Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian

[_Buffalo]

I worship the God who created the heavens and the earth, covenanted with Abraham, revealed his law through Moses, inspired the psalmist, sent his Son into the world to suffer and die on our behalf, raised Jesus from the dead, wants to be addressed as Father, governs the universe, speaks through the Spirit, and will judge all humankind at the end of days.

If that's not the God you worship . . . well, I'm very surprised.

[_madeleine]

There was nothing unclear in my previous response to you.

Maybe not to you. Most of your posts are riddles to me, as though you always have an inside joke going....one I'm not privy to.

I worship the God who created the heavens and the earth, covenanted with Abraham, revealed his law through Moses, inspired the psalmist, sent his Son into the world to suffer and die on our behalf, raised Jesus from the dead, wants to be addressed as Father, governs the universe, speaks through the Spirit, and will judge all humankind at the end of days.

If that's not the God you worship . . . well, I'm very surprised.

What is the nature of this God you worship? That is the thing with Mormonism, very tricky with definitions, and always trying to align a bit of twist on definition to Christian orthodoxy. I've never understood why.

Only if Mormons are assumed to be non-Christians. But that is the point at issue, and to assume the point at issue as evidence for determining the issue is fallacious circular reasoning. If Mormons are assumed to be Christians, then it is the case that some Christians (namely, Mormons) describe their God the way that Mormons do, and it cannot be the case that "how Mormons describe God and how Christians describe God, are very different."

Perhaps that is how it is for a Mormon. For a Christian, One Faith, One Baptism is important. Faith for a Christian is in God, who has a triune nature. Not a three gods among many gods/godessess created from existing material of the same nature as humans, etc, etc. A lot of times I see Mormons viewing the Creeds as some sort of arbitrary and abstract test of faith, which they are not. They describe what Christians believe, the One Faith. This is where the relativism of Mormonism comes in, and the mysterious need to align Mormon belief to Christian orthodoxy.

I wouldn't say that Hinduism is Christian, either. But that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Mormonism is Christian.

Comparative difference in Who is being worshipped....just because Mormons call the God they worship by a Christian name, doesn't make it a Christian religion. Again, Mormons have redefined most Christian words, concepts and phrases to mean something else entirely. Just this statement of yours alone...

"I worship the God who created the heavens and the earth, covenanted with Abraham, revealed his law through Moses, inspired the psalmist, sent his Son into the world to suffer and die on our behalf, raised Jesus from the dead, wants to be addressed as Father, governs the universe, speaks through the Spirit, and will judge all humankind at the end of days."

...is a mine field of definition qualifications. How do you define God, created, revelation, Son, the meaning of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, Spirit, judge, end of days....all of these are topics that are defined very differently in Mormonism, compared to all of Christianity.

Who wants it to be "relative"?

Not I.

*shrug* Then why the constant need by Mormons to have beliefs that are so divergent from Christianity, called Christian?

[_Nomad]

This may or may not be the case. I wouldn't know.

But, since it's my threshold, I would. And I've told you. You can believe me or not, as you choose.

But I could always roll a sock puppet and then post insanely idiotic, easy-to-refute arguments about Mormonism. That seems to be a surefire way to get your attention.

Not wishing to interact with you doesn't mean that I don't notice your posts. That's a separate matter.

Being deceptive about your identity might, it's true, lure me into responding to you. Because it's your identity that, for me, is the salient fact.

I was, simply, shocked and horrified at the way you treated me. In my judgment, it was totally uncalled for, extraordinarily uncivil, and I concluded that the person I knew somewhat while she was at BYU (and had quite liked) was not, or no longer was, who she had seemed to be -- and that I would very much prefer to have as little as possible to do with someone who had insulted me so gratuitously, so very much out of the blue.

I expect incivility, lack of substance, and nastiness from Joey and malaise and their ilk. (I usually don't read things from Joseph.) But I didn't expect incivility and nastiness from you. It was a complete surprise. It stunned me. Quite honestly.

It is interesting to me that you question MsJack’s motivations and credibility when you are her target, but she was regarded as a fountain of truth when it came to the smear piece she authored and then (as it was reported to me) enlisted the help of Brian Haglid and David Bokvoy to use in order to convince the Maxwell Institute to reject Will Schryver’s work, and then to use MsJack to publicly announce the fact on this message board.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I worship the God who created the heavens and the earth, covenanted with Abraham, revealed his law through Moses, inspired the psalmist, sent his Son into the world to suffer and die on our behalf, raised Jesus from the dead, wants to be addressed as Father, governs the universe, speaks through the Spirit, and will judge all humankind at the end of days.

If that's not the God you worship . . . well, I'm very surprised.

What is the nature of this God you worship?

He is loving, wise, merciful, just, morally unchanging, unfathomably powerful, knowing everything that can be known.

That is the thing with Mormonism, very tricky with definitions,

How is it "tricky" to say that I believe in the God whose history is described in the Bible, and whose attributes are illustrated by the biblical accounts? What on earth is "tricky" about that?

I don't, it's true, believe in the Christianized God of the philosophers -- metaphysically immutable, three consubstantial prosopoi in one ousia, one prosopon of which consists of divinity and humanity in hypostatic union. But I affirm every single biblical affirmation about the being and nature of God. There's nothing "tricky" about that.

and always trying to align a bit of twist on definition to Christian orthodoxy. I've never understood why.

I don't even understand what.

What do you mean by "always trying to align a bit of twist on definition to Christian orthodoxy"? That makes no sense to me.

Perhaps that is how it is for a Mormon. For a Christian, One Faith, One Baptism is important.

That's important for Mormons, too.

Faith for a Christian is in God, who has a triune nature.

I believe in the Trinity, too. Just not the way it has come to be defined since the post-biblical Council of Nicea.

But no Christians prior to the fourth century believed in the Nicene Creed, either, since it didn't exist yet.

A lot of times I see Mormons viewing the Creeds as some sort of arbitrary and abstract test of faith, which they are not. They describe what Christians believe, the One Faith.

They describe what those Christians who accept them believe. There were and are plenty of Christians who reject one or more of the creeds. There were Christians who never signed on to Nicea.

This is where the relativism of Mormonism comes in

I have not the faintest idea what you mean by "relativism," nor why you keep bringing it up.

I'm anything but a relativist.

the mysterious need to align Mormon belief to Christian orthodoxy.

I feel no need, mysterious or otherwise, to be aligned with "Christian orthodoxy." I don't want to be a "mainstream" Christian. There is much in "mainstream" Christianity that I don't believe.

What I do care about, though, is letting people know that my allegiance is to Christ, the only name under heaven whereby we must be saved.

just because Mormons call the God they worship by a Christian name, doesn't make it a Christian religion.

True. But the fact that Mormons regard the Jesus Christ who was born at Bethlehem, the Son of Mary, as the divine Son of God through whom alone salvation is possible, most definitely does make them Christian.

all of these are topics that are defined very differently in Mormonism, compared to all of Christianity.

Only if "all of Christianity" is defined as excluding Mormonism. But then, the fact that Christianity, defined as excluding Mormonism, doesn't include Mormonism can hardly be used as evidence that (whaddya know!) Christianity doesn't include Mormonism. That is the very essence of the logical fallacy known as "circular reasoning."

If, on the other hand, Christianity is assumed to include Mormonism, even potentially, then it cannot be flatly true that "topics . . . are defined very differently in Mormonism, compared to all of Christianity."

To say the latter is the formal/logical equivalent of declaring that Fords have nothing in common with cars, that red has nothing in common with colors, that laptops have nothing in common with computers, that Italians have nothing in common with Europeans, that roses have nothing in common with flowers, that burritos have nothing in common with Mexican food.

Then why the constant need by Mormons to have beliefs that are so divergent from Christianity, called Christian?

Mormons believe that their beliefs are Christian beliefs, and that they ought, therefore, to be called Christian.

Your statement that Mormon beliefs are divergent from Christianity makes sense only on the assumption that Christianity is defined as excluding Mormonism. But then, the fact that Christianity, defined as excluding Mormonism, doesn't include Mormon beliefs cannot validly be used as evidence for the conclusion that Christianity doesn't include Mormonism. To do so would be to commit the logical fallacy known as "circular reasoning."

[_Daniel Peterson]

It is interesting to me that you question MsJack’s motivations and credibility

I haven't questioned her motivations and credibility. I've said she was gratuitously uncivil and insulting.

when you are her target, but she was regarded as a fountain of truth

By me? When did I say that?

when it came to the smear piece she authored and then (as it was reported to me) enlisted the help of Brian Haglid and David Bokvoy to use in order to convince the Maxwell Institute to reject Will Schryver’s work, and then to use MsJack to publicly announce the fact on this message board.

I confess that I don't know the backstory to all of this. I've tried to piece it together, but haven't managed yet to do so.

I don't believe that David Bokovoy was involved at all in most of what you describe, and I don't think that you've got Brian Hauglid right, either.

Oh, and, by the way, I tend to agree with those who suspect that you're a Will Schryver sock puppet. I may be wrong, of course, but, if I'm not, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to do here.

[_MsJack]

I was, simply, shocked and horrified at the way you treated me. In my judgment, it was totally uncalled for, extraordinarily uncivil

I completely believe you. And your judgment is precisely the problem. You really don't get why someone might be rude to you after you had blown off her opinion and sent her a snippy PM that was rude in its own right. You just don't.

In your mind, it is really, truly all my fault. And there's just no convincing you that you share any blame in what went down.

You're right though, Dan. I'm not the same person I was when I was attending Brigham Young University. There are a lot of things I've realized about myself in the six years since I graduated.

I realized that when someone sends me a private message threatening to publish a critique of something I've written on a public message board without naming me, and refuses to even clarify what it is that will be critiqued when I ask, I'm not okay with that. It's not polite, and it's not respectful, and it's not how I expect to be treated by people who consider themselves my friends.

I realized that when people are fond of me when I do things like advising LDS scholars away from debates with mischievous evangelical counter-cult ministers, but don't take me seriously when I express a negative opinion on topics relating to Mormonism, I'm not okay with that. I think that people who truly respect me will maintain that respect for me in both situations.

Most of all though, I realized that I don't need to call you a friend. There were things that I liked about considering you a friend. But your friendship wasn't worth me feeling like I was on pins and needles whenever I saw a PM from you in my inbox. When we had our exchange that night and you said you'd never message me again, I didn't feel sad. I felt like a weight had lifted from my shoulders. No more PMs from Dan Peterson murmuring about how "disappointed" he is with me. It wasn't what I expected, but after it happened, I was taken aback by how much I wasn't saddened by the loss.

I happen to think I'm a likeable person with good insights to add to the Mormonism discussion, and I know that there are plenty of people out there who respect my opinions and will validate them. So I don't need you to be that for me. Not if you can't respect me when I don't agree with you.

So go ahead, Dan. Be disappointed in me. Be outraged at me. Be sad about what happened. Respond to me. Don't respond to me. It's all up to you.

The only thing I've complained about on this thread is you making a big, dramatic sideshow out of the fact that you don't respond to me---as if you're just dying for people to ask you about it so you can take them aside and try to convince them that I'm really a nasty, uncivil person who's beneath the dignity of your replies. I'm sorry you're still bitter about what happened last year, but I've moved on.

It is interesting to me that you question MsJack’s motivations and credibility when you are her target, but she was regarded as a fountain of truth when it came to the [well-written, well-documented] piece she authored

Wrong. My credibility was never a factor in the thread I did on William Schryver. All I did was compile his words and let those do the work. I could have been Tawana Brawley and it wouldn't have made a difference.

and then (as it was reported to me) enlisted the help of Brian Haglid and David Bokvoy to use in order to convince the Maxwell Institute to reject Will Schryver’s work

Lies from a proven liar. I never approached anyone from the Maxwell Institute about William's work. Ever.

Welcome back, Belinda Damon Hammer.

[_madeleine]

Daniel Peterson, there is something you should understand, the main creed that almost all of Christianity professes today is the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, which didn't just pop into being. It contains the core elements that have been taught for 2000 years, and put into writing about 1300 years before Mormonism existed. This is in order that people would not be confused as heresies arise/arose.

It didn't happen that Mormonism was put at the center and the core beliefs of Christianity defined around Mormonism as to purposely exclude Mormons. Mormonism is outside the core beliefs of Christianity by the fact that the beliefs of Mormonism are divergent from the long-existing beliefs of Christianity. This is not meant as a slight against Mormons. This doesn't mean that Mormons are distant from Jesus Christ, as He calls to all, with equal love and an earnest desire for all to know the Father, through Him.

But Mormonism is not of the One Faith, professed by Christians. The Body of Christ is not one thing, and simultaneously something else. We profess a belief in the Holy Trinity, the second Person of the Holy Trinity is Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father. The Incarnation is CENTRAL to Christianity, and LDS have no grasp whatsoever of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Not understanding the Son to BE THE ONE TRUE GOD, but A God. It is so fundamental to Christian belief that without this understanding, you are speaking of another God. Anytime we speak of God as something He is not, this is idolatry. So this is not a matter of slight differences, it is a serious difference.

It would be an extreme disservice, to the point of being derelict, to tell you that you possess the Truth of Jesus Christ, when you don't.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Preach On, Herr Doktor!

Just remember, 1) every hill is worth dying on, and 2) being right means never having to say you're sorry.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for your valuable post, AS.

You may notice that I don't post on every thread. I don't even read most of them. Those are hills that I don't choose to die on. When I choose a hill, though, I generally try to hold it. I wouldn't hold a position if I didn't think it was right. Perhaps you're different in that regard.

I completely believe you. And your judgment is precisely the problem.

I don't believe that your response to me was warranted.

Simply that.

I was surprised, and I was shocked. And since -- despite my reputation -- I really don't like personal confrontations, I've long made it a policy to try to avoid people with whom such confrontations appear to be relatively likely.

You can go on and on, if you will, about my supposed inability to admit guilt, my rudeness, my purported desire to blame everything on you. That's your right.

I'm sorry that you're not burdened by a sense of loss. I am. I get along with just about everybody I've ever met. I would have liked to consider you a friend. But I couldn't.

Your response to me was, in my judgment, unwarranted and shockingly nasty. I can't recall ever having received such a note from anybody I've ever known.

I just want to minimize interaction with someone capable of such an outburst.

Simply that.

I don't judge you unworthy, don't question your integrity, don't doubt that you've made contributions and will continue to do so, don't doubt your intelligence.

Simply that.

The only thing I've complained about on this thread is you making a big, dramatic sideshow out of the fact that you don't respond to me---as if you're just dying for people to ask you about it so you can take them aside and try to convince them that I'm really a nasty, uncivil person who's beneath the dignity of your replies.

I couldn't care less about others asking for me to tell them about you and what you did -- I actually don't think about you very often, and you seldom if ever come up in any conversations involving me -- but, if you're going to tell your "side" of the tale, I think it only fair to tell mine, as well. The only difference is that you seem to be announcing some sort of public campaign, while I'm not.

On the very few occasions when I've interacted with you since your explosion, I've explained that I was doing so reluctantly, because I want you to know and understand and remember each time that your uncalled-for and insulting note to me was something that I took and take very seriously. It said something shocking (to me) about you, and has, unfortunately, colored my opinion of you ever since.

I'm sorry you're still bitter about what happened last year, but I've moved on.

I know more than a few people who insult others in grievous ways and then move on as if they had never done so.

I don't admire them for it.

[Guest]

Oh, and, by the way, I tend to agree with those who suspect that you're a Will Schryver sock puppet. I may be wrong, of course, but, if I'm not, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to do here.

Dr. Peterson,

I am shocked that you would show such disrespect for a fellow LDS apologist.
____________________

With regard to the thread topic (as opposed to petty sniping among LDS apologists), the quandary that Romney finds himself in is one of his own making.

If Romney and his people are not able to manage the perception of him among his fellow religionists, why should the rest of us believe that he and his staff could do any better with the country as a whole, or with the world for that matter.

Romney is a talented manager and might even be a nice guy. However, the unfounded and silly religious beliefs he professes are apparently a bit too silly (strangely silly) to the majority of those who hold unfounded and silly religious beliefs of their own.

I find it ironic that the voting block most opposed to Romney arrive at their position based on a similar magical worldview and severe misunderstanding of history and science (a similar set of myths) that Romney himself is now forced to defend.

In the eyes of a substantial minority, Romney is a faithful member of a religious cult from the American west. When you get right down to it, why should Mitt Romney have any better chance of becoming President in 2012 than did Joseph Smith Jr. when he ran in 1844?