Bigotry Unleashed: "SeN" Declares Open Season on Calvinism and Other Faiths

[huckelberry]

I think if one chooses to look at a religion solely in its best light one should be Mormon. However I do not think that seeing the best light should place a religion beyond criticism. Both sides and more should be seen for understanding.

I find James White hard to stomach but he of course is not wrong about everything. I do not know what subject Peterson failed in with James White. Both groups represented have problems.

James White maintains that Mormons are not Christians. Given that Mormon God is a human being in Mormonism, and in no other Christian religion, I'm inclined to agree.

Drumdude, I think it is clear that the Mormon understanding of God is a human but also a lot lot lot more than that. I can see problems with the view. I can also wonder if sometimes White views picture God as a bit less than human. Of course by definition that cannot be literally correct.

I think to actually think about religions it is needed to see both positives and negatives. I think that in order for religion not to be poisonous it must be open to actual thought.

[Gadianton]

One can, in other words, "write and speak" about them in a respectful way

Not according to Kiwi57.

According to him, you can only ever utter positive expressions of your faith, even as LDS. He went so far to defend this framework, he interpreted that scripture in D&C 1:30 "the only true and living church upon the face of the earth" -- true means "true like an arrow", it's not implying that all other churches are false.

[Doctor Scratch]

I’m not quite sure I’m following you, Dr. Robbers. Are you saying that it’s impossible for the Mopologists to say decent things about other faiths? Or that it’s impossible for them to ever criticize the LDS Church?

And Huck: of course one can criticize Calvinism, Mormonism, or any other faith. But the Mopologists—notably the Proprietor—used to *boast* about never criticizing other religious beliefs. The only reason they were engaging in Mopologetics, they claimed, was because they were attacked first. And yet now we get this post on SeN, where the slams on Calvinism are completely unprovoked.

[bill4long]

I think if one chooses to look at a religion solely in its best light one should be Mormon. However I do not think that seeing the best light should place a religion beyond criticism. Both sides and more should be seen for understanding.

I find James White hard to stomach but he of course is not wrong about everything. I do not know what subject Peterson failed in with James White. Both groups represented have problems.

James White maintains that Mormons are not Christians. Given that Mormon God is a human being in Mormonism, and in no other Christian religion, I'm inclined to agree.

Or the Hebrew religion, which is were the Christians get their god from. Hebrews god is "most high" (Gen 14:18) and "alone and by myself" (Isaiah 43:10, 44:24) with no god prior or after, it would be fitting to conclude that the Mormon god is a different god that the Biblical god. Deuteronomy 13 says to reject such a foreign god. (Personally I don't care if someone worships a frog.)

The irony is that Hebrews/Jews think Jame White's god is a false god. Trinity nonsense and all that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaDRPJ8dPqE

Which reminds me of an old joke: why did God create Mormons? So that Christians would know what it feels like to be a Jew.

[Kishkumen]

Pre-destination and an eternal torment are two things I definitely have a problem with.

[drumdude]

James White maintains that Mormons are not Christians. Given that Mormon God is a human being in Mormonism, and in no other Christian religion, I'm inclined to agree.

Or the Hebrew religion, which is were the Christians get their god from. Hebrews god is "most high" (Gen 14:18) and "alone and by myself" (Isaiah 43:10, 44:24) with no god prior or after, it would be fitting to conclude that the Mormon god is a different god that the Biblical god. Deuteronomy 13 says to reject such a foreign god. (Personally I don't care if someone worships a frog.)

The irony is that Hebrews/Jews think Jame White's god is a false god. Trinity nonsense and all that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaDRPJ8dPqE

Which reminds me of an old joke: why did God create Mormons? So that Christians would know what it feels like to be a Jew.

Good points. I’m looking forward to the Christian religion after Mormonism where God ceases to exist at all, but is still Elohim! Praise his mysterious holy non-existence!

[Gadianton]

My apologies Doctor Scratch, I wasn't very clear. I was rushed as I was to meet a friend for dinner. Funny enough, and I'm not making this up, he's been on his way out of the Church, and has had run ins with online Mopologetics that left a very bad impression on him. In fact, he told relatives about it, and one of the relatives was like, "that guy is the worst!"

Anyway, I'd better clarify. What I meant is that per Kiwi-57 official engagement protocol, anyone, no matter what faith, including LDS people, is only ever allowed to positively promote their own faith and defend their faith. LDS people, including Mopologists, are not allowed to attack the positive expressions of faith of other non-LDS. That the LDS people, including Mopologists, never attack other faiths is a crucial matter of engagement doctrine. This gives credibility to the righteous use of force to defend themselves as a "band of brothers" holed up in a defensive position, as he would put it. It's not "both sides" -- the LDS are the victims. Therefore, they have a right to vigorously defend themselves. I truly believe that if he thought Mormon apologists were attacking other faiths unprovoked, it would take away his right to be so nasty to critics, in his mind.

So if he were consistent, he'd rebuke Petersen for this post. But, this doctrine clearly conflicts with the doctrine of never admitting wrong-doing, even privately, and so that would never happen. I think he'd find a way to justify the post as something other than an attack. But right is right and so I'm still calling it out.

[huckelberry]

I’m not quite sure I’m following you, Dr. Robbers. Are you saying that it’s impossible for the Mopologists to say decent things about other faiths? Or that it’s impossible for them to ever criticize the LDS Church?

And Huck: of course one can criticize Calvinism, Mormonism, or any other faith. But the Mopologists—notably the Proprietor—used to *boast* about never criticizing other religious beliefs. The only reason they were engaging in Mopologetics, they claimed, was because they were attacked first. And yet now we get this post on SeN, where the slams on Calvinism are completely unprovoked.

Doc, I can see you have a point about the Mopologist cry of how unfairly they are attacked can get a little long. There are true crackpots who attack the Mormons but I think it makes little sense to worry about them, best trade with the level-headed critics.

[Doctor Scratch]

Thanks, Dean—that does help to clarify. My understanding is the same as yours. The Mopologists have always maintained a facade where *they* never have anything negative to say about other faiths. But this latest “lashing out” against Calvinism shows that it really was a facade all along.

[Doctor Steuss]

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.”

I'm sure that right after this, Drs Midgley and Peterson noted that the Second Anointing exists within the LDS tradition, to help John Sanders realize that there are other religions where leaders/theologians are not only sure that they are "Elect," but go so far as to have a special religious rite, wherein it is made explicit.