Jump to content

FYI: New Column (By Yours Truly)


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

But you seem to imply that they are equally Christian which of course I do disagree.

I've had nothing whatever to say on that subject, nor even on whether I think it coherent.

heh...Feel free to elucidate on a few.

Certainly. Behavior is one measure, but belief is another.

A good man who rejects Jesus isn't a Christian. A bad man who genuinely believes that Christ is the Savior is a bad Christian.

The usual fare.

Responding to common nonsense. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Then stop talking about politics.

Stop the disingenuousness.

.

Link to comment
Agreement with the same Creed does not mean "same"?

To the extent that people adhere similarly to the same creed, they are the same. (Plato 101.)

But they might be tall or short or zealous or casual or blonde or red-haired.

And they might be very different with respect even to matters of belief not covered by the common creed.

Saying that X and Y are both kangaroos because they both share the essential nature of kangaroo-ness doesn't make them identical. But it answers the question "Are X and Y both kangaroos?" And that's what I was doing -- that's all I was dong -- with the Mormon Times article.

Then you accept that there are differences in levels of belief and practice?

Between any two individuals, by multiple and varied yardsticks. And over the course of days, hours, and minutes for even the same individual.

But, on the whole, it's not my place to judge. That's God's job, and he's better at it.

Political ideology is certainly not the sole standard, nor even, perhaps, a very good one.

Link to comment
Every time BC ventures down the path of asserting that liberals and Democrats can't be good Mormons, I wonder about all those converts in western European countries, where most members are probably much more liberal than someone like Harry Reid.

A very politically savvy recently emeritized General Authority (Ph.D., political science and international relations, Harvard University) told me a couple of years ago about a conversation he had with a former high official in the Reagan administration. The fellow was praising Mormons as being mostly Republicans. "Actually," replied the General Authority, "we're mostly socialists." He then explained the international character of the Church to the astonished Reaganite (e.g., "In Venezuela, we're mostly Chavistas").

I say this as, pretty much, a Reagan conservative myself.

Link to comment

Good article Dr. Peterson. If I was to make one suggestion (humbly speaking), I would have also added that: We believe in the need for all people to repent. To put away all the silly notions and dogma which separate people into acceptable verse unacceptable groups, finding harmony with diversity in Christ Jesus who sets us free...

Link to comment
Yes, Peterson, Beck, Reid, and Romney are all Christians. And Mormons.

And Warren Jeffs is a Christian and a Mormon too.

In fact, I do assume that Warren Jeffs has some kind of genuine religious beliefs and that, if he does, they're Christian. Though I've been really struck, from what little I've seen of some polygamist/fundamentalist groups, how small a role Jesus plays in the soteriology of a few of them.

As to whether he's Mormon: That term is sometimes used, by both members and non-members, to refer only to formal members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm not sure that members of the Reorganized Church (now the Community of Christ) use it for themselves, nor that all or most "Mormon fundamentalists" do. So it's an empirical question, and I lack the data to answer it. If you have information on the subject, I'll be happy to hear it.

Link to comment

I'm not sure that members of the Reorganized Church (now the Community of Christ) use it for themselves, nor that all or most "Mormon fundamentalists" do. So it's an empirical question, and I lack the data to answer it. If you have information on the subject, I'll be happy to hear it.

Members of the Community of Christ do not refer to ourselves as Mormon. We have taken the position that this term refers to the LDS Church and that the term "Mormon" (while not necessarily a registered trademark and protected) is wholly owned by the LDS.

Link to comment
Good article Dr. Peterson. If I was to make one suggestion (humbly speaking), I would have also added that: We believe in the need for all people to repent. To put away all the silly notions and dogma which separate people into acceptable verse unacceptable groups, finding harmony with diversity in Christ Jesus who sets us free...

Thanks.

Good idea. I was constrained, though, both by my 700-word limit and by wanting to stick as closely as possible to the text of the Apostles' Creed, which -- and this is, I think, extraordinarily interesting and significant -- doesn't mention repentance.

Members of the Community of Christ do not refer to ourselves as Mormon. We have taken the position that this term refers to the LDS Church and that the term "Mormon" (while not necessarily a registered trademark and protected) is wholly owned by the LDS.

Ah, 'tis as I thought.

Thanks again!

Link to comment

I know for those of you who have always been members of the church, this may be hard to appreciate, but as one who was raised Catholic and memorized the Apostles Creed at the age of 7 for my First Communion, I find it very comforting that this ancient relic of true Christianity presents principles I still believe and treasure.

It is as much a part of me as the Articles of Faith are to you and I really treasure that continuity in my life, even though I have converted to the LDS church over 30 years ago now.

When you have changed everything in your life to join a church, it is wonderful to have one little shard of truth which hasn't changed.

Link to comment

Thanks, mfbukowski. That's very much the spirit in which the article and this thread were intended.

...says the matador who waves the red cape in front of the bull.

If you're suggesting that, like a matador, I deliberately waved the name of Harry Reid in front of poor instinct-driven bcspace in order to provoke him, I flatly deny it. The thought never entered my mind, and I have no motive for doing such a thing. Nor do I think that he, like an irrational bull, is incapable of controlling his reactions,

But I'll go further and say this: Anybody who cannot hear or see the name of Harry Reid (or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck), even in a wholly non-political context (e.g., "Harry Reid believes in the Apostles' Creed," or "Brother Beck called his home teaching report in tonight," or "Brother Romney has accepted our call to head up the sustaining membership campaign for our ward Scout troop"), without being irresistibly compelled to condemn (or praise) Brother Reid (or Brother Romney or Brother Beck) for his political views needs to take a break from politics for a while. He (or she) is too obsessed with the political.

The leftish slogan that "everything is political" points up one of the central reasons, in fact, for my being (very seriously, and of long standing) on the Right. I believe that most areas of life are not and should not be political.

I met Harry Reid a number of years ago. (I was introduced to him by a member of the Twelve.) I disagree very strongly with his politics, and have been disappointed in him, even beyond my disagreement, for the way he has handled the role of Senate majority leader. If I lived in Nevada, I would be obliged to vote against him. Yet I would have no problem whatsoever home teaching him, being home taught by him, sustaining him in a priesthood leadership role, or serving with him on a high council.

Secular politics has no role to play in such matters, and secular politics were not the subject of the column to which this thread is appended.

Link to comment
Nor do I think that he, like an irrational bull, is incapable of controlling his reactions,

Well....

But I'll go further and say this: Anybody who cannot hear or see the name of Harry Reid (or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck), even in a wholly non-political context (e.g., "Harry Reid believes in the Apostles' Creed," or "Brother Beck called his home teaching report in tonight," or "Brother Romney has accepted our call to head up the sustaining membership campaign for our ward Scout troop"), without being irresistibly compelled to condemn (or praise) Brother Reid (or Brother Romney or Brother Beck) for his political views needs to take a break from politics for a while. He (or she) is too obsessed with the political.

Very very true.

The leftish slogan that "everything is political" points up one of the central reasons, in fact, for my being (very seriously, and of long standing) on the Right. I believe that most areas of life are not and should not be political.

leftish? I guess my experience about who makes everything political is different than yours. Have you met BCSpace?

I met Harry Reid a number of years ago. (I was introduced to him by a member of the Twelve.) I disagree very strongly with his politics, and have been disappointed in him, even beyond my disagreement, for the way he has handled the role of Senate majority leader. If I lived in Nevada, I would be obliged to vote against him. Yet I would have no problem whatsoever home teaching him, being home taught by him, sustaining him in a priesthood leadership role, or serving with him on a high council.

I am very glad to hear this.

Link to comment

But I'll go further and say this: Anybody who cannot hear or see the name of Harry Reid (or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck), even in a wholly non-political context (e.g., "Harry Reid believes in the Apostles' Creed," or "Brother Beck called his home teaching report in tonight," or "Brother Romney has accepted our call to head up the sustaining membership campaign for our ward Scout troop"), without being irresistibly compelled to condemn (or praise) Brother Reid (or Brother Romney or Brother Beck) for his political views needs to take a break from politics for a while. He (or she) is too obsessed with the political.

Some years ago, I caught Beck's program during afternoon drive time. By way of analogizing some point he was trying to make that I now can't recall, he talked about doing home teaching, explaining it as well as he could in brief for a non-Mormon audience. He spoke of how he dreads doing it, but after he finally gets out and makes the visits, he feels wonderful. That resonated with me, because I have experienced pretty much the same thing. But I marveled then and still do how a man who extemporaneously addresses an audience of millions every day could be nervous or reluctant about visiting a few families once a month.

Link to comment

This is so funny that I had to share it. It's from my Malevolent Stalker, over on the Stalker/Toady Board:

There is a somewhat weird, implicit "missionary" argument beneath the apologists' comments on that thread. Doctor Peterson is saying something to the effect that he hates Harry Reid politically, that he's been "disappointed" in him, would vote to end his political career, etc., and yet he'd home teach Reid (or allow himself to be home taught by the Democratic Senator), that he'd sustain him to callings, etc. What this seems to suggest is that the apologists will do anything to affirm a person's Church membership---regardless of what the person does in the outside world. You get the sense that DCP would happily sustain Ed Gein, Idi Imin, Lindsay Lohan, or Eminem to a Church calling. None of what these folks does "on the outside" matters; so long as we can chalk up yet another membership, it's all good. I guess this is related somehow to the obsession with racking up numbers on "Mormon Scholars Testify." We can continue to hope that the Mopologists will wake up and opt for substance over sheer quantity, but that's probably a pipe dream.

It can be easily imagined how the Stalker would have reacted had I equated accepting Harry Reid as a fellow Latter-day Saint with accepting, say, the mass murderer and reputed cannibal Idi Amin.

And please do note how, now that "Mormon Scholars Testify" has failed to die, despite his repeated claims (months ago) that it had already done so, and has long since passed the number of entries that he predicted it would never reach, and is steadily closing in on its two hundredth entry (which he arbitrarily declared to be the minimum number of entries that would, if reached by the end of 2010, prove the project not to be a failure), I'm the one who said to be "obsessed" with numbers. Numbers no longer matter!

A happy Saturday to all! (I myself have just had a pleasant conversation with two visiting Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Link to comment

I finally got to the site again and couldn't find the post, but another of your recent articles pulled down a lot of nasty comments. I went back to the site to get a link, but it's down again.

Maybe it's just cuz we eeee-vuhl Mermans keep crashing it! :P

Link to comment

From the Stalker/Toady Board:

You get the sense that DCP would happily sustain Ed Gein, Idi Imin, Lindsay Lohan, or Eminem to a Church calling.

Huh. :P I didn't even know that they're members! ;)

P.S.: I just had a cool thought though: maybe Eminem and Mo-Tab can now collaborate! :crazy:

Link to comment

DCP

Good idea. I was constrained, though, both by my 700-word limit and by wanting to stick as closely as possible to the text of the Apostles' Creed, which -- and this is, I think, extraordinarily interesting and significant -- doesn't mention repentance.

3DOP

Interesting and significant to an extraordinary degree? As in it is okay to not believe in repentance? I think I could show that the early Christians believed in and practiced acts of repentance.

If you take a look at the text, it does not include any other important practices that Christians need to exercise either. The Creed is a statement of faith, not an exhortation to good practices. I suggest you would be mistaken if, as it appears, you may be thinking that those of us who still recite the Apostles Creed regularly (in my case with my daily Rosary) could somehow infer a disregard for acts of repentance since none are mentioned in the Creed.

The Apostles' Creed is a skeletal outline of the Gospel, which is so uncluttered with non-historical developments that virtually all Christians should be able to find a way to express belief in each of the clauses. As you correctly pointed out, the Church of England wasn't saying they believed in the "Roman Catholic Church", nor are you. The word means universal, not Roman. Identification with the Apostles Creed makes the strongest argument for including Mormons under the category of Christian.

Also, I would not want anyone to think we imagine that the Apostles Creed is so-called because we believe it to be written by the Apostles. Rather, it is so labelled because it communicates those basic, mostly historical truths to which all Christians, both Former-day and Latter-day must adhere. The communion of saints might be problematic for LDS. But Protestants manage it, and I am sure you can too.

Anyway...I would hate to see you think we don't give adequate attention to repentance on the basis of its absence from the Apostles Creed. Rather, we were looking out for good little Bukowski, who at 7, might have trouble thinking of anything to repent about. Heh. The Church was also concerned that it would be of such brevity that Bukowski would be able to memorize it his whole life long even unto his own "latter days" during which he still does not fail to be able to recall the words. Heh. It seems we succeeded! I am truly glad that he is grateful to have retained what is for all of us not the whole meal, but a "slice" of the pie.

3DOP

Link to comment
Rather, we were looking out for good little Bukowski, who at 7, might have trouble thinking of anything to repent about.

I don't know about that one. :P I was awfully good with a slingshot.

The Church was also concerned that it would be of such brevity that Bukowski would be able to memorize it his whole life long even unto his own "latter days" during which he still does not fail to be able to recall the words.

I am still able to sit up and take nourishment. I still know most of the mass in Latin, which is probably more than most Catholics today.

It seems we succeeded! I am truly glad that he is grateful to have retained what is for all of us not the whole meal, but a "slice" of the pie.

Thanks for the charitable spirit of Christian unity.

Link to comment
Interesting and significant to an extraordinary degree?

Yes.

As in it is okay to not believe in repentance?

No.

I think I could show that the early Christians believed in and practiced acts of repentance.

So could I. Quite easily.

Identification with the Apostles Creed makes the strongest argument for including Mormons under the category of Christian.

I think it's pretty strong, too. But, to my considerable surprise, I've been taken to task over the past twenty-four hours by a friendly evangelical -- I won't reveal his name, and few if any here would be able to guess it, but his bona fides on this point are indisputable -- for having written a column that, he thinks, could set relations between Mormons and mainstream Christians back very seriously. I confess that, though we've gone back and forth, I'm still not quite able to wrap my mind around his objection.

I would hate to see you think we don't give adequate attention to repentance

I don't. "Cathoic guilt" is proverbial. [Add smiley face here.]

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...