Is Ed Decker Worse than Hitler?

[Cow Poke]

Wouldn't "honestly answering the question" be the honest thing to do?

Yes, can we expect you to do that from now on?

[nrajeff]

Yes, can we expect you to do that from now on?

"Honest" by your standards? I wouldn't hold my breath. But if you think that the opinions I have expressed have not been honest, I think you'd be wrong. What's in it for me to not tell you what I honestly think about stuff, including you antis and your forum (for example)?

[Cow Poke]

"Honest" by your standards?

Sure -- like answering the question instead of doing the drama queen thing, or evading, or misrepresenting what we say, or giving a really snarky answer....

I wouldn't hold my breath.

But if you think that the opinions I have expressed have not been honest, I think you'd be wrong.

Not about opinions, Jeff.

What's in it for me to not tell you what I honestly think about stuff, including you antis and your forum (for example)?

Oh, and the persecution complex. It really gets old.

[JB]

On the Decker note, I've seen him around at a few venues, so I'd almost be somewhat surprised if Jeff hadn't run into him on a forum somewhere. And yeah, I don't really doubt Jeff's characterization of the encounter, judging from what I know of Decker.

As for the CEV thing, it's clear that Jeff is being silly. The whole point of a children's version of something is to give a rough approximation in extremely simple terms, even at the expense of a lot of important nuance. (In this case, it isn't that the CEV's rendering doesn't give something of the ultimate sense of the passage, but that has to be understood within the bounds of the theology of Hebrews and the use of the particular Greek words underlying the text. Given that Hebrews reflects an Alexandrian Jewish-Christian milieu, and given that Philo of Alexandria was perfectly capable of using the term charakter to refer to the immaterial soul's goodness and knowledge of God as something that God stamped onto it, the passage can quite sensibly be understood in a way that does not imply the corporeality of the Father. At any rate, given the position of this phrase in Hebrews 1:3, it is unlikely to refer to something pertaining to the incarnation, and so in order to infer the corporeality of the Father from this verse, one would have to establish the corporeality of the pre-incarnate Son.) And to pretend that a children's version is in some way superior (for purposes of making a point in the manner he has attempted) to a more accurate translation is far-fetched, to say the least, though perhaps Jeff is then willing to concede that if someone can find historical inaccuracies in one of the various Book of Mormon-based comic books (or, to provide a closer parallel, Lynn Anderson's Easy-to-Read Book of Mormon), it undermines the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. But this would be ridiculous.

[nrajeff]

On the Decker note, I've seen him around at a few venues, so I'd almost be somewhat surprised if Jeff hadn't run into him on a forum somewhere. And yeah, I don't really doubt Jeff's characterization of the encounter, judging from what I know of Decker.

As for the CEV thing, it's clear that Jeff is being silly. The whole point of a children's version of something is to give a rough approximation in extremely simple terms, even at the expense of a lot of important nuance. (In this case, it isn't that the CEV's rendering doesn't give something of the ultimate sense of the passage, but that has to be understood within the bounds of the theology of Hebrews and the use of the particular Greek words underlying the text. Given that Hebrews reflects an Alexandrian Jewish-Christian milieu, and given that Philo of Alexandria was perfectly capable of using the term charakter to refer to the immaterial soul's goodness and knowledge of God as something that God stamped onto it, the passage can quite sensibly be understood in a way that does not imply the corporeality of the Father. At any rate, given the position of this phrase in Hebrews 1:3, it is unlikely to refer to something pertaining to the incarnation, and so in order to infer the corporeality of the Father from this verse, one would have to establish the corporeality of the pre-incarnate Son.) And to pretend that a children's version is in some way superior (for purposes of making a point in the manner he has attempted) to a more accurate translation is far-fetched, to say the least, though perhaps Jeff is then willing to concede that if someone can find historical inaccuracies in one of the various Book of Mormon-based comic books (or, to provide a closer parallel, Lynn Anderson's Easy-to-Read Book of Mormon), it undermines the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. But this would be ridiculous.

Not a bad post. The verbosity is justifiable, IMO.

[nrajeff]

Sure -- like answering the question...

Didn't you just proclaim a JUSTIFICATION of evading questions that contain false dilemmas? Or do only antis get the freedom to evade stuff they feel to be fallacious?

...or giving a really snarky answer....

So you feel that the snarkiness of my answers exceeds that of yours? What--do yours only rise to the level of "moderately, but not really, snarky" ?

Where is the authoritative snarkiness meter where the snarkiness of each poster's posts can be measured, to make sure it doesn't exceed your objective threshold?

Or maybe you only feel snarked if you ALLOW yourself to feel snarked....

Not about opinions, Jeff.

What else is there when you're asked about your beliefs? Maybe you have managed to state your beliefs in terms that don't involve your opinion. Please teach the rest of us how that works.

Oh, and the persecution complex. It really gets old.

Maybe it's just you projecting.

[JonathanDJ]

I remember seeing a comment from somebody about "God Makers" --- the Ed Decker production, and the Mormonic response was intense. (Sorry, don't have a quote, but correct me if I'm wrong)

BTC just mentioned Ed in another thread -- I actually SAW "God Makers" many years ago, but didn't connect this with Ed Decker, because I didn't know who Ed was.

So, along the same lines as the "Seek Truth Wherever You can Find it"... is EVERYTHING Ed says false, or would Mormons say that 90% is false? What's the beef with Ed? (I honestly don't remember many details of God Makers - but what I do remember seems to fit with what Mormons actually teach )

Is Decker worse than Hitler?

Hitler was a National Socialist Dictator who was responsible for the lose of about fifty-million human lives. Ed Decker is a former Mormon who obviously had a bad experience with the Mormon Church. Apparently he is someone who feels deeply that the Mormon religion is dangerous both sociologically and theologically. Based on that he made a hand full of expose' style documentaries about the Mormon Church. But not one life was lost because of his actions! Fancy that!

[nrajeff]

Hitler was a National Socialist Dictator who was responsible for the lose of about fifty-million human lives. Ed Decker is a former Mormon who obviously had a bad experience with the Mormon Church. Apparently he is someone who feels deeply that the Mormon religion is dangerous both sociologically and theologically. Based on that he made a hand full of expose' style documentaries about the Mormon Church. But not one life was lost because of his actions! Fancy that!

No lives were lost due to his actions, unless the story about his getting some missionaries killed in a foreign country is true.

[Cow Poke]

No lives were lost due to his actions, unless the story about his getting some missionaries killed in a foreign country is true.

Linky?

[Cow Poke]

Didn't you just proclaim a JUSTIFICATION of evading questions that contain false dilemmas? Or do only antis get the freedom to evade stuff they feel to be fallacious?

No. I answered it. Lemme try it another way, Jeff... I'll CEV it for ya...

You and I are standing in line at Baskin Robins. I'm buying.

Scenario one:
Looking at ALL the flavors, you ask me, "which is your favorite, chocolate or vanilla". And I answer "I prefer Strawberry". Would you pitch a hissy and accuse me of "evading the question"? I should hope not.

Scenario two:
Looking at ALL the flavors, you ask me, "which is your favorite, chocolate or vanilla". And I answer "In the spring of 18 something, a young man went into the woods....."

THAT, Jeff (scenario two) is evading the question.

[nrajeff]

I believe the killings that some have claimed a Decker connection to, occurred In May 1989, when "members of a terrorist organization called the Zarate Willka Armed Forces of Liberation murdered two Mormon missionaries in La Paz, Bolivia."

http://modern-persecution.wikidot.com/mormons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism

tell about that and other acts of violence against LDS, but not the Decker connection, which comes from other sources such as Darrick Evanson (questionable credibility) and others.

I believe the Walter Martin threads with Decker mentioned the attacks, and Decker tried to brush off any connection with himself, understandably.

[nrajeff]

No. I answered it. Lemme try it another way, Jeff... I'll CEV it for ya....

You and Sparko have cited the CEV in the past 3 days more than I have, in my whole life.

Maybe it's a Freudian thing?

[Sparko]

You and Sparko have cited the CEV in the past 3 days more than I have, in my whole life.

Maybe it's a Freudian thing?

I haven't quoted the CEV at all Jeff.

[nrajeff]

I haven't quoted the CEV at all Jeff.

How about "mentioned or referred to it" ?

[Sparko]

How about "mentioned or referred to it" ?

only in response to your posts as far as I can recall. Heck I don't even know how to spell CEV.