Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Controversy over "The Chosen" line Supposedly Taken from the Book of Mormon


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

How would we discern, Navidad? Because up to this point your criteria boils down to “if bad behavior then fundamentalist, not evangelical.” And you refuse to accept that people I knew personally and who identified as evangelical were overtly hostile to my faith. 

That is not fair. Neither is it accurate. Most of the differences are doctrinal - theological. Bad behavior and good behavior are certainly present in any group of any kind or size. I also stipulate that you are 100% correct that the people who you know and who were overtly hostile to your faith identified as Evangelicals. I have no measure by which to question that. It is not my intent to launch a polemic or apologetic about the wonders and joys of Evangelicalism. It is just to continue to point out that to those of us who live with the difference every day, there is quite a difference between the two groups. Those differences are mostly doctrinal and to some degree relational.

Is there a difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, The Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Time, The Church of the Firstborn of the Lamb of God, and the Iglesia El Reino De Dios En Su Plenitud? I think you would quickly say "Yes." You might even insist "yes." For many if not most non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints they would all be the same. That would of course be incorrect, wouldn't it, regardless of who of them identify with having roots in the LDS movement, and are therefore that faith's true adherents? For decades on the Mexican census all Mormon groups only had the choice of "Mormon" to identify themselves. That led to all kinds of confusion. Now each group (at least most of them) are listed separately.

I don't mean to come across as adding a negative value assessment to Fundamentalists. That isn't my purpose, but I can understand how you would conclude that. Fundamentalists, via their exclusive claims cause a lot of pain for a lot of people. I don't value that, so I most likely do come across negatively when speaking about them. I will try and do better. I do believe that it is the Fundamentalists of all faiths who cause most of the damage to their own faith as well as to others, as well as to the faith of others.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment

This kid exegetes all of 3 Nephi 15. Amazing! Go kid!

He also asks a good question for LDS to chew on: If Christ fulfilled the law, why didn't he fulfill the prophets also? Why do we still have propehts?

 

Edited by Hamilton Porter
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

If Christ fulfilled the law, why didn't he fulfill the prophets also? Why do we still have propehts?

Because he has not abolished either.

Quote

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 

What is the time stamp of him saying that question?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because he has not abolished either.

So we don't keep the law anymore but we still have prophets.

If I were arguing your case I would have said the law and prophets means the entire Old Testament.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Navidad said:

or determine whether or not someone was a Fundamentalist or an Evangelical, or something else if you met them on a street corner, or in front of the stake center?

Which of these anti-Mormons is evangelical, which fundamentalist?

1. Bill McKeever

2. Eric Johnson

3. James White

4. Aaron Shavalovoff (sp)

 

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

You have distinguished between Evangelicals and Mennonites in this response. That confuses me, so I would like to continue the dialogue. Evangelicals are a subgroup within Mennonitism;

I know the difference. Evangelical means theologically conservative protestant. Cuts across denominations.

Link to comment
On 4/23/2023 at 11:56 AM, Navidad said:

Interesting place. I lectured there some years ago. It almost went bankrupt, but appears to be doing well now. The Pentecostals, especially the Assembly of God are seeking to produce more academic work based on their theological points of view.

I had a very nice conversation with a student recruiter from ORU a few years ago.  We discussed her (Calvinist) views regarding the “sovereignty of God” and how it seems to end in “predestination.” And while I am not a fan of this aspect of Calvinist theology, I was impressed and uplifted by my conversation with this articulate woman.

Although the aspiration for a medical school at ORU has been jettisoned, I agree that they seem to have weathered the storm.  I’m glad.  I think they produce some excellent graduates.

Link to comment
On 4/24/2023 at 9:34 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Evangelical means theologically conservative protestant.

No offense but that is not a very adequate definition. It would be nice if you could define Evangelicalism in five words, but that simply is not possible. That is like someone saying a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a theologically heterodox yet conservative believer in Christ. That is a lot more words, but doesn't come close to defining an LDS Christian. As far as your list of men. I know none of them; I never heard of any of them. Their websites say very little about their personal affiliations. I would not presume to categorize someone I don't know, whose material (non-Mormon related) I have never read, whose personal affiliation I have no idea about. By your definition and by what I read, they would all be Evangelicals. But I don't agree with your definition. Take care.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

No offense but that is not a very adequate definition. It would be nice if you could define Evangelicalism in five words, but that simply is not possible. That is like someone saying a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a theologically heterodox yet conservative believer in Christ. That is a lot more words, but doesn't come close to defining an LDS Christian. As far as your list of men. I know none of them; I never heard of any of them. Their websites say very little about their personal affiliations. I would not presume to categorize someone I don't know, whose material (non-Mormon related) I have never read, whose personal affiliation I have no idea about. By your definition and by what I read, they would all be Evangelicals. But I don't agree with your definition. Take care.

What's the right definition then? Chicago Statement?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Navidad said:

As far as your list of men. I know none of them; I never heard of any of them. Their websites say very little about their personal affiliations.

Those are our most prominent critics. They call themselves evangelicals, although they say things that would earn them the fundamentalist label (not considering Catholics Christians) The fact that you're not familiar with them means you won't grasp how wary we are of evangelical Christians, until they prove otherwise.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Those are our most prominent critics. They call themselves evangelicals, although they say things that would earn them the fundamentalist label (not considering Catholics Christians) The fact that you're not familiar with them means you won't grasp how wary we are of evangelical Christians, until they prove otherwise.

Well, I have to disagree with you again. I hope you don't mind. If they were prominent Evangelical spokespersons for anything, I would at least know their names or be familiar with their roles. The fact that I do not and am not, tends to make me think you should simply ignore them if you don't like what they say. The Chicago Statement? Good night, it is almost fifty years old - from the late seventies and really is aimed only at innerancy -Biblical interpretation - not meant as a definition of Evangelicalism. You seem to keep insisting on something that if I said about Mormonism, you would strongly disagree with me. I think I know enough about Mormonism (as a movement) not to make that mistake. You don't seem to know enough about non-LDS Christians to realize or appreciate the great diversity, differences, and disagreements amongst us. I have to run. Take care.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Well, I have to disagree with you again. I hope you don't mind. If they were prominent Evangelical spokespersons for anything, I would at least know their names or be familiar with their roles.

I didn't say they were prominent spokesmen (thank goodness). They are our most vociferous critics. More "prominent" evangelicals have been kinder, e.g., Richard Mouw, who spoke at Congress's celebration of Joseph Smith.

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The fact that I do not and am not tend to make me think you should simply ignore them.

Good advice!

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The Chicago Statement? Good night, it is almost fifty years old - from the late seventies and really is aimed only at innerancy -Biblical interpretation - not meant as a definition of Evangelicalism. 

What is the definition then? "Theologically-conservative protestant" comes from Craig Blomberg.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I didn't say they were prominent spokesmen (thank goodness). They are our most vociferous critics. More "prominent" evangelicals have been kinder, e.g., Richard Mouw, who spoke at Congress's celebration of Joseph Smith.

Good advice!

What is the definition then? "Theologically-conservative protestant" comes from Craig Blomberg.

Well, Craig Blomberg is a highly regarding Evangelical professor emeritus at a highly regarded Evangelical seminary. When I say "highly regarded," I mean by other Evangelicals. I would ask him for clarification of three things regarding his definition. First, what about Evangelicals who are not Protestant, like Anabaptists, Pentecostals, and some Black and Latino groups? There are many. Second, where then would he place or how would he define Fundamentalists in comparison to Evangelicals (if Evangelicals take up the conservative space)? Third, how would he define conservative? Conservative in comparison to what?  Take care. Oh, I have to run again to pay my employees - its Friday. I will get back on my definition when I return.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

What is the definition then?

I just did this in a hurry. It is neither complete, exhaustive (it may be exhausting!), nor meant to be the final answer! At any rate, I hope you find it at the very least interesting. Take care.

I will define Evangelicalism as a third wave or middle ground between Fundamentalist and Mainline Christians. They (Evangelicals) were founded in the 1940s by those like Carl F. Henry and Billy Graham to buffer the Mainline focus on the Social Gospel and the Fundamentalist tendency to be monochromatic, negative, at times judgmental, and often disengaged from the rest of Christianity. Evangelicalism has grown as both Fundamentalists and Mainline Christians have sought to migrate (not convert) to a home more to their comfort. In recent years, some Evangelicals have identified themselves with political positions, much to the dismay of others.

Evangelicals are often evangelistic, as are Fundamentalists. An oft-quoted distinction is that Evangelicals will identify themselves by describing what they are for; while Fundamentalists will describe themselves by what they are against. That may be fair and at the same time over-used. Perhaps it is fair to differentiate that Fundamentalists view themselves as gatekeepers while Evangelicals view themselves as ticket agents. It is perhaps fair to acknowledge a greater diversity of beliefs on non-salvific issues in the Evangelical community while both groups share much agreement on those that they mutually agree are salvific. Evangelicals may have less specific doctrinal statements and be more likely to require fewer beliefs before identifying someone as a Christian. Fundamentalists may define themselves as a faithful minority Christian remnant fighting the influence of the world. Evangelicals may define themselves as Christians who are spiritual seekers. It is fair to say that most Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are not creedal in a strict definition of the term. Neither group is a denomination; in fact, individuals and churches identifying with both may often be non-denominational. At the same time, both groups may likely be found in separate and distinct groups within most denominations.

Dr. Jack David Eller indicates that religion is composed of four elements: identities, institutions, interests, and ideologies. It is my belief that Extremist Christianity (perhaps a fourth categorization) blossoms in a religious atmosphere that has no institutions. Religious institutions such as denominations, hierarchies, colleges, universities, seminaries, publishing houses, relief agencies, mission societies, etc. provide checks and balances, structure, and restraining forces (rules, guidelines, and expectations) to their membership. All three major branches of American Christianity (Mainstream, Evangelical, and Fundamentalist) have all of these institutions at work. There are many more distinctions and differentiations between the two groups, but time is out for what I can write.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
On 4/22/2023 at 6:48 PM, InCognitus said:

Indecently, this man's experience with Protestantism (like you describe above) and their lack of authority on anything (i.e. he explains why "sola scriptura" simply does not work) had a lot to do with his recent conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

That guy makes me suspicious, TBH. I hope he's legit.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That guy makes me suspicious, TBH. I hope he's legit.

I have the same thought. Has anyone asked where he was a pastor three times? I think my LDS friends are too anxious to have their generalizations confirmed. Does anyone know in what context he was allowed to speak? I am sure many have, and take no offense when an Evangelical migrates to the LDS Church. But this guy makes no sense to me. I don't want to see my friends get hurt.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have the same thought. Has anyone asked where he was a pastor three times? I think my LDS friends are too anxious to have their generalizations confirmed. Does anyone know in what context he was allowed to speak? I am sure many have, and take no offense when an Evangelical migrates to the LDS Church. But this guy makes no sense to me. I don't want to see my friends get hurt.

I thought he said he was a pastor one time.  He explains that in one of his videos, but I can't remember which one.  I've only watched the one I posted above and about three or four others completely.   I'll see if I can find where he said he was a pastor, it was a short period of time if I remember correctly.  He definitely knows the Bible quite well.

I started watching his videos from the beginning of his Youtube channel, where he goes through the videos attacking Mormonism that were sent to him by the people at Apologia Studios.  I'm only on the third of those videos.

Link to comment

MRM is unhappy about him and sees his understanding of evangelical beliefs to be poor, but they haven’t pulled up any documentation that contradicts his story that I saw. There are a couple of other places that are pretty sure he is a fake, but nothing besides opinions that something is off is evidence.  It will be interesting to see if anyone finds anything. My guess is people will keep digging for awhile. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

If he were lifelong LDS, we'd be able to verify. (Or maybe not. On my mission there were people who were baptized multiple times, but didn't remember.)

Anyhow, I don't think he is lifelong LDS, but could be someone trying to get YouTube famous.

On exmo Reddit they were criticizing him for saying just listening to the prophet is all you need. I can see someone looking for authority his whole life might embrace that.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Calm said:

MRM is unhappy about him and sees his understanding of evangelical beliefs to be poor, but they haven’t pulled up any documentation that contradicts his story that I saw. There are a couple of other places that are pretty sure he is a fake, but nothing besides opinions that something is off is evidence.  It will be interesting to see if anyone finds anything. My guess is people will keep digging for awhile. 

I don't even have an opinion. I just have an intuition, a sense about him. First of all, I have zero heartburn when a non-LDS Christian migrates to the LDS church. It is not confirming of anything more than when s Mennonite becomes a Lutherans or a Catholic becomes Assemblies of God. These things happen all the time. I also take no pleasure in it when someone migrates from the LDS church to another group of whatever it may be. My great interest is in the concept that seems to pervade the identity of my LDS friends that when someone of another faith disagrees with the LDS, they are attacking. I find it fascinating. At the same time your doctrine openly invalidates some of my faith essentials, in fact, my whole life of ministry, declaring it not validated by, or pleasing to Christ, yet you don't consider that being anti-non-LDS Christian. Some have leaped to supporting this guy, because psychologically and spiritually his "conversion" and promotion of his pain in non-LDS Christianity is very affirming to the LDS banner and cause. I simply counsel to confirm prior to using his story in your services or meetings. Best to all.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

My great interest is in the concept that seems to pervade the identity of my LDS friends that when someone of another faith disagrees with the LDS, they are attacking. I find it fascinating.

Do you understand the difference between disagreeing and attacking?  I know you disagree with the church on some things.  You aren't attacking.  

When I use the word "attacking" I use it intentionally as someone that publishes a book or video to put down the church (as in the case of Apologia Studios).  And I don't use that word exclusively for literature published against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because there are publications that attack Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Islam (and no doubt others).  It's not mere disagreement when that occurs.  And it's not that these publications are explaining why someone disagrees with another faith (there would be nothing wrong in doing that), but there is a different tone and different level of criticism to the point of digging up dirt and misinformation (etc. etc.)

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

because psychologically and spiritually his "conversion" and promotion of his pain in non-LDS Christianity is very affirming to the LDS banner and cause

I bet it is. I really hope someone did some checking. 

I get antsy when I see self promotion going on. That tends to be a red flag for me. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Do you understand the difference between disagreeing and attacking?  I know you disagree with the church on some things.  You aren't attacking.  

When I use the word "attacking" I use it intentionally as someone that publishes a book or video to put down the church (as in the case of Apologia Studios).  And I don't use that word exclusively for literature published against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because there are publications that attack Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Islam (and no doubt others).  It's not mere disagreement when that occurs.

I tend to limit “attacking” to those who not only make criticizing of the Church a major part of their life (at least their online life), but also they tend to only focus on the Church’s negatives (and often distort or at least get the info wrong) and make no significant effort to share their own beliefs except to contradict the Church.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I bet it is. I really hope someone did some checking. 

One thing that bothered me about his site is that he published a video that appears to be a zoom broadcast of a sacrament meeting testimony (not his own, but of someone else).  And even if he got permission from the woman to do that, we're not supposed to be recording things like that.  I probably should check it again because I didn't watch the whole video and I may be making assumptions about what it seemed to be.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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