Peterson Speaks for Himself on "Anti-Mormonism"

[_Kishkumen]

Possibly. And LDS that goes to different forums, such as the Catholic forums and attacks the Catholic faith with rants and diatribes would be considered an anti-catholic. I don't really see this as the application to Mormonism in general attacking main stream Christianity with rants and diatribes. I really don't care to much for labels. it is an easy way to pigenhole an opposing point of view without dealing with the points made. At the same time, I do not care to deal with one who uses rants and diatribes as their modus operandi in discussions. There really is no discussion possible with such an one.

Is it necessary to rant in order to be considered "anti" something? If the whole raison d'être of a religion is that Christianity has gone astray and no longer has the correct doctrines or the proper authority to do things like baptize, then that sounds pretty anti-Christian to me.

[_aussieguy55]

Ray, if you compare the census for religion in Australia for LDS and the numbers they say they have on their books there is a huge difference. The same thing happens where LDS exist in other parts of the world. It's the Pentecostal and Evangelicals that are growing. 18 million Anglicans in Nigeria, millions in South America (See Tongues of Fire and Why Protestant Churches are Growing in South America )

I think some Evangelical scholars hope the LDS do what the Worldwide Church of God did, abandoned some of it's more bizarre teachings and become evangelical.

[_Ray A]

I think some Evangelical scholars hope the LDS do what the Worldwide Church of God did, abandoned some of it's more bizarre teachings and become evangelical.

I think that's quite possible. Seems like Paulsen "smells a rat" somewhere.

[_MsJack]

Because clearly you imply something by the term "traditional Christianity" which doesn't exist.

The greater historical Christian tradition most certainly does exist.

And you use the term (which cannot be defined without causing problems) as a way of excluding others, not as a way of defining belief. This makes it polemical.

I have already refuted this. What's polemical is that you intentionally repeat this falsehood in spite of that.

Sure, although the flavor that was preferred by Mormonism was the "primitive church" or "original Christianity" (I don't think I need to find references - you should be familiar enough with at least a reference or two).

Yes, you do need to find such references, because I am not familiar with any and I asked for them. Mormons arguing that they are part of the "primitive church" or "original Christianity" is not the same thing.

For my own part, I entered the terms "traditional Christian" and "traditional Christianity" into LDS.org. Here's some of the examples that came up:

"The declarations of these councils are still generally accepted today by traditional Christian churches as official doctrines . . . We understand that these differences exist because traditional Christianity has wandered from the truth over the centuries, but other denominations see things otherwise." ~ Stephen E. Robinson, "Are Mormons Christians?", May 1998 New Era

"Some who write anti-Mormon pamphlets insist that the LDS concept of Deity is contrary to what is recognized as traditional Christian doctrine . . . With such an abundance of biblical testimony from the ancient Apostles and prophets, how did traditional Christianity come to the idea that somehow Jesus’ bodily identity was dissolved into spirit essence?" ~ William O. Nelson, "Is the LDS View of God Consistent With the Bible?", July 1987 Ensign

"There is 'more' in the message of the restored gospel than in the messages of the traditional Christian churches. Yet the arrogance displayed by some Latter-day Saints in reference to our conversion surprised us. Some few believed that we were now better than those of our neighbors and relatives who belonged to other faiths." ~ Roger R. Keller, "Do I Know My Neighbor?", March 1991 Ensign

And there were many more where that came from.

So not only have you not provided any examples of the term proving problematic in Mormon interfaith dialogue or LDS leaders contending that Mormons are part of "traditional Christianity," but you are chiding me for using a term to refer to ourselves that Mormons use to refer to us all the time.

But this itself is just as meaningless. It develops meaning only by comparison. Much like the term "traditional Christianity" as opposed to "creedal Christianity" which is defined not by comparison, but by what it includes.

This is not correct. Both terms are defined by what they include. "Traditional Christianity" includes the greater Christian tradition and "creedal Christianity" includes Christians who profess the theology of the major creeds. Other than laying claim to being the true spiritual heirs of the original Christian church and wanting people to acknowledge that they are "Christian" too, Mormons show no desire to be connected with the greater Christian tradition.

For that reason, the term is sufficient to describe the body of Christianity that Mormons occasionally attack in their official publications.

The one actually seems like a logical extension of the other (and the second is certainly articulated by more than a small group of Evangelicals). The creeds are clearly fallible.

And your point is? If you think infallible authority is the only kind of authority that's valid, as a Mormon, you're in a lot of trouble.

But back to the greater point: the idea that the Christian tradition is ultimately useless or disposable did not come from Martin Luther and Sola Scriptura. Martin Luther was incredibly well-versed in the writings of his predecessors and the early church fathers, and accepted the authority of the early church councils. Sola Scriptura was a call for Scripture to be the final and only infallible authority on matters of faith, not a call for the wholesale disregard of creeds and tradition.

That "me, my Bible, my Jesus" attitude which casts aspersion on the idea that the Christian tradition is a meaningful source of revelation and wisdom does not come from Martin Luther and Sola Scriptura. It originated with the restorationist movement of the 19th century.

Or in other words, my connection to and reverence for the creeds is not contradicted by my identity as an evangelical Christian, which is what you originally tried to argue. I'd invite anyone who's interested to read what my own denomination has to say on the matter.

The one thing that I disagree with on that site is the simple fact that Solo Scriptura is believed by many Evangelicals (the site that you link seems to avoid that issue).

From p. 6-7 of the series I linked to:

[Solo Scriptura] represents the unfortunate position of many evangelical or fundamental Protestants who misunderstand sola Scriptura believing that it means that the ideal place for believers to find authority and interpret Scripture is to do so in a historical vacuum, disregarding any tradition that might influence and bind their thinking. Not only does this undermine the Holy Spirit’s role in the lives of believers of the past, but it is a position of arrogance, elevating individual reason to the position of final authority. It also disregards the fact that it is impossible to interpret in a vacuum.

That's your idea of "avoiding the issue"?

So my question now for you is quite simple - Evangelicals who believe solo scriptura (as opposed to sola scriptura) - are they non-creedal Christians?

Describing Christians who do not use the creeds in their study or worship life as "creedal Christians" is certainly problematic. However, I would still loosely include them in the designation because they do believe in the theology laid out by the creeds in question. They simply believe that the Bible alone is sufficient to arrive at that theology and haven't realized the self-defeating nature of their position.

[_Obiwan]

"I don't make all critics anti-Mormons -- I have, in this very thread, explicitly said that not all critics are anti-Mormons -- and I don't automatically make all anti-Mormons disingenuous."

Carl Mosser has said in a paper that his intention is to have Mormonism change or go out of existence. How anti-mormon is that?

That is a "critical" statement but not anti-mormon. Of course, in a clinical definition that would be an anti-mormon statement, but Mormons generally define anti-mormons as those who degrade and bear false witness of Mormonism and Mormons and attack it/us.

We cut people slack knowing that their disagreements with us, and viewing us as false doesn't mean they "hate" us. It's simply their own sincere beliefs they are trying to protect and promote. But, anti-mormons are a different story. Yes, their motivations are pretty much the same, but their ideology's and fruits are completely different, entirely "immoral" and without honor and character.

Of course, as shown in this forum, anti-mormons don't cut LDS any slack.... They quote mine every negative statement from LDS history about other religions usually in general as if WE are just as negative and immoral (or close) toward other faiths as other faiths are toward us. That frankly is simply popycock..... Our negativity is like I've described above, not directly being "anti" other Faiths. Of course, as a clinical definition everyone is anti whatever is opposite of them, but we aren't talking the clinical definition, we are talking actual ideology's and fruits, specifically fruits that are "bad" or "immoral". Mormons generally engage other faiths and faithful morally, anti-mormons of Faith or not don't.

[_wenglund]

It is encouraging to learn of the growing sensitivity to supposed pejorative and dismissive labels on a board where there is a longstanding tradition of pejoratives and dimissiveness. Forget the whole mote/beam thing. It is just good to to see movement towards some sensativity in this area even if it doesn't begin within, and may be somewhat misdirected. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_karl61]

It is encouraging to learn of the growing sensitivity to supposed pejorative and dismissive labels on a board where there is a longstanding tradition of pejoratives and dimissiveness. Forget the whole mote/beam thing. It is just good to to see movement towards some sensativity in this area even if it doesn't begin within, and may be somewhat misdirected. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade :


"Honesty. Being truthful, straightforward, and candid are aspects of honesty.

Truthfulness is required. Deceptions are usually easily uncovered. Lies erode credibility and undermine public confidence. Untruths, told for seemly altruistic reasons (to prevent hurt feelings, to promote good will, etc, ) are nonetheless resented by the recipients.

Straightforwardness adds frankness to truthfulness and is usually necessary to promote public confidence and to ensure effective, efficient conduct of operations. Truth presented in such a way as to lead to recipients confusion, misinterpretation, or inaccurate conclusions are not productive. Such indirect deceptions can promote-ill-will and erode openness, especially when there is an expectation of frankness.

Candor is forthright offering of unrequested information. It is necessary according to the gravity of the situation and the nature of the relationships. Candor is required when a reasonable person would feel betrayed if the information were withheld. In some circumstances, silence is dishonest; yet in other circumstances, disclosing information would be wrong and perhaps unlawful."

[_Doctor Scratch]

The fact is Dan Peterson has no standard which he is willing to apply to his cohorts as well as the critics. He has one standard for critics, and for his friends... I don't think he has any standards. Nothing Hamblin, Midgley, et al do will ever be criticized by the guy who is responsible for peer reviewing their apologetic submissions. In reality he has become derelict in his duty as editor, and is instead a self-appointed PR representative for all of the hatchet-men he helps mobilize for the next wave of apologetic riff-raff he likes to call scholarship. He is constantly making excuses for them and rationalizing their incivility, while in the same breath attacking those who are unjustifiably accused of disingenuousness, deception, etc.

Wow, this is a devastating assessment, Kevin. You'd pretty much blown him away with your list of instances of the use of "disingenuous," but this simply ices the cake. No wonder Dr. Peterson refuses to interact with you.

[_wenglund]

The fact is Dan Peterson has no standard which he is willing to apply to his cohorts as well as the critics. He has one standard for critics, and for his friends... I don't think he has any standards. Nothing Hamblin, Midgley, et al do will ever be criticized by the guy who is responsible for peer reviewing their apologetic submissions. In reality he has become derelict in his duty as editor, and is instead a self-appointed PR representative for all of the hatchet-men he helps mobilize for the next wave of apologetic riff-raff he likes to call scholarship. He is constantly making excuses for them and rationalizing their incivility, while in the same breath attacking those who are unjustifiably accused of disingenuousness, deception, etc.

Wow, this is a devastating assessment, Kevin. You'd pretty much blown him away with your list of instances of the use of "disingenuous," but this simply ices the cake. No wonder Dr. Peterson refuses to interact with you.

These mutually supportive comments from two of Dr. Peterson's more relentless detractors makes me wondering if credibility works the same way as multiplication: where two negatives equal a positive? Somehow I seriously doubt it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-