Peterson Speaks for Himself on "Anti-Mormonism"

[_Kishkumen]

The brother's position was simple that the deceased man had been as closer to a perfect model of how a Christian should lead his life than anybody that any of them knew that it was time to retire the "Mormons are not Christians" dogma. After conferreing among themselves, those religious leaders decided that there was something to that idea. The result is that now, on Harker's Island, North Carolina at least, Mormons are now considered Christians.

Yes, there are plenty of good people who lead lives that any Christian should aspire to. Ghandi, a Hindu, would certainly qualify too. The issue here is not whether a person lives a Christlike life, but whether in opposing traditional fundamentals of Christian faith, Mormonism might be considered "anti-Christian" in the way that Dr. Peterson dispassionately defines some people as "anti-Mormon" for opposing Mormonism.

[_Kishkumen]

And of course your new status as a former Mormon does not cloud your new viewpoint. But in this I may only be intellectually concluding in this opinion.

Go ahead and get your digs in, but you are obviously not engaging the substance of my comment.

[_Kevin Graham]

"Traditional Christianity" is called such on 30 different occasions in articles published by the Maxwell Institute.

It appears 19 times in official LDS literature.

So what's the big deal if Jack uses it too?

[_Kevin Graham]

Your response in your complete post is full of bitterness and hostility. Both of which you can not seem to hide behind a veil of courtesy. And this tone would make you a candidate for antimormonism.

I'm not bitter nor hostile, but I know you have to read that into my comments as a way to label me anti-Mormon. You're proving my point. You can't deal with the facts anymore than Dan can.

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.

This is because the character of the so-called apostate is pretty much established in official LDS mantra, whether it be the Encyclopedia of Mormonism or talks by LDS leaders. Everyone who ever leaves the Church must be understood by the membership as "bitter and hostile." Mormons use the word "bitter" more than any group I know of and it is almost always in reference to someone who decided not to return to Church.

The reason it is important for you people to assume our reasons (bitterness, evil spirits, sinfulness, etc) in this manner is because it no longer makes it an open question. If you viewed it as an open question then you might entertain the idea that people actually leave the faith for intellectual reasons. This isn't possible in your worldview because of the way the Church teaches you to psychoanalyze those who no longer believe. You have no tolerance for us and neither does the Church. This is proved by the fact that any BYU professor who comes to the intellectual conclusion that the Church is no longer true, will lose his job as an apostate.

[_GlennThigpen]

Yes, there are plenty of good people who lead lives that any Christian should aspire to. Ghandi, a Hindu, would certainly qualify too. The issue here is not whether a person lives a Christlike life, but whether in opposing traditional fundamentals of Christian faith, Mormonism might be considered "anti-Christian" in the way that Dr. Peterson dispassionately defines some people as "anti-Mormon" for opposing Mormonism.

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.

glenn

[_Daniel Peterson]

A couple of clarifications and reiterations:

It's justified in some such cases, and in some other cases wholly unrelated to Mormonism, and almost certainly even in some pro-Mormon writings.

But never is it justified when applied to fellow LDS. Right?

Apparently, I wasn't clear enough in saying that the label was "almost certainly" justified in the case of "some pro-Mormon writings."

Yes, I believe that it is sometimes justified when applied to my fellow Latter-day Saints. It's not inconceivable, in fact, that the label could be applied to me someday, as well, though I try not to behave or write in such a way as to justify the title. It's simply one of the sins or offenses that the flesh is heir to -- both Mormon flesh and non-Mormon flesh.

But you and your hatchet-men know that it is good business to make all the critics anti-Mormons, and all the anti-Mormons disingenuous.

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.

I won't bother responding to the rest of the sourness.

****

On calling Mormons "anti-Christian": I understand where this is coming from, but can't buy it. Typically, "anti-Semites" don't claim to be Semitic, anti-Catholics aren't Catholic, antacids aren't acids, anti-abortion activists aren't abortionists, anti-coagulants don't cause coagulation, antibacterial drugs aren't bacteria, and anti-aircraft weapons aren't aircraft.

To generalize the rule, no anti-x is itself a member of the class x. (I suppose I can think of one seeming exception: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were "anti-slavery slave-owners." But that's a subject of its own. They were conflicted, and one could perhaps make the argument that, in their capacity as on-going slave-owners, they were not anti-slavery -- for which each man had his specific reasons.)

So, while I could see Mormonism being described as, technically and in a rather weak sense, "anti-traditional-Christian" (as I've said here, I have no problem with the term "traditional Christian," if it's explained) or "anti-mainstream Christian" or something of that sort, I do not think that it can accurately be described as "anti-Christian," since it claims to be (and, in my view, clearly is) itself Christian.

[Guest]

I just want to say that Dan is one of the most enlightened and delightful people that the Church has ever produced.
What a human heap of virtue he is.

[_aussieguy55]

"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?

[_Ray A]

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?

Do you have a link to that, Noel? It seems contrary to This.

I am now convinced that we... have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe...Indeed, we have even on occasion demonized you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is 'really' trying to accomplish in the world.

Mouw is not the only Christian calling for moderation. Similar pleas have been issued by David Rowe,[83] Carl Mosser, Francis J. Beckwith, Paul Owen,[84] Craig Blomberg,[85] and others. Some church and parachurch groups have also made efforts to repair relations with the Mormons.

[_Ray A]

Seems like Noel may have been referring to A General Response to The New Mormon Challenge.:

Mosser omitted the sentences: "If allowed to progress unchecked, Mormonism's growth will have a significant adverse effect on evangelical growth. In the animal world large parasites eventually cripple the health of their hosts. Sometimes they even cause their death."31

With respect to the problematic first full paragraph (PPM, 79; NMC 69), Mosser explained,



The LDS respondents at AAR took particular offense at this paragraph and labeled the book "anti-Mormon" because of it. Therefore, there are a few changes I would like to make to it. Since a few lines are deleted on the previous page, the length of these additions should balance out pretty well. First, change the first sentence to: "It is clear to me that the current evangelical response to Mormonism (and to New Religious Movements generally) does not significantly retard the spread and growth of the LDS [sic] faith (and other NRMs) at the expense of orthodox Christianity." The last phrase will be slightly repetitive with the phrase "at our expense" used later in the paragraph, but that is by intention. I want this point to be emphasized. Second, after the sentence ending ". . . on which its current growth rests," insert the following sentences: "I am convinced that a major factor contributing to Mormon growth is the widespread biblical and theological illiteracy among the laity of Protestant and Catholic churches. People in our churches need to be grounded better in basic biblical doctrine. We should also investigate other factors that contribute to LDS growth and redress those that are due to failings within the Christian community." Third, replace "counter-cult" with "apologetics." Fourth, in the last sentence insert "(and other NRMs)" after "Mormonism." The entire revised paragraph should read:

"It is clear to me that the current evangelical response to Mormonism (and to New Religious Movements generally) does not significantly retard the spread and growth of the LDS faith (and other NRMs) at the expense of orthodox Christianity. We must somehow bring about what Stark calls "a change in the process" if we want to prevent Mormonism from becoming one of the largest worldwide faiths at our expense. Something will have to shift the basis on which its current growth rests. I am convinced that a major factor contributing to Mormon growth is the widespread biblical and theological illiteracy among the laity of Protestant and Catholic churches. People in our churches need to be grounded better in basic biblical doctrine. We should also investigate other factors that contribute to LDS growth and redress those that are due to failings within the Christian community. This cannot be accomplished by leaving the task solely up to the numerous small and financially strapped apologetics ministries. Nor are the vast majority of those engaged in such ministry equipped to do all that needs to be done, even if finances and personnel were not so limited. A proper response to Mormonism (and other NRMs) will require the entire evangelical community."




Though the above changes are laudable, my original analysis (like much of the language and focus of the book) remains fundamentally unchanged. In my judgment, the book remains anti-Mormon for two reasons: (1) their call, albeit now qualified, for collective action to retard the growth and progress of the church; and (2) their failure (refusal?) to state Latter-day Saint beliefs in LDS terms or to refer their readers to LDS explanations of our beliefs—e.g., the recommended Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith.

I don't think Mosser was suggesting that the Church should "go out of existence", but he certainly seemed concerned about its growth, at the expense of "orthodox Christianity".