Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

As has been noted on another thread, the only changes you make are to fine tune your attacks on the Church - not to correct factual inaccuracies, NOR the inaccurate conclusions you draw from claims carefully laid out to paint the Church and its members in the worst light possible.

Please cite for me a clear example of a "factual inaccuracy" on IRR's website. Make it a good one. Make it a FACTUAL one, not just a difference of interpretation as to the meaning of a text. This is a CFR.

You wrote:

That's quite the spin you put on the Hales article. Your comment here certainly does NOT catch the essence of what Hales was talking about; in fact, I'd recommend anyone reading to look at the Hales article and your comments. The comparison is instruction about the type of spin you put on things in order to cast the Church and Joseph Smith in the worst light possible.

I can't help but notice that you gave no specific examples of inaccuracies in my "spin" on Hales's article. You're comfortable making broad accusations but so far you're all hat and no cattle.

You wrote:

For the rest of this you studiously tap dance around the whole premise your anti-Mormon activity is based on, which is that no Mormon can be a Christian or have a relationship with Christ. If you admit that Mormons can be Christian and can be heirs of salvation in Christ, then the whole purpose of your "ministry" is void, and you are indeed guilty of leading people away from Christ. If the premise is correct, then you are guilty of unrighteous judgment, for Latter-day Saints indeed do know Christ and are acknowledge as His children by Him.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't tear down believers in Christ and claim to be a Christian ministry of some sort.

CFR that I have ever said that no Mormon can be a Christian or have a relationship with Christ. That isn't my position or the position of IRR. Our position is that Mormonism is not a faithful or sound form of Christianity; in other words, it is a heretical form of Christianity. This doesn't preclude the possibility of individuals in the religion being Christians and even having a relationship with Christ. On the other hand, because it is a heretical form of Christianity, we are sincerely concerned about the salvation of most of the people who trust Mormonism as the way to God. I'm sorry you find that offensive, but I must act on my sincerely held convictions just as you must.

You are the one who is avoiding 'fessing up to inaccuracies. You claimed that I "misrepresent them [Mormons] as shallow and uneducated, without any knowledge of Christ, and then...seek to tear down everything that's sacred to them." I proved that statement false. How about showing some class and courage and admitting your accusation on this point was at the very least overstated?

[zerinus]

jwhitlock,

My position on John 17:20-23 is simple. Jesus is praying that his disciples may be one just as he and the Father are one, so that the world may know and believe that the Father sent Jesus the Son. In context, then, Jesus is praying for the disciples to be one during their mortal lifetimes, since this is when the world may observe their "oneness" and learn from it that Jesus really is the Son sent by the Father. ... Thus, in John 17 Jesus is praying that the disciples will have a unity of love that will so impress people in the world that they will be able to recognize that the disciples are representing Jesus, the Son sent from the Father. The text has nothing to do with what the disciples might be like after they die, and it certainly does not mean or imply that they will ever become beings of the same kind as God -- all-knowing, all-powerful beings.

That is an exercise in obscurantism and obfuscation. You try to befuddle the issue by introducing unrelated concepts in the hope that people will lose sight of the wood for the trees. Let’s have a closer look at the text of john 17:

John 17:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

This doesn’t say that their “oneness” is confined to this world only, but goes beyond this world. It talks about three things:

1. That they should be one as the Father and the Son are one. That speaks of an eternal state of oneness, because the Father and the Son are eternally one; and if they are to be one as the Father and the Son are one, that means that their oneness will also be eternal. It goes even further and says that they are not only to be one among themselves, but that they are to be one with the Father and the Son, as the Father and the Son are one. There is no possible way of understanding that except in an eternal sense. Their oneness is to extend to eternity, not just on earth.
   
2. It says that in order to make them one, He has given them the glory that God the Father has given Him. There is no other way of interpreting this other than that this oneness is divine, eternal, and extends to eternity; and is identical to the oneness that the Father and the Son possess.
   
3. Finally, He prays to the Father that His disciples should be where He will be in order that they may behold the glory that the Father had given him—after stating that He has given that same glory to them in order to make them one, as the Father and the Son are one. That nails it down as hard as it can be nailed down that their oneness was to be equal and identical to the oneness that the Father and the Son enjoy; and that it was to extend to eternity, and not just for time.
   

In the other thread you started you said the following:

In his recent blog entry responding to Ben Witherington, Bill Hamblin states that "Mormons believe that the Trinity is of one will." This leads me to ask some questions. I really don't know just how Mormons might answer.

<snip>

For that matter, I am having trouble putting the following claims together:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other.

Since the Father and the Son are members of the Godhead (from #1), claims #3 and #4 appear to conflict with each other. This apparent incoherence is confirmed by claim #2, since the point of that claim seems to be that humans can attain the same oneness of will with each other and with the Father and the Son that the members of the Godhead have with each other.

As a result of which the following exchanges took place:

I'd like to see Rob explain the passages from John 17, where we are to become one with the Father and Son in the same way they are one with each other. That's what poses the real problem for EVs; LDS doctrine concerning the Godhead (as noted above) makes much more sense.

jwhitlock,

I addressed John 17 in my response to Bill Hamblin, mentioned in the thread he started about Witherington's blog.

That is a dodge. John 17 gives the complete answer to your question. If you think that it doesn't, it is up to you to present your arguments here in a cogent fashion so it can be discussed, not sending people on a wild goose chase reading lengthy articles about something else which they may not have an interest in reading.

Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways. If we agree on this much, then the rest of the discussion is about distinguishing in what ways humans can and in what ways they cannot become one with the Father and the Son.

This is an important conclusion, because it means that we can agree that John 17:20-23 does not mean that believers may become one with the Father and the Son in every way that the Father and the Son are one with each other. The text therefore cannot be treated as an obvious proof text for deification; we will need to look at the context to determine in what way Jesus meant for his disciples to be "one."

The text of John 17 says "as we are [one]," which speaks for itself.

Obviously, you have not read what I have written about John 17. I certainly don't think the apostles were to become one in substance. The point I am making here is that the Father and the Son are "one" in some ways that human beings never will or could be. We can be one with each other and with the Father and the Son in some ways as they are, but not in all ways. John 17 is talking about being one in ways that human beings can be one, not about being one in every way that God is.

The text says "as we are [one]," which speaks for itself. Their one-ness is a separate issue from their forming a Godhead. We can be one with them in exactly the same way that they are one with each other, without at the same time forming a Godhead with them. In other words, their one-ness is an essential prerequisite to their forming a Godhead; but their forming a Godhead is not a prerequisite to their one-ness. They need to be one in order to form a Godhead; but they don't need to form a Godhead in order to be one.

To which you never gave a proper reply. Would you like to reply to them now?

Edited September 1, 2012 by zerinus

[KevinG]

What would you think about a women's bible study? Taboo? Just asking, I was seriously thinking on it. Of course we don't have one in the LDS church. So it'd be somewhere else.

Do you regularly attend Relief Society meetings?

[Tacenda]

Do you regularly attend Relief Society meetings?

Yes why? In fact I've been in two rs presidencies.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Tacenda

[jwhitlock]

Please cite for me a clear example of a "factual inaccuracy" on IRR's website. Make it a good one. Make it a FACTUAL one, not just a difference of interpretation as to the meaning of a text. This is a CFR.

I can't help but notice that you gave no specific examples of inaccuracies in my "spin" on Hales's article. You're comfortable making broad accusations but so far you're all hat and no cattle.

The example from your site, where you misrepresented Joseph Smith, will do just fine. You know just as well as I do - your attempt to misrepresent Hales notwithstanding - that claims of Joseph having affairs with teenage girls is one of pure speculation. Anti-Mormons such as yourself go to great lengths to try to "prove" that point, reading anything they can into any text they want. But in reality, there's no concrete evidence of anything as sexually promiscuous as you want to make it. Yet you represent it as fact. That is a factual inaccuracy. The conclusions you draw are factually inaccurate, based as they are, not to determine the truth about Joseph, but to tear him down and misrepresent him.

CFR that I have ever said that no Mormon can be a Christian or have a relationship with Christ. That isn't my position or the position of IRR. Our position is that Mormonism is not a faithful or sound form of Christianity; in other words, it is a heretical form of Christianity. This doesn't preclude the possibility of individuals in the religion being Christians and even having a relationship with Christ. On the other hand, because it is a heretical form of Christianity, we are sincerely concerned about the salvation of most of the people who trust Mormonism as the way to God. I'm sorry you find that offensive, but I must act on my sincerely held convictions just as you must.

You are the one who is avoiding 'fessing up to inaccuracies. You claimed that I "misrepresent them [Mormons] as shallow and uneducated, without any knowledge of Christ, and then...seek to tear down everything that's sacred to them." I proved that statement false. How about showing some class and courage and admitting your accusation on this point was at the very least overstated?

Isn't that nice? You're willing only to admit that it "doesn't preclude the possibility" of some Mormons being Christian, and even having a relationship with Christ - although most of us (and by inference, probably all) have no hope of salvation. And in doing so, you term our religion a "heretical form of Christianity" as if it were also some kind of "fact" - which it isn't. So there's another inaccuracy for you. You've proven nothing.

Your response has been revealing in that you refuse to address my premise directly. If faithful Latter-day Saints can be Christian, have relationships with Christ, and be heirs of salvation, then you have no leg to stand on when you try to destroy Mormonism. You are, in effect, leading people away from Christ. Your only honest option as an anti-Mormon, in order to justify what you do, is to admit that you do indeed believe that faithful Latter-day Saints cannot be saved, that they cannot know Christ, and that this applies to all of them, with no exceptions. Yet in doing so, you would be demonstrably wrong, as even many of your fellow EVs would deplore such a judgmental attitude.

Because you see, many of them (EVs) actually know and try to understand Latter-day Saints, and they know that Christ manifests Himself freely in many - not just a few - of their lives.

And the truth of that is devastating to the anti-Mormon industry and its hateful methodology of trying to lead people away from Christ by tearing down their very real, and very living faith in Him.

Thanks for clarifying, at least in my mind, where you appear to be really coming from - even though you seem like a nice guy.

[zerinus]

The example from your site, where you misrepresented Joseph Smith, will do just fine. You know just as well as I do - your attempt to misrepresent Hales notwithstanding - that claims of Joseph having affairs with teenage girls is one of pure speculation. Anti-Mormons such as yourself go to great lengths to try to "prove" that point, reading anything they can into any text they want. But in reality, there's no concrete evidence of anything as sexually promiscuous as you want to make it. Yet you represent it as fact. That is a factual inaccuracy. The conclusions you draw are factually inaccurate, based as they are, not to determine the truth about Joseph, but to tear him down and misrepresent him.

Isn't that nice? You're willing only to admit that it "doesn't preclude the possibility" of some Mormons being Christian, and even having a relationship with Christ - although most of us (and by inference, probably all) have no hope of salvation. And in doing so, you term our religion a "heretical form of Christianity" as if it were also some kind of "fact" - which it isn't. So there's another inaccuracy for you. You've proven nothing.

Your response has been revealing in that you refuse to address my premise directly. If faithful Latter-day Saints can be Christian, have relationships with Christ, and be heirs of salvation, then you have no leg to stand on when you try to destroy Mormonism. You are, in effect, leading people away from Christ. Your only honest option as an anti-Mormon, in order to justify what you do, is to admit that you do indeed believe that faithful Latter-day Saints cannot be saved, that they cannot know Christ, and that this applies to all of them, with no exceptions. Yet in doing so, you would be demonstrably wrong, as even many of your fellow EVs would deplore such a judgmental attitude.

Because you see, many of them (EVs) actually know and try to understand Latter-day Saints, and they know that Christ manifests Himself freely in many - not just a few - of their lives.

And the truth of that is devastating to the anti-Mormon industry and its hateful methodology of trying to lead people away from Christ by tearing down their very real, and very living faith in Him.

Thanks for clarifying, at least in my mind, where you appear to be really coming from - even though you seem like a nice guy.

This thread is about the Mormonism vs. Christianity issue, not Joseph Smith's sexuality, or hundreds of other ways in which Rob may be misrepresenting Mormonism. If you want to deal with the whole topic of how Rob misrepresents Mormonism (which is a legitimate subject of discussion by itself), you should start a new thread, rather than derail this thread. I am sure Rob would be glad to find any excuse to dodge once again the question of John 17 that I have been presenting to him, in this thread as he did in the other one.

Edited September 1, 2012 by zerinus

[altersteve]

"Continue the discussion."

What discussion? Mormons are followers of Jesus Christ. End of story. We shouldn't have to defend ourselves.

[altersteve]

Yes why? In fact I've been in two rs presidencies.

If you've attending Relief Society, then you've attended a women's Bible study group.

[zerinus]

"Continue the discussion."

What discussion? Mormons are followers of Jesus Christ. End of story. We shouldn't have to defend ourselves.

That thread was closed prematurely. Several messages were posted, and points were made that needed to be answered (on both sides), that could no longer be answered.

[The Grimace]

jwhitlock,

Would you please do as Rob has asked: supply actual references to support your claims. Your many assertions are not adding up to one single demonstration. In order to demonstrate your claims, you will need to quote Rob Bowman, and then show how your quote demonstrates the claim that Rob is lying or misleading.

Thanks.

[Tacenda]

If you've attending Relief Society, then you've attended a women's Bible study group.

We do not study the bible in RS in depth!

Edited September 1, 2012 by Tacenda

[jwhitlock]

jwhitlock,

Would you please do as Rob has asked: supply actual references to support your claims. Your many assertions are not adding up to one single demonstration. In order to demonstrate your claims, you will need to quote Rob Bowman, and then show how your quote demonstrates the claim that Rob is lying or misleading.

Thanks.

I quoted from Rob's site. Did you miss that? Or does that not fit your rather narrow definition of how we're allowed to respond to Rob and his anti-Mormon activities?

Edit: I reread my post several times. I quoted Rob in that post, as I have in my other posts - despite your odd assertion that I haven't quoted him. In my last post I pointed out how he's tap dancing with his response around the Mormon relationship with Christ issue, which is applicable to the OP. I don't know how you come up with the rather ridiculous statement that I'm not demonstrating anything; that contradicts specifically what and how I've posted on this thread.

Maybe you don't understand Rob's methodology. Rob's inaccuracies have been pointed out many times on this board, and yet that has made no difference in what he does. He still seeks to tear down the Church, he still seeks to lead members of the Church away from Christ, and he still, at his web site, seeks to paint the Church and its members in as negative a light as possible. I point out an inaccuracy, I explain why it's an inaccuracy, and you blithely tell me I haven't demonstrated anything, as if that where some kind of "fact".

You seem not to have a problem with Rob and his anti-Mormon activities. I don't see you pointing out how Rob isn't responding to the John 17 issue, nor do I see you pointing out Rob's hedging to my LDS - Christ relationships premise. Yet you seem to be quick to claim that I, as an LDS defender, am not making any kind of cogent or supported response to Rob at all.

Why do you seem to want to bend over backwards to give Rob an unrestricted stage for his anti-Mormon assertions, while chiding me for pointing out exactly what he's really doing? Why are you trying to set the rules of the discussion to benefit Rob, and to hamper defenders of the Church? Where do you really stand when it concerns Rob and his anti-Mormon activities?

Edited September 1, 2012 by jwhitlock

[jwhitlock]

This thread is about the Mormonism vs. Christianity issue, not Joseph Smith's sexuality, or hundreds of other ways in which Rob may be misrepresenting Mormonism. If you want to deal with the whole topic of how Rob misrepresents Mormonism (which is a legitimate subject of discussion by itself), you should start a new thread, rather than derail this thread. I am sure Rob would be glad to find any excuse to dodge once again the question of John 17 that I have been presenting to him, in this thread as he did in the other one.

I fail to understand how Rob's tap dancing around Latter-day Saint relationships with Christ - which was the major point of my post - constitutes some kind of derail. Rob's misrepresentations of Mormonism are one of his ways in trying to "prove" that Mormons in general should not be considered Christians, and is germane to the issue at hand. The sexuality reference was simply a demonstration of what Rob and the anti-Mormon industry do in their attempts to paint Mormonism as something that has nothing to do with Christianity. Indeed, the whole point of my post was to point out the logical conflict Rob's activities demonstrate when you consider the whole question of whether Mormons are Christians, which necessarily entails a discussion of whether Mormons can have relationships with Christ.

Rob, of course, has ignored the clarification requested concerning John 17, and has instead concentrated on insisting that I'm lying about him. Anti-Mormons don't like it when their logical inconsistencies concerning individual Mormons and their faith in Christ are pointed out. Instead of hedging on the subject, as Rob did (and I quoted him) when asked whether Mormons do have relationships with Christ, he needs to address that directly.

[altersteve]

We do not study the bible in RS in depth!

Because there are so many wonderful things to study. But it's as close as you can get.

[volgadon]

We do not study the bible in RS in depth!

I would agree with you there.

[The Grimace]

I quoted from Rob's site. Did you miss that? Or does that not fit your rather narrow definition of how we're allowed to respond to Rob and his anti-Mormon activities?

Edit: I reread my post several times. I quoted Rob in that post, as I have in my other posts - despite your odd assertion that I haven't quoted him. In my last post I pointed out how he's tap dancing with his response around the Mormon relationship with Christ issue, which is applicable to the OP. I don't know how you come up with the rather ridiculous statement that I'm not demonstrating anything; that contradicts specifically what and how I've posted on this thread.

Maybe you don't understand Rob's methodology. Rob's inaccuracies have been pointed out many times on this board, and yet that has made no difference in what he does. He still seeks to tear down the Church, he still seeks to lead members of the Church away from Christ, and he still, at his web site, seeks to paint the Church and its members in as negative a light as possible. I point out an inaccuracy, I explain why it's an inaccuracy, and you blithely tell me I haven't demonstrated anything, as if that where some kind of "fact".

Perhaps I missed it. Please link here and I'll re-read it.

You seem not to have a problem with Rob and his anti-Mormon activities. I don't see you pointing out how Rob isn't responding to the John 17 issue, nor do I see you pointing out Rob's hedging to my LDS - Christ relationships premise. Yet you seem to be quick to claim that I, as an LDS defender, am not making any kind of cogent or supported response to Rob at all.

That's because I don't feel Rob's writings are anti-mormon. And, Rob has offered a few posts that are well-reasoned in response to your John 17 issue. You may not agree with his response, that doesn't mean he's avoided the issue.

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps I missed it. Please link here and I'll re-read it.

That's because I don't feel Rob's writings are anti-mormon. And, Rob has offered a few posts that are well-reasoned in response to your John 17 issue. You may not agree with his response, that doesn't mean he's avoided the issue.

You can re-read my posts #35 and #55. Your claim that I provided no quotes or nothing to back up my assertions is false. My main premise continues to be that Rob's activities lead people away from Christ when he tears down the Church.

Rob's writings, and the site he supports with his writings, are unabashedly anti-Mormon in nature. They bear all the hallmarks of anti-Mormon methodology.

With everything I'm involved in, I forgot about Rob's post on John 17 and my response to it. I stand corrected on that matter.

On the other hand, you've answered my question on where you stand. Given what you've posted and the rep points you've given, you appear to be a supporter of Rob and his anti-Mormon writings. You uncritically accept what Rob has written and you critically dismiss as baseless those who contradict him. Just wanted to clarify which side you're on.

Edited September 1, 2012 by jwhitlock

[Robert F. Smith]

It seems that in all of these "mormons are / are not christians" threads the common denominator is the definition of who is a Christian. EVs and Mormons have a fundamentally different definition. Mormons are more inclusive and EVs are more exclusive.

Mormons are inclusive just to be nice, as well as to acknowledge that other churches and religions have some truth and should be respected for their sincere efforts. However, as you know, Mormons are also at base very exclusively "the only true Church."

One gets a sense of this when reading in Church History 30/3 (Dec 1961), 481-483, the confused and disconsolate reply of Hans J. Hillerbrand to Hugh W. Nibley’s powerful demonstration that the authentic Christian Church did not survive and that its apostasy is described in detail by immediate, authoritative witnesses, i.e., the Ante-Nicene Fathers and others (Church History 30/2 [June 1961], 131-154). The editors had non-Mormon Robert M. Grant reply, telling Hillerbrand that Nibley had made a good case and that the only way to refute him would be to show that his analysis of the Patristic literature was in error. Indeed, Methodist theologian Albert C. Outler even agreed with Nibley on the powerful indicators of discontinuity!!

The upshot is that the LDS Church is the authoritative restoration of that original Christian Church, and there can be only one.

[Robert F. Smith]

Nice try in trying to simplify a complicated topic by looking at the issue through one set of lens. The RCC recognizes the baptisms of many of our EV brethren but not a LDS baptism due to the nature of God thing while LDS do not recognnize anyone else's baptism. Who is being more inclusive in considering them Christian under these parameters?

Excellent point!!

[The Grimace]

On the other hand, you've answered my question on where you stand. Given what you've posted and the rep points you've given, you appear to be a supporter of Rob and his anti-Mormon writings. You uncritically accept what Rob has written and you critically dismiss as baseless those who contradict him. Just wanted to clarify which side you're on.

I'm just here to learn and am not really interested in the personal back-and-forth. In a thread about labels (are Mormons Christian?), I hesitate to start applying more labels, like anti-Mormon. I haven't dismissed anyone - I've simply said I find Rob to be a pleasant guy and I didn't think you were answering his CFRs.

And really, does it matter who I give rep points to? It's the internet, for crying out loud.

[Calm]

there can be only one.

Time to get the swords out.....

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob, while Rob may be a nice guy in person, the site he's heavily involved in is unabashedly ant-Mormon in nature. There's material on the site that is questionable, outright false, and inappropriate.

The conundrum with Rob is how we should perceive a person who comes across as nice and a gentleman in their interactions, but who is also heavily involved in something which is displeasing to God. Nice or not, the site Rob is affiliated with preys on people and their general tendency to uncritically believe something negative without researching it out. It seeks to tear down, not to understand. That's what Rob espouses.

In fairness to Selek, he recognized that negative side and dealt with it in his own manner. That manner was evidently unacceptable to the mods and others here, but it does not change the fact that there are two sides to Rob, one of which is not particularly uplifting or nice. Nice and gentlemanly or not, he is an anti-Mormon and seeks to actively destroy the faith of Latter-day Saints and lead them away from Christ. We need to keep that first and foremost in front of us in our interactions with him, and not get lulled into feeling comfortable with what he's preaching, just because he's "nice".

Or do you see it another way?

I haven't been to Rob Bowman's blog, although I have heard that he exposes LDS temple rites there, which I consider inappropriate, but I have no personal knowledge of that fact. Indeed, I understand that direct references to his blog here are prohibited. That said, I am only concerned with his behavior here on this blog, and think that any personal animosities you have for Rob based on his anti-Mormon activities elsewhere should be left outside the debate here.

May I say also that I have met and become well-acquainted with a number of anti-Mormons, some of them the most effective at what they do. I have also found some ultra-conservative Mormons who frothed at the mouth over anti-Mormons they had met -- they were ironically among the first to apostatize and become anti-Mormons themselves. My advice to you and others who get angry at the anti-Mormons is to chill out, have faith, and learn as much as you can from them about your own religious beliefs. As Mike Quinn has rightly said, "The unexamined faith is not worth having."

[Robert F. Smith]

Would you say that LDS would call Community of Christ members "Christian"? How about the various other branched of sects of Mormonism (let's not split hairs whether this is the correct terminology)? Would the LDS say that polygamous sects have the same claim to the title "Christian"?

Was Abraham a Christian? A polygynous Christian?

[jwhitlock]

I'm just here to learn and am not really interested in the personal back-and-forth. In a thread about labels (are Mormons Christian?), I hesitate to start applying more labels, like anti-Mormon. I haven't dismissed anyone - I've simply said I find Rob to be a pleasant guy and I didn't think you were answering his CFRs.

And really, does it matter who I give rep points to? It's the internet, for crying out loud.

Yet you've definitely taken sides. In any debate, it's useful to know where people are coming from when responding.

[jwhitlock]

I haven't been to Rob Bowman's blog, although I have heard that he exposes LDS temple rites there, which I consider inappropriate, but I have no personal knowledge of that fact. Indeed, I understand that direct references to his blog here are prohibited. That said, I am only concerned with his behavior here on this blog, and think that any personal animosities you have for Rob based on his anti-Mormon activities elsewhere should be left outside the debate here.

May I say also that I have met and become well-acquainted with a number of anti-Mormons, some of them the most effective at what they do. I have also found some ultra-conservative Mormons who frothed at the mouth over anti-Mormons they had met -- they were ironically among the first to apostatize and become anti-Mormons themselves. My advice to you and others who get angry at the anti-Mormons is to chill out, have faith, and learn as much as you can from them about your own religious beliefs. As Mike Quinn has rightly said, "The unexamined faith is not worth having."

Thanks for responding. Could you clarify the following:

- What do you mean by "learn as much as you can from them about your own religious beliefs"?

- Was your quote from Quinn mean that those who bear a great deal of antipathy for anti-Mormons aren't interested in examining their faith?