No: I don't think that he "has established the fact" at all. One can write and speak about Islam or Catholicism or any other faith tradition in a purely academic or secular way, for example. One can, in other words, "write and speak" about them in a respectful way, but that does not necessarily mean that, in private, one isn't saying derogatory things about them. (Do the Mopologists think that Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe, or Robert Ritner regard the LDS faith "with sympathy and respect" because they've written and spoken about it?) Meanwhile, the Proprietor's claims are undermined by (among other things) referring to Richard Mouw as an "anti-Mormon" (per Kevin Graham), saying derogatory things about Calvinism, or repeatedly announcing--with malignant glee--that he'd like to see James Strang portrayed by Pee-Wee Herman. Is this really a person who, with a straight face, can claim to "regard other faiths and those who hold them with sympathy and respect"?I hope that my extensive history of writing and speaking on Islam and other faiths over the past decades has established the fact — in reasonable minds, of course; I hold out no hope at all for some of the folks on the Peterson Obsession Board — that I regard other faiths and those who hold them with sympathy and respect.
In any case, he leaps right into his attacks on Calvinism, and even goes after a faction of Islam while he's at it:
He goes on to cite an article that, I guess, is supposed to bolster his position because (a) it "agrees with [his views]" and because the author (he insinuates) is an anti-Mormon:I confess, though, that I do have a problem with Calvinism (and, for that matter, with the deterministic aspects of non-Mu‘tazili Islam). Even regarding Calvinism, though, I have tried to be appreciative and, where not admiring, at least fair.
See? *He* is trying to be fair, because, hey: here is this anti-Mormon who *also* trashes Calvinist theology! Of course, this could just be a case of jumping on the Bigotry Bandwagon, right? And what about that? Mightn't there be a danger in the Chief of Mopologetics openly attacking another faith? Might it inspire his acolytes to behave in a similar fashion? It certainly doesn't help that he relates yet another breathless bit of gossip:I don’t think about Calvinism on most days nor, for that matter, during most months, but I ran across an article on the subject over the weekend that — because it agrees with my views — I really liked. (For what it’s worth, many years ago I helped to host its author while he visited Brigham Young University for an academic conference. I must not have done a very good job because he wrote some negative things about my church shortly thereafter.) In any event, the article expresses quite well some of my objections to Calvinist theology: “Why Calvinism Cannot Be True And Is It Heresy?”
You have to wonder: How did this topic come up? Did Sanders just--out of the blue--start criticizing Calvinism? You have to wonder what the context was here.I’ve never forgotten a comment that John Sanders, another Protestant theologian who visited BYU a couple of times (and whom I admire on several levels), made to me and Lou Midgley over dinner one evening: “I would feel a whole lot better about Calvinism,” he remarked, “if I had ever met a Calvinist theologian who wasn’t sure that he himself was one of the Elect.”
In any case, the comments--unsurprisingly--have quickly degenerated into a series of attacks:
TLD wrote:Evangelicals are not an ally of the Church. They believe that you, your wife, your mother, your children, and your ancestors are going to be tortured for a trillion trillion trillion trillion years (God loves you by the way) simply because you didn't have the exact right interpretation of Christ to profess while in mortality. Remember kids, Catholics are the hellspawn of Satan but if you don't believe their creeds you will burn in hell forever.
In an Evangelical nation the Church would not be allowed to build a temple. We literally have an easier time in an Islamic nation or godless Communist nation than we would in an Evangelical nation.
And the Proprietor agrees!:Eric Larsen wrote:Yes. These are the same people that openly want the United States to be a "Christian Nation" (and some of them have openly stated as much in as sitting members of Congress). To those of our faith who would feel some kind of sympathy for that sentiment, I would remind them that those who would define what makes a nation Christian also proclaim from their rooftops that "Mormons are not Christians," and such a regime would leave no Book of Mormon unburned.
"Many" Evangelicals are "anti-Mormon bigots"?? Wow! Talk about painting with a broad brush! Is this really the commentary of somehow who "regards other faiths and those who hold them with sympathy and respect"? Even John Pack Lambert--normally a slavish disciple of the Proprietor--sees something wrong with this line of discussion:Daniel Peterson wrote:Exactly, and this should not be forgotten.
We can, I'm sure, make common cause with them on many issues -- and, of course, not all Evangelicals are anti-Mormon bigots. But many of them are, and, in the end, those folks aren't really friends to our faith.
JPL wrote:I think this is a largely outdated view of things. The landscape has shifted. It is now clear that the most virulent enemies if The Chyrch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints come from the secular left.
On the one hand, all of this feels a bit like a throwback to the 1990s, where the Mopologists' main antagonists were EVs and most of the toxic articles in the FARMS Review were anti-EV in nature. But it is certainly interesting to see how little has changed, and it is always useful as a reminder to see "the mask drop," so to speak, and to see once again how much Mopologetics is motivated by bigotry, hatred, and revenge. The idea that hardcore apologists who are committed to defending the "One True Church on the Face of the Earth" would regard other faiths with "sympathy" has always been a complete farce. In that sense, I think that it's only fair to commend Dr. Peterson for the honesty of his recent remarks. It will be interesting to see what the future installments of this anti-Calvinist series hold in store for us.Daniel Peterson wrote:I disagree.
It's true that secular/leftish antagonism has grown, both absolutely and relatively. But that doesn't necessarily mean that conservative Protestant hostility has declined.
