Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian

[_dogmatic]

I've always figured that people who say they believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as their Savior are Christians, end of story.

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.

I think there might be christians in the Mormon church just as their might be christians in the Baptist church. I think a better definition of Christians, just my op, is the chosen of God to be saved by grace.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm really not interested in hearing any more about your "policy" of not interacting with me

Easily remedied: Don't read my posts.

I'm not sure why you even bother bringing it up.

I am, though.

If you want to respond to me, respond to me. If you don't, then don't.

I don't. However, notwithstanding your commands, I remain free, and I'll decide -- not you -- whether and when I'll reply to you.

what constitutes "clarity" and what constitutes "confusion" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. To the many Christians who don't think of Mormonism as a "Christian" group, calling them one is very confusing indeed.

What constitutes "clarity" and what constitutes "confusion" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

Membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a very specific and quite easily definable thing, so that confusion as to membership in the Church obfuscates what is, in principle and typically in fact, a very

Membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a specific and easily definable thing, but I'm not sure that pointing that out really does much to add clarity to the "fundamentalist Mormon" debate.

What constitutes "clarity" and what constitutes "confusion" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

I agree that "Christianity" lacks clear and institutionally-defined boundaries, but I'm not comparing "Christianity" to "membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I'm comparing it to "Mormonism," and that term is similarly lacking in clear and institutionally-defined boundaries.

That's a matter to be determined empirically. I don't have the data to do so, and you've offered none, so I'm yet to be convinced.

If, by "Mormon," people overwhelmingly intend to say "specifically of or pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" -- which I suspect to be true

I don't agree. Certainly some of them do, but I think it's just as possible that they intend to say "specifically of or pertaining to the body of people who believe in the Book of Mormon and follow the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr."

It's certainly possible. But it's a matter to be determined empirically. I don't have the data to do so, and you've offered none, so I'm yet to be convinced.

[_Garbo]

Ms. Jack, I temporarily suspend my policy of not interacting with you to respond to this post, because I think it raises a couple of valid issues to which I should respond.

I think MsJack should be one of the most popular people among respectable Mormon apologists. After all, she saved you and all your friends from the embarrassment of being associated with Will Schryver and his vulgar and deceptive apologetic nonsense. Rather than treating her with contempt, FARMS should instead make her an honorary fellow.

[_Hoops]

Sounds a lot like what I've been saying.

I thought you said almost precisely the opposite: that it was doctrine that defined who and what is Christian. As I recall, you said that those who do not accept the Trinity, for example, are not Christians. Bishop Hayashi would disagree with that, apparently.

I did not. I can't be any more clear than I was. I suppose that's on me.

[_Runtu]

I did not. I can't be any more clear than I was. I suppose that's on me.

Rereading the thread, I see that I misunderstood your position. Sorry about that.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Could be. I don't know what your flavor of Christianity is. But based on what you say and type here you seem more EV and you do seem fairly dogmatic.

You would rather use the buzz word to elicit sympathy.

Just calling it how I see it. Feel free to clarify more if you wish.

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.

To Mormons at least this distinction is ludicrous. Jesus to them is still Jesus and He is still the Jesus who saves and redeems whether one believes he is ontologically one with God the Father or if He is one in purpose, might, mind and power. Almost no Mormon would tell you you worship a false Jesus because you believe He is one in substance and essence with the Father. The fact that someone might get something wrong about His nature or attributes seems a petty reason to deny someone the term Christian at least as long as they believe the majority and important things about Him.

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.

Just as you (and LDS) accuse me of the same.

I think I have been fair and decent in my posting to you. Feel free to point it out if I have not been.

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.

[/quote]How many in a many?[/quote]

I don't know.I have not done a survey or census. But Dr Peterson can share much about his experience with Protestants who believe in more of a Social Trinitarianism.

And, assuming so, so what? What they do get is Jesus and God are One.

Mormons believe Jesus and God are One in Might, Mind, Power, Glory, Purpose and so on and they somehow they divinely indwell one another. Is that not One enough for you?

What they do get is that Jesus is the ONLY acceptable sacrifice for a reason.

Mormons believe Jesus in the only acceptable sacrifice at least as far as I know.

What they do get is that Jesus is not the offspring of God, which would make him something "other". That is significant.

The Bible teaches Jesus is certainly the First Born of all creation, the Only Begotten of the Father and the Son of God. I think last I checked Mormons believe that as well. I am not sure why you mention the word offspring specifically.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think MsJack should be one of the most popular people among respectable Mormon apologists. After all, she saved you and all your friends from the embarrassment of being associated with Will Schryver and his vulgar and deceptive apologetic nonsense. Rather than treating her with contempt, FARMS should instead make her an honorary fellow.

Are you aware of vulgarities and deceptions in Will Schryver's work on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and on the measurement of the papyrus rolls?

Do share.

Because I'm not.

Can you demonstrate that his work on those subjects is "nonsense"?

If so, I look forward to your future contributions.

But none of this has anything even remotely to do with the question of Mormonism and Christianity. Give Ms. Jack an award out of your own pocket and on your own time, if you feel so moved.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

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.

I hardly think this is fair to post here when on Runtu's thread I have already pointed out my concerns at least in general. I don't think you missed them because you commented on them.

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.

To the extent that is is not, why would you wish it so?

In my view a document that is used and claimed to be God's only true words and directions to us should really contain more integrity in regards to lacking conflicts, being more clear, to the purity of it authorship, to how it was compiled and so on. Maybe I am being to picky but the more I learn about the Bible and its textual compilation and criticisms that less I trust it.

And it just astounds me that God did not bother to preserve original texts of this most important book.

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.

I am not sure I understand this point. Can you clarify?

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

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?

I think Christian denominations for the most part are more accepting of each other than they were in the past. But that was certainly not always the case. Catholics used to reject and Protestant denomination and Protestants the Catholics.

These days it seems if you have a few of the essentials down it does not matter about anything else.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I don't. However, notwithstanding your commands, I remain free, and I'll decide -- not you -- whether and when I'll reply to you.

Stay classy, Herr Doktor.

Can you demonstrate that his work on those subjects is "nonsense"?

MsJack's point was never that his work on the KEP were good or bad. In fact, I believe she explicitly said she had no interest in the content of the work. Her sole point was always that Will Schryver was a vulgar misogynist.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Stay classy, Herr Doktor.

I have, and I will.

Can you demonstrate that his work on those subjects is "nonsense"?

MsJack's point was never that his work on the KEP were good or bad. In fact, I believe she explicitly said she had no interest in the content of the work. Her sole point was always that Will Schryver was a vulgar misogynist.

I was responding to "Garbo," who pronounced his work "nonsense." Ms. Jack's opinion of his work was not at issue.