NO Mormons are not Christian!

[_maklelan]

Actually, what you did here (on MD) was say, and it is still up,

Irrespective, my comments here about his general behavior are accurate and reflect his current position. No, Paul is an ignorant and raving bigot who can’t see past his own dogmatism. Paul advocates for the 24-hour surveillance of all Muslims in the country and supports deportation or execution of any Muslims whatsoever in the United States who break any laws whatsoever, including “spitting on the sidewalk.” (He apparently thinks that all Muslims here are immigrants.) I’ve never encountered more of a psychopathic fundamentalist in all my life.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=820021#p820021

Funny thing is, you edited and deleted a bunch of your other comments, (on the 18th after you “apologized”) but left this up.

Yes, I left that up, since it was unrelated to my accusation.

So he is still "psychopathic?" Are you a PHD (or whatever) in Psychology as well? Here is your so called apology,

I apologize for calling you a psychopath, a bigot, a reprobate, and not a gentleman. It was out of line, it was behind your back, and it was unprovoked. It was an incredibly stupid thing for me to do. http://derengowski.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... ed-to-die/

So, you did it again and doubled down. How can anyone take you seriously?

It's simple. You just read what I have to say and then offer an honest and sincere response.

If you will do things like this, your word about anything can't be trusted.

Oh, if only debate were as simple as finding an excuse to unilaterally dismiss everything someone else says. Imagine how much shorter our conferences would be.

Now, you call me names like "Fundie", (which you have no proof of -- again) and other slurs, but I can't describe you EXACTLY as you are acting? (Proof right here). I find it extremely ironic that you are trying to tell us what Jesus meant, and we are supposed to believe that you are honest and don't have an agenda?

I never said I don't have an agenda. My agenda is to combat dogmatism and ignorance and promote honest and informed exegesis.

(After all, you don't even believe the God of Israel is real). You can deny all you want, but who is going to believe you? And I've never seen "scholars" use the word "asinine" in any publications to describe other's work or interpretations. OH, but that's right, you can say anything you want to people on the internet and employ double standards. Perhaps that is YOUR standard? Sad to be you.

Good grief, you just descend immediately to belligerent personal attacks, don't you?

[_maklelan]

For any that doubt what I said about what Daniel believes about the God of Israel, here is what he told me,

And here was the evidence Grindael provided to confront my case:

. . .

And here is what he's offered in defense of his rejection of my case:

. . .

And here's what he will provide at any point in the future in response to my case:

. . .

[_Bret Ripley]

For any that doubt what I said about what Daniel believes about the God of Israel, here is what he told me,

Daniel O. McClellanJune 18, 2010 at 6:58 PM
grindael-

You want to know the process that occurred? Ok. The original Syro-Palestinian pantheon consisted of a high god and his consort. In the case of Israel, it was El and Asherah. The state cult explicitly recognized both deities throughout the united and divided monarchies. The second tier was inhabited by the "Sons of El," which, in the literature as it has come down to us, are nameless except for Yhwh. They are described in similar terms as those used in the Ugaritic literature--that is, deities assigned to specific duties vis-a-vis natural phenomena and political entities. Thus Yhwh is a storm god, Rephesh is a deity of pestilence, Mot is a deity of death, etc. The "Sons of El" are also assigned nations as stewardships, as in Deut 32:8-9. The next tier down constitutes the servant deities. They are ontologically deities, but they exist only to serve other higher-tier deities. These were exclusively messenger deities, originally.

Yhwh and El were conflated around the beginning of the united monarchy in an effort to centralize cultic authority under the single state head when the northern and southern kingdoms came together. Cultic centralization in the late pre-exilic period sought to further consolidate cultic authority by delegitimizing temples and cultic sites outside of Jerusalem. This undermined the local worship of Yhwh, which is attested at Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom (no more "Yhwh of Teman" or "Yhwh of Shomron." This is too close to "Baal of Peor," and "Baal of Gad," "Baal of Hamon," etc. From now on just Yhwh of Jerusalem).

This consolidating strained localized cultic piety, however, which began to manifest itself literarily. By the time Israel returned from the exile the roles filled by the several deities of the original pantheon were reconfigured and expanded for the new pantheon. Cherubim, Seraphim, the Hosts of Heaven, the Holy Ones, the Adversary, and a number of other offices were developed during the exile.

This expansion continued into the Hellenistic Period with the explosion of angelological literature like 1 Enoch and texts from Qumran, but developing sectarian concerns catalyzed a push to reconsolidate these roles. The solution which was developed was to corral them all into one taxonomical category. The most convenient category was the angelic, so authors and religious authorities began to treat these disparate characters as different responsibilities or manifestation of angelic beings. The Greek translation of Deut 32:43 represents the first clear attempt to equate the angels with the Sons of God, but it was quickly and completely assimilated into the Jewish worldview.

Some modern commentators who prioritize a synchronic reading of the Hebrew Bible and don't concern themselves with the scholarship related to the various roles of the early Israelite pantheon accept the tradition that has come down that the two classes are to be identified, which is why you occasionally find it in dictionaries, translations, and more pop biblical literature.

According to Daniel, we have to believe that Jesus, who claimed to be Yaweh, was a made up conflated storm god.

for what it's worth, the view that YHWH was a storm/mountain god and later came to be conflated with El is a fairly standard one. For a slightly dated but still relevant (and somewhat accessible) example, see Frank Moore Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.

[_moksha]

Norwegians from the above mentioned Norwegian cities are sometimes mistaken for Danes when they visit Oslo. Even more curiously, both Oslo and Stavanger residents are sometimes mistaken for Swedes by their fellow Norwegians in Christiansand.

Such misunderstandings make us want to scream.

[Guest]

Norwegians from the above mentioned Norwegian cities are sometimes mistaken for Danes when they visit Oslo. Even more curiously, both Oslo and Stavanger residents are sometimes mistaken for Swedes by their fellow Norwegians in Christiansand.

Such misunderstandings make us want to scream.

Wouldn't be funny if that was what the subject of Edvard Munch's famous painting was actually screaming about? I doubt it, though I can imagine that Munch, having been raised and educated in Christiania (the original name of Oslo) might have been offended to be mistaken for a Swede in Christiansand or Stavanger. There has long been a bit of traditional animosity between Norwegians and Swedes, because Sweden was the last country to rule over Norway (other than Germany during WWII, of course) before Norway became a fully independent, sovereign nation. This animosity was somewhat rekindled or reinforced during WWII because Sweden remained neutral through Germany's conquest and occupation of Norway.

[_Bazooka]

When one reads threads like this and intelligent insight and commentary from posters such as Daniel, one can only conclude that Mormon doctrine is hideously tabloid and inadequate.

[_Gunnar]

When one reads threads like this and intelligent insight and commentary from posters such as Daniel, one can only conclude that Mormon doctrine is hideously tabloid and inadequate.

I agree with that, but I somehow doubt that Daniel himself would. A bit of irony there, perhaps?

[_maklelan]

When one reads threads like this and intelligent insight and commentary from posters such as Daniel, one can only conclude that Mormon doctrine is hideously tabloid and inadequate.

I agree with that, but I somehow doubt that Daniel himself would. A bit of irony there, perhaps?

I think the theology and doctrine that gets circulated among the members is often pretty pedestrian, but I also think that lack of a systematic and really unpacked theology is what gives LDS doctrine the latitude for exploration and the ability to adjust where it needs to. I think trying to chisel out a fixed and comprehensive theology creates restriction and dogmatism. While we're obviously not free from dogmatism in many cases, I think we have more elbow room than many.

[_Bazooka]

I think the theology and doctrine that gets circulated among the members is often pretty pedestrian, but I also think that lack of a systematic and really unpacked theology is what gives LDS doctrine the latitude for exploration and the ability to adjust where it needs to. I think trying to chisel out a fixed and comprehensive theology creates restriction and dogmatism. While we're obviously not free from dogmatism in many cases, I think we have more elbow room than many.

I'm not sure that doctrinal elbow room (wriggle room?) is a hallmark one should expect from God's only true Church. But I agree, Mormonism wriggles out of its doctrines more than most, but I differ in that I see that as a credibility problem rather than a cause for admiration. For instance, compare your intelligent, well researched and articulated explanation about the God of the Israelites with the official Church representation of the same thing:

https://www.LDS.org/manual/old-testamen ... t?lang=eng

In the Old Testament is the same perfectly consistent God found in all scripture. In the Old Testament great richness is added to the understanding of God and how He deals with His children, blessing them according to their obedience and receptivity, or punishing them for rebellion and wickedness. If one would get to know Christ better, one must study the Old Testament, for in His role as Jehovah He permeates the whole record. Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament just as He is the God of the earth today. Keeping this important fact constantly in mind is one of the keys to understanding both the Old Testament and the nature of God.

Let me also now almost contradict myself. I see the Church's craving to provide doctrinal explanations for almost everything, even the number of earrings one might consider acceptable, as a problem. The Church see's itself obligated to provide commentary and instruction on every aspect of an individuals life. Perhaps Correlation is to blame, perhaps it's the corporatisation (is there such a word?) of the organisation over recent decades. But the more the Church tries to explain, the more it gets wrong and has to correct itself. Not good for credibility. I think there is a barrier at a Senior level to the admit ion of "We just don't know". The structure has been portrayed as 15 people who definitely should know, and that portrayal of accuracy "you can always follow the Prophet" is undermining the rich tapestry of discussion that could be had by members if the correlated handcuffs came off and instead, the Church just stuck to a core set of Christ driven principles.

[_maklelan]

I'm not sure that doctrinal elbow room (wriggle room?) is a hallmark one should expect from God's only true Church.

That depends on how tight you imagine the oversight would be. I don't think of God as a micromanager.

But I agree, Mormonism wriggles out of its doctrines more than most, but I differ in that I see that as a credibility problem rather than a cause for admiration.

That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm saying there's room for development, error, diversity, etc. In other words, in the essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty. In my mind, the list of essentials is pretty short.

For instance, compare your intelligent, well researched and articulated explanation about the God of the Israelites with the official Church representation of the same thing:

https://www.LDS.org/manual/old-testamen ... t?lang=eng

In the Old Testament is the same perfectly consistent God found in all scripture. In the Old Testament great richness is added to the understanding of God and how He deals with His children, blessing them according to their obedience and receptivity, or punishing them for rebellion and wickedness. If one would get to know Christ better, one must study the Old Testament, for in His role as Jehovah He permeates the whole record. Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament just as He is the God of the earth today. Keeping this important fact constantly in mind is one of the keys to understanding both the Old Testament and the nature of God.

That was published the year I was born, and even as a member who had been a missionary for longer than I had not been a missionary I could see that was overly simplistic and dogmatic. We're gladly learning to move away from that now.

Let me also now almost contradict myself. I see the Church's craving to provide doctrinal explanations for almost everything, even the number of earrings one might consider acceptable, as a problem.

I actually see the Church refusing to provide doctrinal explanations for most things. I have read decades and decades worth of Liahonas and Ensigns, and have seen the development from strict legalism and comprehensive attempts at explanations toward more latitude and room for personal exploration, and I think that's a good thing. These days you get more "figure it out for yourself" than the checklists and doctrinal declarations of the mid-twentieth century.

The Church see's itself obligated to provide commentary and instruction on every aspect of an individuals life. Perhaps Correlation is to blame, perhaps it's the corporatisation (is there such a word?)

There is. You see it these days mostly in reference to the corporatization of colleges and universities.

of the organisation over recent decades. But the more the Church tries to explain, the more it gets wrong and has to correct itself. Not good for credibility. I think there is a barrier at a Senior level to the admit ion of "We just don't know".

Actually I see quite a bit of this (the new intro to OD-2, for instance), and in my opinion it's on the rise.

The structure has been portrayed as 15 people who definitely should know, and that portrayal of accuracy "you can always follow the Prophet" is undermining the rich tapestry of discussion that could be had by members if the correlated handcuffs came off and instead, the Church just stuck to a core set of Christ driven principles.

I see a number of prominent members and leaders doing exactly this, with some holdouts from a previous generation unfortunately getting the majority of the press.