Further Light and Knowledge

First of all, dude, take it down a notch. Look, I understand that you're . . . angry. That is painfully obvious. But, please, don't take it out on me. I haven't done anything to you. So, for now, let's just start out from that place of peace.

Second, just because "gods" is in the title of my book, and "gods" also happens to be the term/doctrine used by the nastiest of evangelicals, it does not mean that I am a nasty evangelical. The fact is that "gods" does indeed refer to a paramount tenet of the LDS faith -- i.e., that we may become gods, or as you know who put it, "you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves." That is a fact of Mormonism I cannot change. It is also true that in the earliest days of Mormonism, the establishment of a millennial theocratic kingdom led by the LDS elite-- i.e., gods -- was an extremely important part of the faith. This worked itself out in many events, not the least of which was Smith's bid for the presidency. You read much too much into the simple title. It is, as the subtitle suggests, "A" History of the Mormon Church, with special emphasis on the formation of a religion linked to eschatolgical beliefs and ideals expressed by its earliest leaders.

Third, I'm not here to fight. I'm not here to make you believe what I believe. I'm here cause I think discussions of such things are interesting, and as I have been told by some former LDS, I have helped them in their journey. So, really, let's be kind. Whatever you've seen evangelicals do, I've seen worse, trust me. And worse has also been done by Mormons, Buddhist, Muslims, and Atheists. It's a people problem.

So, having said all that, let's continue, if possible, in our discussions, leaving as much baggage behind us as we can. We'll get a lot further, and hopefully learn from each other.

I think you need to stop projecting your emotions onto Equality. I happen to know him IRL, and he's not . . . angry. That is painfully obvious to anyone who's had much interaction with him. He's also incredibly bright and perceptive. He's one of the few people on this earth who's opinion I trust almost completely.

Also, I find it a little annoying for a never-mormon to come on a board geared towards disafected and recovering mormons, and to tell one of it's moderators to chill out. I don't think you're winning many fans here.

didnt we just have this conversation at nom?

when any criticism or inspection is perceived as mockery, the conversation dies. unfortunately, this is one of the bylaws of mormonism. no criticism. no inspection. do not look behind the curtain. and, if by chance the wizard stumbles out from behind the curtain and makes a complete and total ass out of himself, or accidentally buys a mall, dont criticize. and more, dont talk to people that criticize, they are anti-mormon.

criticism is not disrespectful.

this reminds me of the whole temple fiasco with the mormons. because mormons do not talk about the temple because it is disrespectful, they feel persecuted if and when someone else does. quite frankly, it is not bad etiquette or mockery for a priest, a rabbi and pamela anderson to walk into a bar and talk about the temple. in my opinion, it is goofy at best, and feels closer to rotten, when mormons judge, mock, insult and label as anti-mormon, the priest, the rabbi and the chesty actress that walked into a bar to talk about mormons. i

the position of mormons, to hold others to their same standard of say nothing other than 'i know (insert old white guy's name) is a prophet' and you are anti-mormon if you say anything otherwise, reminds me of the Satanic Verses. Granted, Mormons don't issue public challenges to kill the authors of blogs, books and podcasts. But clearly, the line is drawn as to where you stand with the church, its peeps and their god. i think its a damn fine thing to criticize where its merited and call bullshit on bullshit. its the exmormon way.




Last edited by Mayan Elephant on Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:53 am, edited 3 times in total.

Yeah, I was just about to say that EQ didn't sound angry to me.

That is a familiar accusation though. Hmmm. Whatever.

Whoa. I think you're overreacting here in a serious way. Dude. I think maybe you should tone your sensitivity down a notch. I don't read anything angry in what Equality had to say at all. Nor do I read anything particularly unkind. He gave you his opinion which, clearly, is not particularly favorable of your book. So what? He doesn't have to like it in order to "be kind." He also told you why he thinks what he does in some detail. He made no personal aspersions on you, made no attacks, no invective, nothing. If you think his opinion is wrong or ill-informed, then bat him down. He can take it, and not only that but be an adult about it. If you think it's bullshit, just refute it. And you did do so in part, but a lot of what you said just came across to me as condescending lecturing.

For the record, I don't know anything about you or your book. Like Equality, I am annoyed by evangelicals who feel that Mormons need to be "witnessed" to and, even more insulting, that there are special techniques that you should use on them. I am also, for the record, annoyed by Mormons who feel that they have to buttonhole everyone who crosses their path to "bear testimony" to them. I have read the exchanges on this thread with some mild interest (though honestly not enough to bother chiming in) and for my part, I suppose you're perfectly welcome to be here--as long as you don't preach, which of course, is against the rules. I guess there's no rule against giving sniffy lectures about "peace" when you've been disagreed with. Still, I'm not sure how that advances the cause of "continuing in our discussions while leaving baggage behind us."

For someone who's not here to fight, you're sure seem to be on the lookout for one.

_________________
The apple cannot be stuck back on the Tree of Knowledge; once we begin to see, we are doomed and challenged to seek the strength to see more, not less. ~ Arthur Miller

I don't know about the word of god but we do know that the Bible, for all its failures, is at least a collection of historical documents. That's not the case for the Book of Mormon.

_________________
Love before loyalty, people before the organization, and principle before the tribe.
Main Street Plaza

DOMO: I think you need to stop projecting your emotions onto Equality. I happen to know him IRL, and he's not . . . angry. That is painfully obvious to anyone who's had much interaction with him. He's also incredibly bright and perceptive. He's one of the few people on this earth who's opinion I trust almost completely. Also, I find it a little annoying for a never-mormon to come on a board geared towards disafected and recovering mormons, and to tell one of it's moderators to chill out. I don't think you're winning many fans here.

ME: Wow, this just goes to show me how sensitive we all are. I was actually writing that "dude" as an indication of my trying to approach with lightness what was coming through to me. Sorry to say, Equality does sound angry -- at least to me, from not knowing him or ever relating to him before, he sounds .... a tad hostile.


- "What a pompous ass that guy is" (not directed toward me, but sounded angry)
- "while simultaneously promoting an equally preposterous set of their own"
- "They don't need to trade a 19th-century magical worldview for Bronze Age superstitions."
- "It is your personal duty to convince everyone else they are wrong = It is your personal duty to convince everyone else they are wrong" (his response was "Not really. No duty here. All pleasure")
- "No rational basis for believing any of this stuff ever actually happened. All the Bible has over the Book of Mormon is a few more centuries and several million more credulous people to believe in and perpetuate the myths it contains"
- "I'm engaging in this exercise because it is the modus operandi of evangelicals who want to "minister" to Mormons to mock Mormon beliefs, twist and misrepresent the doctrines, and paint a distorted picture of what Mormons believe."

At the very least, can you understand why these remarks might seem a bit, uhm heated to someone who does not know him IRL? And, besides, I would expect Equality to tell me whether or not he was angry, not you. But since you brought it up, yes, his words do sound a bit testy to me. However, message boards are NOTORIOUS for not communicating messages as intended. So, if I for some reason didn't grasp the levity and light-heartedness he intended, I'll certainly apologize to him if he asks for it.

DOMO: It is your personal duty to convince everyone else they are wrong = It is your personal duty to convince everyone else they are wrong

ME: Well, this is nowhere in the Bible, so you can check it off the list. Again, it's a people problem. Not a Bible problem. Or an evangelical problem . Or a Christian problem.

To be honest, though, it's such a bad people problem in the apologetics/discernment/counter-cult "ministry" arena that I am NO LONGER in the apologetics/discernment/counter-cult "ministry" arena. I found, much to my anguish, that there is far less "ministry" going on than there is just straight-up nasty attacking, mean-spirited jabs, and yes, as has been mentioned here -- mocking. That's not what Christianity is about. That's not what Jesus is about. That's not what the Bible is about. Sooo, I have moved on. My most recent release is actually a novel about racism and domestic terrorism. And my next book to come out is about the history/origins of Easter traditions including the Easter bunny, Easter eggs, sunrise services, and Easter baskets, among other things. (It's kind of like a fun devotionnal for the Easter season).

As far back as the release of One Nation Under Gods several years ago, I tried to tell people I was NOT, and still am not, anti-Mormon. I am an evangelical Christian who, by that definition, disagrees with Mormon beliefs. Now, as someone who disagrees, I have the right as an American to voice those disagreements and explain why I have them. My disagreements with Mormonism are two-fold: historical and theological. Therefore, I produced two books on Mormonism: 1) historical, One Nation Under Gods; and 2) theological Inside Today's Mormonism (originally titled Becoming Gods, which too be honest, was a title a bit too close to the infamous Ed Decker's The God-Makers).

I tried very hard to be as tactful, gentle, and kind as possible in the latter book, which by the way, includes an appendix by Dan Peterson titled "Why I Am A Mormon." I wanted a well-respected Mormon to be able to share from their heart why they, despite what evangelicals say, continue to hold to their LDS faith. I can't imagine a true anti-Mormon allowing in a book of their's to have someone like Dan Peterson to say whatever they wanted to say unedited. My philosophy on talking to not only Mormons, but everyone, can be found in the essay I wrote in 2005 for The Southern Baptist Theological Journal. I uploaded a copy of this to my own website that you can read at your leisure.

Have I always dealt with Mormons perfectly? NO! No more perfectly than I have dealt with my wife -- and trust me, I have regularly blown it big time on that front. But I have tried to express my faith and views in a way that would please the God I claim to serve. And now, with specific regard to Mormonism, I am through with it. I have said what i felt I needed to say and haev moved on to other projects. I hope to write all kinds of other books -- none of them having anything to do with Mormons.

Oh, and as for you being somewhat offended by my presence here -- if the moderators would like me to leave -- I will do so. Just let me know.

It is not your presence that's offensive to me; it

I will cede to you that certain parts of the NT are not explicitly that way, but I don't buy your argument that it's a people problem and not a Christian problem. What is Christianity, except for a bunch of people? Us disaffected mormons get this argument all the time. Well-meaning mormons tell us that if we have a problem, it's because the people aren't perfect, but the church is. Well, what is the church except a group of people? And don't say that it's a people/humanity problem independent of religion. It is very much a Christian problem. I was a mormon missionary for two years in Thailand, among many very devout Buddhists. Our primary barrier was getting people to agree with the idea of Exclusive Truth. Or Exclusive Authority. I'd teach tons of people who all agreed with me that what I taught was good. That someone could follow what I taught and be a good person and probably get to heaven. That I represented Jesus. Then they'd tell me that because of their culture, they'd stick with Buddhism, which also taught you how to be good enough to get to heaven. Most of them really didn't have a problem with other people believing whatever religion they wanted to. Of the few people I did baptise, NOT A SINGLE ONE had a dissenting family member. They all thought it was good that little Noi was taking religion seriously. They didn't really care that it was a different religion. They didn't really have the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality. So don't tell me that it's a human condition. It's most definitely a Christian problem.

Whew! I think everybody on this thread should step back and take it down a notch. Let's try and be a little more polite and civil to each other here. rabanes may have been a jerk in other forums, I have no idea. But here he has said absolutely nothing that I find warrants the sort of treatment he's been getting. Let's try and be a little more welcoming of newbies who are willing to respect the rules and culture of the board. As soon as he starts posting nonsense, then you can start jumping down his throat. Until then, please keep an open mind?

_________________
"You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen."
—Razumihin, Crime and Punishment

For me, I saw this post earlier and wondered who this is that he assumes everyone here will automatically know him by name alone? I didn't bother to google your name either, because the assumption that I should know you was somewhat presumptuous, whether or not you intended it that way.

I didn't quite know how to respond. . .so. . .Um, Welcome to FLAK. Yes, it's me. I am very well, thank you.

SML.

_________________
"The bird that would soar above the level plain of tradition and prejudice must have strong wings. It is a sad spectacle to see the weaklings bruised, exhausted, fluttering back to earth." ~Kate Chopin, "The Awakening"

Okay, defending yourself here by saying you gave space in your book to Daniel Peterson, now that's funny!

I personally don't have a problem with the use of the plurality of gods thing in the title. The church has earned that bit of criticism in spades. It's just that many people here find the trinitarian concepts to be nearly as ridiculous.

You see, it's not the anti-mormon part I object to (I welcome that honestly); it's the fact that you're coming at it from a christian point of view. I think a lot of us feel that christian anti-mormon books, films and sites have given all of us kind of a black eye by association.

That said, my wife has your book and says it's pretty good and she's smart and educated in these things. That tells me that you went about it in a fair way without the kinds of tricks, exaggerations and bad scholarship I tend to associate with christian critiques of mormonism. So, good job there as far as that goes. Cheers.

A slight misunderstanding here, just as misunderstood about the whole prefers to speak through a "man" thing. What I was referring to was the issue of it being one's "personal duty to convince everyone else they are wrong" as in go around bashing people on teh head basically and not accepting r tolerating them unless they agree with you. That's what iw as referring to.

The other issue, of Christians believing that Christianity is true, while other religions are false is an inherant aspect of Christianity, based on the words of Christ himself (if you accept the NT as valid).

And to be honest, it makes sense. You have among the various religions a series of mutually exclusive beliefs -- one personal God, is not many personal Gods, is not an impersonal force, is not a higher manifestation of our inner selves. So, someone it seems is wrong, or of course, everyone is wrong. But it is, at least to me, illogical to look at two incompatible belief systems and say, they are both right.

It's not a crime or a heinous act to say to someone, "hey, I think you're wrong, and here's why." That's done in politics all the time. It's done in literature study all the time. It's done in business all the time. So when it's done in religion, it's simply expressing an opinion and viewpoint and belief. So, we have to be careful, IMHO, to not disdain disagreement (even to the point of someone saying, I think you're wrong), becasue perhaps we've had bitter experiences with people saying "I think you're wrong" in some nasty ways.