Quotes of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on November 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

“Now notice something curious: not one of the initial publicly identified signatories of the Manhattan Declaration is Mormon…

“That degree of commitment might seem to entitle you to a seat at the table. But no. The framers of the Manhattan Declaration say they ‘act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God.’ Mormons do not accept the concept of God as three-in-one…

“The next wave of social conservatism is presenting itself as a particularly Christian cause, with Christian defined in a way that would exclude not only Mitt Romney, but also the man who created Tiny Tim and Ebenezer Scrooge. (Charles Dickens was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian.) For that matter, neither George Washington, nor John Adams, nor Thomas Jefferson, nor Abraham Lincoln was a believer in the Trinitarian God of the Manhattan Declaration…

“Mormon America has provided leadership and support for conservative politics out of all proportion to its numbers. If there’s a test for conservative identity that excludes Mormons, it’s not a good test. And if conservatism has shrunk too small to contain conservative Mormons, it is not only Mormons who will search for something bigger.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

You have to be an idiot to get into this mess, and an even bigger one to argue with right2Bright, but here goes.

Right2Bright, the position on which you state the litmus test for Christianity is ahistorical rubbish. I am Mormon, but as fate would have it, a trained Byzantinist. I spend most of my research in orthodox monasteries. I will for the record state, that in the opinion of every orthodox monk I have met, Mormonism, is heretical. That is also their opinion of all protestants, and not one of them believed protestants to be in keeping with Nicene Creed. Not one. That’s 15+ years of research now. In all Orthodox opinion I have ever consulted not once did anyone believe that Protestant beliefs regarding the Trinity to be in harmony with Nicea and homoousian formulations of the Trinity. All opinions regarded protestant formulations of the Trinity to be modalist, tritheist, gnostic or otherwise. (Orthodox opinions on RC are decidedly split) Likewise, the church is not a epiphenomenon of scripture, rather, in orthodox belief, scripture is an epiphenomenon of the church!! So an appeal to scripture settles nothing in historical Christian belief.

So, if you think my religion is not Christian based on some arbitrary criteria, fine, that’s your right. God bless. I have no objection if someone wants to exclude my religion from the camp of Christianity on the basis of something I actually believe or any unique Mormon dogma, intelligences, Book of Mormon, extra-biblical revelation, premortal souls, physicality of God’s body, eternal progression and infinite worlds, fine, I may disagree, but that is entirely reasonable and your right.

What I can NOT abide is when I am excluded on the basis of arbitrary ahistorical violence against Christian history. You are trying to exclude us from a group which – by definition – excludes the whole of Protestantism!! And Orthodoxy no more accepts your arbitrary claims than it accepts mine!

So please, stop the smug attitude, double-standards and special pleading. Appealing to the Nicene creed in this case is like a lawyer in a modern court appealing to the Magna Carta. It is utterly remote and irrelevant from where you actually are now and answers nothing.

tlclark on December 1, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Not-Too-Bright, can take that away from me.

Eichendorff on December 1, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Please, it is much better to state not2bright, it is much more poetic since it refers back to my right2bright; it goes better with your insults to Christianity.
You showed your colors with the “not one scrap of support”, please read the Creed again and point out where it is wrong…

right2bright on December 1, 2009 at 2:45 PM

R2B, Kristamatic, mojave mark, Maverick Muse…

You guys seriously are the problem. I find it so funny how you try to say the mormons on here are the hate filled while you are just having a “discussion”.

Puhleaze… that’s the oldest troll trick in the book.

Not one Mormon on here interrupts political discussions to inject a “discussion” about how Martin Luther was a proud anti-semite, or about how historically corrupt the Catholic Church is, or how most protestant Churches are just lame attempts at “protesting” that Catholic Church.. etc.. etc… etc..

I could go on and on with plenty crap so just stop, nobody cares but you guys. It’s lame, tiresome and just boring to read your old talking points over and over and over.

If you were saying any of these similar comments about jews, or blacks, or whoever you would get your ass handed to you. Lucky for you we Mormons don’t blow shit up like the muslims do when someone draws an unflattering picture of their prophet.

johnnyboy on December 1, 2009 at 2:55 PM

tlclark on December 1, 2009 at 2:41 PM

What an interesting retort…of course you know that the Nicene Creed was born out of the dispute with Arius, and his false belief (built on improper understanding of the ancient Greek and Hebrew).
It put to rest the trinity, which is why Mormon’s can’t find “one scrap of support”…then since it has been found that the council of Nicea did interpret the bible correctly.
I am afraid you are wrong about not accepting the different Creeds, Nicene or the other variants…I assure you, protestant seminary has no problem with the creed.

protestants, and not one of them believed protestants to be in keeping with Nicene Creed. Not one. That’s 15+ years of research now.

The Nicene Creed is accepted by almost all Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and it offers a basis for unity.

PRESBYTERIANS: Our beliefs are expressed in our Book of Confessions which consists of these 11 statements:

* The Nicene Creed
* The Apostles’ Creed
* The Scots Confession
* The Heidelberg Catechism
* The Second Helvetic Confession
* The Westminster Confession of Faith
* The Larger Catechism
* The Shorter Catechism
* The Theological Declaration of Barmen
* The Confession of 1967
This is official…looks like your research overlooked the largest protestant religion…ooooopppsss.

right2bright on December 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM

oh man…

R2B is a presbyterian…this explains everything.

Thats where the really “smart” n “smug” christians go. I wish I was as smart as them.

johnnyboy on December 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM

In my last post on this interminable and dull discussion, I include a single quotation:

“The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.” P Achtemeier, editor, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.

There are a lot more similar quotes where that one came from. If you really think this was taken out of context, go read Harper’s yourself.

By the way, Harper’s Bible Dictionary is not an LDS publication.

Eichendorff on December 1, 2009 at 3:12 PM

dude.. trying to “discuss” doctrine here is pointless…

just let it gooooooo….

johnnyboy on December 1, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Um, johnnyboy? I am a Mormon, died in the wool. My ancestors drug their devout selves across the fruited plains and all that, just to clarify. I got myself the secret decoder ring and everything. You must of missed that, because I was poking the trolls. My bad:)

Tlclark, bravo, sir. I salute your erudite response.

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 3:26 PM

my bad.. I actually miss-read a comment of yours that was a repost of someone else’s bigotry.

20 lashes for me.

You got a decoder ring!??? hey!! I want one too!.. I hope it tells me to drink more ovaltine :)

Cheers

johnnyboy on December 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Right2bright:
That is my whole point you moron- what you choose to believe theologically has NO BEARING on being a good American- which you are not. A good American should not care what a politician believes religiously, only what he believes secularly. YOU ARE A ROTTEN AMERICAN.

drballard on December 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Now, if what church a person goes to is what you use to pick the leader of the state, pack up and get ready for jihad. AP, why is this “christian” jihadi still here?

drballard on December 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM

And all LDS posters- please stop bringing up doctrine or trying to justify yourselves theologically. Save it for elsewhere

drballard on December 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM

And all LDS posters- please stop bringing up doctrine or trying to justify yourselves theologically. Save it for elsewhere

drballard on December 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM

With all due respect, I would venture a guess most LDS here would be fine with a non-doctrinal discussion. Unfortunately, there are those that use logical fallacy mingled with pseudo-scripture / assertions / revisionist or ‘ahistorical’ talking points that people take offense. It’s all a canard, used to draw false distinctions and distractions, done to troll. It’s been that way for years around here with those people. At least we don’t have a few others that always find there way into these discussions to “save us” in this one (knock on wood).

SkinnerVic on December 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM

This is so ridiculously ahistorical, amateur and tedious it deserves a massive fisking.

To all others, my apologies.

Ok, the term “Trinity” was invented by Tertullian to describe the mystery of three personages in one God. At that time Tertullian (who is not canonized BTW) made no attempt at explaining the metaphysics of that matter, that is the “how” of how the Trinity works. He merely invented a term to describe that there are three individuals, but One God. Mormons prefer the term “Godhead” as it is found in the NT and “Trinity” is not, but under Tertullian’s original formulation we are, in fact, Trinitarian. We believe in one God, in three persons. That is affirmed by many unique Mormon Scriptures in both the D&C and BoM.

Here’s one of my fav’s. 2 Nephi 31:21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

This is only one of many such verses. In fact, there are so many that if Athanasius had had the BoM, he wouldn’t have had to have spent the next 50 years in exile!!

Now, nearly all groups prior to Nicea used the term “Trinitarian” and all accepted it. Under Tertullian’s original usage, Mormons clearly are Trinitarian, but of course that hardly settles the matter does it?

The big problem was never the Trinity, we all agree that the three are one, the big problem is HOW are they one.

Now let’s go up to the run-up of the Nicean council.

What an interesting retort…of course you know that the Nicene Creed was born out of the dispute with Arius, and his false belief (built on improper understanding of the ancient Greek and Hebrew).

The term is monogenes, which is usually translated as “Only Begotten.” Arius’s beef was that anything “begotten” must have a beginning, which meant that it could not be eternal, which means he could NOT be one with the Father. To Arius, Christ was a semi-divine superhuman or demigod, entirely separate from the Father.

This contradicts John 1:1-3 and John 10 and virtually everything else in the NT (and the BoM BTW!)
Early Christians recognized the falsehood immediately and rightly condemned it. To them, monogenes not only meant “Only Begotten” but perpetually begotten, from eternity.

To be blunt, Mormons are not and never have been, Arians. Christ IS one with the Father, and always was, from the beginning.

Here’s Moses 2 on that matter.

6 And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning….

So Mormons are in complete agreement with the early fathers in the condemnation of the Arians.

Then things get interesting. The scripture says that the three are One, but it doesn’t say how. Without a concrete definition, Arianism was always a possibility. To preclude any future misunderstand Athanasius invented a new term, homoousian, or “one essence”, that got him into no end of trouble.

Nearly EVERYONE rejected Arianism, but the introduction of a new word without revelation or scripture was troublesome at best. Even the church Historian Eusebius objected to it. And most, and initially even Constantine, advocated a middle position, rejecting Arianism, but refusing to further define the exact nature of the Trinity in a more apophatic approach. Athanasius won the day, because his narrower definition precluded other equally heretical possibilities, adoptionism, modalism, monotheletism, Monarchism and so forth, but it was not settled by Nicea, otherwise Athanasius wouldn’t have had to spend the next few decades hiding out in the Egyptian desert!

Again, no one was in disagreement of the who, what or why. Only the “how”.

There were at that time (and continue to be) several formulations of the “how.”

For the record, and to be overly precise, Mormons are simple economic subordinate social Trinitarians. That is, the three are one in the holy society which only they enjoy. Not in essence, because we can not accept homoousian formulations, (as they are unscriptural) but we are VERY close to the concept of perichoresis, as that establishes a metaphysical union between the three without conflating the personages or resorting to ascriptual ideas about the hypostases. Mormons are entirely uncomfortable with the term “Trinitarian” because it has been associated with the homoousian and not the social Trinitarian position, but that association is an accident of history, so I have no objection to the term.

Now all that, as interesting as it may be, is largely irrelevant because your response, did not in fact “respond” to anything I actually said! And it’s clear you did not understand or rather chose to misunderstand the original point.

It put to rest the trinity, which is why Mormon’s can’t find “one scrap of support”…then since it has been found that the council of Nicea did interpret the bible correctly.

I am afraid you are wrong about not accepting the different Creeds, Nicene or the other variants…I assure you, protestant seminary has no problem with the creed.

Only because they (or at least you) have NO IDEA WHAT IT REALLY IS!!

The Nicene Creed is accepted by almost all Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and it offers a basis for unity.

Let me give you a clue jack. To the Orthodox view, there is no such thing as the “Nicene Creed” except in the most remote technical sense. There is only “The Creed” the summation of the ENTIRETY of the seven ecumenical councils. No uses JUST the formulation that Protestant’s call “The Nicene Creed” as all Catholics and Orthodox regard that creed to be incomplete.

“THE” Creed includes the following propositions, all of which are rejected by the Protestant branch of Christianity.

Apostolic Authority
Subjugation of Scripture to Church Authority and tradition
The Theotokos
The Dyophysite Position,
and many, many other doctrinal beliefs antithetical to Protestantism.

Sorry, THE creed condemns us both.

Anyone who does not accept the WHOLE creed is not to be held in communion with the Christian faith, as the Nestorians were excluded by the Council of 451.

With the possible exception of the 325 formulation (and that is only possible I might add since the Nicean creed is usually only cited in a very edited form by Protestants who exclude the councils findings on Apostolic Authority), Protestants are in complete violation of the actual creed.

And this IS my point. You are an ignoramus. You are beating us up with a creed that clearly excludes you! It’s like saying WE are not Americans because we don’t abide by the Magna Carta. Now, I like the Magna Carta, it’s got some good stuff in there,(I could say the same about the Nicene Creed) but it is not relevant to my status as an American. Nor is the Nicene Creed relevant to Mormons’ OR – and this is the important part – PROTESTANTS’ claims to the title “Christian.” If it were, no protestant could claim it.

Now this, is just precious.

PRESBYTERIANS: Our beliefs are expressed in our Book of Confessions which consists of these 11 statements:

* The Nicene Creed
* The Apostles’ Creed
* The Scots Confession
* The Heidelberg Catechism
* The Second Helvetic Confession
* The Westminster Confession of Faith
* The Larger Catechism
* The Shorter Catechism
* The Theological Declaration of Barmen
* The Confession of 1967
This is official…looks like your research overlooked the largest protestant religion…ooooopppsss.

As I mentioned, there is no “Nicene Creed.” Go to any orthodox and ask if they conform to the “Nicene Creed” and they will probably laugh. They conform to THE Creed, and you do not. By calling it the “NICENE CREED” they are engaging in cherry picking. It’s like going down the Bill of Rights and picking which amendments you like and don’t like. That’s fine, but don’t pretend it represents what the Bill of Rights actually says.

Here’s the irony of all this. THE Creed, from even the days of the first Nicea council in 325, affirms repeatedly that this unscriptural formulation is created by the authority of the apostolic church, a church I assume you reject or else you would not be Protestant.

Now many protestant scholars will be honest about it and admit that they only accept the Nicene Creed in that it accurately represents what THEY believe the scriptures actually say, and not because it represents any real authority. But that’s not the way most protestants use it.

So when you say things like the Nicene Creed is

the Christians statement of faith since 300 AD. (well 325 actually and even then not really since it wasn’t resolved or completely agreed to until at least 381 in Constantinople) For 1700 years that was the “litmus” test of faith.

Forgive me if I call BS on your cherry-picking, special-pleading, abuse of history.

If the “Nicene” Creed defines what you think is true. Great. Don’t pretend it does anymore than that or that it justifies you, because the whole thing condemns you as soundly as it condemns me.

Sorry, but it’s true.

May I suggest some reading? (No, not anything Mormon.)

Try Timothy Ware’s history of Orthodoxy. I’m willing to bet if we teased this thing out any further, you would likely be a modalist or a monarchist (as most Protestants are) and not a true homoousian Trinitarian either. I recommend the Orthodox faith to all my Protestant friends and associates, as it finally allows them to ground themselves in true scripture and Christian history instead of engaging in the endless abuse of it in order to slander other religions.

I await eagerly the privilege of being called a non-christian by someone on sure footing instead of this endlessly slippery foundation of nonsense.

Adieu.

tlclark on December 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM

tlclark on December 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM

WIN

Proud Rino on December 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Sorry to be redundant, but for everyone else listening in.

It is not that there are not huge and often gaping differences between Mormonism and contemporary Protestantism.

There are.

It is fine for religions to distinguish themselves from others on the basis of those differences. That is fine, and while I may personally disagree, it is entirely rational and just. Francis Hopkins and the late John Nehaus fall into this category, I think.

But nearly all the disagreements with Mormons are made on the basis of falsehoods, slanders, lies, misunderstandings or deliberate twistings of Mormon belief (Paging Jerald and Sandra Tanner!)

OR…

They are made on double standards or special pleading like the kind I’ve shown above.

And that’s what really pisses us Mormons off.

I don’t care if you think I’m not a Christian on the basis of the BoM, JS, intelligences or even silly peripheral crap like the Adam/God thing.

But being excluded by falsehoods that get scarily close to Protocols of the Elders crap, or ridiculous standards that no one could meet if they did not make endless exceptions for themselves…that really suggests that the motivations are simple bigotry.

tlclark on December 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM

i love being a latter day saint and find it very offensive when people write hateful rude things…i thank those like tlclark who do a better job defending our beliefs than i…i also appreciate those that politely disagree and don’t take part in the bashing of others personal religious beliefs

oh and kristamatic…i’m going to get my decoder ring in January with a very special woman hahaha

dirksilver on December 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM

affirms repeatedly that this unscriptural formulation is created by the authority of the apostolic church, a church I assume you reject or else you would not be Protestant.
tlclark on December 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Funny, since the Creed specifically mentions adherence to the apostolic church…you have many words, most like what I pointed out very strange indeed.
Too many to answer to, but let me just say, if you noticed I often stated Nicene or its variants, just minor differences.
But your post is full of mis-statements, but you did a good job cut and pasting…
And a disagreement doesn’t equal “hate”, as you Mormon’s are so quick to attack.

write hateful rude things

But you don’t take responsibility for your actions…interesting, I guess the victim card works for you guys.
Each time I brought up a specific fact, you then attacked me personally…that’s okay.
But just remember, those are facts…when the one poster said she accepts the Nicene Creed, the others say no biblical basis.
Then a 1,000 word dissertation full of distortions and untruths, as specifically pointed out.
Even the polygamy, when pointed out that it is still part of your doctrine was penned to me as “hate”, when all I was saying is that often faith and doctrine do not coincide.

And that’s what really pisses us Mormons off.

Yet you state that our fundamental beliefs have no biblical backing…and when asked if you believe in one true and only one God you dance…knowing that Christians are by definition mono-theists, you are poly-theists, that is no problem, it just makes you a non-Christian, like Jews or Muslims…you should be proud of what you are, not try to be something you are not.
You are a poly-theist, who does are not Trinitarians, nor believe in the Virgin Mary…just a few of the many things different from Christians.
The different “Creeds” define the basic tenets, that you find so objectionable…that is fine with me, object.
But those are the principle (as I pointed out) of the Christian faith…if you don’t believe in them, that is up to you, just recognize you don’t believe in the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
Hold your animosity towards someone who has no faith, not to someone who points out the differences…but please, you are Mormon’s, bless you, we are Christians, there are Jews, Muslims, that makes up the Abrahamic religions…rejoice in our differences, don’t attack me for pointing them out.
This is something that has been known for over 1,700 years…don’t act so surprised, it’s not like I pulled this out of a hat…

right2bright on December 1, 2009 at 7:44 PM

With all due respect, I would venture a guess most LDS here would be fine with a non-doctrinal discussion.
SkinnerVic on December 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM

I agree- but I have this annoying problem with defending my self when people are hurling epithets. I know I should not feed the trolls. And sometimes it is entertaining to watch them self immolate. I am a bad bad person. I’ll try to repent.

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 9:00 PM

tlclark on December 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Dude, you are my hero. I bet you would make an awesome early morning seminary teacher.

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 9:09 PM

dirksilver on December 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Congratulations!! You will love it!

Kristamatic on December 1, 2009 at 9:10 PM

“However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’ ”
Barry Goldwater

He’s pretty straightforward. He does not want to hear citizens tell him they disapprove of him. He does not want to hear citizens tell him what they think are just laws. He does not want to argue with a citizen about his vote on legislation, and he does not want to hear that money and votes hinge on his performance as a legislator.

We’ve had about six months of blog posts of Democrats expressing those sentiments, and the consensus has been that no public servant should forget their role as proxy for the people so far as to ignore the complaints of the people. Citizens have a right to petition government for redress of greivances, as they define their greivances, and they have the right to assemble to make their petition more effective. Right? When it was Pelosi and Specter we all knew the answer, and said a lot worse than “crybaby” and called for their ouster.

Why should my opinion flip because Goldwater blew his top, too?

As Pattosensei reminds you, “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. Guarantees of speech, religion and assembly are there, and I guess that means adults have to deal with policy speeches by religious assemblies.

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM

With apologies to all. (except r2b) and thanks to those that gave encouraging words, but I must respond despite my better judgment. (oh heck, who am I kidding, I’m like the little ol lady offended at bad language on TV but keeps watching, I can’t help myself.)

Let me state first, that it is not impossible to be a responsible critic of the LDS church. I have named a few, Hopkins, Nehaus, let me name some more, The Ashtons, Owens and Mosser, Harold Bloom even.

You are not one of those people.

Neither do I object to people saying I am a pagan, a polytheist, a heretic, an apostate or even not Christian. Heck, I love it.

Isaiah says that to be righteous is to make yourself prey to the wicked. Paul says by the foolish and simple God will build the kingdom.

I don’t care if you think I’m not Christian, heck, I don’t care if you think I’m a duck. It’s not my pride as a Mormon that is offended, it’s my pride as a historian. There are many responsible and wonderfully Christian theologians and historians (C.S. Lewis, Bonhoeffer come to mind) out there who use the Nicene Creed responsibly, as a good summation of where they believe the scriptures actually lie. They are careful to point out that the creed does not define them (in fact most Protestants were ANTI-creed until recently) but it does line up with their beliefs, generally.

It accurately reflects, in their view, what scripture says or must mean by rational argument and extension, even though they disagree with the method and authority by which it came about.

That is not what you are doing.

If you meant to be that careful, fine, you can cherry pick from it all you want, as it is not a binding thing, merely a convenient alignment with Protestant belief. However, that is not what you have said. And what you have said, calling it a litmus, is just illogical, unless you are Catholic or Orthodox.

Again, I don’t think you are hateful, or even that Protestants are in general hateful, only that you are ignorant and that many of your spiritual brethren do the same.

They grasp the Nicene creed like a club, thinking “who can I pummel with this?” rather than, “What does this actually say and does it represent what I actually believe and what is the history behind its formation?”

In other words, your only curiosity runs to “How can I hurt the Mormons with this” EVEN IF that same “Litmus” could hurt you too.

History, and I would be of the same opinion if I were an atheist!, should not be abused like this, especially not Christian history by someone purporting to be Christian.

Funny, since the Creed specifically mentions adherence to the apostolic church…you have many words, most like what I pointed out very strange indeed.
Too many to answer to, but let me just say, if you noticed I often stated Nicene or its variants, just minor differences.

That isn’t even coherent. Let me ask a simple question. The Nicene creed mandates Apostolic Authority. Do you believe in Apostolic Authority? If so, why are you a Protestant?

Do you believe that the common Protestant formulation of a “priesthood of all believers” satisfies the demand for an apostolic authority, if so, how? Do you really believe that the collected hundreds of Bishops of the first council of Nicea interpreted that way? If so, where is your evidence?

This isn’t trivial or minor at all. It’s a biggie. So big that the Catholics and orthodox refuse communion to anyone who doesn’t accept it.

But your post is full of mis-statements, but you did a good job cut and pasting…

Where and how did I misstate? How have I misstated the Nicene creed? How did I misstate your position? Specifics please.

And a disagreement doesn’t equal “hate”, as you Mormon’s are so quick to attack.

I never said you were hateful. I said you were ignorant. And I think I have demonstrated that you are. Now it’s possible you are just a bad communicator and misspoke and only meant that the creed agrees with your belief and NOT that if justifies your belief. Fine. I apologize. Please state what you really mean, but I think I have your number.

The rest isn’t directed particularly at me but let me take a crack at it.

But you don’t take responsibility for your actions…interesting, I guess the victim card works for you guys.
Each time I brought up a specific fact, you then attacked me personally…that’s okay.
But just remember, those are facts…when the one poster said she accepts the Nicene Creed, the others say no biblical basis.
Then a 1,000 word dissertation full of distortions and untruths, as specifically pointed out.
Even the polygamy, when pointed out that it is still part of your doctrine was penned to me as “hate”, when all I was saying is that often faith and doctrine do not coincide.

No one as near as I can tell, it’s been a four page forum so far, attacked you personally. They attacked your methods and sloppy use of Mormon and Christian history. Calling you an ignoramus when you demonstrate ignorance is not an attack. The sting in any rebuke is the truth, so said Ben. Franklin. The only distortions I’ve seen are from you regarding the nature of the Creeds. I’ve tried to correct your false and ironically self-defeating use of it to no avail.

You want to say we aren’t Christian because we have polygamy, fine. I think that’s wrong and silly but it is at least something we USED to believe in, but telling us we aren’t Christian because we don’t conform to a creed that you yourself don’t conform to is special pleading and double standards and no amount of changing the topic can change that.

Yet you state that our fundamental beliefs have no biblical backing…

Chapter and verse, where are homoousian and Trinity found in the Bible.

Yeah….right.

Now look, I have no objection to those things if you believe in them and you can make a case that those are logical, even necessary to prevent against heresies like Arianism. I personally think that Athanasius was a great man trying to prevent further apostasy, but the people who objected to the creation of new terms out of whole cloth because they were ascriptural were not nutjobs or wackos or apostates. They had legitimate historical concerns.

Utlimately, homoousian and trinity became part of the Christian lexicon BECAUSE the church saw itself and its belief in an apostolic authority that had the right to interpret scripture.

When Protestants say, “We believe in a homoousian Trinity because of scripture!” that’s just silly. Not even the Catholics and Orthodox believe that and they invented the dumb terms! They are decidedly ascriptural concepts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t reflect your views, or heck, that they are not true for that matter, or that they can’t be argued rationally, but stop pretending that they are.

MANY contemporary and responsible Protestant theologians recognize this and make their best case for those terms. In other words, they thing the councils (whose authority they reject) got it right, (I guess even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while) but that’s not what you are arguing. You are arguing that those terms are intrinsic to scripture. My response to that is, if they were, then there never would have been a need for the council or the creed in the first place. The creed itself demonstrates the insufficiency of scripture and the need for reason, tradition and…in the opinion of RC, OCA and Mormons, Apostolic Authority, which you reject.

and when asked if you believe in one true and only one God you dance…knowing that Christians are by definition mono-theists, you are poly-theists, that is no problem, it just makes you a non-Christian, like Jews or Muslims…you should be proud of what you are, not try to be something you are not. You are a poly-theist, who does are not Trinitarians,

That’s barely coherent, but let me take a stab at it by analogy.

I also study Islam. I know not one Muslim, who thinks that any of the Trinitarian formulations are anything but semantic legalese. In other words, from their perspective, we are all polytheists.

Mormons believe (and I’ve given you the scripture) that there is ONE God. That God or Godhead is a union of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are individuals, but they are ONE. That is the belief of all Christians. Where we differ is on the how. We are…again…simple economic subordinatist Social Trinitarians. The holy and unique community and office of the Godhead, perfect in love, identical in will and attributes, character, united in purpose, presence and power, provides the metaphysical link to make them truly ONE, one god, one diety. Hence, we are monotheists. Now homoousianism takes it even further, into incorporeal essences that are almost inexplicable. IMO, homoousianism lapses too easily into modalism, but that’s my opinion. If that formulation doesn’t work for you, fine, yours doesn’t work for me, though I’m betting yours doesn’t jive with either the RC’s or the OCA’s who don’t accept each others BTW.

nor believe in the Virgin Mary…just a few of the many things different from Christians.

Oh for criminy sake! this charge is as old and lame as the “Jesus and Satan are bros” nonsense. What next?! Mormons have horns?! For the record, the BoM is MORE emphatic about the Virgin birth than the NT.

Here is what the BoM has to say about the Virgin.

Alma 7:10.

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary … she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

The different “Creeds” define the basic tenets, that you find so objectionable…that is fine with me, object.
But those are the principle (as I pointed out) of the Christian faith…if you don’t believe in them, that is up to you, just recognize you don’t believe in the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

YOU don’t believe in the NICENE CREED either!! How obdurately obtuse can you be!! This is the whole point of the matter. You don’t really know what it says and can’t grasp that if you lay it down as a hard and fast rule as you have done hear you are slitting your own throat as well as ours!!

Hold your animosity towards someone who has no faith, not to someone who points out the differences…but please, you are Mormon’s, bless you, we are Christians, there are Jews, Muslims, that makes up the Abrahamic religions…rejoice in our differences, don’t attack me for pointing them out.

I don’t object at you for pointing them out. Tell me I’m not a Christian because we believe in the intelligences or even polygamy, fine. I would not care ONE FIG if you said I was yellow breasted warbler for that matter. But you are saying I’m not Christian because I do not comply with a document you yourself – and this is the important part – DO NOT COMPLY WITH AS YOU HAVE SO STATED IT. And most if not all RC’s and Orthodox would agree with me, I think.

What I care about is your willing self-ignorance and abuse of Christian history.

This is something that has been known for over 1,700 years…don’t act so surprised, it’s not like I pulled this out of a hat…

If the creed is the standard of Christianity, that is if the creed is the creed is the creed, as you so state, then you and I are going to hell together. I am not the one damning you. Your own internal inconsistency and illogical reasoning on this matter is what is damning you.

I have given you several options to take a more rational, albeit Protestant endorsement of the Creed, as a convenient summation that lines up with most of Protestant beliefs, but you have refused all offers. Instead you hold it as a hardfast dogma. You can do this BTW, if you are catholic or orthodox. You can’t as a protestant however. Strangely, no RC or OCA or even moderate Protestant uses it that way. But all the Mormon-bashing conservative protestants do. So if you are going to hold me to it, I will hold you to your own standards and continue to demonstrate that you do not comply with it any more than I do.

Welcome fellow heretic!! See you in the sixth circle of hell brother. I’ll be sure to save a flaming tomb for you.

tlclark on December 1, 2009 at 10:30 PM

Couple edits demanded because of hasty writing…

Utlimately, homoousian and trinity became part of the Christian lexicon BECAUSE the church saw itself and its belief in an apostolic authority that had the right to interpret scripture.

Ugh, what an awkward ugly sentence.

Should read: Ultimately, homoousian and trinity became part of the Christian lexicon BECAUSE the early church saw itself as an apostolic authority that had the right to interpret scripture.

And this

In other words, they thing the councils

That sounds almost dirty. Of course I meant to say “they THINK” just in case anyone started conjuring up images of rocky orange superheroes trashing the ecumenical councils.

I’m sure there are dozens more, but I tire.

And once more, apologies to all and prayers that r2b finally gets my point, converts to RC or OCA so that he can legitimately make the point he’s making, or just plain quits.

tlclark on December 1, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Please oh please don’t let this thread get past 330 comments…

PLEASE!!!!!

johnnyboy on December 1, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Oh pahleeeese!!
We voted a blatant marxist / muslim into office, how much scarier can a mormon be?? Why is this even an issue CNN? Of course CNN would like to see this become an issue again, just like Huckabee made this an issue in the primaries in Iowa. Mormons are Christians and Mitt could do a heck of a better job than our Muslim in chief, Barack Hussein Obama, Ditherer, Marxist, College Professor.

dalej78 on December 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM

Chris_Balsz on December 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM

No he’s telling us the religion in politics is destructive and for the GOP he’s hit 1000.

You forcing your faith onto others through our government is no different from the identity politics Democrats practice, its all bad for the nation.

I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.
Barry Goldwater

“I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process.”
(in a 1994 Washington Post essay)

“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. ”
Barry Goldwater

Don’t judge everyone by your own narrow set of parameters.

Speakup on December 1, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Blowhards should realize the more they write, the longer they post the less people care or read.

Speakup on December 1, 2009 at 11:17 PM

No he’s telling us the religion in politics is destructive and for the GOP he’s hit 1000.

Not in that quote, which was full of his resenting the usual practice of democracy: a representative being told what citizens want passed into law, with leverage in the form of money and votes. It was a straightforward quote.

The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process.”

That doesn’t jibe with opposition to the pro-life movement.

You forcing your faith onto others through our government is no different from the identity politics Democrats practice, its all bad for the nation.

Please name one morally-neutral law.

Chris_Balsz on December 2, 2009 at 12:15 AM

Speakup, even Proud Rino understands R2B is getting seriously 0wn3d on his own topic – repeatedly, in varying manner too. It’s like watching Street Fighter back in the day, where a know-it-all kid gets repeatedly victimized on by someone who knew their way around and then some. There’s no “blowhard” about it – he’s throwing down intellectual and historical rigor in a manner unpresidented on this topic here at HotAir… Kudos!

SkinnerVic on December 2, 2009 at 12:16 AM

SkinnerVic

amen!

oh and R2B you said something about polygamy and mormons…yet are you aware that pretty much all the prophets of old were polgamists…interesting how that works

dirksilver on December 2, 2009 at 12:48 AM

Chris_Balsz on December 2, 2009 at 12:15 AM

Excuse building every one, you’re just as insecure as a closed minded liberal.

You’re incapable of escaping your own self imposed road blocks or understanding or accepting anything outside your bubble.

Everyone has the right to live their own lives aside from your ideology or your God and refusing to recognize that is not just wrong and oppressive its highly warped and destructive to politics of both parties.

Speakup on December 2, 2009 at 12:51 AM

SkinnerVic on December 2, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Rigors a$$, a long post is mostly ignored, posters, get a clue, don’t waste your time or more importantly, mine.

Speakup on December 2, 2009 at 12:54 AM

You’re wrong, speakup, I enjoyed every bit of all of it. I think the short hand would be, most Mormon bashers don’t even know what they believe, and it drives them crazy when Mormons are gentlemen and scholars.

Kristamatic on December 2, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Huh

AsianGirlInTights on May 5, 2011 at 3:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4