Owen & Mosser - Their Words/their Views

[rabanes]

It's become apparent that I can't say much of anything here without being tarred and feathered by preconceived notions, misconceptions, prejudice, bias, and to be honest, a rather troubling level of pure hate, anger, malice, disrespect, and juvenile name-calling. That's too bad.

So, instead of saying much more of anything (because I'm sure that such fighting is both unhealthy and Christian), I thought I'd simply offer to everyone the assessment of Mormonism that has been made by Paul Owen and Carl Mosser. They have not only been referenced here as academics who know the right way to do things, but as two scholars who are certainly NOT "anti-Mormon" (unlike nasty, hateful, deceiving, lying me ). Moreover, one of the editors of the following source was also listed as NOT an "anti-Mormon" (i.e., William Lane Craig, see Post #11 on this thread). So please keep reading:

"More than any other new religious movement, Mormonism presents

a challenge to

the health and growth of

authentic

Christianity

. It is also the most insistent of these groups in its

claims

to be Christian

[various LDS claims listed, including devotion to 'Christ']. . . .This devotion to Christ, they insist, is more than sufficient for Mormonism to be considered an authentic Christian faith [Owen & Mosser then note the LDS claims that Mormonism only differs from mainstream Christianity by the fullness of Gospel it holds]. . . . This

gives the

impression

that Mormonism is basically Christian, differentiated from other forms of Christianity primarily by additions and modifications" (emphases added).

To Everyone an Answer

(pp. 324-325, "Mormonism," Carl Mosser and Paul Owen)

Editors: Francis J. Beckwith, Norman L. Geisler, William Lane Craig, James Porter Moreland

InterVarsity Press, 2004

After these opening pages, Owen and Mosser proceed to deconstruct, criticize, and refute several core LDS doctrines (pp. 326-335). The conclusion of Paul Owen and Carl Mosser is as follows:

"By now it should be very clear that Mormonism represents a world

far removed from

that of the earliest Christians and the orthodox tradition. We

cannot accept its claim to restore earliest Christianity

. To be sure, at the doctrinal level Mormonism has a structure similar to Christianity's, and its devotion to Jesus is sincere. Both, however, are nested in a worldview that

undermines true knowledge of God and salvation

. Like those of the Gnostics, many

Mormon teachings are antithetical to a Christian vision of reality

. . . . The 'restored Gospel' of

Mormonism must be clearly distinguished from the biblical gospel

. For these reasons

Mormonism cannot be meaningfully or properly classified as a Christian faith

"

To Everyone an Answer

(pp. 336-337 "Mormonism," Carl Mosser and Paul Owen)

Editors: Francis J. Beckwith, Norman L. Geisler, William Lane Craig, James Porter Moreland

InterVarsity Press, 2004

I agree 100% with the above statements by Juliann's precious Paul Owen and Carl Mosser, authors of "Mormon scholarship, apologetics, and evangelical neglect: Losing the battle and not knowing it?," which Juliann glowingly referred to as a "groundbreaking article" (see Post #25 in this thread). But since, for whatever reason, I can't say these very same words without having the entire board convulsing and gnashing their teeth, I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them.

Interestingly, many of the critical points and reasonings they offered in their chapter in response to Mormonism mirror a good number of my own arguments (as voiced in Inside Today's Mormonism / Becoming Gods), although my arguments are greatly expanded and more detailed since I presented an entire book on LDS doctrine.

So, again, this is for all of you who find Owen and Mosser to NOT be "anti-Mormon." I agree with them completely and honor their scholarship and academic training that has led them to their conclusions.

As a final note, it's a highly ironic that most of you would consider Owen and Mosser NOT "anti-Mormon" (apparently) and me an absolute "anti-Mormon," when I am the one, in my book (Inside Today's Mormonism / Becoming Gods), who at least had the willingness to split up my discussion about the "Christian" label in relation to Mormonism into two options detailed at length:

1) "The Narrow Viewpoint"

2) "The Broad Viewpoint."

The latter sub-heading begins, "Having made all of the above clear, it would be negligent of me not to mention that a legitimate argument can indeed be made for calling Latter-day Saints 'Christian'" (p. 265). So, now, who is the anti-Mormon????

Richard Abanes

[LifeOnaPlate]

You.

[Avatar4321]

You are anti-mormon. You wrote an anti-mormon book. I dont see the point of debating you on these threads just to satisfy your own ego. If you dont want to be considered anti-mormon. Dont write crappy books attacking the Church.

[rabanes]

You are anti-mormon. You wrote an anti-mormon book. I dont see the point of debating you on these threads just to satisfy your own ego. If you dont want to be considered anti-mormon. Dont write crappy books attacking the Church.

I specifically stated in the OP:

"

But since, for whatever reason, I can't say these very same words without having the entire board convulsing and gnashing their teeth, I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

Please address Owen and Mosser, not me.

peace,

RA

[LifeOnaPlate]

here ya go.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=323

[ryanelwood]

It's become apparent that I can't say much of anything here without being tarred and feathered by preconceived notions, misconceptions, prejudice, bias, and to be honest, a rather troubling level of pure hate, anger, malice, disrespect, and juvenile name-calling. That's too bad.

So, instead of saying much more of anything (because I'm sure that such fighting is both unhealthy and Christian), I thought I'd simply offer to everyone the assessment of Mormonism that has been made by Paul Owen and Carl Mosser. They have not only been referenced here as academics who know the right way to do things, but as two scholars who are certainly NOT "anti-Mormon" (unlike nasty, hateful, deceiving, lying me ). Moreover, one of the editors of the following source was also listed as NOT an "anti-Mormon" (i.e., William Lane Craig, see Post #11 on this thread). So please keep reading:

"More than any other new religious movement, Mormonism presents

a challenge to

the health and growth of

authentic

Christianity

. It is also the most insistent of these groups in its

claims

to be Christian

[various LDS claims listed, including devotion to 'Christ']. . . .This devotion to Christ, they insist, is more than sufficient for Mormonism to be considered an authentic Christian faith [Owen & Mosser then note the LDS claims that Mormonism only differs from mainstream Christianity by the fullness of Gospel it holds]. . . . This

gives the

impression

that Mormonism is basically Christian, differentiated from other forms of Christianity primarily by additions and modifications" (emphases added).

To Everyone an Answer

(pp. 324-325, "Mormonism," Carl Mosser and Paul Owen)

Editors: Francis J. Beckwith, Norman L. Geisler, William Lane Craig, James Porter Moreland

InterVarsity Press, 2004

After these opening pages, Owen and Mosser proceed to deconstruct, criticize, and refute several core LDS doctrines (pp. 326-335). The conclusion of Paul Owen and Carl Mosser is as follows:

"By now it should be very clear that Mormonism represents a world

far removed from

that of the earliest Christians and the orthodox tradition. We

cannot accept its claim to restore earliest Christianity

. To be sure, at the doctrinal level Mormonism has a structure similar to Christianity's, and its devotion to Jesus is sincere. Both, however, are nested in a worldview that

undermines true knowledge of God and salvation

. Like those of the Gnostics, many

Mormon teachings are antithetical to a Christian vision of reality

. . . . The 'restored Gospel' of

Mormonism must be clearly distinguished from the biblical gospel

. For these reasons

Mormonism cannot be meaningfully or properly classified as a Christian faith

"

To Everyone an Answer

(pp. 336-337 "Mormonism," Carl Mosser and Paul Owen)

Editors: Francis J. Beckwith, Norman L. Geisler, William Lane Craig, James Porter Moreland

InterVarsity Press, 2004

I agree 100% with the above statements by Juliann's precious Paul Owen and Carl Mosser, authors of "Mormon scholarship, apologetics, and evangelical neglect: Losing the battle and not knowing it?," which Juliann glowingly referred to as a "groundbreaking article" (see Post #25 in this thread). But since, for whatever reason, I can't say these very same words without having the entire board convulsing and gnashing their teeth, I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them.

Interestingly, many of the critical points and reasonings they offered in their chapter in response to Mormonism mirror a good number of my own arguments (as voiced in Inside Today's Mormonism / Becoming Gods), although my arguments are greatly expanded and more detailed since I presented an entire book on LDS doctrine.

So, again, this is for all of you who find Owen and Mosser to NOT be "anti-Mormon." I agree with them completely and honor their scholarship and academic training that has led them to their conclusions.

As a final note, it's a highly ironic that most of you would consider Owen and Mosser NOT "anti-Mormon" (apparently) and me an absolute "anti-Mormon," when I am the one, in my book (Inside Today's Mormonism / Becoming Gods), who at least had the willingness to split up my discussion about the "Christian" label in relation to Mormonism into two options detailed at length:

1) "The Narrow Viewpoint"

2) "The Broad Viewpoint."

The latter sub-heading begins, "Having made all of the above clear, it would be negligent of me not to mention that a legitimate argument can indeed be made for calling Latter-day Saints 'Christian'" (p. 265). So, now, who is the anti-Mormon????

Richard Abanes

Was this the point of asking who is not anti-Mormon? Was your agenda (I am not using the term negatively as most do) to try to convince people you are not an anti-Mormon? Stop worrying about it. Anti-Mormon is just meaningless label. As I always tell Mormons, stop worrying about being labeled non-Christian. Labels are all a matter of perspective, you are not going to convince those here that you are not an anti-Mormon anymore than the posters will convince you that Mormonism is Christian (I am not that familiar with your work, I am assuming you do not consider Mormonism as Christian, if I am wrong I apologize). Their mind is made up that you are anti-Mormon and the reasons for labeling you as such makes sense in their minds. Likewise, I assume you are convinced Mormonism is not Christian and your reasons for not thinking so makes sense in your mind.

[urroner]

It's become apparent that I can't say much of anything here without being tarred and feathered by preconceived notions, misconceptions, prejudice, bias, and to be honest, a rather troubling level of pure hate, anger, malice, disrespect, and juvenile name-calling. That's too bad.

<snip?>

Richard Abanes

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! You want some cheese with that whine?

Richard, where do you want us to throw you that pity party you are begging us for? Why don't you go over to CARM with your version of the truth and maybe you'll find a lot of pity and spiritual companionship over there.

And we LDSers are accused of having a persecution complex.

Once most people start interjecting such emotion into the discussion, it usually means that either they are over their heads and know of no other means of saving face other than admitting they are over their head and they don't want to do that, or they don't possess enough logic in their communication skills that emotion is the only way they can go.

Richard, please cry me a river.

[Bernard Gui]

It's become apparent that I can't say much of anything here without being tarred and feathered by preconceived notions, misconceptions, prejudice, bias, and to be honest, a rather troubling level of pure hate, anger, malice, disrespect, and juvenile name-calling. That's too bad.

I've been waiting for your inevitable pity party. And here it is!

Oh, the humanity!

EDIT: I see urroner beat me to the party.

So, for the 3rd time, Mr. Abanes, are you going to provide the

original source for your Brigham Young quote at the beginning

of "Unholy Matrimony"? If not then I call on you to retract it

and apologize here on this board.

Bernard

[urroner]

...As a final note, it's a highly ironic that most of you would consider Owen and Mosser NOT "anti-Mormon" (apparently) and me an absolute "anti-Mormon,"...

Richard Abanes

Once again, may I present a false dichotomy, it's either one extreme or the other.

Here's a song I taught my boys when they started feeling picked on:

Nobody likes me

Everybody hates me

Guess I'll go eat worms!

Long Ones

Short Ones

Skinny Ones

Fat Ones

Guess I'll go eat worms!

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have to say it is pretty funny that Pahoran called you on this, Richard.

[rabanes]

Was this the point of asking who is not anti-Mormon? Was your agenda (I am not using the term negatively as most do) to try to convince people you are not an anti-Mormon?

NO. I answered that question already: "I'm just wanting to know so I can go buy some books. I mean, some of you rant and rave so much about anti-Mormons thait I wanted to read critics of Mormonism whom you don't' consider anti-Mormon, but who are still critics of the church on multiple levels" (see POST #16). But your asking the question might indicate the level of distrust and suspicion here that pretty much renders impossible any intelligent, civilized, give-n-take discussions with me. Hence, my presentation of the views expressed by Owen and Mosser.

Stop worrying about it. Anti-Mormon is just meaningless label.

That's what i keep tinking and trying to point out, but it seems that plenty of LDS feel otherwise.

....you are not going to convince those here that you are not an anti-Mormon ...

As I noted in the OP, that is no longer my intention, especially in this thread. As you rightly say, getting anyone to believe that would be impossible here. So I offered statements with which I simply agree that have been voiced by scholars that many of you seem to feel are not anti-Mormon. And added that you should disagree with them.

I only pointed out how in the OP how, interestingly, I am the one (and not them), who has stated: "Having made all of the above clear, it would be negligent of me not to mention that a legitimate argument can indeed be made for calling Latter-day Saints 'Christian'" (see Inside Today's Mormonism / Becoming Gods p. 265).

Their mind is made up that you are anti-Mormon and the reasons for labeling you as such makes sense in their minds.

Indeed.

Likewise, I assume you are convinced Mormonism is not Christian and your reasons for not thinking so makes sense in your mind.

Another misconception. I suggest you read Inside Today's Mormonism / Becoming Gods, pp. 251-282). I take a whole chapter -- "The 'Christian' Question" -- to tease apart this complex issue. I hope you'll take the time to read it.

RA

[rabanes]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! You want some cheese with that whine?........

And still, you and others can't simply respond to the OP -- and act with civility in response to an attempt on my part to merely offer the opinion of others that you SAY you respect and consider to be far more non-offensive than me and NOT anti-Mormon. The mocking, jeering, taunting, baiting, and all around nastiness continues. You make my point beautifully.

EDIT: I see urroner beat me to the party. .....

See response to URR. And you consider it a "party" to engage in fighting and bickering like that? Such a persepctive is telling. Please don't veer off-topic. Place stay with OP...."I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

I have to say it is pretty funny that Pahoran called you on this, Richard.

Attempted re-direct. Please stay on-topic: "I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

Happy Day-After Thanksgiving,

RA

[Zakuska]

Quick... uronner... lock the porta potty so he'll have something else to whine about.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Nah.

[rabanes]

Quick... uronner... lock the porta potty so he'll have something else to whine about.

More of the same. Point illustrated again -- most profoundly. Please stay on-topic with OP: "I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

Happy Day After Thanksgiving,

RA

[rabanes]

here ya go.http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=323

I didn't see one reference or one response to this chapter by Owen and Mosser from To Everyone an Answer.

Thank you,

RA

[Bernard Gui]

NO. I answered that question already: "I'm just wanting to know so I can go buy some books. I mean, some of you rant and rave so much about anti-Mormons thait I wanted to read critics of Mormonism whom you don't' consider anti-Mormon, but who are still critics of the church on multiple levels" (see POST #16). But your asking the question might indicate the level of distrust and suspicion here that pretty much renders impossible any intelligent, civilized, give-n-take discussions with me. Hence, my presentation of the views expressed by Owen and Mosser.

Yes, you did lay your clever trap and now you have sprung it thinking you can salvage

some sort of respectability by hooking your wagon to legitimate scholars' stars, and

now you follow up with your usual pity party. Next step is to scamper for the wings singing

your victory song as you go. "I beat the nasty internet Mormons, I beat the nasty internet

Mormons!"

Richard, ONUG is prima facie evidence that you are anti-Mormon. Despite your strenuous

efforts to skirt the issue, it is a textbook example of pure anti-Mormon writing. Until you

can come to grips with the fact that you produced it, you will have no credibility or sympathy

here. Why not do the right thing and denounce the book for what it is, wipe your hands of

it, and move on with life?

Bernard

[LifeOnaPlate]

Mosser and Owen have yet to provide anyh substantive response to Daniel C. Peterson's Offenders For a Word. Until then, the "Mormons aren't Christian" viewpoint issue won't advance. Peterson built a virtually irrefutable case.

There. I told Mosser and Owen.

[Anijen]

More of the same. Point illustrated again -- most profoundly. Please stay on-topic with OP: "I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

Happy Day After Thanksgiving,

RA

Brother Abanes you ask us to stay on point but I find it suspicious that your OP is on who is not anti then all of a sudden you throw Owen and Mosser at us when Pahoran said you would and Scott Lloyd thought that you might have a different agenda when you said oh no I wont do that... Yes a bit suspicious if not hypocritical.

[rabanes]

Yes, you did lay your clever trap ...

Not only off-topic, but another example of the built-in suspicion, mistrust, and antagonism that renders impossible any intelligent, civilized, give-n-take discussions with me. Hence, my presentation of the views expressed by Owen and Mosser. Point proved again. Thank you. No "trap" was laid, clever or otherwise. It is what it is. An attempt to go beyond the painfully obvious suspicion, mistrust, and antagonism. Please stay on-topic with OP: "I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

and now you have sprung it thinking you can salvage

some sort of respectability by hooking your wagon to legitimate scholars' stars, and now you follow up with your usual pity party.

Please stay on-topic with OP: "I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

Next step is to scamper for the wings singing your victory song as you go. "I beat the nasty internet Mormons, I beat the nasty internetMormons!"

I'm sorry you feel this way and seem to hate me so much. Your assumption about what my follow-up response will be is untrue and baseless. Please stay on-topic with OP: "I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

Richard, ONUG is prima facie evidence that you are anti-Mormon. Despite your strenuous efforts to skirt the issue, it is a textbook example of pure anti-Mormon writing. Until you can come to grips with the fact that you produced it, you will have no credibility or sympathyhere. Why not do the right thing and denounce the book for what it is, wipe your hands of it, and move on with life?

ONUG is not the topic of this thread. Please stay on-topic with OP: "I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

Happy Day After Thanksgiving,

RA

[rabanes]

Brother Abanes you ask us to stay on point but I find it suspicious that your OP is on who is not anti

I've posted a great deal here, and the post about who is not anti-Mormon came after it occured to me that my writing, in any form, is seen as anti-Mormon. Consequently, I wanted to know just who you thought was NOT like me so I could make additions to my library and see exactly how my writing differs from their writing; how my thoughts/arguments differ from their thoughts/arguments (if at all). I asked so I could learn. But the suspicion here is deep and wide.

...then all of a sudden you throw Owen and Mosser at us when Pahoran said you would

First, I did not initially bring up Owen and Mosser -- Juliann did in another thread, and she did so in direct connection to my work.

Second, I can certainly think, move, and respond independently from anything Pahoran says. To be honest, he is under my ignore button, so, anything he's written after being under that button, to be honest, I haven't even read.

Third, whatever Pahoran has posted, it would not be surprising that I might refer to Owen and mosser at some point since they are often mentioned with regard to Mormonism, particularly their "groundbreaking article" (as Juliann called it).

Fourth, there is nothing "all of a sudden" about this post. I grew weary/grieved over the absolute mean-spirited nastiness and hate rhetoric, as well as my own inability to not respond in the flesh (using sarcasm, mostly) to be slapped around by all of you. I'm stopping it with this post. No more. It's unfruitful, unbiblical, ungodly, and unChristian. And for my role in accelerating it all through sarcasm and biting wit, I apologize all around. Let's move on.

and Scott Lloyd thought that you might have a different agenda when you said oh no I wont do that... Yes a bit suspicious if not hypocritical.

I had no different agenda. But now, is it being staetd that once someone has been named as NOT anti-Mormon, I can no longer quote them? If that was teh rule, then I wouldn 't have bothered asking the question to begin with. But such a rule, I'm sure you will agree, would make no sense. Scott's musings was almost a set-up in itself -- i.e., if I dare quote from anyone named, then i had an agenda. Does that seem fair to you?

Anyway, again, this is not about me, it's about Owen and Mosser, and their views of Mormonism. Please refer to OP and respond to that, if you wish to.

RA

[zerinus]

I specifically stated in the OP:

"

But since, for whatever reason, I can't say these very same words without having the entire board convulsing and gnashing their teeth, I'll merely submit the views of Owen and Mosser as my perspective -- so now, fight with them."

Please address Owen and Mosser, not me.

peace,

RA

I am puzzled by your posts. If Owen and Mosser have something to say to LDS, or want their response, they are free to come here and start a thread, and pose their questions, and LDS will address them. If you have something to say to LDS, and want their response, you may do the same too. But posting a thread, the subject of which is that so and so has said something in such and such a book, go and respond to them, is a tad ridiculous. The short answer to that is, thank you for bringing that to our attention. I am sure an LDS scholar some day, if considered necessary, will reply to them. Is there anything else you wanted to add to that?

zerinus

[rabanes]

If you have something to say to LDS, and want their response, you may do the same too.

I have. I suggest you read the OP again. I stated: "I agree 100% with the above statements by Juliann's precious Paul Owen and Carl Mosser. . . . I agree with them completely and honor their scholarship and academic training that has led them to their conclusions." I said more to you in the OP, if you'd be so kind as to read it again. Once more, please address their observations -- not me.

Thank you,

RA

[zerinus]

I have. I suggest you read the OP again. I stated: "I agree 100% with the above statements by Juliann's precious Paul Owen and Carl Mosser. . . . I agree with them completely and honor their scholarship and academic training that has led them to their conclusions." I said more to you in the OP, if you'd be so kind as to read it again. Once more, please address their observations -- not me.

Thank you,

RA

Okay, you agree with them, fair enough. What do you want me to do about it, that you agree with them?

zerinus

[Anijen]

I need to bow out I am getting too "snarky" (have no idea what that means). Too judgmental I apologize to RAbanes for the ad hominem

Anijen.