DiscussMormonism.com

It seems that the post-Romney "bigotry" atmosphere isn't anywhere near coming to an abatement. Over on the aptly named MADboard, a couple of threads are underway dealing with the notion of what it means to be a Christian. A few sects were mentioned, including the Jehovah's Witnesses. But check this out:

The Good Professor wrote:

Billy wrote:I appreciate your honest answer that there are certain boundaries that place you outside Christianity.

I'm quite willing to acknowledge that Christianity (like everything else) has boundaries, and that Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, for example, are outside those boundaries.

Billy wrote:Would you consider Jehovah's witness, Branch Davidians, and Jim Jones as Christians?

I'm not an authority on any of these movements, but, from what I know about them, yes, I would.

They're heretical and even dangerous, and I disagree with them, but they appear to be (or to have been) Christians.

Boy, the insults/"bigotry" against other faiths sure is starting to pile up! Not only does DCP consider Calvinism to be "disgusting," not only does he find any non-JS-worshipping faith to be "anti-Christ," but, he considers the JWs to be "dangerous," and possibly even on a par with the Branch Davidians!

Later, when asked to clarify his views, he offered up this lame, backtracking post:

DCP wrote:They're far and away the least dangerous on the list -- well, I suppose that the folks from Jonestown and the Branch Davidians aren't very dangerous at all these days, because they're dead -- but I suppose you could say that their views on blood transfusions aren't . . . um, medically helpful.

Well, neither was BKP's advice concerning masturbation!

Interestingly, there is a separate thread, in which DCP and Scott Lloyd have been crowing about their victory over a CARM poster called 'Carmella.'

Over the course of the thread, which is entitled, "Christians and Mormons Have Profound Differences," Carmella, who was operating basically on her own, got booted out by the MADmod called Nemesis, thus opening the door for one of DCP's usual "Ah, you're banned, so now I'll get the final word it!"-type of responses.

Here is one of his rather boastful posts:

But the boundaries of Christianity, historically speaking, have been extremely wide. Mormons easily fit within them.

(I demonstrate this at considerable length, in great detail, with an abundance of documentation, in the book Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints. The sheer existence of this book reduced your associate, poor Carmella, to sullen, insulting rage. Perhaps you should read it!)

Aside from the odd claim that that colossal waste of paper entitled Offenders for a Word might reduce anyone to a "sullen, insulting rage" (other than the editors who had to review it, and/or environmentalists who oppose such pointless destruction of trees), it seems very odd that DCP would be so brazenly attacking a poster who was banned. In fact, this seems like kind of a cheap shot.

The Good Professor, it should be pointed out, was invited to participate on CARM. Here is his slippery, rather equivocal response:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:Life is short; loud and contentious bigots are many. I'm interested, as I've said, in serious academic discussion. Shouting matches with sloganeering anti-Mormons (especially with those who habitually delete responses and suppress contrary information) don't interest me even slightly. Been there, done that. Pointless. Merely irritating.

"Serious academic discussion"? I can think of at least one other time when DCP stated explicitly that he was interested in anything *but* "serious discussion." Further, I think that some of his work, such as "Apologetics by the Numbers," demonstrates pretty clearly that even in his supposedly "academic" work, he engages in childish foot-stomping. Finally, what right has he got to complain about organizations that "delete responses and suppress contrary information"? Umm, hellllooooo!! Has he forgotten where he's posting? Has he forgotten BKP's "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"?

In either case, I highly recommend both threads.

Generally, religion is organized to be intolerant. People tend to regard their own religious group as in possession of religious truth. We know there are thousands of Christian groups. Some are more tolerant than others.

Various groups regard other groups as containing some or major error. Some regard other groups as in opposition to the truth.

Some have suggested that there are at least three categories (which may have some overlap).

Exclusivism: One’s own group is the only one which has truth.

Inclusivism: One’s own group has the major share of truth. Other groups may have some truth (that which is common denominator with their own group).

Pluralism: All groups have truth in some way. All groups have some inherent value.

As for the question: What does it mean to be a Christian? there is a plethora of answers, each of which tend to focus on some specific doctrinal claims singling out in priority those which a given group regards as paramount.

As for “dangerous,” all religions are dangerous. They all depend on dogma and blind faith. Where dogma is confronted by reason, dogma prevails in religion. Religion exercises power over reason and plays to fear and anxiety diminishing the role of evidence and reason.

JAK

Simplicity is always more appealing than complexity. Faith is more comforting than doubt. Hence religion has a mass appeal. Both religious faith and uncomplicated explanations of the world are more highly valued at a time of great fear.

During times of great uncertainty and anxiety, any leader who combines simplistic answers with claims of divine guidance is more likely to escape difficult questions based on glaring logical flaws in his religious doctrine or dogma.

JAK

Religion carries major distain for evidence, for facts. It prefers claim to be unquestioned. A bright high school student will likely be out of place in a Sunday school class where there is a clear agenda of the Sunday school lesson.

The very phrase Sunday school is misleading. It’s not school at all. It’s a place for propagandizing the youth, the children of parents who are members of the blind faith group.

The simplicity of most religious pronouncements is often misinterpreted as evidence of the particular religious group. That simplicity often refuses to consider complexity or conflicting evidence. Questions are confined to the religious box of the particular group. Questions outside the restrictions imposed by doctrine are not welcomed.

By invoking the language of symbols of religion, Sunday school seeks to evade the intellectually honest questions which might be directed by a bright high school student.

Those who question faulty assumptions are often attacked as being unChristian. Those who point to glaring inconsistencies are accused of being possessed by the devil or some other accusation which is pejorative.

This same pattern is used in an effort to silence dissenting views or questions. Ad hominem attack is often used: You’re either one of us or you’re not. Here we have the appeal to conformity without question.

Religion sees questions as a threat to dogma which lacks fact. Religion uses intimidation to silence questions it prefers to avoid and evade.

Religion attempts to dig up or distort facts to support its dogma rather than searching for evidence allowing that evidence to take it where the evidence leads.

JAK

Scratch, I hope my speaking a few reservations about your post below aviods being being seen as too negative. Sometimes your sifting the cat litter for jewels is amusing. Sometimes it seems a bit strained. I will note at the start that because I am not interested in digging trough mad threads in question my picture is narrow.

I started this doubious message board posting business some years ago largely due to curiousity raised by seeing DP being willing to actually engage all sorts of criticisms about Mormonism. It was on the Utlm. Peterson was at that time actually engaged in extended discussion about problems. I had never seen such a phenomena before. Mr Peterson got tired of it and hasnt done that sort of thing for some time now.

Even remembering him as the source of some sharp arguments I have a bit of sympathy with your fatigue with his continued reference to the offender for a word book. But then I do not find any interest in the question of whether or not Mormons are Christians. To me they can be if they want. I still do not believe the Mormon story.

Usually Mr Peterson is careful. In the comments you noted below, he does not call the non Christian groups anti Christ. He merely observes they are outside of the meaning of the word Christian. I cannot find any reason to object to that comment. To observes the Jonestown movement was dangerous seems to be a pretty safe observation. Mr Peterson did not say that JW were equally dangerous. The phrase he used speciffically allows a range of danger.

Now I am wonder why I am saying this. I do not agree with his faith stand. I think he gets overly abrasive at times. The only real reason I can think of is that I have at times enjoyed his attacks on some of the narrowminded unthinking Christian dogmatism that annoys me because it comes from "my side".

huckelberry wrote:Usually Mr Peterson is careful. In the comments you noted below, he does not call the non Christian groups anti Christ.

Yes, huckelberry, you're quite right---in the comments below, he doesn't say that. However, in an old post back on ZLMB, he very clearly *did* say such a thing. (Please cf. my OP in the thread entitled, "Does DCP Require Biased Moderation"?) Many of my reports on MAD and DCP are the result of ongoing "investigation," and thus, I will frequently make mention of observations I've already made and documented.

To put it another way: I'm sure that some of my posts can have an effect that's akin to coming in to the middle of a movie. Know what I mean?

He merely observes they are outside of the meaning of the word Christian.

Who, the JWs?

I cannot find any reason to object to that comment. To observes the Jonestown movement was dangerous seems to be a pretty safe observation. Mr Peterson did not say that JW were equally dangerous. The phrase he used speciffically allows a range of danger.

Fair enough. But, nonetheless, he did call the JWs "dangerous," which seems a pretty slippery slope, imho.

Now I am wonder why I am saying this. I do not agree with his faith stand. I think he gets overly abrasive at times. The only real reason I can think of is that I have at times enjoyed his attacks on some of the narrowminded unthinking Christian dogmatism that annoys me because it comes from "my side".

That seems reasonable enough to me. : )

Despite the fact that JW doctrine is far less Bibical, I've found them generally to be more Christian in behavior than most evangelicals.

bcspace wrote:Despite the fact that JW doctrine is far less Bibical....

I think they're as biblical as Evangelicalism, Catholicism, Mormonism, and Branch Davidianism. It's all a matter of interpretation, and the good book lends itself to many, many possibilities.

JW?

I believe in the original post, at least how I heard it, JW were in listed in the class of Christian, while Hindu and Buddist were listed in the class, not Christian. Seems a tolerably straightforward classification.

Despite the fact that JW doctrine is far less Bibical....

I think they're as biblical as Evangelicalism, Catholicism, Mormonism, and Branch Davidianism. It's all a matter of interpretation, and the good book lends itself to many, many possibilities.

Not in any sort of noncontradictory way. LDS interpretation is free of such internal conflicts.