missionary is like the first case. In order to understand the need for the Restoration (and the need for a new value of pi), one needs to understand the idea of an apostasy (or the inaccuracy of 4.623 as a value for pi). The activity of ‘Abd al-Kadhib is like the second. If you can’t see the difference, I probably can’t help you.

            I’m running low on time and patience, Markk. This is a simple point. If you’re unable or unwilling to grasp it, I think further conversation about it will be pointless.

          • Markk

            Hi Dan,

            It is not about a missionary solely teaching anything. It is about your hypocrisy in calling the person a hostile critic and slave of a liar for doing the very same thing the LDS church does in teaching the Christian church teaches false doctrines which are an abomination to God.

            The apostasy is the foundation of the restoration. Many LDS authors would agree and have written on the importance of the great apostasy.

            “Product Description

            What exactly happened to make the Restoration necessary? Why do we need to understand the Apostasy before we can understand the Restoration? What did the Apostasy take away? What doctrines did it change? When—and why—was the priesthood taken from the earth? How do we know?” (Kent P. Jackson)

            LDS .org makes it very clear how important it is for the missionaries to teach this. I never implied or said it is their sole duty, you did.

            My OP reads….

            “The LDS church is founded on the premise that the Christian church was and is in apostasy, and has no authority to act in Gods name. It also teaches our creeds were/are an abomination to God. It has spent millions, if not billions, of dollars world wide to tell folks this .”
            I have no idea what Pi has to do with the LDS teaching that what I believe is an abomination to God?
            I suppose like other posts of mine you have failed to post, this also will also be dumped.
            I really believed that you were a honest man trying to defend LDS doctrine and history. After this exchange I really believe you are one mixed up person attempting to defend the undependable and indefensible. What a mess.
            Mark

          • DanielPeterson

            Markk: “It is not about a missionary solely teaching anything. It is about your hypocrisy in calling the person a hostile critic and slave of a liar for doing the very same thing the LDS church does in teaching the Christian church teaches false doctrines which are an abomination to God.”

            You’ve apparently missed my repeated denial that ‘Abd al-Khadib is doing the same thing that the Church is doing.

            And, because you haven’t been listening to what I’ve been saying, you call me a hypocrite?

            I think this conversation, such as it is, is coming to a close.

            Markk: “The apostasy is the foundation of the restoration.”

            In a sense, that’s true. No restoration would be necessary were it not for the apostasy. Just as there would be no need, in the example that I gave to you, for me to correct your value for pi if you had gotten it right.

            You seem to be missing my point, though.

            Markk: “Many LDS authors would agree and have written on the importance of the great apostasy.”

            Including me.

            Markk: “LDS .org makes it very clear how important it is for the missionaries to teach this. I never implied or said it is their sole duty, you did.”

            Because that’s one of the many salient differences between a Mormon missionary and your ‘Abd al-Kadhib:

            ‘Abd al-Kadhib spends all of his or her time on your board attacking Mormonism. Mormon missionaries spend scarcely any of their time criticizing your version of Christianity.

            Markk: “I have no idea what Pi has to do with the LDS teaching that what I believe is an abomination to God?”

            Sigh. I suspect you’re right on that. It’s clear that you aren’t following my argument. Which is one of the reasons why I see little point in continuing with this.

            Markk: “I suppose like other posts of mine you have failed to post, this also will also be dumped.”

            To the best of my memory — and to the best of the memory of Patheos (which I’ve just checked) — I’ve never failed to post any comment that you’ve made. And I’m posting this one, as well. Even despite your insults:

            Markk: “I really believed that you were a honest man trying to defend LDS doctrine and history. After this exchange I really believe you are one mixed up person attempting to defend the undependable and indefensible. What a mess.”

          • Markk

            Hi Dan,

            What forum are you talking about and who is the “slave of lies?” I only most at two forums, neither of which are “mine.”

            I called you a hypocrite because the LDS church is built on the premise that what Christians believe is an abomination to God, and what “Slave of a Liar” is doing, is the same, saying what someone else believes is wrong. And I believe criticism is okay, more or less that is what apologetics is; a critical analysis of others views. I do it also…but denying it when one does it makes one a hypocrite, and you my friend are a hypocrite. Sorry but you need to deal with it..

            “To the best of my memory — and to the best of the memory of Patheos (which I’ve just checked) — I’ve never failed to post any comment that you’ve made. And I’m posting this one, as well. Even despite your insults:”

            ‘Then there must be a bug in the system.

            ‘Abd al-Kadhib spends all of his or her time on your board attacking Mormonism. Mormon missionaries spend scarcely any of their time criticizing your version of Christianity.”
            I never said they did, now did I Dan,,,focus,,,I said the church spends millions spreading their view that they are the restored true church restoring a lost and broken Christian church.

          • DanielPeterson

            Markk: “I called you a hypocrite because the LDS church is built on the premise that what Christians believe is an abomination to God, and what ‘Slave of a Liar’ is doing, is the same, saying what someone else believes is wrong.”

            You believe that what I believe is wrong, which, by your weird standard makes YOU a hypocrite.

            And what missionaries do isn’t remotely what ‘Abd al-Kadhib does. But I’ve said this numerous times before, and it plainly doesn’t register with you. There seems little point in repeating it for another twenty iterations.

            Markk: “but denying it when one does it makes one a hypocrite, and you my friend are a hypocrite.”

            You can’t follow an argument. I freely grant it. But that doesn’t make me a hypocrite.

            Markk: “Sorry but you need to deal with it.”

            Actually, no, I don’t, Your teachers had to deal with it, no doubt, but they were paid to do so and you were required by law to be in school.

            I’m not paid to deal with your posts, and there’s no government policy requiring that you be here.

            Markk: ‘Then there must be a bug in the system.”

            From your description of what it’s supposedly done, if there’s a bug it’s a very discerning one, with excellent taste.

            Markk: “I said the church spends millions spreading their view that they are the restored true church restoring a lost and broken Christian church.”

            Yup. Quite unlike ‘Abd al-Kadhib.

            Enough is enough, Markk. This has grown tiresome, and it became pointless quite a while ago.

          • Markk

            Hi Daniel,

            One more time, it is not about missionary’s, it is about the premise and foundation of Mormonism is built on their exclusive teaching, and foundation, that the Christian Church and it’s teaching is an abomination to God. The LDS church teaches this, spend millions spreading this, by the standard works, books and publications, media, their web site, the folks, and missionaries.

            You say I can’t follow an argument, read my OP, your bait and switch is not working.

            The other point that evolved from this conversation is that LDS theology is not Christian theology; in that Christian theology does not teach man can have the same power, knowledge, glory and dominion as YHWH, that is heresy at the highest level. By your definition anyone that wants to be a Christian is a Christian, no matter what they believe or what fruits they yield, remember your Children of God concession?
            Take care Dan, I hope this post makes the cut.

          • DanielPeterson

            Markk: “One more time, it is not about missionary’s, it is about the premise and foundation of Mormonism is built on their exclusive teaching, and foundation, that the Christian Church and it’s teaching is an abomination to God.”

            No. It’s not. As I’ve said six or seven times before in this thread alone.

            1) Mormonism doesn’t teach that “the Christian Church and its teaching is an abomination to God.”

            1a) The statement in the First Vision is that the CREEDS are an abomination.

            1b) There is, in my usage, no such thing as “the Christian Church.” There are Christian CHURCHES.

            1c) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards itself as Christian. Hence, it can’t possibly believe that all Christian churches are wrong. If it did, it would be including itself in that judgment.

            2) The idea of a “great apostasy” is, yes, foundational to Mormonism. If it weren’t true, Mormonism would be illegitimate. But there are other foundations to Mormonism, as well. If there were no God, if Jesus hadn’t atoned for our sins or risen from the dead, if the Book of Mormon were false, there would also be no legitimacy to Mormonism. These things too — and others — are foundational to Mormonism. And the Church devotes enormous efforts to teaching all of them.

            Markk: “The LDS church teaches this, spend millions spreading this, by the standard works, books and publications, media, their web site, the folks, and missionaries.”

            The LDS Church teaches the idea of a Restoration, which entails an apostasy.

            Markk: “You say I can’t follow an argument”

            Yes, that’s what I say.

            Markk: “your bait and switch is not working.”

            There was no bait and switch. As I say, you aren’t following the argument.

            Markk: “The other point that evolved from this conversation is that LDS theology is not Christian theology;”

            That “point” didn’t “evolve from this conversation.” It’s just your particular viewpoint, and you inserted it.

            Markk: “in that Christian theology does not teach man can have the same power, knowledge, glory and dominion as YHWH, that is heresy at the highest level.”

            One Christian theology, the Mormon one, teaches something roughly along those lines.

            Markk: “By your definition anyone that wants to be a Christian is a Christian, no matter what they believe or what fruits they yield,”

            You’re distorting my position somewhat, but you’re in the vicinity of the ballpark.

            Markk: “remember your Children of God concession?”

            My “concession”?

            No, I remember no “concession.”

            Markk: “I hope this post makes the cut.”

            I’ve never trashed any of your posts. Stop accusing me of that.

          • Markk

            Hi Daniel,

            The Christian Church is the Body of believers “in” Christ. Christ being the head of the church. There can only be One Church. There can be different true denominations of Christ’s church, or false churches, which there are many.

            The core LDS doctrine that teaches worthy folks can become a God, with the same power and knowledge of God, is heresy. This for ever will separate LDS theology from The one true church…the body of Christ.

            “2) The idea of a “great apostasy” is, yes, foundational to Mormonism. If it weren’t true, Mormonism would be illegitimate. But there are other foundations to Mormonism, as well…”

            I never said there were not other essentials to the LDS faith. I wrote that the apostasy is essential to have a restoration, and without a restoration there would be no need for the LDS church. Many LDS authors recognize this as did the quote from the Missionary manual. The context of my statement is that the LDS church attacks orthodox Christian doctrines. So, LDS members, especially their apologists, should not simply call folks names like you did (“slave of a liar”) to those that criticize the LDS faith…because they criticize your faith. address the message, not the messenger. Playing the victim card shows one can generally not address the issues, so they turn to a ad hominem style of debate.

            “Markk: “remember your Children of God concession?”

            My “concession”?
            No, I remember no “concession.”

            Markk wrote in 2009…
            As far as the Children of God, by your opinion you must concede they are Christians , even if they teach and practice pedophilia and open free sex under the banner of Christianity. And you said they were already last year:

            DCP replied in 2008?
            …”Actually, although I haven’t made a study of the Children of God, I suspect that they are (or were) Christians, and would be so classified by most scholars. Deviant in doctrine and repulsive in practice, but, yes,
            Christians.”

            http://www.mormonapo…php…f God&st= 400 post 401

            http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/43519-mormonism-and-the-trinity/page-10

            “I’ve never trashed any of your posts. Stop accusing me of that.”
            I can post a few if you like, I believe I save a couple that did not make the cut?
            I’ll post this one at MD in off topic just in case it gets lost.
            Mark

          • DanielPeterson

            Markk: “The Christian Church is the Body of believers ‘in’ Christ. Christ being the head of the church. There can only be One Church. There can be different true denominations of Christ’s church, or false churches, which there are many.”

            That’s just a statement of low-church Protestant dogma.

            I don’t share it.

            Markk: “The core LDS doctrine that teaches worthy folks can become a God, with the same power and knowledge of God, is heresy.”

            From your point of view, not mine.

            Markk: “This for ever will separate LDS theology from The one true church…the body of Christ.”

            More Protestant dogma. I already know you’re a Protestant.

            I’m not.

            Markk: “I never said there were not other essentials to the LDS faith. I wrote that the apostasy is essential to have a restoration, and without a restoration there would be no need for the LDS church.”

            Of course.

            Markk: “Many LDS authors recognize this as did the quote from the Missionary manual.”

            As do I.

            Markk: “The context of my statement is that the LDS church attacks orthodox Christian doctrines.”

            It doesn’t. And you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “context.”

            Markk: “So, LDS members, especially their apologists, should not simply call folks names like you did (“slave of a liar”) to those that criticize the LDS faith.”

            I called nobody a name. And, as I told you, the pseudonym that I used to conceal your friend’s online pseudonym means “slave of the liar,” not “slave of a liar.” This was intentional, but, frankly, I don’t expect you to understand why.

            Markk “…because they criticize your faith. address the message, not the messenger.”

            I did. And you haven’t once, not a single time, said anything about the subject of my post, above.

            Markk: “Playing the victim card shows one can generally not address the issues, so they turn to a ad hominem style of debate.”

            Which is, ironically, exactly what you’re doing.

            And I’ve still conceded nothing to you about the Children of God. I simply expressed my opinion. I stand by it. I have reasons for it, though I won’t waste my time laying them out for you.

            Markk: “I’ll post this one at MD in off topic just in case it gets lost.”

            I’ve never blocked any of your posts, though many of them have deserved it. You accuse me falsely. Yet again.

            But do whatever you want. I really don’t much care. You can go back to MDB and call me “unhinged” again, and accuse me of “lying for the Lord” again, and call me a “hypocrite” again. It’s easier, I suppose, than trying to understand my position or follow my argument or deal with the substance of my blog entry, above.

          • Markk

            Your wrong

            Col 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,

            The bible is clear that we are baptized into the body of Christ by the HS, and His body is the church.

            “From your point of view, not mine.”

            No…wrong again… from the GP series…chapter 47.

            Blessings of Exaltation
            5.They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge…

            “Markk: “The context of my statement is that the LDS church attacks orthodox Christian doctrines.”

            It doesn’t. And you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “context.”

            Wrong again…

            19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”

            “And I’ve still conceded nothing to you about the Children of God. I simply expressed my opinion. I stand by it. I have reasons for it, though I won’t waste my time laying them out for you.”

            OOOkay…people who have sex with children can be Christians because they claim to follow Christ for their salvation?

            Tell me what you believe a false Christian is?

            I’ve never blocked any of your posts, though many of them have deserved it. You accuse me falsely. Yet again.

            I disagree, I saved a few that did not make the cut, if I thought it would do any good I would post them. “Just sayin”

            “But do whatever you want. I really don’t much care. You can go back to MDB and call me “unhinged” again, and accuse me of “lying for the Lord” again, and call me a “hypocrite” again. It’s easier, I suppose, than trying to understand my position or follow my argument or deal with the substance of my blog entry, above.”
            Sorry, but I am really starting to believe those things I said, and actually starting to understand what Scratch has been saying over the years.
            I understand your OP, I disagree, and call you a hypocrite in that the LDS church attacks others, and you cry foul when one attacks the church.

          • DanielPeterson

            “Your wrong . . . No…wrong again . . . Wrong again . . . ”

            Your declarations of your particular Protestant beliefs are duly noted.

            But I was already aware that you’re a Protestant, so I don’t quite see the point.

            Incidentally, it strikes me — I should have realized this before — that your problem isn’t merely that you can’t follow my argument. You pretty plainly don’t understand what an argument IS.

            It isn’t merely asserting things. You need to organize evidence into logical order to demonstrate a conclusion.

            By the way, do you have anything to say about the subject of the blog entry above?

            Markk: “OOOkay…people who have sex with children can be Christians because they claim to follow Christ for their salvation?”

            Yep. And they can massacre Jews and launch Crusades and molest children and burn “witches” and and cheat on their wives and embezzle from their employers and tyrannize their children and execute heretics and own slaves and a host of other things.

            Such people are bad people and they may well be bound for Hell, but that doesn’t mean they’re not Christians.

            Try to understand what I’m saying. Try to follow the argument.

            Or, better yet, stop commenting. Certainly even you realize by now that there’s no point in it.

            Markk: “Tell me what you believe a false Christian is?”

            I don’t use the term. But I suppose it might be somebody who claimed to be a Christian but was really a Buddhist, or something of that sort. (Why anybody would do such a thing is beyond me.)

            Markk, quoting the increasingly bored DCP: “‘I’ve never blocked any of your posts, though many of them have deserved it. You accuse me falsely. Yet again.’ I disagree,”

            Disagree all you want. It’s not a matter of opinion. I have, simply, never blocked any of your posts.

            Markk: “I saved a few that did not make the cut,”

            I have no idea why that would be so. I’ve seen you make such claims on your message board — the place where you accuse me of lying, call me “unhinged,” and label me a “hypocrite” while misrepresenting what I say (probably innocently, because you don’t understand it) — but they’re false.

            Markk: “Sorry, but I am really starting to believe those things I said, and actually starting to understand what Scratch has been saying over the years.”

            I’m trying to be gentle with you, Markk, but let me be candid: You simply haven’t been following what I’ve been saying. You haven’t understood, and I don’t think you’ve grasped a single important point. I’m not sure that you can.

            You’re certainly not equipped, not in a position, to have a meaningful opinion on the matters we’ve been “discussing.”

            Do you have any views on the actual subject of the blog post above?

            Markk: “I understand your OP, I disagree,”

            What on earth do you disagree with? Can you even state the point of the blog entry above? Feel free to demonstrate that you can. If you can. (Which I doubt.) You’ve never addressed it. Not even a single time.

            Markk: “and call you a hypocrite in that the LDS church attacks others,”

            No, Markk. It doesn’t. It simply says that they’re wrong. Which is exactly what you say about the LDS Church, and exactly what you say about Catholics and Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs and Shintoists and Confucianists and Greek Orthodox and Christian Scientists and Baha’is and agnostics and atheists and Jews.

            Markk: “and you cry foul when one attacks the church.”

            No. I simply refute such attacks.

          • Markk

            Hi Daniel,

            I understand your argument, I disagree with it and I have told you why. Saying I don’t understand it does not make your argument valid, I disagree. My OP was clear to the context of what I was asserting…which is you are being hypocritical in that the church attacks Christianity in JS vision…there is no way around it. I can also supply plenty of statements that would support my assertion by the brethren…one comes to mind, and I am paraphrasing from memory…” The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, and the protestant church is her harlot daughter.” There are more if you choose to deal with them.

            I gave you a clear, direct Biblical verse, and there are more, that show the Church is the body of believers that are “in ” Christ Jesus. Not heretic’s and alike. The Bible is equally clear of those that are and will be in the body of Christ and the fruits they bare. Bottom line I can not, and do not judge the individual, but I can judge LDS doctrine by the Word, and LDS theology is not Christian theology, there are no Gods in the body of Christ, only those under His Grace (eph 2:7).

            “Such people are bad people and they may well be bound for Hell, but that doesn’t mean they’re not Christians.”

            Christian aren’t bound for hell, Christians are believers in Christ…I suggest a quick read of John 3:16-18, verse 18 is clear who is bound for hell, and 16 show who are not…Christians. You actually believe a Christian can be a non believer Dan?

            Markk: “Tell me what you believe a false Christian is?”

            Dan: “I don’t use the term. But I suppose it might be somebody who claimed to be a Christian but was really a Buddhist, or something of that sort. (Why anybody would do such a thing is beyond me.)”

            As I have stated before, according to LDS thought, the word christian is little c…is just a generic term, what about the work church…I pointed out the biblical definition, a group of believers in Christ…what is your definition of church? I ask in that the LDS church claims to be the only true church, yet when it comes to the word Christian it can apply to everyone in a sense that they are all true? In other words you seem to be implying that a false church, can have true Christians in it? Your logic is skewed.

            “Or, better yet, stop commenting. Certainly even you realize by now that there’s no point in it.”
            Don’t take it personal, I don’t take it personal when your church calls what I believe a abomination, I am simply pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy of your OP.
            Take care
            mark

          • DanielPeterson

            Markk: “I understand your argument,”

            Then what is it, Markk? What is the argument of the blog entry above?

            Try to restate it accurately.

            From what I can tell, you don’t have the faintest idea what it’s about. You’ve certainly never referred to that idea.

            Markk: “I disagree with it.”

            What is it, Markk?

            Markk: “I have told you why.”

            You’ve never addressed it. I don’t even think you know what it is.

            Markk: “Saying I don’t understand it does not make your argument valid,”

            True. It simply means that you don’t know what the blog entry was about.

            Markk: “I disagree.”

            With what?

            Markk: “My OP was clear to the context of what I was asserting”

            That sentence makes no sense.

            Markk: “which is you are being hypocritical in that the church attacks Christianity in JS vision…there is no way around it.”

            That’s not what the blog entry is about. Do you have any opinion about the blog entry?

            We’ve already established that you have no idea what I’m saying about this other issue, and I’m tired of trying to help you understand it.

            Do you have any opinion about the subject I actually raised in my blog entry?

            Markk: “I can also supply plenty of statements that would support my assertion by the brethren…one comes to mind, and I am paraphrasing from memory…” The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, and the protestant church is her harlot daughter.” There are more if you choose to deal with them.”

            That was Orson Pratt, and I’m familiar with it, I could, in fact, supply dozens of others.

            But they have nothing to do with my blog entry, above, and you apparently aren’t interested in trying to understand what I’ve been saying in response to your objections on this other issue.

            I’m tired of going the rounds with you on the matter of the apostasy. You haven’t grasped what I’ve been saying, and I see no evidence that you ever will, or that you’re even inclined to try.

            Markk: “I gave you a clear, direct Biblical verse, and there are more, that show the Church is the body of believers that are ‘in’ Christ Jesus. Not heretic’s and alike. The Bible is equally clear of those that are and will be in the body of Christ and the fruits they bare.”

            You gave me a verse with which I’m perfectly familiar, and you presume that it should be understood in your peculiar Protestant fashion. You offered no argument for your way of reading it, so there’s no argument for me to refute. And, candidly, I don’t see any point in trying to discuss this with you. You both really bad at formulating and understanding arguments and convinced that you’re devastatingly good at doing so. It’s a lethal combination.

            Markk: “Bottom line I can not, and do not judge the individual, but I can judge LDS doctrine by the Word, and LDS theology is not Christian theology, there are no Gods in the body of Christ, only those under His Grace (eph 2:7).”

            I understand that you’re an Evangelical or fundamentalist Protestant. You’ve made that clear, and I’m not surprised that you read the Bible the way you do.

            It’s amusing, though, that you attack Mormonism while complaining that Mormonism attacks Christianity, that you claim Mormonism is arrogant for regarding your version of Protestant Christianity is wrong while you regard Mormonism as wrong.

            But it’s not VERY amusing. It just becomes tedious after a while.

            Markk: “Christian aren’t bound for hell, Christians are believers in Christ…I suggest a quick read of John 3:16-18, verse 18 is clear who is bound for hell, and 16 show who are not…Christians.”

            A careful reader would have noticed, by now, that you’re using the term “Christian” in a peculiar way that is not its standard usage in English dictionaries. But then, you’re not a careful reader.

            Markk: “You actually believe a Christian can be a non believer Dan?”

            I said nothing about “nonbelievers,” but see above.

            And, yes, I do believe that Christians can do evil things. History bears me out on this.

            Unless, of course, one uses the term “Christian” in an eccentric way, as you do. Are you aware of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy? You should be, because you practice it regularly.

            Markk: “I pointed out the biblical definition, a group of believers in Christ…what is your definition of church?”

            It’s the standard English one.

            Markk: “I ask in that the LDS church claims to be the only true church, yet when it comes to the word Christian it can apply to everyone in a sense that they are all true?”

            Huh?

            Markk: “In other words you seem to be implying that a false church, can have true Christians in it?”

            What?

            Markk: “Your logic is skewed.”

            I’m resisting the urge to say something here that wouldn’t be kind.

            Markk: “Don’t take it personal, I don’t take it personal when your church calls what I believe a abomination,”

            I’m not taking anything personally. Don’t imagine that you threaten me in any way.

            I’m just tired of wasting time with you on this.

            Do you have anything relevant to say about the blog entry above?

            Markk: ” I am simply pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy of your OP.”

            You don’t appear to have the faintest clue what my blog entry was about.

            Try restating it in your own language.

          • Chris365

            This is just silly. It’s not what we actually say. Not what we spend most of our time teaching. Not what we spend most of our time doing. Not the countless hours of service we render that offends you. It’s a single aspect of an underlying premise that when filled with insulting meaning and extrapolated to be larger than life that offends you.
            Oh, ok.

          • DanielPeterson

            Thank you, Chris365! You’ve got it precisely right. But Markk apparently hasn’t been able to get it at all.

  • Lucy Mcgee

    I wonder why you don’t just link to the discussion in full since it is easily found with a search of your few quotes? Google is that powerful.

    You shortened the sentence that thews wrote. One could state that this was unauthorized abridgment of a comment. Strange. Why do that?

    • DanielPeterson

      It scarcely matters. That particular person wasn’t my target. Had s/he been of any interest to me, even slightly, I would have supplied his/her actual . . . er, pseudonym. And I would have provide a link to the thread. But I have no interest in the specific poster, and I have no interest in referring people to a message board that I regard as a toxic dump with little or no substantive value.

      I had in mind the issue that s/he raised.

      • Lucy Mcgee

        I understand your last point, but changing a comment to fit a narrative seems odd because your entire first paragraph was about what this person had written. If you change that commentary, you’re in fact changing a person’s views, which seems very strange.

        • DanielPeterson

          I doubt that I changed his/her views even slightly. If you wish, you can ask him/her. Just ask whether or not the LDS Church, in his/her view, is honest about its history.

          I’m quite confident as to how s/he will answer. But I don’t care about his/her specific views.. S/he writes under a pseudonym, but I neither identified the place where s/he posts nor gave her real pseudonym.

          My post isn’t about him/her. Not at all. I don’t know much about him/her, and I don’t care much about him/her, either.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            I don’t mean to belabor this, but changing a comment by abridging it to fit a narrative, regardless of the overall views of that person, seems disingenuous.

            If there are no structural ethics in place when quoting comments, what else could one do; alter words, leave off important conclusions which change meaning, etc.?

            I think most would agree that there is a large difference between:

            …the LDS church is being intentionally deceptive.

            and

            …the LDS church is being intentionally deceptive in its artwork.

          • DanielPeterson

            And yet, from my perspective, you ARE belaboring it.

            If Johnny says “Frank cheated on his physics exam,” and I then quote Johnny as having said that “Frank cheated,” I haven’t done much damage to Johnny’s viewpoint. In this case, ‘Abd al-Kadhib said the LDS Church is intentionally deceptive in its illustrations of its own history. Please try to tell me, with a straight face, that you think it likely that ‘Abd al-Kadhib doesn’t believe that the LDS Church is more GENERALLY deceptive with regard to its history.

            If the precise views of this particular person were even slightly relevant to my point, it would be important to represent them precisely.

            In fact, though, this person is of no relevance to my point. S/he is simply a foil for the point I wanted to make.

            Moreover, I’m absolutely certain, both from my observation of him/her and from the context of the discussion (including the post just prior to his/hers, which I quoted) that s/he does in fact believe that the LDS Church is being intentionally deceptive with regard to its history — and not just in its historical art work.

            No injury has been done to this doubly pseudonymous person on a message board that I didn’t identify, and there is, I’m entirely confident, no misrepresentation of his/her views. (Go ahead. Ask her. Does the LDS Church accurately tell about its past?) And the post wasn’t about his/her views, anyway.

            If the post or the argument had been about his/her views, the responsibility might perhaps be upon me to represent them accurately despite the fact that I didn’t identify where s/he posted his/her comment and that I gave him/her a pseudonym to protect his/her pseudonym, if only because his/her views were the views at issue. But his/her views are of no interest to me in the sense that their being his/hers in particular is of exactly zero relevance — though the paragraph about Sarah Ann Whitney which I quoted entirely and precisely accurately, provided a perfect opportunity to cite Greg Smith’s article, which shows that paragraph to be grossly misleading.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            “If the precise views of this particular person were even slightly
            relevant to my point, it would be important to represent them precisely.”

            OK, but why purposefully abridge a statement? You obviously thought it important enough to put into quotes, but then you alter it to fit your own narrative. I really don’t get it.

            It shouldn’t matter, in fairness, if you care about this person’s views, or whether they post using an avatar. A comment is a comment. Why not let the reader decide?

          • DanielPeterson

            I didn’t alter anything within the quotes. Had I done that, I could justly be censured.

          • Jon

            That isn’t strictly true. You did alter something within the quotation marks.

          • DanielPeterson

            LOL. You’re right. I silently corrected a typo that s/he had made. And now I notice a second one that I should have corrected (and will).

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Reading:

            …the LDS church is being intentionally deceptive.
            and
            …the LDS church is being intentionally deceptive in its artwork.

            has a very different impact. After reading what thews had written, it was clear that thews was discussing Joseph Smith’s translation using seer stones and a hat vs the historical artwork provided by the Church, showing Joseph Smith in deep concentration with his finger on the plates.

            We all exhibit bias in our lives. Your point is crystal clear in your blog and that’s not of issue. Again, what I find strange, is that you would purposefully alter a comment which you placed in quotes with a period at the end as if nothing more were written. You must have done this intentionally. Did you do it for effect or what?

            “If Johnny says “Frank cheated on his physics exam,” and I then quote
            Johnny as having said that “Frank cheated,” I haven’t done much damage to Johnny’s viewpoint.”

            The operative word is “much”. Wouldn’t it have been better to simply quote it in full with no ambiguity?

            There are some problems here. Sentences can be complex, and long. If they are abridged, they could be misconstrued. When you quote people with whom you disagree, should we assume that you may be leaving off parts of the written phrase, because you didn’t find it meaningful? It’s a can of worms.

            I understand your overall narrative that thews confronts truth claims. But to me, that’s small reason not to mix it up without the jiggering of comments. After all, most people on these discussion boards remain hidden behind pseudonyms and some are adversarial. These facts alone shouldn’t invalidate their opinions or give credence to the altering of comments.

            I don’t agree with you on this one.

          • DanielPeterson

            And I don’t agree with YOU.

            ‘Abd al-Kadhib, as I’ve called him/her, believes that the LDS Church falsifies its history. The specific quotation that has caught your attention referred to its allegedly false portrayal of its history via historical illustrations. It’s still a matter of a an allegedly deliberate false portrayal, by the Church, of its history.

            I haven’t misrepresented ‘Abd al-Kadhib.

            Yours is, in my view, a distinction without a difference.

          • wrapture

            Actually, you have been deceptive. You ended the quote with a period instead of an ellipsis, as if to indicate that there was no information that you edited out after the word ‘deceptive’.

            Basically, you proved the critic that you criticized to be correct. Irony at its best; congratulations, Daniel.

          • DanielPeterson

            That’s an acceptable way of citing a quotation, wrapture. I misrepresented nothing.

            And, anyway, my point had nothing to do with the specific anonymous individual ‘Abd al-Kadhib, whose pseudonym I concealed by means of yet another pseudonym.

            You’re obfuscating the actual issue with an irrelevancy.

          • wrapture

            Daniel, I’m specifically commenting upon your improper method of quoting someone. The ellipsis is the accepted and proper item to use when omitting text from a quote. That’s pretty much SOP for accurate and trustworthy treatment of the words of others, and if you decide to try to defend your deceptive presentation (complete with your added period), then your argument doesn’t rest with me as much as it does with the larger community of English language users. In any scholastic work, you’d be called out for this error.

            As I was commenting specifically on your mistreatment of quoted material, which is germane to your own argument and illustrates your own repetition of the very point that you are complaining about, then your following attempt to distract from that point is an obfuscation. Again, more irony.

          • DanielPeterson

            You’re wrong.

            And I correct your error in multiple student papers every semester.

            Again, more irony.

          • wrapture

            Daniel – I guess that your reply partially explains why standards within our schools have been on the decline as of late.

            I’ll have to go with Purdue’s OWL as opposed to your mere assertion that these standards don’t exist.

            https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/03/

            Regardless, there’s still no excuse for rendering the partial quote in the way that you have. It does speak to your intent, though, as much as you continue to try to rationalize it.

          • DanielPeterson

            You don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

            And you’re belligerent, too!

          • wrapture

            As you wish, but as stated before, you’ll have to take up your claim of ignorance with the rest of academia and the publishing world.

            As for belligerence – pointing out what would be the correct way to handle a quote can’t really be claimed to be belligerent by the person who has made the error. You are free to try but it doesn’t change the standards. Yet another bit of irony given that your defense comes from someone calling himself an educator.

          • DanielPeterson

            I’ve been writing, publishing, and editing in academia for decades, wrapture.

            You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • wrapture

            Perhaps someday the rest of academia and the publishing world will move to your modified standard, then. Please feel free to post references and links when they have been established. Until that time there’s no argument for you to win here nor pride to defend, just a standard that should be adhered to if you want folks to take your claims seriously.

          • DanielPeterson

            I’ve been writing, publishing, and editing for “academia” for decades now, wrapture.

            You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • wrapture

            I’ll be sure to quote your opinion of me as, “You … know what you’re talking about”. : )

            Have a great weekend, Daniel.

          • DanielPeterson

            THAT, of course, WOULD be a plain violation of editing standards, as well as unethical (unless plainly intended as a joke).

            The difference is crucial.

          • kiwi57

            wrapture:

            “Actually, you have been deceptive.”

            Really? How?

            Is it your view that the pseudonymous critic isn’t accusing the Church of being “intentionally deceptive?”

          • wrapture

            Kiwi – Is it your view that not more than one person or statement can be deceptive at any given moment?

          • DanielPeterson

            You missed kiwi57′s point, wrapture. Which is too bad, because it’s right on target.

          • wrapture

            Daniel –

            Not missed, but countered. That you missed the point in my response is too bad, because it is right on target.

          • DanielPeterson

            Actually, wrapture, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            But if you keep ignorantly flogging the dead horse that you’ve imagined, I’m going to block further posts from you.

            Enough is enough. I’ve let you have your say and your say and your say and your say and your say, and you’ve said it enough now.

            But you still don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • wrapture

            Fair enough, Daniel. Block as you wish. You are already aware of what I meant; it’ll need no further input from me.

          • DanielPeterson

            Yes, I’m aware of what you meant.

            And you’re wrong.

          • kiwi57

            wrapture,

            Of course not, and that’s hardly relevant to my point. Pseudonymous Critic (PC) accused the Church of being “intentionally deceptive.” Dan quoted PC saying that. The fact that he omitted the specific manner of the deception PC libelled us over is trivial. Ergo, Dan was not “being deceptive” by that omission, and no reasonable person anywhere thinks he was.

            There’s nothing remotely “deceptive” about it.

            At all.

            Knowing that PC was talking about the Church’s artwork as the vehicle of the deception is interesting, but ultimately unimportant; what is important is the accusation itself.

            And as a matter of context, I know who the PC is, and I’ve seen him attacking the Church many times in a number of places. He almost never comments on anything the Church does except to call it “intentionally deceptive,” or something similar.

          • kiwi57

            @Lucy Mcgee:

            “…the LDS church is being intentionally deceptive.
            and
            …the LDS church is being intentionally deceptive in its artwork.

            has a very different impact.”

            I don’t see how. If it’s been “intentionally deceptive in its artwork” then it’s been “intentionally deceptive,” simpliciter.

          • DanielPeterson

            Precisely.

            If Frankie killed Johnny with a knife, it’s scarcely dishonest to say, simply, that Frankie killed Johnny.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Water, under the bridge as far as I’m concerned. But because this topic re-appeared in my inbox, how about, Dr. Peterson, commenting on the dishonest use of data by Dr. Rodney Stark in his Table 2.1 of “America’s Blessings”, where he cherry picked UNODC data in his attempt to correlate religiosity with crime.

            Dr. Stark, having spent decades in academia, and who probably knows a thing or two about statistics, dishonesty presented data to bolster his assertion that increased crime and religion, or more importantly, lack of religiosity, correlate. And using these data, he failed to present the caveats given by the UNODC.

            I know Dr. Peterson believes that the eminent Dr. Stark should speak for himself, but it was Dr. Peterson who wrote the recent Deseret News article praising Dr. Stark’s book, taking comments directly from it. And when I commented on Dr. Stark’s misuse of data, I was offhandedly dismissed.

            But as it turns out, all one has to do is look at a much more complete data table, generated from UNODC data, to see what Dr. Stark was up to.

            http://lucymcgee1.blogspot.com/

            I’m still waiting to hear from Dr. Peterson on this, in my estimation, important issue.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Try this.

            “He wanted to kill his mother.”
            and
            “He wanted to kill his mother with kindness.”

            It’s a can of worms.

          • kiwi57

            Except that the example under discussion (and for which Dan is being accused of being “deceptive”) much more closely resembles:

            “He wanted to kill his mother”
            and
            “He wanted to kill his mother by putting arsenic in her elderberry wine.”

            In your example, “kill with kindness” is a metaphor that severely vitiates the verb; in the example under discussion, the method, while a valid piece of information, merely provides additional detail but does not change the force or direction of the basic accusation.

            If you keep in mind the rather trivial observation that words have meanings, you might be able to construct a more useful analogy.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            And because words have meaning, quotes should be presented in their entirety, if you catch the drift. Is it really that hard?

          • DanielPeterson

            It’s not hard. It’s just wrong. So long as the meaning of the quotation isn’t changed by an omission, there is no need to always reproduce it in its entirety.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Assume the reader was interested in knowing how the LDS Church was being deceptive. Didn’t you, by leaving out part of the direct quote, hide the context from the reader? After all, there are many ways in which people or organizations can be deceptive, from the very mild, to something quite egregious and hurtful.

            If you can offer a source which shows that it’s acceptable to shorten a quote in the manner you did (not using ellipses), that would be useful.

          • kiwi57

            It’s not hard. It’s just that it’s a matter of preference, rather than grounds for an accusation of “deception.”

            Given that the omission did not materially change the force, direction or meaning of what was quoted, a lot of heat is being generated about how you and other readers would have preferred that Dan quoted it.

            If everything in this blog was done exactly the way you preferred it, I’m sure you’d be happy — but then, it would no longer be Dan’s blog. It would be yours.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Valid point.

          • DanielPeterson

            kiwi57 has it exactly right.

  • Guest
    • DanielPeterson

      If you go to the thread to which KdZ invites you, he’ll drown you in aggressively atheistic but largely substance-free posts. He seems to have nothing else on his schedule.

      You’ve been warned.

  • Markk

    Dan

    First you did not link your source, so it is not clear of what s/he was conveying in context. But, your argument or point, from what I can gather w/o full context is…s/he did not do their homework and is a parrot, and their alleged accusations, again no link, are unwarranted, ignorant and spiteful. You also, by linking GS on the SAW letter, somehow believe it confirms your assertions that s/he is a pawn of the folks that lead the charge that the church and the mopologist are deceptive. And… that somehow this article proves that folks like “slave of the liar” do not have, a hill to climb on and their assertions are bogus.

    I then wrote my OP, in that the LDS church attacks Christians, and you should stop whining about folks that attack Mormonism.

    You did not link the thread or posts, and if you do, I would suppose “slave or the liar” and the other “pseudonymous critic” have points a little deeper and more to their assertion/s that the LDS/mopologists are deceptive. I can certainly think of many.
    Were there other examples by these folks?
    Mark

    • DanielPeterson

      First off, Markk, I’ve spent more than enough time on this exchange with you. I’m going to retire from it. Please be advised.

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/09/oh-oh-i-see-running-away-eh.html

      Markk: “First you did not link your source, so it is not clear of what s/he was conveying in context.”

      You know where I got the quote. It’s from your board, where you insult me, misrepresent me, where you call me a “liar,” “unhinge,” and a “hypocrite.” No reasonable person looking at ‘Abd al-Kadhib’s statement in its context (such as that context is) would imagine that I had in any way distorted ‘Abd al-Kadhib’s assertion. I quoted every relevant part of it, in full and verbatim.

      Markk: “But, your argument or point, from what I can gather w/o full context is”

      ‘Abd al-Kadhib’s statement occurred on your board, the place where you’ve accused me of “lying,” called me a” hypocrite,” misrepresented me, and described me as “unhinged.” HIs/her statement was discussed there. My response to his/her statement was discussed there. Don’t pretend that you can’t know the context of the statement.

      Markk: “…s/he did not do their homework and is a parrot, and their alleged accusations, again no link, are unwarranted, ignorant and spiteful.”

      Congratulations on finally, at length, in the autumn of this interminable thread, alluding to the actual substance of my blog post.

      It’s true. His/her statement (which I quoted in full) is ignorant and unwarranted and false. S/he didn’t do his/her homework. But I said nothing about it being “spiteful.”

      Please don’t invent claims and try to put them in my mouth.

      Markk: “You also, by linking GS on the SAW letter, somehow believe it confirms your assertions that s/he is a pawn of the folks that lead the charge that the church and the mopologist are deceptive.”

      Not quite. Once again, please don’t invent things and attribute them to me.

      I think that ‘Abd al-Kadhib fell for a dishonest portrayal of the context of the letter that was sent, yes, to “SAW” (but also, very significantly, to the mother of SAW and to the father of SAW). However, I said nothing whatever about people who believe that the Church is deceptive. And I said nothing about people who believe that “mopologists” are deceptive. And, in fact, I said nothing about “mopologists.” Nor even about apologists.

      Markk: “And… that somehow this article proves that folks like ‘slave of the liar’ do not have, a hill to climb on and their assertions are bogus.”

      Again, not quite. This assertion is bogus. I said nothing about any other assertions.

      Please stop imagining things and then claiming that they’re from me.

      Markk: “I then wrote my OP, in that the LDS church attacks Christians, and you should stop whining about folks that attack Mormonism.”

      None of which — even if it had been true — had even the slightest connection with what I was talking about.

      Markk: “You did not link the thread or posts, and if you do, I would suppose ‘slave or [of] the liar’ and the other ‘pseudonymous critic’ have points a little deeper and more to their assertion/s that the LDS/mopologists are deceptive.”

      You can look for yourself! It’s on the very board where you perform. It’s on your board, where you call me a “hypocrite,” pronounce me “unhinged,” attribute nonsense to me and then ridicule me for the nonsense that you’ve falsely attributed to me, and declare me a “liar.”

      As a reasonable reader would find, reading what they wrote, they weren’t talking about LDS being “deceptive.” They weren’t talking about “mopologists” being “deceptive.” They weren’t even talking about apologists being “deceptive.” They weren’t talking about “mopologists” or apologists at all. So, since that wasn’t their topic, there’s not likely to be much more or deeper in their assertions on that topic.

      Markk: “Were there other examples by these folks?”

      Perhaps somewhere or other.

      Who knows? Who cares?

      I’m really not interested in those “folks.” If they were my concern, I would have identified them and the place where you and they perform. I wouldn’t have failed to mention where those statements were made, and I wouldn’t have given ‘Abd al-Kadhib a pseudonym so as to conceal his/her real pseudonym.

      • Markk

        Hi Dan,

        As in true fashion you have twisted the conversation, or at least to your faithful. You understood my op and rather poorly attempted to defend it. You apparently (by your standard default system) had to fall back on the victim card to get away from where it was heading. You may continue, with my permission, to post some of the things I wrote, whether out of context or not, if it helps you feel better or diverts from your losing points in a discussion. I understand what I wrote about you, so apparently repeating them is for your id or other needs.

        Playing the victim has been your MO on “your” board/s, and it’s clear it is your “comfort food,” and last line of defense before you bail out. On your board/s, in the past, you have called me many things, including your assertion I was a bigot, but that’s okay I understand, but please understand you are “clean” in debate,

        A few things I will take from the conversation is that you do not believe that the Church is Christ , and that those “In” Him are the true members of His church. You wrote ” just a statement of low-church Protestant dogma.”

        I also learned…you apparently do not agree with chapter 47 of the GP series that man can become a God with the same power and knowledge of HF…

        “Markk: “The core LDS doctrine that teaches worthy folks can become a God, with the same power and knowledge of God, is heresy.”

        Dan replied …From your point of view, not mine.”
        Unless of course it is the heresy you disagree with, which in that case I learned you believe you may some day be as “smart” as HF. I would love to see you do a blog entry on this subject and the blessings of exaltation in chapter 47 of the GP series.
        I post on a few boards, I come and go as time allows. I hardly ever end up in ad hominem posts/threads like this one, accept with you? You have a talent Daniel, and in the end it is my sin, I have a choice how to respond… but…lol… you can certainly help bring out the worse in folks.
        I apologize for calling you unhinged, and a liar ( if I said that), but I do believe your are a hypocrite, but I suppose we all are to some degree. I will also, right or wrong, stand by my belief you need to be a victim to make it all work for you.
        Take care
        Mark

        • DanielPeterson

          Markk: “As in true fashion you have twisted the conversation, or at least to your faithful.”

          Which, being interpreted, means that you haven’t been able to follow the conversation.

          Markk: “You apparently (by your standard default system) had to fall back on the victim card to get away from where it was heading.”

          Why do you keep bringing up this “victim” nonsense?

          I haven’t whined about being a “victim.” I’ve said that you’re wrong.

          Markk: “You may continue, with my permission, to post some of the things I wrote, whether out of context or not, if it helps you feel better or diverts from your losing points in a discussion. I understand what I wrote about you, so apparently repeating them is for your id or other needs.”

          What in the world are you talking about? I’ve never posted out-of-context quotes from you (or, for that matter, in-context quotes from you) in order to illustrate anything to anybody. You’re not that interesting to me.

          I simply allow your comments to appear, and then I respond to them. To the point of nearly lethal boredom.

          Markk: “Playing the victim has been your MO on ‘your’ board/s, and it’s clear it is your ‘comfort food,’ and last line of defense before you bail out.”

          I don’t feel “victimized” by your posts (apart from boredom and a deep sense of futility) and haven’t said a word to suggest anything like that. Where do you come up with this stuff?

          Markk: “A few things I will take from the conversation . . . ”

          You will, no doubt, take MANY inaccurate notions away from the conversation. There seems nothing I can do to help you on that point.

          Here’s an example:

          Markk: “I also learned…you apparently do not agree with chapter 47 of the GP series that man can become a God with the same power and knowledge of HF… ”

          I never said anything of the kind, of course.

          This illustrates one of the reasons why attempting conversation with you is so frustrating. You don’t, won’t, or can’t read accurately.

          Markk: “in the end it is my sin”

          Yes, it is. But, in my opinion, you sin pretty much innocently.

          Markk: “I apologize for calling you unhinged, and a liar ( if I said that),”

          You did. But I’ll accept your apology.

          Markk: “but I do believe your are a hypocrite”

          Again, I’m willing to forgive you because I really don’t think you understand what I’ve been saying.

          Markk: “I will also, right or wrong, stand by my belief you need to be a victim to make it all work for you.”

          You’re wrong, of course. But I think (although this one is exceptionally weird) that your belief on this point simply illustrates yet again your inability to understand my argument.

          I wish you all the best. Feel free to comment again someday. But, please, do try to understand the issues accurately when you do. It would make the conversation much more interesting.

          • Markk

            Hi Daniel,
            Go back and read your first posts to me…you clearly understood my point, and when it went south for you…you started with the ad hominem style of debate…” I’m smart and your ignorant.”
            It’s telling.
            take care
            mark

          • DanielPeterson

            I wish you all the best, Markk, and hope that you’re happy.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X