My Column in "Mormon Times"

[3DOP]

As I began to ponder becoming Catholic in the early 90's, I recalled the argument for why the president of my Protestant Bible school built poor quality dormitories. Acknowledging that the new construction was cheap, he didn't want to leave permanent buildings for when the liberals take over.

 

I was at a relatively new parish yesterday and the fellow who was in charge of renovating the grounds was explaining how the new Stations of the Cross were reinforced with this much rebar and that much concrete. It was really quite a remarkable and majestic achievement on the side of a hill behind the church. The caretaker was clearly proud as he told about how it had been the original vision of a pastor who is now dead. It reminded me of the permanent expectations Catholics have of continuing until Christ comes. He has been working at this parish for around thirty years and showing his age, I thought I sensed some anxiety about being able to finish. I hope I consoled him with the reminder that the greatest Church projects have most often not been finished by the generation that began them.

 

I am not suggesting that this proves that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. Clearly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also has a long range vision that cannot believe in a time when "the liberals take over" before Christ returns. It seems to me that those who are the loudest at complaining about expensive, ornate, and permanent monuments of faith are often those who see little value in establishing the veracity of any "one true Church".

 

3DOP

[Daniel Peterson]

A really interesting and intriguing post, Rory.  Thanks.

 

I love the image of the president foreseeing a liberal take over and, so, building cheap.  Would you mind if I were to use it sometime?  With either anonymous or named attribution, as you prefer?

[Daniel Peterson]

Drunken with mad rage, losing even minimal control over his explosive emotions and violent actions (as he often does; virtually anything can set him off), Peterson erupts with venomous envy at the memory of a leading Mormon thinker from an earlier generation:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/10/many-different-voices-are-needed-for-a-chorus-of-witnesses.html

 

.

[3DOP]

A really interesting and intriguing post, Rory.  Thanks.

 

I love the image of the president foreseeing a liberal take over and, so, building cheap.  Would you mind if I were to use it sometime?  With either anonymous or named attribution, as you prefer?

 

Dan, thanks for your interest and for asking. I think I would prefer not to be mentioned by name. You are welcome to describe your source as you think is most fitting. I do have a vivid recollection of the story as I told it and I would probably be willing to verify it here at this board with time, place, and name if that ever seemed desirable.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

[Daniel Peterson]

Any person with even the slightest decency knows better than to make light of people dying.  But that category plainly doesn't include Daniel Peterson, a morally repugnant sociopath who callously uses his latest column to jeer and mock the passing of three respected people fifty years ago tomorrow:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/11/three-deaths-five-decades-ago.html

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 he didn't want to leave permanent buildings for when the liberals take over.

 

 

 

3DOP

So he is talking about right now? Ha. Couldn't resist.

[Daniel Peterson]

Spitting with uncontrollable anger and contempt, Peterson ridicules one of the most prominent Evangelical theologians in America:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865591818/Pleased-as-man-with-men-to-dwell.html

[Daniel Peterson]

Once again worshiping Joseph Smith as Smithmas, the biggest holiday of the year for devout Mormons, draws nigh, Peterson writes a hymn of uncritical praise for his hero:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865592250/The-collective-witness-of-Joseph-Smiths-family.html

[3DOP]

When the Mother of Jesus arrived for her visit to the Mother of John the Baptist, it is revealed that the six month old John "leaped" in the womb of Elizabeth at hearing the greeting that Mary made to Elizabeth. Experiencing this marvel, Elizabeth proclaims with great amazement:

Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.  And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.

 

 

There are inexhaustible lessons to be drawn from the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth. Many of these lessons come from the revealed fact that while enclosing the Son of God in her sacred womb, the mere voice of Mary had a sanctifying effect upon John the Baptist even before his own birth! A stupendous claim. Who could believe it, unless by faith? But with faith that the Virgin Mother was truly carrying God in her womb, who with faith should be surprised? Assuredly the conception of John the Baptist was miraculous, and he was destined to become one of God's great servants. To use his Lord's expressions, that among them all, no greater prophet hath arisen than John the Baptist. It is impossible that we should argue that John's experience in the womb was ordinary. It seems necessary that we should attribute his elevated sensitivity to the presence of the Mother of God to some kind of special privilege given to Him by God in preparation for his future mission of "making straight the ways of the Lord." I do not argue as a man of faith that John's conception or life in the womb was in any sense the norm.

 

Fr. Frederick Faber is well known as one of John Henry Newman's disciples, an author of many devotional books and hymns that have reached a wide audience. I was struck by the simple reasoning he used in his book titled, Bethlehem, which gives insights into the necessary effects which must have taken place, if God truly took human form in the womb of the Virgin Mary. After reading this book, which sadly, I cannot at the present locate, I realized that I often suffer from failing to exercise my imagination adequately upon the facts which I say I believe by faith.

 

I am not suggesting that it is unambiguously revealed that the Son of God lay silent in the manger when he first felt the sting of cold and the pangs of hunger. But I vociferously object to the label of heresy, which Richard Mouw attributes to those who might speculate, even sentimentally in song, that the Baby Jesus might have exhibited silent patience in infant sufferings that would mirror a greater example of silent patience in His later life. There are those who doubt the revealed Gospel record of Jesus' patience and courage at His Passion. I would think such skepticism begins with being cocksure that the Baby Jesus was your ordinary crybaby. While I could not locate the book he wrote meditating on the implications of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, I did find this online quote from Fr. Faber regarding the subject: "The deepest and most profitable devotion to the Incarnation is that which never loses sight for a single moment, of our Blessed Lord's divinity."     

 

It IS revealed that John the Baptist could leap for joy while in his mother's womb. Since we of faith are forced to admit the truth of the extraordinary joy of John the Baptist in the womb, it seems permissible to speculate that the suffering of Jesus Christ as a newborn infant might be likewise extraordinary. If the fully human John was specially privileged in the womb to rejoice with delight, why could not the fully human Jesus remain silent in suffering as an infant? We are not talking about ordinary babies in ordinary circumstances here. It is not the heresy of docetism to reflect upon the truths that are revealed and to wonder about their implications. We who are willing to consider that this Infant was in noticeable ways, already remarkable, do not deny that Jesus felt the deprivations which afflict any infant and for reasons not to be delved into at this time, even more keenly. Nay, we insist upon the discomfort of the Child Jesus. He was fully human.

 

I am not suggesting that Away in the Manger is true doctrine. I am not suggesting that it is heresy to believe that the Babe wept in the Manger. After all, He wept at the grave of Lazarus. What I am suggesting is that if the Babe wept, it was probably not without regard for the sins of which He was innocent, but for which He already intended to be the Victim and for which He was already suffering. We can have an extraordinary Baby without being heretical. And it is NOT revealed that we have an ordinary Baby. Catholics and Calvinists believe that Jesus has two natures now, as He did at Bethlehem. If Richard Mouw is insisting that it is revealed by faith that the Baby Jesus had no intellectual knowledge of His own Being and Mission from the womb, and must therefore have behaved like any baby, it is he that is the heretic to his own professed religion. If Mouw insists that the Divinity of the Son was eclipsed by the heavy weight and veil of human infancy, it will do no good from a Catholic and Calvinist perspective to wait for the baby to grow up!

 

With all due respect, I think Professor Mouw has raised his charge of heresy without adequate reflection on why there is a need to be more open-minded about the ways that his fellow Christians have traditionally imagined and expressed their devotion to the Babe of Bethlehem, in art, word, and song.

 

Regards and wishes for a Holy and Merry Christmas season to all,

 

Rory (Vacation this week! Heh.)

 

PS: For those who would wonder what caused this Catholic to have such an outburst of senseless hate and fury against a respected Evangelical scholar, please take note of Dan Peterson's own article, post #457 in the thread. Dr. Pete plainly admits to spitting ridicule with uncontrollable rage and contempt. But I fear I win the prize this time for being the biggest jerk. I even have the audacity to disagree with the scholar!

[Storm Rider]

Rory, your comments are always appreciated. Though each disciple contemplates on the Savior it is this holy time of year that we express our gratitude for his willingness to enter our mortal existence to save us from our sins.

 

Mouw's accusation of heresy is misplaced and there is no need for us to "cross our fingers" when we sing this Christmas hymn, "Away in a Manger". 

 

I have never been very comfortable with Marian tradition, but your words above gave me a better understanding for Catholic adoration. As a LDS I find great comfort that there is only a single intermediary between me and our Father in Heaven. I can appreciate the teaching of veneration of the saints and of Mary to a degree.

 

During the entire Christmas season may you and your family find peace and joy.

[rockpond]

Once again worshiping Joseph Smith as Smithmas, the biggest holiday of the year for devout Mormons, draws nigh, Peterson writes a hymn of uncritical praise for his hero:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865592250/The-collective-witness-of-Joseph-Smiths-family.html

 

That's a wonderful tribute to Joseph.

 

Thank you and Merry Smithmas!  

[Daniel Peterson]

Peterson chooses the Christmas season as an occasion on which to literally spit out his venomous resentment against non-believers:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/12/looking-again-at-one-of-the-greatest-of-all-stories.html

[Daniel Peterson]

Spitefully reveling in his rigid, vengeance-driven, unforgiving, caste-based worldview, Peterson insists that people can never change and refuses to grant that his enemies can ever repent.  Therefore, he insists, virtually dancing with gleeful anticipation, they must be punished:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/12/behold-i-make-all-things-new.html

[Daniel Peterson]

Already notorious for his flagrant anti-Semitism, Peterson shamelessly mocks and derides the Hebrew Bible:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593326/The-Bible-of-Lehi-Paul-and-Jesus.html

[Daniel Peterson]

Science is satanic, Peterson fumes.  It's eeevil.  Don't listen to those wicked, godless scientists!

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593776/Is-the-universe-friendly.html

[Daniel Peterson]

Peterson denounces the Old Testament because it was written by JEWS:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865594686/The-decline-of-revelation-and-the-origin-of-the-Old-Testament.html

[Daniel Peterson]

In yet another angry rant against wicked, godless scientists, Peterson announces that evidence is irrelevant and proclaims his belief in ghosts and poltergeists:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865595719/Mind-and-brain-Identical-or-distinct.html

[Daniel Peterson]

In yet another flight of his typical angry and irrational lunacy, Peterson argues (as one comment following the article summarizes his position) that plate tectonics proves the existence of God:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865596877/The-still-point-of-the-turning-world.html

[Daniel Peterson]

In a column that's unusually irresponsible even by his insanely reckless "standards," Peterson threatens "godless" scientists with a firing squad.  Seriously!

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/865597470/Maybe-the-firing-squad-was-on-your-side.html

[Daniel Peterson]

Another embarrassing anti-Semitic rant from Peterson:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865597988/Where-is-Mount-Sinai.html

[urroner]

I noticed that that article "Defending the Faith: God's sheep recognize his voice" which published three years ago was the "latest" on the Sic et Non Daily Digest.  Dr. Dan, I really liked it.

[Daniel Peterson]

I noticed that that article "Defending the Faith: God's sheep recognize his voice" which published three years ago was the "latest" on the Sic et Non Daily Digest.  Dr. Dan, I really liked it.

 

Thanks, urroner.  I hope you're well.

[Daniel Peterson]

Peterson denounces Russell Crowe and calls for jihad against Hollywood:

 

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865599562/In-Gods-Image-and-Likeness.html

[Daniel Peterson]

Making absolutely no effort to disguise either his racism or his savage misogyny, Peterson verbally assaults one of the few early Mormon women of color:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/04/four-testimonials-of-the-prophet-joseph-smith.html

[Daniel Peterson]

I think that I've failed to note one or two weeks of Peterson's habitually toxic nonsense.  Anyway . . .

 

In his most recent column, Peterson admits that the Book of Mormon is riddled with anachronisms, but contemptuously says "It doesn't matter, morons!":

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865602130/2-Book-of-Mormon-errors.html