cinepro Posted June 6, 2013 Posted June 6, 2013 What's ironic about it?Maybe it's ironic in the same way that "rain on a wedding day" is.For Townhall, this article is a huge home run. It's rare that any of their articles get many comments; even heavy hitters like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter rarely get more than a few hundred comments. O' Reilly's latest has fewer than 200, and Coulter's latest has about 300.This "apology" by a hardly known columnist now has over 2,000 comments! This means a tremendous number of page views, which is nirvana for a website like Townhall. Talk about rewarding bad behavior...!
Buzzard Posted June 6, 2013 Posted June 6, 2013 Professor Peterson:Fol.lowing a link in a comment on your blog, I found this quote by the same individual, or at least someone with the same last name who taught at the same school, and who read the BOM in 2006, just as the esteemed Mr. Adams says he did:"Throughout my study, I consistently heard two harsh accusations levied against Mormons -- first, that the LDS Church is a cult, and, second, that the Mormons are not Christians. I reject both of those accusations....The idea that Mormons are not Christians is also untenable. No one reading Romans 10:9 and John 14:6 can deny that Mormons are Christians who are saved by faith and destined for heaven. Of course, raising the issue of heaven might not be the best way to bridge the gap between Mormon and non-Mormon Christians. In fact, it leads inevitably to a discussion of the controversial life and revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr."The entire earlier article can be viewed here:http://radicalacademy.uni.me/studentrefreligionadams1.htmMy, how the worm doth turn....
Dan Vogel Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 Mormons are Christians. They may not be orthodox Christians, but they are Christians.
Calm Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 Professor Peterson:Fol.lowing a link in a comment on your blog, I found this quote by the same individual, or at least someone with the same last name who taught at the same school, and who read the BOM in 2006, just as the esteemed Mr. Adams says he did:"Throughout my study, I consistently heard two harsh accusations levied against Mormons -- first, that the LDS Church is a cult, and, second, that the Mormons are not Christians. I reject both of those accusations....The idea that Mormons are not Christians is also untenable. No one reading Romans 10:9 and John 14:6 can deny that Mormons are Christians who are saved by faith and destined for heaven. Of course, raising the issue of heaven might not be the best way to bridge the gap between Mormon and non-Mormon Christians. In fact, it leads inevitably to a discussion of the controversial life and revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr."The entire earlier article can be viewed here:http://radicalacadem...igionadams1.htmMy, how the worm doth turn....Strange....Picture is the same guy. Wonder what happened.
noel00 Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com.au/Has an interesting comments about "relational" apologetics. Seems to be applicable to the gentleman in Townhall piece
Storm Rider Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 I move we join the evil leftists until the evangelicals stop their insane harangue. All in favor please manifest it.I will never vote for any Evangelical; having lived amongst these people for the first several decades of my life I learned by sad experience they don't begin to understand the teaching, "by their fruits ye shall know them". They are a people that testify to me that there needs to be a wide separation between church and state. If ever they are in power they will be the first to raise burn everyone else at the stake for heresy. I acknowledge there are exceptions, but as a group these area people that I would never trust to be Christ-like in their actions toward others.
Ron Beron Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 I noticed that Prof. Adams is a criminologist. Hopefully, he is better at that than parsing religions. His comments were rude and not factual. What is worse is the invisible toadies who left their inane comments.
jwhitlock Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 I noticed that Prof. Adams is a criminologist. Hopefully, he is better at that than parsing religions. His comments were rude and not factual. What is worse is the invisible toadies who left their inane comments.That pretty well sums it up.
Avatar4321 Posted June 7, 2013 Posted June 7, 2013 http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com.au/Has an interesting comments about "relational" apologetics. Seems to be applicable to the gentleman in Townhall pieceReading that it's not at all clear about what relational apologetics is.
BCSpace Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 Harry Reid is a liberal politically and his religion is being attacked by liberal commentators (like MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell.)Apparently irony is no respecter of political philosophy.Except that Liberalism is in opposition to the Gospel in almost every way imaginable whereas there is no conflict with Conservatism.
3DOP Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 For what it's worth, I've just responded to Professor Adams:http://www.patheos.c...despise-us.htmlFor those uninclined to read all of Doc Peterson's good blog post, skip to the joke at the bottom.It is exaggerated of course, but illustrative of the inconsistency with which Protestants behave when they assume the authority to decide who isn't Christian. They disagree with fellow so-called Christians so much that they can't even go to church together! How is that Christian? No unity of belief, discipline or practice exists among Protestants. Shop around for whatever church pleases you best and you will find that they will not claim exclusive apostolic authority. The belief that keeps them united as Protestant Christians is a negative one. It is their agreed upon opposition to churches that do not split and divide at the same dizzy pace as they do, setting up shop to compete with their so-called brothers. Protestants whose differences are so profound and troubling that they can't even go to church together have forfeited any reasonable privilege of assigning the name Christian.I will consider whether a non-fictional "Northern Baptists of the Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912" is a true church or not. If they will say they are the one true church, I will consider whether they are the only Christians. But if they just gang up as a bunch of Protestants, I can't take them seriously. There isn't any such thing as the Protestant Church to consider. Protestantism is nothing less than a wild free for all that only pretends unity when faced with one of several Christian groups with a legitimate claim to be the one true church. This is not to say that all Protestants necessarily have the same ill will towards us. Of course they don't. It probably pains many of them to see other Protestants be so stingy. It is to such Protestants as this that I would appeal. I am suggesting that to deny the need for a true visible church authority is to tend to an unChristian-like disunity and above all suspicion of anyone who doesn't "share that disunity". I put that in quotes because it is ironic. Protestants are united only in agreeing that there is no visible authority that can unite them. It is consistent in them to identify challengers to this unwarranted presumption against true visible authority on earth with deep suspicion. None of their fellow Protestants gives them this problem. Cardinal Newman claimed that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. I agree, but would add that to claim to be the one true visible church is to cease to be Protestant too.The Scriptures we all accept tell us to assemble together. (Heb. 10:25) After assembling we are supposed to be obedient to human authority:Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.---Heb. 13:17The King James renders this, "Obey them that have the rule over you..." which is in some respects even stronger. Does Christ assign different true rulers for every body of believers who breaks off from the original apostolic unity and forms another body? That is how the Protestant is forced to understand things. It has to be uncomfortable. It is so uncomfortable than none of them claims to be the one true church! As a Catholic I, and presumably as Mormons you guys, can invite discerning seekers into a Church that claims to be one, true and visible. This church is led by human officers approved from the Head of the Church, Christ Himself, "to watch for our souls", and to whom we owe our reasonable consent and ordinary submission in spiritual things.We cannot obey Christ if we disobey the human instruments He has placed over us as mentioned in Hebrews. Obviously I don't believe that the Catholic and LDS claims are compatible. Only one is true. Christ does not beget parallel churches conflicting with each other and confusing the faithful. But it is sure an easier task to discern the one true church when you can reject all of the pretending "wannabes" that fear to stand before the world and make the claim. In my opinion, our agreement on this point ought to make a thoughtful Protestant uneasy. The silent consent of Protestant leaders to deny the existence of this human, but apostolic authority, spoken of in Heb 13 and elsewhere, set themselves in opposition to any who would say it still exists on the earth. They can make a noisy clamor about who isn't Christian and point at Mormons or Catholics. Whatever. I will point to those true prelates who are to be obeyed not because they please us, but because it pleases Christ. If Mormons will do the same, while acknowledging our deep differences on vitally important doctrines and practice, we can begin without arguing who is Christian. What else would one be who tries to obey Christ? Although I am forced to conclude that you have identified the wrong prelates, at least you do not consent to ecclesiological anarchy by denying their very existence.3DOP
Ron Beron Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 For those uninclined to read all of Doc Peterson's good blog post, skip to the joke at the bottom.It is exaggerated of course, but illustrative of the inconsistency with which Protestants behave when they assume the authority to decide who isn't Christian. They disagree with fellow so-called Christians so much that they can't even go to church together! How is that Christian? No unity of belief, discipline or practice exists among Protestants. Shop around for whatever church pleases you best and you will find that they will not claim exclusive apostolic authority. The belief that keeps them united as Protestant Christians is a negative one. It is their agreed upon opposition to churches that do not split and divide at the same dizzy pace as they do, setting up shop to compete with their so-called brothers. Protestants whose differences are so profound and troubling that they can't even go to church together have forfeited any reasonable privilege of assigning the name Christian.I will consider whether a non-fictional "Northern Baptists of the Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912" is a true church or not. If they will say they are the one true church, I will consider whether they are the only Christians. But if they just gang up as a bunch of Protestants, I can't take them seriously. There isn't any such thing as the Protestant Church to consider. Protestantism is nothing less than a wild free for all that only pretends unity when faced with one of several Christian groups with a legitimate claim to be the one true church. This is not to say that all Protestants necessarily have the same ill will towards us. Of course they don't. It probably pains many of them to see other Protestants be so stingy. It is to such Protestants as this that I would appeal. I am suggesting that to deny the need for a true visible church authority is to tend to an unChristian-like disunity and above all suspicion of anyone who doesn't "share that disunity". I put that in quotes because it is ironic. Protestants are united only in agreeing that there is no visible authority that can unite them. It is consistent in them to identify challengers to this unwarranted presumption against true visible authority on earth with deep suspicion. None of their fellow Protestants gives them this problem. Cardinal Newman claimed that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. I agree, but would add that to claim to be the one true visible church is to cease to be Protestant too.The Scriptures we all accept tell us to assemble together. (Heb. 10:25) After assembling we are supposed to be obedient to human authority:---Heb. 13:17The King James renders this, "Obey them that have the rule over you..." which is in some respects even stronger. Does Christ assign different true rulers for every body of believers who breaks off from the original apostolic unity and forms another body? That is how the Protestant is forced to understand things. It has to be uncomfortable. It is so uncomfortable than none of them claims to be the one true church! As a Catholic I, and presumably as Mormons you guys, can invite discerning seekers into a Church that claims to be one, true and visible. This church is led by human officers approved from the Head of the Church, Christ Himself, "to watch for our souls", and to whom we owe our reasonable consent and ordinary submission in spiritual things.We cannot obey Christ if we disobey the human instruments He has placed over us as mentioned in Hebrews. Obviously I don't believe that the Catholic and LDS claims are compatible. Only one is true. Christ does not beget parallel churches conflicting with each other and confusing the faithful. But it is sure an easier task to discern the one true church when you can reject all of the pretending "wannabes" that fear to stand before the world and make the claim. In my opinion, our agreement on this point ought to make a thoughtful Protestant uneasy. The silent consent of Protestant leaders to deny the existence of this human, but apostolic authority, spoken of in Heb 13 and elsewhere, set themselves in opposition to any who would say it still exists on the earth. They can make a noisy clamor about who isn't Christian and point at Mormons or Catholics. Whatever. I will point to those true prelates who are to be obeyed not because they please us, but because it pleases Christ. If Mormons will do the same, while acknowledging our deep differences on vitally important doctrines and practice, we can begin without arguing who is Christian. What else would one be who tries to obey Christ? Although I am forced to conclude that you have identified the wrong prelates, at least you do not consent to ecclesiological anarchy by denying their very existence.3DOPVery nice response. This is why I have always loved Catholics. Perhaps it was the nuns that taught me.
Damien the Leper Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Why cut off your nose to spite your face?Oh how I love you...
Damien the Leper Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2013/06/05/my-apology-to-mormon-readers-n1612799Oy, vey...Ugh...what a pompous @$$!! Can the critics come up with nothing new?
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Except that Liberalism is in opposition to the Gospel in almost every way imaginable whereas there is no conflict with Conservatism.NO it isn't.
Chronos Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Keep politics out of this or the thread will be shut down.
Daniel Peterson Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Except that Liberalism is in opposition to the Gospel in almost every way imaginable whereas there is no conflict with Conservatism.I'm a very seriously dedicated conservative, but I don't believe the statement above to be true.
BCSpace Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 I'm a very seriously dedicated conservative, but I don't believe the statement above to be true.I merely compare the two to doctrine which is why I believe it to be true.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 Maybe it's ironic in the same way that "rain on a wedding day" is.For Townhall, this article is a huge home run. It's rare that any of their articles get many comments; even heavy hitters like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter rarely get more than a few hundred comments. O' Reilly's latest has fewer than 200, and Coulter's latest has about 300.This "apology" by a hardly known columnist now has over 2,000 comments! This means a tremendous number of page views, which is nirvana for a website like Townhall. Talk about rewarding bad behavior...!His piece attracts page views in the same way that that a street fight attracts spectators.Diverting, but hardly edifying.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 I merely compare the two to doctrine which is why I believe it to be true.A skewed comparison at best.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 Why?Normally I have no problem with being political, but on this rare occasion, I will politely decline from doing so.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 Can he apologize for supporting Christ in the Premortal World and forcing the rest of us to deal with his drivel?Or to the natural resources consumed to put this on the web? Or for the wasted oxygen and calories used by his brain to create this tripe?Well, we shouted for joy because it was such a great speech... Or we shouted for joy, because it was over? ...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.