Jason Bourne wrote:I wonder though, would you give the same types of disclosure for a potential convert to Christianity in general? Personally I find there to be shortfall of information for converts at alter calls.
Disclosure of what to potential converts to Christianity?
Shortfall of what information?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
I'm referring to the pinned thread and my exchanges with Dale Broadhurst.
Did you read them?
In the celestial forum or the most recent one?
It has nothing to do with spending more/less time on the S/R theory. It has to do with a noted historian's failure to provide a historically accurate representation.
To put it more bluntly, it has to do with Bushman providing half-truth.
Sorry Jersey Girl. Your high on the SR theory. Others are not. Of course since you are you think he should have spent more time on it. Bushman, a far higher authority than you on these things perhaps thinks differently. The book was 700 pages. Should he have added 100 for your favorite theory? Maybe he has good reason to find the theory flawed. How many differing view points should he have discussed? Richard Von Wagner, a Rigdon Biographer spent little time with the SR theory and out rightly dismissed it.
Frankly your position that he provided a half truth is ludicrous.
I'm referring to the pinned thread and my exchanges with Dale Broadhurst.
Did you read them?
In the celestial forum or the most recent one?
It has nothing to do with spending more/less time on the S/R theory. It has to do with a noted historian's failure to provide a historically accurate representation.
To put it more bluntly, it has to do with Bushman providing half-truth.
Sorry Jersey Girl. Your high on the SR theory. Others are not. Of course since you are you think he should have spent more time on it. Bushman, a far higher authority than you on these things perhaps thinks differently. The book was 700 pages. Should he have added 100 for your favorite theory? Maybe he has good reason to find the theory flawed. How many differing view points should he have discussed? Richard Von Wagner, a Rigdon Biographer spent little time with the SR theory and out rightly dismissed it.
Frankly your position that he provided a half truth is ludicrous.
Why are you dancing around this when I specifically stated:
"This comment is really the reason I'm replying to this post. I've read RSR twice and appreciated the informative nature of the book. Just today in exchanges with Dale Broadhurst on the pinned thread in Terrestrial that I started, I became aware of one instance where Bushman supplied incomplete information regarding the S/R theory. Information he should have known and chose not to include in his comments. I'm not sure what to think of Bushman's historical accuracy now. Still, I think I would recommend RSR to any investigator."
How about read the exchanges that I referred to before characterizing my position "ludicrous"?
Disclosure of what to potential converts to Christianity?
Shortfall of what information?
How much information does a convert to Christianity have when they commit? How about at an alter call? Do they have information about the theological wranglings about the Godhead and all the varying views that took 700 year to develop and that much of it can be argued to be extra biblical? Do they have clue to how the Bible was compiled, that we do not know who many of the authors were and in fact authorship by some books was really not what it claimed to be? Are they aware of the other competing texts that many competing Christian sects believed were valid and that for the first 200 years of Christianity there was not really a orthodox sect but a group of competing sects all claiming validity? Are they aware that there is little historical evidence of Jesus outside the Bible? Are they aware of the issue surrounding Old Testament text? How about the fact that much of reformed theology has little historical support before the 1500s?
Why are you dancing around this when I specifically stated:
"This comment is really the reason I'm replying to this post. I've read RSR twice and appreciated the informative nature of the book. Just today in exchanges with Dale Broadhurst on the pinned thread in Terrestrial that I started, I became aware of one instance where Bushman supplied incomplete information regarding the S/R theory. Information he should have known and chose not to include in his comments. I'm not sure what to think of Bushman's historical accuracy now. Still, I think I would recommend RSR to any investigator."
How about read the exchanges that I referred to before characterizing my position "ludicrous"?
I missed your bold item. I will check it out but not tonight. I am off to bed in a few minutes.
How much information does a convert to Christianity have when they commit?
Jersey Girl: That depends on what you mean by commit. I can only reply from the standpoint of my former SB church as it stood when I stopped attending about 6 years ago.
How about at an alter call?
Jersey Girl: An altar call has multiple purposes. It is for people who wish to speak to a Pastor regarding personal issues, speak to a pastor or deacon regarding an interest to make a decision for Christ, for baptism and/or to gain information regarding membership in the SB church and that sort of thing. There is not one purpose for an altar call. A person can make a decision for Christ without becoming a member of the church. If one chooses to follow through with baptism and membership, they are bound to a series of membership classes. That is to say, conversion to Christianity in the way that I think you mean it (which would actually be regarding as church membership, not conversion) isn't something that happens quickly.
Do they have information about the theological wranglings about the Godhead and all the varying views that took 700 year to develop and that much of it can be argued to be extra biblical?
Jersey Girl: They are supplied with early Christian history (Council of Nicea, etc) and the development of the denomination (Calvanism, etc) in classes prior to baptism and membership. I didn't pay much attention to it.
Do they have clue to how the Bible was compiled, that we do not know who many of the authors were and in fact authorship by some books was really not what it claimed to be?
Jersey Girl: They are taught about the history of the Bible, yes, though I wouldn't say it's in great detail. As to specific authorship...if you're referring to, say, the Gospel of John being actually written by John vs being written by someone conveying the Gospel of John, not really. Both Mosaic authorship and New Testament authorship issues (speculations and reasons for such) as well as the history of the Bible/extant copies of the scriptures/canon/apocrypha are part of the resources in the Bible given to me when I was baptized years ago. In another Bible that I own, the issues regarding Mosaic authorship are discussed in much greater detail.
Are they aware of the other competing texts that many competing Christian sects believed were valid and that for the first 200 years of Christianity there was not really a orthodox sect but a group of competing sects all claiming validity?
Jersey Girl: Are you referring to the texts that were excluded from the canon? I don't know that these are discussed in great detail however, the compilation of the canon is presented.
Are they aware that there is little historical evidence of Jesus outside the Bible?
Jersey Girl; No, I don't think so. Not unless it's covered in a topical class "Historical Jesus" such as that for creationism and other topics of interest. When I say "topical" class, that could be a class presented based on growing interest in the congregation, a "hot topic" issue, or a special Bible study. The historical Jesus issue (or other issue) could also be covered in a series of topical sermons/messages in a series of Sunday Worship Services.
Are they aware of the issue surrounding Old Testament text?
Jersey Girl: What issue?
How about the fact that much of reformed theology has little historical support before the 1500s?
Jersey Girl: Be more specific.
Again, all of the above are based on my experiences more than 6 years ago. It's been a while and if you're at all curious as to why I left, I'd be glad to address it.
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:00 am, edited 13 times in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Do you see the time and thought that I devoted to the post above? That's what I'd like you to do before characterizing something I've referred to as ludicrous without having read what I actually referred to.
Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Do you see the time and thought that I devoted to the post above? That's what I'd like you to do before characterizing something I've referred to as ludicrous without having read what I actually referred to.
Jersey Girl
Other than missing one reference you made to comments in another thread, which by the way, were off topic to this thread, my comments here to you have had time and thought devoted to them. Additionally, not every post you or others make here are full of thoughtful ideas. Sometimes we tend to post off the cuff a bit.
I do however admit I missed your reference in to Uncle Dale's comments about the S/R thoery and RSR. So I made perhaps an erroneous conclusion. I will take a look at it later. But today I am very busy.
Are they aware of the issue surrounding Old Testament text?
Jersey Girl: What issue?
That should have been issues. But it is off topic for this thread. I made the points about Christianity in general because most converts to a Christian religions are not give any more information about controversial issues then are LDS potential converts. In the alter call situations I have seen it is even less. In fact it is little if anything other than we are sinners, going to Hell and Jesus is the way to be saved so come up and confess He is Lord.
So when I gave my list of things I would tell people about Mormonism, at least those looking to join, and you added some things, I noted my list was not all inclusive and then simply noted that no religions gives up all controversial issues.
antishock8 wrote:I'm having a hard time understanding how I presented an "unbalanced" point of view.
Jason, or some other Mormon, please take the time to explain to me how my point of view is unbalanced. I maintain that it's a very balanced point of view. I'd like to know what was so off about what I said that it's "unbalanced".