Peterson Speaks for Himself on "Anti-Mormonism"

[_MsJack]

What exactly does this mean MsJack?

It means things like this:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

And this:

Soon pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. The Roman emperor adopted this false Christianity as the state religion. This church was very different from the church Jesus organized. It taught that God was a being without form or substance.

These people lost the understanding of God’s love for us. They did not know that we are His children. They did not understand the purpose of life. Many of the ordinances were changed because the priesthood and revelation were no longer on the earth.

The emperor chose his own leaders and sometimes called them by the same titles used by priesthood leaders in the true Church of Christ. There were no Apostles or other priesthood leaders with power from God, and there were no spiritual gifts.

And this:



See also the pre-1990 temple ceremony.

I have a problem with the term "traditional Christianity", since it seems very self-serving, and rather ambiguous.

I'd say that's a rather uncharitable take on it, Ben, particularly since I already mentioned once on this thread that there is no neat and concise term for the main body of non-LDS Christianity, so sometimes sloppy stand-ins like "traditional Christianity" will just have to do. Furthermore, I used the phrase at all because, if I'd left it at mere "Christianity," someone would be complaining that I was implying Mormons weren't Christians instead. So to be accused of being "very self-serving" when I was actually aiming to use neutral terminology is more than a little disappointing.

In particular though, what I meant was the body of Christian traditions that profess the Nicene creed. Greek Orthodox monks, fundamentalist snake handlers, and Roman Catholics would all qualify.

It is apparently an exclusive club

Yes, it is an exclusive club.

And Mormons are the ones who excluded themselves from it.

defined less by what it is, than by what it is not.

No.

[_stemelbow]

Ms. Jack:

I'd say that's a rather uncharitable take on it, Ben, particularly since I already mentioned once on this thread that there is no neat and concise term for the main body of non-LDS Christianity, so sometimes sloppy stand-ins like "traditional Christianity" will just have to do.

I'm trying to just read along because I belong in that nasty Terrestial forum, but I've seen you say this a coupel times now. Why do you say there is no neat and concise term to refer to non-Christianity? You keep using "non-LDS Christianity", which is perhaps just as a neat and concise as many of the others you've used--like Traditional Christianity (which doesn't seem to fit as Ben pointed out).

[_Benjamin McGuire]

MsJack writes:

I'd say that's a rather uncharitable take on it, Ben, particularly since I already mentioned once on this thread that there is no neat and concise term for the main body of non-LDS Christianity, so sometimes sloppy stand-ins like "traditional Christianity" will just have to do. Furthermore, I used the phrase at all because, if I'd left it at mere "Christianity," someone would be complaining that I was implying Mormons weren't Christians instead. So to be accused of being "very self-serving" when I was actually aiming to use neutral terminology is more than a little disappointing.

You will have to get to used to disappointment then. The term is not neutral. It has a long history of polemical value. There isn't much difference between using the term and the alternative that you suggested. What is self-serving though is that you are attempting to align yourself with this traditional Christianity (whatever it means - I don't think it can be accurately articulated without becoming useless).
You note -

In particular though, what I meant was the body of Christian traditions that profess the Nicene creed.

And this is quite different conceptually, from the notion of "traditional Christianity". Mormonism clearly does not profess the Nicene creed. But we do claim to be a part of traditional Christianity - and in fact, Mormonism has historically laid claim to belong to primitive Christianity (whatever that means - since it too is a polemical term adopted by the early LDS church as it participated in those debates).

This profession (from an Evangelical perspective) is largely lip service though. After all, the Nicene creed is rather pointless given the notion of Sola Scriptura. It isn't itself scripture, and by extension, shouldn't be necessary to interpret scripture. And this is why I see it as more lip service than anything else.

Ben McGuire

[_Kevin Graham]

An Anti-Mormon is:

1. Someone who degrades the Church or it's people, usually unfairly so, in order to make an argument. Someone who is disrespectful when making an argument.
2. Someone who bears false witness, i.e. lies or misrepresents LDS theology, leaders words, etc. in order to be critical of it.

A Critic is:

1. Someone who doesn't degrade the Church or it's people, usually unfairly so, in order to make an argument. Respectfully makes an argument.
2. Someone who simply disagrees with LDS Theology, but doesn't need to misrepresent and lie about it in order to be critical of it.

Thus goes Obiwan's quasi-official pronouncement. The problem is that it is designed so that anyone can be called anti-Mormon. His distinctions are without real differences since LDS folks absolutely love to play the victim card. For them, it is just a sign that they are the true Church. It is why people like Chris Smith and even LDS scholar Don Bradley have been called anti-Mormons.

The problem is that LDS folk always expect everyone else to accept the possibility that the Church is true. Or at the least, they want the non-believers to refrain from speaking on any topic or making any points that would reveal their disbelief that the Church is true. This is how Juanita Brooks and Jan Shipps have been able to navigate a successful career without getting too much flak from the LDS corner.

Because the LDS Church is based on so many ludicrous claims, naturally people will ask questions of make points that will put the Church in a tough spot. So Mormons interpret this as anti-Mormonism because they need to. It is their way of dismissing out of hand, valid points.

The funny thing about his definition of anti-Mormon is that it applies to virtually every LDS missionary or LDS apologist when it comes to attacking other faiths. LDS people like to delude themselves into thinking the LDS faith doen't attack other faiths, but those other faiths disagree. And LDS apologists/scholars have shown that they are more than willing to bear false witness or flat out lie if they think it serves the Church.

His deifinition of "critic" is so carefully crafted as to make it impossible for any non-LDS investigator/scholar to be honest with the data. He will always have to walk on egg shells to make sure he doesn't say something that conflictss with any of the numerous and ludicrouss LDS truth claims. Just take the Book of Abraham as an example. All evidence points to the fact that Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian documents, but if you say anything like this in your conclusion, you're an anti-Mormon. Why? Because the Church is based on numerous truth claims, one of which is that their Prophet could translate ancient documents.

If you dare point out an obvious connection between modern-day polygamy and the LD faith, well you're an anti-Mormon. Not because it isn't true, but because you can't say something the LDS faith denies without consequences, even if you're not a member. John Gee can lie through his teeth in one publication after another, but because he is a faithful LD member, he can get away with it. The second Michael Marquardt published on the KEP, he was labeled anti-Mormon. Why? Because the Church was hiding them for a reason dammit! If you reveal them, then you are not just a historian, you're an anti-Mormon too! This is why people like Dan Peterson and Russell McGregor, using the well-funded Maxwell Institute try to bully real scholars by threatening them with the anti-Mormon label. Chris Smith in't even done with school and he has already been threatened with it by Will Schryver and others. Why? Because he doesn't agree with some of the arguments made by John Gee or Brian Hauglid. The Maxwell Insstitute is all about establishing a monopoly in Mormon scholarship. There is no place for critical scholarship. Everything must pass the political correctness test for Mormon readers. And if you think there is non-LDS scholarship that isn't anti-Mormon, then please show me a list of non-LDS scholars who haven't been called "anti-Mormon"! This is by design, and it is why Dan and others at BYU are trying to mobilize all Mormons with graduate degrees to represent some kind of intellectual front for when non-LDS scholars make devasstating arguments that shatter LDS truth claims. The idea issn't to respond intellectually with point by point rebuttals. The idea is to say "look at us, we're smart and we have testimonies."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Mormons have only recently claimed to be part of traditional Christianity.

Just for the record, I still don't claim to be part of traditional Christianity (and, honestly, haven't encountered very many Latter-day Saints who do). I have no interest in that.

I simply affirm that I'm a Christian.

Your religious predecessors . . . were proud to not be Christians.

I'm unaware of any statement by any Latter-day Saint declaring Mormons to be non-Christians. I would be interested in seeing one, if it exists.

Yes, they did distance themselves from mainstream Christendom, but that's rather a different thing.

I still fail to see why Mormons want to be associating with churches that are canonically apostate.

My overwhelmingly primary interest is not in associating with other churches, though I do value comity, but with ensuring that my faith in and commitment to Christ remain unobscured by misleading rhetoric.

[_Kevin Graham]

Brigham Young had nothing nice to say about Christianity and neither did Joseph. They all follow false priesthoods and cannot lead anyone to the celestial kingdom. They are a result of Satan's success on the earth. I think Modern Mormonism likes to call itself Christian only for promotional purposes, given the highly Christianized environment they are trying to convert. It is a deceptive way of getting in the door by pretending you have a lot in common with them. The ole BRT method that many used-car salesmen use. It also serves the purpose of getting away with calling all other folks "anti-Mormon." Obviously the LDS faith attacks other Christian faiths more than other Christian faiths attack Mormonism, but if you call them anti-Christian then now say, "but we're Christian too, so how can we be anti-Christian"?

Pretty clever, but anyone familiar with the facts knows this is just a ploy. The Church has systematically attacked other faiths for quite some time now. So for apologists like Obiwan and Peterson to sit here and say they're Christian too, therefore they're not anti- anything, is just disingenuous.

[_aussieguy55]

I remember a stake conference where Mark E Peterson was talking and made an attack on the writings of Augustine. The Confessions were a sign of the apostasy. I have been reading some of his material for a early church history course. Augustine makes a lot of sense.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The "Celestial Forum" is definitely a more genteel venue than the lower fora: That Kevin Graham has been reduced to calling me merely "disingenuous" rather than, as he typically does with me and others who do not share his views, a "liar" or a "moron" is an unmistakable tribute to the power of place.

As real estate agents are wont to say, "Location, location, location!"

My decision to post only here is vindicated more and more with each passing day.

[_moksha]

If one were to place all existentialists on one side and all Mormons on the other, the Mormons would purchase 86% more Amway products and eat much more Jell-O.

There are undoubtedly varying degrees of anti-ism. From simple taunting to rowdy marching in the streets of Berlin and breaking shop windows.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't think I've ever called you a liar or moron. But I have accused liars of lying and morons for being moronic. You get indignant because they are usually your friends. But my point here is that your and Obiwan's insinuation, that you're not anti-Christian in the same way you accuse others of being anti-Mormon, is lacking in frankness and candor.