Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian

[_Jason Bourne]

That certainly is an easy way to look at it. Nonetheless, when people claim that Jesus is something He is not, that becomes problematic. There is a reason Jesus is the only acceptable sacrifice for our sins. There is a reason "the blood of bulls and goats" could never take away the sins of man.

So you think getting the "right" theological Jesus is required to be Christian and saved. Problem is your theological Jesus cannot be found in the Bible alone.

Thus I reject this. There are many Christians today who don't really buy into the Jesus of the creeds or even get close to comprehending it.

Plus you now shatter your faith only for salvation. You need to say grace is only good if you have faith in the theologically correct Jesus

While not exactly my position, I think I know what you mean. And you are correct. I would change "Mormons" to "Mormonism". LDS doctrine does not advance Christian theology/doctrine.

It does not advocate historical or orthodox Christianity. That does not make it non Christian. It makes it non orthodox, or as noted, for you at least a heretical theology that still has its roots in Christianity.

On top of that, to them, the only real Christians are the "saved," which obviously does not include Mormons.

Of course. That is a perfectly reasonable, Biblical position to have.

Uhhhhhem, how about the way YOU understand and YOU interpret the Bible position, which certainly is one view but is it the accurate one? Who knows?

I mentioned before, the definition of a Christian is one whose sins are forgiven. I have no idea if Arius, DCP, or you are Christians and I'm not sure how I could know that. Given that, it has not been my habit to say anyone is or is not Christian. I simply have no idea.

Mormon doctrine preaches and teaches redemption and forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, the son of God. So that must make Mormonism Christian in your view.

[_Hoops]

So you think getting the "right" theological Jesus is required to be Christian and saved. Problem is your theological Jesus cannot be found in the Bible alone.

I've given you what is "required" to be Christian. You chose to ignore it to knock down some mythical construct of your own making. Really. You can actually read what I write and respond, or you can reflexively parrot the same old LDS talking points.

Thus I reject this. There are many Christians today who don't really buy into the Jesus of the creeds or even get close to comprehending it.

I don't even know where to begin here. So I'll just pick a spot. You, obviously, have some cosmic insight that us fundamentalists (who you so blithely dismiss in your ignorance) don't have by knowing who is Christian and who isn't. Good for you. I haven't yet reached that evolutionary plane. Your label "Jesus of the creeds" is simplistic. Why is it so damning to have a codified expression of what we believe? LDS do. Social liberals do. White supreemacists do. Why do you find this so surprising? Or damning in any way? Further, I don't know what you mean by "buy into". I can only guess that there is some large swath of Christians who attend a church with a creed posted on the wall, who dignantly hold their nose while shuffling their way into the pews. Your strongest point, which is easy to attain, is that they don't understand it. I'm not sure why it's important that they are able to explain the doctrine of the Trinity in such a nimble fashion that the entire world suddently sees the doctrinal light. I would submit to you that this enough. Jesus and God are One. Get that, and you got it.

[Guest]

Plus you now shatter your faith only for salvation. You need to say grace is only good if you have faith in the theologically correct Jesus

Well.... yeah. Seems reasonable to me. Faith in tree won't save me. Faith that that large truck barreling down on me will stop in inches won't save me. I have to have faith in that (or in this case, who) which actually has the power to do so.

It does not advocate historical or orthodox Christianity. That does not make it non Christian. It makes it non orthodox, or as noted, for you at least a heretical theology that still has its roots in Christianity.

Of course it does. That's what orthodoxy is for. That's why we have orthodoxy. to counter claims that are heretical.

On top of that, to them, the only real Christians are the "saved," which obviously does not include Mormons.

Of course. That what it means to be a Christian. One who is saved. One who is not saved is not a Christian. Just like a chair is not a car, or a blackberry bush is not grilled cheese (I'm missing lunch right now!!)

Uhhhhhem, how about the way YOU understand and YOU interpret the Bible position, which certainly is one view but is it the accurate one? Who knows?

I know you want the Bible to be some sort of cobbled together book where devious men secretly voted on who gets in and who is left out, taking into account all the perniciousness you can muster. But that's simply not the case. Much of the Bible is not left to personal interpretation. You may wish it to be so, but it isn't. Words do have meaning.

[

[_Hoops]

Mormon doctrine preaches and teaches redemption and forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, the son of God. So that must make Mormonism Christian in your view.

Well, if you've nailed down LDS doctrine on what redemption and forgiveness means, good for you. Nonetheless, simply tagging Jesus with a name you've plucked from the Bible doesn't make it so. Here, I can do the same, does LDS teach redemption and forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, the son of man?

[_Jason Bourne]

I've given you what is "required" to be Christian.

You have given the fundamentalist Christian view yes.

You chose to ignore it to knock down some mythical construct of your own making

.

Mythical? Really? You and many other dogmatic EV types are the ones who say you have to get the right Jesus meaning you must accept the Jesus of the extra biblical creeds. Not me.

Really. You can actually read what I write and respond, or you can reflexively parrot the same old LDS talking points.

Oh my my don't get petty here. These are not LDS talking points. They are my questions and queries. By they way you often make it hard to respond with your snippets and one liners.

Thus I reject this. There are many Christians today who don't really buy into the Jesus of the creeds or even get close to comprehending it.

I don't even know where to begin here.

It really was not that tough.

So I'll just pick a spot. You, obviously, have some cosmic insight that us fundamentalists (who you so blithely dismiss in your ignorance) don't have by knowing who is Christian and who isn't.

Do I? Am I the one saying what denomination is or is not Christian?

Good for you. I haven't yet reached that evolutionary plane.

Don't get snotty dude. I have not been snotty with you.

Your label "Jesus of the creeds" is simplistic.

Ok

Why is it so damning to have a codified expression of what we believe?

I did not say it was. I just think it is ridiculous to define a group that claims to worship the Jesus talked about in the New Testament and except Him as savior out of Christianity. Especially when your definition about Him is extra biblical as much as that of the LDS Church. When you boil it down LDS believe everything the New Testament says about Jesus, who he was, what he claimed and what he said he did for humanity. Where the LDS Church differs is in the theological interpretations. As Dan Peterson points out in his book Offenders for a Word, so have many others down through the ages yet they were still considered Christians.

Further, I don't know what you mean by "buy into".

Understand, accept, believe, knows what it means.

I can only guess that there is some large swath of Christians who attend a church with a creed posted on the wall, who dignantly hold their nose while shuffling their way into the pews. Your strongest point, which is easy to attain, is that they don't understand it. I'm not sure why it's important that they are able to explain the doctrine of the Trinity in such a nimble fashion that the entire world suddently sees the doctrinal light. I would submit to you that this enough. Jesus and God are One. Get that, and you got it.

Mormons believe Jesus and God are One. How they are One is where they differ from you.

[_Jason Bourne]

Plus you now shatter your faith only for salvation. You need to say grace is only good if you have faith in the theologically correct Jesus

Well.... yeah. Seems reasonable to me. Faith in tree won't save me. Faith that that large truck barreling down on me will stop in inches won't save me. I have to have faith in that (or in this case, who) which actually has the power to do so.

That is fine. But then be honest that there is much more to salvation for you than simple faith and grace.

And by they way, extreme analogies like the tree one above are a bit silly don't you think?

It does not advocate historical or orthodox Christianity. That does not make it non Christian. It makes it non orthodox, or as noted, for you at least a heretical theology that still has its roots in Christianity.

Of course it does. That's what orthodoxy is for. That's why we have orthodoxy. to counter claims that are heretical.

Then perhaps we agree.

Uhhhhhem, how about the way YOU understand and YOU interpret the Bible position, which certainly is one view but is it the accurate one? Who knows?

I know you want the Bible to be some sort of cobbled together book where devious men secretly voted on who gets in and who is left out, taking into account all the perniciousness you can muster.

Oh my. First the above is a straw man. I never said anything about devious men, etc, blah, blah, blah.

However the Bible is what it is. I wish it were it is not. That is a simple fact. Not my fault. Don't be angry at me that the Bible is not what you may think it it.

But I wish the Bible were as clear, plain and what you think it is. Just like I have wished the LDS Church is what I always thought it was. Neither are. That makes me very sad.

But that's simply not the case.

I did not say it was. But it is not what most, many, a lot of fundamentalist Christians think it is either.

Much of the Bible is not left to personal interpretation. You may wish it to be so, but it isn't. Words do have meaning.

Oh please. You and others personally interpret it all the time. Everyone does. Go back to the thread Runtu started on this.

[_Jason Bourne]

Mormon doctrine preaches and teaches redemption and forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, the son of God. So that must make Mormonism Christian in your view.

Well, if you've nailed down LDS doctrine on what redemption and forgiveness means, good for you. Nonetheless, simply tagging Jesus with a name you've plucked from the Bible doesn't make it so. Here, I can do the same, does LDS teach redemption and forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, the son of man?

Whatever. Dogmatism really makes the world a less better place. It is just not worth it to me. Go get your grilled cheese sandwich. I need to finish watching the time trial stage that will determine the winner of the best and most exciting Tour de France I have ever seen.

I still think you are a good fellow. And usually funny. We could probably do better talking out some of this face to face.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thews, I haven't interacted with you much, but my impression is that getting into a discussion with you is very much like taking a swat at Uncle Remus's "tar baby." It never ends. So I'm going to attempt to lay my position out as clearly as possible, and then hope to avoid going any further with it.

In doing so, I'm going to be using, as an illustration, the desert tortoise who presides over my back yard. Just as tortoises are a species of reptile, so, it seems obvious to me, is Mormonism a species of Christianity. Something of an outlier, obviously, even by self-definition, but nevertheless unambiguously Christian.

Are you claiming the multiple Gods who reside on planet Kolob and require polygamy to enter this glory is a Christian theology?

Taken in isolation, this (somewhat distorted) pair of doctrines is neither Christian nor non-Christian, just as a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy isn't distinctively Christian (Muslims typically regard the Qur’an as inerrant), and just as the practice of monastic celibacy isn't distinctively Christian (Buddhists also have celibate monks).

If one accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the changes Joseph Smith made to the Bible would be of God? This includes Joseph Smith writing himself into the Bible... do Christians accept the revisions Joseph Smith made to the Bible and the doctrine of Joseph Smith?

That doctrines peculiar to the Christian species called Mormonism are not universally shared across Christendom doesn't make Mormonism non-Christian any more than the fact that not all reptiles have shells and passionately love cantaloupe makes tortoises non-reptiles. Various species within a genus always have unique -- "specific" -- characteristics that other species within the genus lack. Alligators are unshelled, carnivorous, and aquatic, while Gila monsters are unshelled, carnivorous, and desert-dwelling. Like tortoises, they have four legs. But tortoises have shells. Gila monsters are venomous, while tortoises and alligators are not. Snakes have no legs. Some are aquatic, and some aren't. Some are venomous, and some aren't. But tortoises and alligators and Gila monsters and poisonous snakes and non-poisonous snakes are all reptiles.

That's the way it is with genuses and the species within them. Not all Christians believe in a priesthood, let alone in a celibate one, to say nothing of one presided over by the Pope in Rome, but that fact doesn't make Catholics non-Christians.

Many Christians don't accept the authority of the Pope. Even more reject the authority of Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson. But that doesn't entail the conclusion that those who accept the authority of the Pope, or those who accept the authority of Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson, are non-Christians.

Christians, by using the label "Christian" reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as false.

This statement seems to be clearly question-begging, and very likely an instance of the "no true Scotsman fallacy."

It appears to be true only if one excludes from Christianity all those who do not, by withholding it from Mormons, use the label Christian as a tool with which to signal their rejection of Joseph Smith and his doctrines. The Latter-day Saints themselves are plainly the most obvious group who do not do so, yet to exclude them from Christianity as part of an argument in support of excluding them from Christianity is, beyond dispute, an instance of circular reasoning and/or of begging the question.

Moreover, it doesn't appear to be true that all Christians in the ordinary, standard usage of that term exclude Mormonism from Christianity. I've encountered many who do not, both personally and in print, and the burden of proof clearly rests on you to demonstrate that all Christians, everywhere, describe Mormons as non-Christians. I do not believe that you will be able to meet it. (Candidly, I don't expect that you'll even try, but that's another matter.)

To claim the LDS are "Christian" implies "Christians" accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

No, it emphatically does not imply this.

You're confusing species and genus.

To claim that tortoises are reptiles doesn't imply that all reptiles share all of the characteristics of tortoises.

To claim that sports cars are automobiles doesn't imply that all automobiles share all of the characteristics of sports cars.

To claim that sequoia redwoods are trees doesn't mean that all trees are just like sequoia redwoods.

To claim that Quakers are Christian doesn't imply that all Christians accept the doctrines and practices of the Quakers.

To claim that Catholics are Christian doesn't imply that all Christians accept the doctrines and practices of Catholicism.

Various species within a genus will differ in many ways. But they will share certain core characteristics, amidst their diversity.

This argument would also include Christians being labeled Jews,

It entails no such thing.

because Christians accept both the new and old testament. Jews reject the new testament,

Motorcycles and automobiles are both motorized vehicles. Automobiles "accept" four wheels, while motorcycles "reject" two of those wheels. But that scarcely makes automobiles motorcycles.

Plants and animals are both cellular living organisms that grow, reproduce, and die. However, animals are typically self-moving, while plants are not. In other words, animals "accept" some characteristics that plants "reject." Does this entail "animals being labeled plants"?

so they fall under a different umbrella based on the doctrine they accept and the doctrine they reject... they are not the same.

Obviously not. Christians -- Catholics, Methodists, Greek Orthodox, Copts, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, Mormons, etc. -- accept Jesus Christ as uniquely normative, while Jews (and Muslims and Buddhists and Jains and Hindus) do not.

That is the salient fact. Acceptance of Jesus as uniquely normative is the core characteristic that unites the genus Christian, amidst all of its diversity, while excluding those who do not so accept him (and who, not coincidentally, also never claim to be Christians).

What I don't get is this new push to re-package Mormonism as something it's not.

There is nothing new about this. Mormons have never identified themselves as non-Christians.

When I was growing up, Mormons were called "Mormons".

They still are, just as Catholics are still called Catholics (while being Christians) and Methodists are still called Methodists (while, at the same time, being Christians).

If Mormons are Christians, then Christians are Mormons.

Consider the following sentences, precisely identical to yours in form:

If tortoises are reptiles, then reptiles are tortoises.

If verbs are words, then words are verbs.

If red is a color, then all colors are red.

If Greece is a country, then all countries are Greece.

If Fords are cars, then cars are Fords.

If Chinese are humans, then humans are Chinese.

They are all false. Can you see why they are false? Can you come up with any principle that would defend your statement while not portraying these false sentences as true?

If Joseph Smith's doctrine is Christian, then Christians accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

A precisely analogous claim:

If Martin Luther's doctrine is Christian, then Christians accept the doctrine of Martin Luther.

(Too bad for the Catholics and the Greek Orthodox and the Armenians and the Copts and the majority of "Christendom" both historically and today.)

Christians don't accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith

Again, indisputably circular reasoning.

The answer is rooted in the shared doctrine.

Precisely.

[_thews]

Thews, I haven't interacted with you much, but my impression is that getting into a discussion with you is very much like taking a swat at Uncle Remus's "tar baby." It never ends. So I'm going to attempt to lay my position out as clearly as possible, and then hope to avoid going any further with it.

So I guess under your rules of discussion, you state what you wish regarding why Christianity encompasses Mormon doctrine and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and my only choice is to accept your viewpoint? This seems rather one-sided don’t you think?

In doing so, I'm going to be using, as an illustration, the desert tortoise who presides over my back yard. Just as tortoises are a species of reptile, so, it seems obvious to me, is Mormonism a species of Christianity. Something of an outlier, obviously, even by self-definition, but nevertheless unambiguously Christian.

This is your viewpoint as you paint analogies I’m supposed to accept, which I don’t, because the definition of the doctrine is not the same. In defining a label for what a religion encompasses, the theology is shared. Mormon theology (regarding God) is not the same as Christian theology, nor does it share any common doctrine.

Your opinion being injected to broaden the scope of the subject matter. Christians accept both the New and Old Testament. By your definition, Christians are Jews. Christians don’t wish to be called Jews, because they are not Jews. Both religions accept the old Testament, but that’s not the foundation for the definition. Mormonism embraces Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the supposed “new” testament of Jesus Christ. Christian theology rejects Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as that of a false prophet of God as defined by the Bible. Just because you choose to re-label “Christianity” as accepting Mormon doctrine doesn’t make it so… the religions are vastly different to include the basic theology of who Jesus Christ is.

Jesus is “God in man”… they are the same… one. Joseph Smith’s theology changed from monotheistic to henothestic, to include “two personages” to define Jesus and God. You can argue how Christianity is interpreted regarding God and Jesus, but you can’t argue how the Mormon theology of Joseph Smith is interpreted, because it’s very clearly defined using the Book of Abraham.

Are you claiming the multiple Gods who reside on planet Kolob and require polygamy to enter this glory is a Christian theology?

Taken in isolation, this (somewhat distorted) pair of doctrines is neither Christian nor non-Christian, just as a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy isn't distinctively Christian (Muslims typically regard the Qur’an as inerrant), and just as the practice of monastic celibacy isn't distinctively Christian (Buddhists also have celibate monks).

What point are you attempting to make? Planet Kolob doesn’t exist to a Christian. The three levels of heaven and outer darkens don’t exist to a Christian. This tired ploy of presenting supposed parallel analogies is an obvious tactic to broaden the scope of what the definition encompasses. You’re an intelligent man Dr. Peterson, but your vocabulary doesn’t baffle me, because you aren’t placing any focus on what the question asked. Kolob, seer stones, Masonic rituals, the pagan book of the dead and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God with a “new” testament of Jesus Christ are not Christian… this is a fact.

If one accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the changes Joseph Smith made to the Bible would be of God? This includes Joseph Smith writing himself into the Bible... do Christians accept the revisions Joseph Smith made to the Bible and the doctrine of Joseph Smith?

That doctrines peculiar to the Christian species called Mormonism are not universally shared across Christendom doesn't make Mormonism non-Christian any more than the fact that not all reptiles have shells and passionately love cantaloupe makes tortoises non-reptiles. Various species within a genus always have unique -- "specific" -- characteristics that other species within the genus lack. Alligators are unshelled, carnivorous, and aquatic, while Gila monsters are unshelled, carnivorous, and desert-dwelling. Like tortoises, they have four legs. But tortoises have shells. Gila monsters are venomous, while tortoises and alligators are not. Snakes have no legs. Some are aquatic, and some aren't. Some are venomous, and some aren't. But tortoises and alligators and Gila monsters and poisonous snakes and non-poisonous snakes are all reptiles.

More distortion. When you state “are not universally shared across Christendom” you imply there are “Christians” that do accept Mormon theology. Your reptile analogy is fraught with holes, as someone who accepts Mormon theology and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, is a “Mormon” or “LDS” if that’s what the acceptable definition implies. Again, “Christians” reject the Book of Mormon and all Mormon doctrine as false, just as they reject Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. You’re being ignorant to imply some Christians do accept Mormon doctrine, because only Mormons (LDS) accept this.

That's the way it is with genuses and the species within them. Not all Christians believe in a priesthood, let alone in a celibate one, to say nothing of one presided over by the Pope in Rome, but that fact doesn't make Catholics non-Christians.

What doctrine does the Catholic faith encompass? What church, other than a church that includes “LDS” in its title, accepts the doctrine of Joseph Smith as of God, and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God?

Many Christians don't accept the authority of the Pope. Even more reject the authority of Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson. But that doesn't entail the conclusion that those who accept the authority of the Pope, or those who accept the authority of Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson, are non-Christians.

Again, what is your point? I am not a Catholic and the pope is just a man, just like Joseph Smith was just a man. That doesn’t have Jack to do with the doctrine accepted/rejected. You continue to trivialize the doctrine of Joseph Smith as somehow accepted by some Christians. The bottom line is that if you accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith you should be defined as “Mormon”, because that’s what a Mormon is. Argue some offshoot church as a foundation for your point, and it’s blatantly obvious you’re attempting to paint the “new” testament of Jesus Christ as relayed from Joseph Smith is a common denominator… it isn’t.

Christians, by using the label "Christian" reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as false.

This statement seems to be clearly question-begging, and very likely an instance of the "no true Scotsman fallacy."

More blathering distortion in a very poor attempt to paint your parallel analogies as somehow relevant. Again, are “Jews” actually “Christian” because Christians choose to label them “Christian” based on doctrine accepted?

It appears to be true only if one excludes from Christianity all those who do not, by withholding it from Mormons, use the label Christian as a tool with which to signal their rejection of Joseph Smith and his doctrines. The Latter-day Saints themselves are plainly the most obvious group who do not do so, yet to exclude them from Christianity as part of an argument in support of excluding them from Christianity is, beyond dispute, an instance of circular reasoning and/or of begging the question.

Say the same thing a hundred times and it still lacks any relevancy. “Christians” reject Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as false. Do you disagree with statement based on the definition of what “Christianity” encompasses?

Moreover, it doesn't appear to be true that all Christians in the ordinary, standard usage of that term exclude Mormonism from Christianity. I've encountered many who do not, both personally and in print, and the burden of proof clearly rests on you to demonstrate that all Christians, everywhere, describe Mormons as non-Christians. I do not believe that you will be able to meet it. (Candidly, I don't expect that you'll even try, but that's another matter.)

Who cares about what you claim is an “ordinary, standard usage of that term” regarding the definition. Break it down:
What religion are you?
Christian – Implies faith in Jesus Christ as God.
Mormon/LDS – Implies faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as of God.
Why is this so hard for you to understand the differences? Are they subtle?

To claim the LDS are "Christian" implies "Christians" accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

No, it emphatically does not imply this.

Yes, it emphatically does. There is one term being used here. If Mormons are Christians, then Christians are Mormons… they are not the same and share no common doctrine/theology.

You're confusing species and genus.

I’m not confusing anything… you are attempting to add distortion to downplay the importance of Mormon doctrine and the belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. You have a big umbrella. Why not lump all theists under the same umbrella?

To claim that tortoises are reptiles doesn't imply that all reptiles share all of the characteristics of tortoises.

Your tortoise analogy missed the first 10 times you used it.

To claim that sports cars are automobiles doesn't imply that all automobiles share all of the characteristics of sports cars.

To claim that sequoia redwoods are trees doesn't mean that all trees are just like sequoia redwoods.

To claim that Quakers are Christian doesn't imply that all Christians accept the doctrines and practices of the Quakers.

To claim that Catholics are Christian doesn't imply that all Christians accept the doctrines and practices of Catholicism.

Various species within a genus will differ in many ways. But they will share certain core characteristics, amidst their diversity.

More distorted meaningless blather to draw the parallel lines that Christians accept Mormon theology and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. This isn’t true, and if you continue to water it down it only shows (in my opinion) of how embarrassed Mormons (LDS) are of their faith.

This argument would also include Christians being labeled Jews,

It entails no such thing.

Elaborate. How are the two different?

because Christians accept both the new and old testament. Jews reject the new testament,

Motorcycles and automobiles are both motorized vehicles. Automobiles "accept" four wheels, while motorcycles "reject" two of those wheels. But that scarcely makes automobiles motorcycles.

A new twisted distortion here. Does your umbrella encompass all theists?

Plants and animals are both cellular living organisms that grow, reproduce, and die. However, animals are typically self-moving, while plants are not. In other words, animals "accept" some characteristics that plants "reject." Does this entail "animals being labeled plants"?

More very poorly constructed parallel analogies to add distortion to what the definition of a religion encompasses/rejects.

so they fall under a different umbrella based on the doctrine they accept and the doctrine they reject... they are not the same.

Obviously not. Christians -- Catholics, Methodists, Greek Orthodox, Copts, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, Mormons, etc. -- accept Jesus Christ as uniquely normative, while Jews (and Muslims and Buddhists and Jains and Hindus) do not.

“Christians” reject Joseph Smith and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as of a false prophet of God… by definition. What part of this is so hard for you to understand. Are you embarrassed by choosing the label of “LDS” or “Mormon” to define your beliefs?

That is the salient fact. Acceptance of Jesus as uniquely normative is the core characteristic that unites the genus Christian, amidst all of its diversity, while excluding those who do not so accept him (and who, not coincidentally, also never claim to be Christians).

This is your opinion. Again, Jesus is “God in man” (according to Christianity) and doesn’t live on planet Kolob.

What I don't get is this new push to re-package Mormonism as something it's not.

There is nothing new about this. Mormons have never identified themselves as non-Christians.

Wrong. Mormons used to like to be called “Mormons” and it wasn’t derogatory as Simon claims. What is a “Mormon” Dr. Peterson?

When I was growing up, Mormons were called "Mormons".

They still are, just as Catholics are still called Catholics (while being Christians) and Methodists are still called Methodists (while, at the same time, being Christians).

OK, but to call yourself a “Mormon” includes belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. To call yourself a “Christian” implies you don’t place faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, but rather believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet of God.

If Mormons are Christians, then Christians are Mormons.

Consider the following sentences, precisely identical to yours in form:

If tortoises are reptiles, then reptiles are tortoises.

If verbs are words, then words are verbs.

If red is a color, then all colors are red.

If Greece is a country, then all countries are Greece.

If Fords are cars, then cars are Fords.

If Chinese are humans, then humans are Chinese.

They are all false. Can you see why they are false? Can you come up with any principle that would defend your statement while not portraying these false sentences as true?

Who are you attempting to impress with these absurd analogies? What is different between Mormonism and Christianity? What one thing is the same?

If Joseph Smith's doctrine is Christian, then Christians accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

A precisely analogous claim:

If Martin Luther's doctrine is Christian, then Christians accept the doctrine of Martin Luther.

(Too bad for the Catholics and the Greek Orthodox and the Armenians and the Copts and the majority of "Christendom" both historically and today.)

Mormon theology and doctrine is common to “Mormonism” and not Christianity, which is why they differ in definition.

Christians don't accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith

Again, indisputably circular reasoning.

Your circular reasoning. Are you embarrassed to label your beliefs as “Mormon” based on the doctrine you accept?

The answer is rooted in the shared doctrine.

Precisely.

Dr. Peterson, please explain what common doctrine Christianity shares with the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So I guess under your rules of discussion, you state what you wish regarding why Christianity encompasses Mormon doctrine and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and my only choice is to accept your viewpoint?

No, under my rules of discussion, I state my position and support it with arguments, and you seriously interact with what I've written. If you don't, I opt out because I have better things to do with my time.

Mormon theology (regarding God) is not the same as Christian theology, nor does it share any common doctrine.

This statement is fatally problematic for several reasons. First of all, it begs the question by assuming that Mormon theology isn't a Christian theology as part of an argument intended to demonstrate that Mormon theology isn't a Christian theology. This is logically invalid.

Without the assumption that Mormonism isn't a Christian theology, you can't say that Mormon theology shares no common doctrine with Christian theology.

Logically, if Mormonism is assumed to be Christian, what you're saying is equivalent to the claim that a Volkswagen shares nothing in common with automobiles. It is only if you already assume Mormonism not to be Christian -- which is precisely the point at issue -- that you can make such a statement. In that case, but only in that case, your statement is more analogous to, say, the (true) proposition that poems have nothing structural in common with nuclear submarines. But, in that case, you have engaged in circular reasoning, assuming what was to be proven.

But even if you meant to say that Mormon doctrine regarding God has nothing in common with non-Mormon-Christian doctrine regarding God, your statement would be false. Here, off the top of my head and in no particular order, are fifteen areas of common belief between Mormon Christians and most non-Mormon Christians regarding God:

1. God exists.
2. God is properly regarded as Father.
3. God is personal.
4. God has a Son.
5. God's Son came to earth to atone for our sins and to die on our behalf.
6. God created the heavens and the earth.
7. God revealed himself to the patriarchs and prophets of the Hebrew Bible.
8. God revealed the Law of Moses.
9. God covenanted with Abraham and with Israel.
10. God desires to save us.
11. God is just.
12. God is merciful.
13. God revealed himself in Christ and via the New Testament.
14. God is good.
15. God will judge the world at the end of time.

These are not trivial. Many Buddhists and Hindus would deny several if not most of these propositions. (Some Buddhists would effectively deny them all.) Muslims would deny a few of them.

By your definition, Christians are Jews.

No, by my definition Christians are most definitely not Jews.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is uniquely normative. Jews do not. That is the salient difference. It is why Christians (including Copts and Catholics, Anglicans and Presbyterians, Greek Orthodox and Mormons) are Christians and why Jews are not (and do not claim to be).

Christian theology rejects Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as that of a false prophet of God as defined by the Bible.

Your claim is true only if Mormons are assumed to be non-Christians, because, otherwise, at least one variant of Christian theology -- namely, Mormon Christian theology -- would definitely not reject Joseph Smith and his doctrine. But to assume at the outset that Mormonism is not Christian, and to use that assumption as evidence that Mormonism is not Christian, is the very definition of fallacious circular reasoning.

And, of course, as I've already pointed out above, it simply isn't true that all non-Mormon Christians regard Mormons as non-Christians.

Planet Kolob doesn’t exist to a Christian. The three levels of heaven and outer darkens don’t exist to a Christian.

Again, you're reasoning in a circle.

Your claim is true only if Mormons are assumed to be non-Christians, because, otherwise, "Planet Kolob" and the three levels of heaven and outer darkness do exist to at least one variant of Christian -- namely, to a Mormon Christian. Once again, to assume upfront that Mormonism is not Christian, and then to use that assumption as evidence for the claim that Mormonism is not Christian, is the very definition of fallacious circular reasoning.

More distortion. When you state “are not universally shared across Christendom” you imply there are “Christians” that do accept Mormon theology.

Not at all. Even if Mormons are the only sect who accept their doctrinal distinctives, that doesn't entail that they are non-Christians.

Roman Catholics are the only people who accept the doctrine of the primacy of Rome. Methodists don't. Quakers don't. Copts don't. Anglicans don't. Presbyterians don't. Southern Baptists don't. Greek Orthodox don't. The Assemblies of God don't. But that scarcely demonstrates that Roman Catholics aren't Christians.

“Christians” reject the Book of Mormon and all Mormon doctrine as false, just as they reject Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. You’re being ignorant to imply some Christians do accept Mormon doctrine, because only Mormons (LDS) accept this.

Yet again, you're reasoning in a circle.

Your claim is true only if Mormons are assumed to be non-Christians, because, otherwise, at least one group of Christians -- namely, Mormon Christians -- don't reject the Book of Mormon, all Mormon doctrine, and Joseph Smith. To repeat this simple, basic, and obvious point, it is the very definition of fallacious circular reasoning to assume upfront that Mormonism is not Christian, and then to use that assumption as evidence for the claim that Mormonism is not Christian.

The bottom line is that if you accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith you should be defined as “Mormon”, because that’s what a Mormon is.

Quite true, just as accepting the primacy of the Pope is what a Catholic is, such that those who accept it should be called Catholics. But Catholics are Christians, as well as Catholics. And, by the same logic, Mormons are Christians, as well as Mormons. Just as tortoises are reptiles, as well as tortoises, and Fords are cars, as well as Fords.

it’s blatantly obvious you’re attempting to paint the “new” testament of Jesus Christ as relayed from Joseph Smith is a common denominator… it isn’t.

I've made no such claim.

You don't appear to be following the argument.

More blathering distortion in a very poor attempt to paint your parallel analogies as somehow relevant. Again, are “Jews” actually “Christian” because Christians choose to label them “Christian” based on doctrine accepted?

Huh?

“Christians” reject Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as false. Do you disagree with statement based on the definition of what “Christianity” encompasses?

I do.

You are continuing to reason in a dizzying circle.

Your claim is true only if Mormons are assumed to be non-Christians, because, otherwise, at least one group of Christians -- namely, Mormon Christians -- doesn't reject Joseph Smith and his doctrines. Once more, in the dwindling hope that you'll pay attention and try to grasp the point, it is the very quintessence of fallacious circular reasoning to assume upfront that Mormonism is not Christian, and then to use that assumption as support for the claim that Mormonism isn't Christian.

Christian – Implies faith in Jesus Christ as God.

A faith in which Latter-day Saints absolutely share, thus making them Christians.

Mormon/LDS – Implies faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as of God.

That's correct -- in addition to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and God.

Very much the way Catholicism implies belief in the primacy of the Pope in addition to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and God.

Why is this so hard for you to understand the differences? Are they subtle?

If I were you, given you performance here, I would be very hesitant to mock anybody else for a supposed failure to understand.

Just a bit of friendly advice.

If Mormons are Christians, then Christians are Mormons…

Nonsense. Literally, logical nonsense.

they are not the same

Obviously.

and share no common doctrine/theology.

Flatly false.

Your tortoise analogy missed the first 10 times you used it.

Your failure to grasp it -- I don't think you've made even a minimally serious effort to do so -- doesn't demonstrate that there's anything wrong with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible ... ce_fallacy

More distorted meaningless blather

I think we can both agree that this attempted conversation has almost certainly been a complete waste of time.

to draw the parallel lines that Christians accept Mormon theology and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.

I've made absolutely no such argument.

“Christians” reject Joseph Smith and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as of a false prophet of God… by definition.

There's the magic phrase: by definition.

It's a rather eccentric definition, of course, and one for which you haven't provided so much as a single coherent argument. You've simply asserted it multiple times.

Your claim is true only if Mormons are defined in advance as non-Christians, because, otherwise, at least one group of Christians -- namely, Mormon Christians -- doesn't reject Joseph Smith and his doctrines. But the fact that you exclude Mormonism from Christendom by definition, in advance, demonstrates that you aren't actually engaged in any kind of discussion, and tells me that it is a waste of my time to attempt to converse with you on the subject. It is, as I've observed, the very definition of fallacious circular reasoning to assume in advance that Mormonism is not Christian, and then to attempt to use that assumption as proof for the claim that Mormonism isn't Christian.

What part of this is so hard for you to understand.

None of it. I have a pretty good eye for logical fallacies, and you've served up a rather monotonous feast of them.

Are you embarrassed by choosing the label of “LDS” or “Mormon” to define your beliefs?

Not even slightly.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

Again, Jesus is “God in man” (according to Christianity) and doesn’t live on planet Kolob.

Even in Mormonism he doesn't.

And Mormons certainly believe that God became man and came to earth.

But, anyway, your claim (though actually false, in part) makes sense only if Mormonism is assumed to be non-Christian, because, otherwise, at least one faction of Christianity -- namely, the Mormon faction of Christianity -- believes both that God became man and came to earth and that God lives near a planet called Kolob. Once more, in the despairing hope that you'll actually pay attention and make an effort to grasp the point, it is the very essence of fallacious circular reasoning to assume in advance that Mormonism is not Christian, and then to employ that assumption as support for the claim that Mormonism isn't Christian.

Mormons used to like to be called “Mormons”

I'm still quite serenely fine with it.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

What is a “Mormon” Dr. Peterson?

A "Mormon" is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormon is a nickname for a Latter-day Saint. It was originally intended, most likely, as a term of disdain.

to call yourself a “Mormon” includes belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.

Yup.

To call yourself a “Christian” implies you don’t place faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, but rather believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet of God.

Flatly untrue.

A Catholic can and should call herself a Christian as well, and doing so in no way indicates that she rejects or doubts the primacy of the Pope.

Who are you attempting to impress with these absurd analogies?

Sigh.

What is different between Mormonism and Christianity? What one thing is the same?

What is different between pine trees and plants? What one thing is the same?

What is different between squares and quadrilaterals? What one thing is the same?

What is different between sonnets and poems? What one thing is the same?

What is different between senators and politicians? What one thing is the same?

Mormon theology and doctrine is common to “Mormonism” and not Christianity, which is why they differ in definition.

Zzzzzzz.

See above.

Your circular reasoning. Are you embarrassed to label your beliefs as “Mormon” based on the doctrine you accept?

Zzzzzzz.

See above. Also http://mormonscholarstestify.org/.

Dr. Peterson, please explain what common doctrine Christianity shares with the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

Here are a few:

1. God exists.
2. God is properly regarded as Father.
3. God is personal.
4. God has a Son.
5. God's Son came to earth to atone for our sins and to die on our behalf.
6. God created the heavens and the earth.
7. God revealed himself to the patriarchs and prophets of the Hebrew Bible.
8. God revealed the Law of Moses.
9. God covenanted with Abraham and with Israel.
10. God desires to save us.
11. God is just.
12. God is merciful.
13. God revealed himself in Christ and via the New Testament.
14. God is good.
15. God will judge the world at the end of time.
16. The Bible is inspired.
17. Jesus atoned for our sins.
18. Jesus rose from the dead, physically, on the third day.
19. Jesus ascended into heaven.
20. Jesus sits on the right hand of the Father.
21. Jesus will return again to judge the living and the dead.
22. The Trinity or Godhead consists of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.
23. There is no other name under heaven than Jesus by which we may be saved.
24. God hears and answers prayers.
25. Christ is our intercessor with the Father.

These could be multiplied indefinitely, but I seriously don't see any point in continuing this attempted conversation.

Feel free to surprise me by actually engaging my arguments, but, otherwise, I think we're done.