Damien the Leper Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Unfortunately for Rob, I researched this quite awhile ago, albeit in a cursory manner. I think it was McConkie who started the Catholics are the church of the devil stuff. I put up the older quotes to demonstrate that this is not an early belief that had to be corrected. I think we did kind of become the Church of McConkie at one point and have had to do some clean-up. But it only puts us back to original teachings on this topic. Which Bowman will never acknowledge.Bruce McConkie never did hold much water with me. Most things he has said, I have had to take with a serious grain of salt.
Damien the Leper Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Anybody know exactly what religion Bowman affiliates with?I'm of the opinion that he may be Reformed. As to a specific church...no idea.
juliann Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 I like the quotes you're coming up with. You're correct in stating that there is a fair amount of religious self-destruction going on currently, and that Rob's brand of anti-Mormon negativity ultimately harms far more than his intended audience.Oh, do I have quotes. And books. I have been followed around by one too many fundamentalists who think everybody will play under their double standards. I think it is time for Bowman to start using his magnifying glass on his own religion for a change.
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Anybody know exactly what religion Bowman affiliates with?His bio on the IRR site doesn't say. Generic EV, perhaps?
ERayR Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 I stood behind the CFR issued to Rob. I will stand behind his CFR issued on this matter as well. I ask that the mods enforce the same ruling. I would also prefer that the response to the CFR not include "fancy footwork" of plausible deniability.There are two things wrong with Rob's CFR. First he calls for a reference for a change in a teaching that is a manufacture of his own mind. Second both have produce references that showed Rob's characterization to be in error.
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Oh, do I have quotes. And books. I have been followed around by one too many fundamentalists who think everybody will play under their double standards. I think it is time for Bowman to start using his magnifying glass on his own religion for a change.I think that's unlikely to happen. He seems to have too much antipathy for those of his own faith who would try to constructively bridge the divide with Mormons.
Damien the Leper Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 There are two things wrong with Rob's CFR. First he calls for a reference for a change in a teaching that is a manufacture of his own mind. Second both have produce references that showed Rob's characterization to be in error.Thank you for the response, Ray. See my post #371.
juliann Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Bruce McConkie never did hold much water with me. Most things he has said, I have had to take with a serious grain of salt.When I first came online, we had McConkie quotes thrown at us 24/7. It has only been recently that I've realized he has pretty much disappeared except in manuals that are reprinted (and he has been quietly removed from that in some instances). I grew up in that period and the harsh, uncompromising rhetoric was uncomfortable. God bless Pres. Hinckley! 1
Calm Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Anybody know exactly what religion Bowman affiliates with?I think it is sad when an individual is known better for what he has rejected than what he has accepted.
juliann Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 His bio on the IRR site doesn't say. Generic EV, perhaps?It has been my experience that they don't like to give out that information for obvious reasons. Every religion has a history. And old awful quotes.
Rob Bowman Posted December 31, 2012 Author Posted December 31, 2012 bluebell,You wrote:D&C 18:20 teaches-"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."Obviously, such a teaching makes absolutely no sense if all churches are part of the church of the devil.Juliann is not willing to acknowledge that there even is such a thing as a church of the devil. She claims it is "reprehensible" to describe any religion as of the devil.You wrote:Also, the Jan. 1988 Ensign taught in an article by Stephen Robinson what the church of the devil is. The article specifically deals with understanding Nephi 13 and 14 properly. I believe the magazine counts as an official source since it is run by the church."In the historical sense, though, only one entity can be the great and abominable church. Well-intentioned churches would thus not qualify as the mother of abominations described in 1 Nephi 13. They do not slay the saints of God nor seek to control civil governments nor pursue wealth, luxury, and sexual immorality.In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."Robinson admits that there is another sense, which he calls the apocalyptic sense, in which other churches are included as part of the great and abominable church, which is the church of the devil.How do you reconcile D&C 18:20 with 1 Nephi 14:10? "Whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth."If someone is not part of the church of the Lamb of God, according to the above statement, he is part of the great and abominable church. So how can there be whole churches separate from the church of the Lamb of God (=the LDS Church, according to Mormonism) that are not part of "that great church, which is the mother of abominations"?
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 It has been my experience that they don't like to give out that information for obvious reasons. Every religion has a history. And old awful quotes.The church has been remarkably resilient given all of the material that the Rob Bowmans of the world throw at us. Openness does work - but only if you've got the right foundation.
Rob Bowman Posted December 31, 2012 Author Posted December 31, 2012 Juliann,You wrote:Anybody know exactly what religion Bowman affiliates with?And now you write:It has been my experience that they don't like to give out that information for obvious reasons. Every religion has a history. And old awful quotes.So, it appears that you want to know with which denomination I affiliate so you can go quote-mining to try to embarrass me.I am an evangelical Protestant Christian. I have no permanent affiliation with any specific denomination. For most of my adult life I have maintained membership at an evangelical Congregational church. Currently I attend a Baptist church, as I often have as an adult. My theology could be fairly described as Reformed Baptist.
juliann Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 I think it is sad when an individual is known better for what he has rejected than what he has accepted.“Evangelicals today, however, display a troubling ignorance and unease about apologetics. As stressed earlier, the lack of a powerful, contemporary evangelical apology is one of the four great facts of our shame and a key part of the persuasionlessness that has befallen us. . .when we find people who are not open, interested, or needy we are stuck--though we mask our impotence by the compensating vehemence of our proclamation (or in the political arena by our protest and picketing)”. (p. 147)Os Guinness, Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to do About It. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994). 1
juliann Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Juliann is not willing to acknowledge that there even is such a thing as a church of the devil. She claims it is "reprehensible" to describe any religion as of the devil.Oh. My. Gosh. Just when I think you can't outdo yourself.
juliann Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 So, it appears that you want to know with which denomination I affiliate so you can go quote-mining to try to embarrass me.That is what you do. Any reason why your religion shouldn't be examined, Rob? Do I sense some hesitation in providing context to your "critique" of other religions? Or are you not trying to win souls by explaining your own religion? 1
jwhitlock Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 If someone is not part of the church of the Lamb of God, according to the above statement, he is part of the great and abominable church. So how can there be whole churches separate from the church of the Lamb of God (=the LDS Church, according to Mormonism) that are not part of "that great church, which is the mother of abominations"?Whoops, Rob, you're misinterpreting LDS scripture again in order to try to make a point. D&C 18:10 specifically states to contend against no church, save the church of the devil. What are those other churches? Your parenthetical interpretation in the quote above is also inaccurate.I'd suggest you try understanding the intent of the scripture before drawing false conclusions about it. Try reading with the Spirit; it's quite a treat to experience the scriptures through that channel, rather than looking for ways to tear down people's faith by cherry-picking out of context or misinterpreted quotes. 2
Rob Bowman Posted December 31, 2012 Author Posted December 31, 2012 jwhitlock,You wrote:You need to take a look at your history a little bit more closely, Rob. The polarization of the 19th and early 20th centuries didn't just suddenly go away. I'm old enough to remember some rather active persecution by other churches during every one of those decades.So, just how are things different between evangelicals and Mormonism in 2012 than they were, say, in 1992?You wrote:Given your SOP, I know it's probably hard for you not to abuse the concept of CFR, especially when you misrepresent our own scriptures and quotes from church leaders as straw men, and then make a demand for some kind of official repudiation. It doesn't work that way.Well, that's not what I have done.You wrote:However, I'll tell you what I'll do. You quoted McConkie as follows:... What exactly did you find objectionable about this quote? McConkie tells us exactly what qualifies any organization to be part of what he's talking about when he says "which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God.” Do you really think that's false? I certainly don't.I have already answered this misunderstanding of yours. I don't disagree that any church organization that leads people away from God and salvation is a false church. My point is that McConkie's statement, which is quoted with approval in recent LDS publications and on LDS.org, reflects the same sort of judgment that Juliann condemned as mean, nasty, reprehensible, etc., when an evangelical makes it about the LDS Church or any other religion.You wrote:Instead, you seem to want to expand his meaning beyond what McConkie clearly meant and tell us that he instead is saying that it includes all Christian churches of any sort. That's the kind of dishonesty that you engage in, Rob, when you misrepresent us and our doctrines.You know, I can listen with appreciation to a Mormon who tells me he thinks I have misunderstood something. I'm open to learning from such Mormons. I have learned from such Mormons. But I have no patience with people like you who accuse me of dishonesty every time I say something with which you disagree.All evangelical churches reject at least some elements of what Mormonism teaches are the "laws" of God, such as the laws of the temple. All evangelical churches deny that God the Father is a physical being with a body of flesh and bones. They all teach that God is an infinite being of spirit. The LDS Church claims to possess the "keys of the kingdom," so any church that claims otherwise would, by LDS standards, be leading people away from the kingdom of God.You wrote:You do the same thing with 1 Nephi, expanding its intent in a way designed to build a straw man that you can then tear down.How do you explain 1 Nephi 14:10, which says that anyone who is not part of the church of the Lamb of God is part of the great and abominable church? Don't just assert I have knocked down a straw man; show me, if you can.
Rob Bowman Posted December 31, 2012 Author Posted December 31, 2012 jwhitlock,There's one thing missing from the post reproduced below: an answer. All you have done is assert I'm wrong. You haven't said what these verses in 1 Nephi actually mean.Tell me what your supposedly Spirit-inspired reading of the text is, and I'll consider it.Whoops, Rob, you're misinterpreting LDS scripture again in order to try to make a point. D&C 18:10 specifically states to contend against no church, save the church of the devil. What are those other churches? Your parenthetical interpretation in the quote above is also inaccurate.I'd suggest you try understanding the intent of the scripture before drawing false conclusions about it. Try reading with the Spirit; it's quite a treat to experience the scriptures through that channel, rather than looking for ways to tear down people's faith by cherry-picking out of context or misinterpreted quotes.
Rob Bowman Posted December 31, 2012 Author Posted December 31, 2012 Juliann,You wrote:That is what you do. Any reason why your religion shouldn't be examined, Rob? Do I sense some hesitation in providing context to your "critique" of other religions? Or are you not trying to win souls by explaining your own religion?I answered your question directly, which is more than I can say for you with regard to my CFR. I didn't hesitate to tell you about my religion. Once again, you're making up things about me out of thin air.
juliann Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 I am an evangelical Protestant Christian. I have no permanent affiliation with any specific denomination. For most of my adult life I have maintained membership at an evangelical Congregational church. Currently I attend a Baptist church, as I often have as an adult. My theology could be fairly described as Reformed Baptist.So you can then be fairly described as Calvinist, I suppose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Baptists I can see why you might be worried about being put under the same scrutiny you give to those devil's religions you trash.
Rob Bowman Posted December 31, 2012 Author Posted December 31, 2012 Calmoriah,You wrote:I think it is sad when an individual is known better for what he has rejected than what he has accepted.Happily, that isn't true of me. You're simply fixated on my disagreement with Mormonism, ignorant of (or ignoring) my long history of teaching and writing about other things. I have written 13 books, only one of which is about Mormonism. I am well known for my belief and defense of the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, for my work in Christian apologetics in defending the Bible as historically reliable, and so on. In fact, outside of narrow circles like this one, I am much better known for those things than I am for my criticisms of Mormonism.It's a good idea to take a minute or two to get some facts before making such superficial judgments about someone.
ERayR Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 jwhitlock,You know, I can listen with appreciation to a Mormon who tells me he thinks I have misunderstood something. I'm open to learning from such Mormons. I have learned from such Mormons. But I have no patience with people like you who accuse me of dishonesty every time I say something with which you disagree.Mr. Bowman I can and will repudiate this statement. In the past I and others have pointed out your errors and misconception of Mormon doctrine and you consistently brush it aside and continue in your headlong rush to condemn Mormonism and Mormons. For examples read back through this thread.
Rob Bowman Posted December 31, 2012 Author Posted December 31, 2012 Juliann,You wrote:So you can then be fairly described as Calvinist, I suppose.http://en.wikipedia....formed_BaptistsI can see why you might be worried about being put under the same scrutiny you give to those devil's religions you trash.That's just DUMB. Why would I be worried about someone scrutinizing what I believe? I've taught openly in churches and at college and university campuses all over America about what I believe. If I was worried, why would I volunteer the information about my theology, since you didn't even ask about that?
juliann Posted December 31, 2012 Posted December 31, 2012 Juliann,You wrote:I answered your question directly, which is more than I can say for you with regard to my CFR. I didn't hesitate to tell you about my religion. Once again, you're making up things about me out of thin air.Boy, did I call that one right or what. Well, except I thought you would just deny that my references were valid. I didn't think you would go so far as to claim I didn't produce them.
Recommended Posts