Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:34 am
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
Thank God Peterson and Provo will be providing official responses to the questions about Mormon theology and claims this next year. No doubt it will have a significant impact on public perception of Mormonism! But it will be the best America will get. Don't expect Monson, Watson or anyone of "official" capacity to ever address Americans as "prophets" when they got "Provo Pundits" to do it on message boards! Go with your strengths!
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2863
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:11 am
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
I doubt you would find any Christian denomination disagreeing with this.You have given the fundamentalist Christian view yes.
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.
Since I am quite a good throw from being a dogmanic EV type, your statement is magnificently false. You would rather use the buzz word to elicit sympathy. Fine. It's not a choice between the right Jesus and the wrong one. It's a choice between the Jesus that exists, that lives today, and one that does not exist at all.
Just as you (and LDS) accuse me of the same.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.
[/quote]How many in a many? And, assuming so, so what? What they do get is Jesus and God are One. What they do get is that Jesus is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice for a reason. What they do get is that Jesus is not the offspring of God, which would make him something "other". That is significant.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.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2863
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:11 am
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
For this statement to have usefulness in this discussion, you would first have to tell me what I think it is, then offer evidence that it is not. I have no idea what you think it is.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.
To the extent that is is not, why would you wish it so? Just because some things are difficult doesn't make them unattainable. But I don't even submit to that. And my evidence is that core Christian doctrine, which is the most difficult, is universally accepted within Christendom - and each denomination claims the Bible as the final arbiter. you've offered no evidence to counter this.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.
Just because it IS done, doesn't mean it should be done. Again, the pillars of the faith are steadfast and strong. Where might be this unique, personal interpretation you speak of?Oh please. You and others personally interpret it all the time. Everyone does. Go back to the thread Runtu started on this.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5269
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
Daniel Peterson wrote: But that was precisely my point. It wasn't. At least, very arguably not.
Maybe.
Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm simply using the term in the ordinary way that historians and other scholars use it.
And that’s why we have an equivocation problem. I’m talking about people who do systematic theology and engage in ecclesiology, since the vast majority of historians don’t do that, your insistence on invoking them is pointless. They are not who I’m talking about.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Hoops might want to argue that Arius wasn't "saved," but that is, in my opinion, very much beyond the purview of any mortal to decide or even to know
Dan….
Why are you talking about soteriology? I’m talking about ecclesiology and who is and who is not part of the body of Christ, not who is or is not saved. The two are not equivalent.
Daniel Peterson wrote:I find the suggestion that Copts might not be Christians perfectly stunning.
Yeah yeah yeah. Nice theatrics. I’m sure Copts around the globe are stunned that some white kid in Minnesota is trying to explore an idea on a Mormon message board.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Neither Islam nor Baha’ism sees Jesus as uniquely normative.
Islam’s view is not uniquely normative? How does Jesus’ bodily ascension into heaven and eventual return to bring about the eschaton not uniquely normative? Is it a common belief in all world religions or something?
Daniel Peterson wrote:True. As do Calvinists.
LOL! What belief about the nature and mission of Jesus that makes a Calvinist stand in stark contrast to other denominations?
Daniel Peterson wrote:The homeland of the Copts is Egypt, where the patriarch of Alexandria (the Coptic pope) has lived since almost the founding of Christianity. However, there are significant populations of Copts in Ethiopia and Somalia and, nowadays, in any country where expatriated Egyptians (and Ethiopians and Somalis) live..
Cool.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
This morning I caught an interview on TV with Bishop Scott Hayashi of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah. The interviewer asked if he thought Mormons were Christians. I thought the bishop's answer was perfect. He said that being a Christian wasn't a matter of doctrine but of who and what you are. He said those Mormons who proclaim Jesus as their Savior in their lives, in their hearts and actions, are Christians.
Asked if Mormons who wanted to become Episcopalians needed to be rebaptized, he said "No."
Asked if Mormons who wanted to become Episcopalians needed to be rebaptized, he said "No."
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14190
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
Jason Bourne wrote:Chap wrote:Once small problem: all the arguments that
1. Make Mormons Christians (and I have no objection to their claiming that descriptor)
also work:
2. To make FLDS Christians.
3. To make FLDS Mormons.
I'd like to see someone find a way to get the first one without having to let the next two in as well.
Ok so what? I don;t have an issue with that.,
[...]
Oh, I don't have any problem at all with that either. However, I suspect that some people may, especially with number 3. For:
(a) If FLDS are Mormons, then some Mormons are FLDS.
but:
(b) FLDS practice polygamy.
therefore:
(c) If FLDS are Mormons, then some Mormons practice polygamy.
I think that the statement "some Mormons practice polygamy" would, in public relations terms at least, be a proposition that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not wish to see affirmed.
I would therefore be interested to hear whether DCP, who in this thread affirms strongly, repeatedly and in my view quite correctly that members of the CoJCoLDS are Christians is willing to affirm that FLDS are, by parallel arguments, also Mormons. But I suspect he will not do so, since I note that he has posted thus:
Daniel Peterson wrote:A "Mormon" is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That seems to be to be pretty parallel in structure and argumentative basis to a statement such as:
'A "Christian" is a member of <insert name of favored denomination here>', which is of course the type of statement made by those who deny that Mormons are Christians, a view which DCP strongly rejects.
So I would really like to know:
Why does DCP think we should limit the use of the term "Mormon" to the members of the CoJCoLDS? Don't the same kind of arguments that make Mormons Christians (which they claim to be, and which I believe they are by any reasonable standard) also make FLDS into Mormons (which they claim to be, and which I believe they are by any reasonable standard)?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 22508
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
Daniel Peterson wrote: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.
Excellent point. Just like these reptiles evolved from a common root ancestor, Mormons shared a common origin with other branches of Christianity. There may eventually be even more differentiating among Mormons, with conservative Mormons developing more reptilian traits, but they will still be sort of Christian.
.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7173
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
MrStakhanovite wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm simply using the term in the ordinary way that historians and other scholars use it.
And that’s why we have an equivocation problem. I’m talking about people who do systematic theology and engage in ecclesiology, since the vast majority of historians don’t do that, your insistence on invoking them is pointless. They are not who I’m talking about.
Well, that's fine. People are entitled to use words in any way that they choose to use them. However, if they want to communicate, and not to confuse or to mislead, they need to clearly explain their definitions when those are idiosyncratic, when they deviate from the ordinary or the mainstream.
MrStakhanovite wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:Hoops might want to argue that Arius wasn't "saved," but that is, in my opinion, very much beyond the purview of any mortal to decide or even to know
Dan….
Why are you talking about soteriology?
I'm not. But Hoops was.
MrStakhanovite wrote:I’m talking about ecclesiology and who is and who is not part of the body of Christ, not who is or is not saved. The two are not equivalent.
I'm well aware of that.
But I'm talking neither soteriology nor ecclesiology. I'm simply talking about ordinary non-specialist non-technical English usage.
If somebody in some specialized field wants to suggest an extraordinary definition for an otherwise common term, that's his or her privilege. And people in that field will ultimately determine whether the proposal wins out.
MrStakhanovite wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:I find the suggestion that Copts might not be Christians perfectly stunning.
Yeah yeah yeah. Nice theatrics. I’m sure Copts around the globe are stunned that some white kid in Minnesota is trying to explore an idea on a Mormon message board.
No theatrics. And I never suggested that any Copts, anywhere, care what you post.
I said that I find the proposition stunning. I. On this message board. Regardless of who suggested it. Regardless of where he or she lives. The proposition. In and of itself. Whether anybody ever reads it other than I. Whether it has any impact or not. I find it, frankly, bizarre.
MrStakhanovite wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:Neither Islam nor Baha’ism sees Jesus as uniquely normative.
Islam’s view is not uniquely normative?
????
I said that Islam does not view Jesus as uniquely normative.
And, in fact, it doesn't. Islam views Muhammad as uniquely normative, paradigmatic. The hadith literature is overwhelmingly focused on him, and the Qur’an expressly counsels its audience to obey, and to pattern themselves after, "God and His Messenger [i.e., Muhammad]."
MrStakhanovite wrote:How does Jesus’ bodily ascension into heaven and eventual return to bring about the eschaton not uniquely normative?
Jesus' ascension into heaven is unique, but not (in any way that I can think of) "normative."
And, though he returns as part of the eschatological scene, that, too, is in no way "normative." Nor, by the way, can it accurately be said that Jesus "brings about" the eschaton in Islamic thinking. He's simply an important player in the events of the last days, which are brought about by God.
For a brief survey of these matters, see Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin, “Eschatology,” in John L. Esposito, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, 4 vols. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 1:440-442.
MrStakhanovite wrote:What belief about the nature and mission of Jesus that makes a Calvinist stand in stark contrast to other denominations?
Among other things, in "five-point Calvinism," as I understand it, those who are to be saved have been elected unconditionally, the atonement is limited (in the sense that it only applies to the elect, and was never intended to save anybody else), its grace is irresistible, and its benefits cannot be forfeited. That's rather different from, say, the Arminian point of view (among others).
Chap wrote:Once small problem: all the arguments that
1. Make Mormons Christians (and I have no objection to their claiming that descriptor)
also work:
2. To make FLDS Christians.
3. To make FLDS Mormons.
I'd like to see someone find a way to get the first one without having to let the next two in as well.
I have no problem with terming FLDS "Christians." (Doing so doesn't imply that I approve of them.)
To approve of (3), though, I would have to do some research.
My understanding is that the Community of Christ (formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) resist and tend to reject being called "Mormons." Do the FLDS accept the nickname? I don't know.
And what do people ordinarily mean by using the term Mormon? My sense is that they generally intend members of, and things associated with, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If calling the FLDS "Mormons" misleads readers and hearers into thinking that FLDS are members of the Utah Church, then I would resist such usage -- not solely, and not even primarily, for reasons of PR, but because I think precision is a good thing, and obfuscation a bad thing.
Chap wrote:I think that the statement "some Mormons practice polygamy" would, in public relations terms at least, be a proposition that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not wish to see affirmed.
Surely not.
Chap wrote:I would therefore be interested to hear whether DCP, who in this thread affirms strongly, repeatedly and in my view quite correctly that members of the CoJCoLDS are Christians is willing to affirm that FLDS are, by parallel arguments, also Mormons.
I'm not willing at the moment, but am not in principle altogether opposed. It's an empirical question for me, and I don't have the data.
Chap wrote:But I suspect he will not do so, since I note that he has posted thus:Daniel Peterson wrote:A "Mormon" is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I think that's how standard usage runs.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Why does DCP think we should limit the use of the term "Mormon" to the members of the CoJCoLDS?
I don't particularly think that we "should" so limit the term. I think -- though I don't have the data at my fingertips to demonstrate -- that that's how the term tends to be used.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Don't the same kind of arguments that make Mormons Christians (which they claim to be, and which I believe they are by any reasonable standard) also make FLDS into Mormons (which they claim to be, and which I believe they are by any reasonable standard)?
Do they claim to be Mormons? Perhaps they do. Can you supply some data?
If they do, but CoC/RLDS don't, would you favor a usage of Mormon that includes FLDS and LDS but excludes CoC/RLDS? Or should the CoC/RLDS be described as "Mormons" over their objections to the term?
Joey wrote:yip yip yip yip yip! Only in Provo, baby! yip yip yip yip yip! yip yip yip! Only in Provo, baby! yip yip yip yip yip! yip yip yip! yip yip yip yip yip! Only in Provo, baby! yip yip yip yip yip! yip yip yip!
Zzzzzzzz.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2863
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:11 am
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
Runtu wrote:This morning I caught an interview on TV with Bishop Scott Hayashi of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah. The interviewer asked if he thought Mormons were Christians. I thought the bishop's answer was perfect. He said that being a Christian wasn't a matter of doctrine but of who and what you are. He said those Mormons who proclaim Jesus as their Savior in their lives, in their hearts and actions, are Christians.
Asked if Mormons who wanted to become Episcopalians needed to be rebaptized, he said "No."
Sounds a lot like what I've been saying.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4375
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am
Re: Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian
Daniel Peterson wrote:Do the FLDS accept the nickname [Mormon]? I don't know.
Yes. They very much do.
That people might mistake them for members of the Salt-Lake based church if we allow them the term "Mormon" strikes me as a poor reason to deny it to them. People might mistakenly think Mormons believe in the Trinity if we allow them the term "Christian," but that's also a poor reason to deny it to them.
Which is pretty much why Chap said there isn't an argument one can make to support Latter-day Saints using the term "Christian" which doesn't work just as well in granting the FLDS the term "Mormon."
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter