quote: VIRGINIA BEACH - Selecting presidential candidate Mitt Romney as its May commencement speaker has riled some of Regent University's students and alumni who say his Mormon faith clashes with the school's bedrock evangelical Christianity.
"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe," said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year.
The controversy over Romney's visit has bubbled for two weeks among students, spilling onto Regent's internal electronic bulletin board, "The Branch." Scores of e-mails on both sides of the debate have been posted, a student said.
Pat Robertson, the Christian broadcaster who is Regent's founder and chancellor, invited Romney to be the keynote speaker, said Sherri Stocks, a Regent vice president. Romney is the former Republican governor of Massachusetts.
This, I think, bodes ill.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the university will rescind the invitation? It will be interesting to see what they do.
I decided yesterday I need to be more zen about this all. And remember that BYU once invited an exhibit of Rodin sculptures to campus and then refused to exhibit the nude sculptures. I just need to keep telling myself that all sorts of people do the craziest things.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We aren't talking just about evangelical college students. We are talking about college students at an evangelical college whose mission is to support a certain religious viewpoint. Hence I don't find it surprising or particularly worrisome that student there would be upset about having someone with a different religious viewpoint speak at commencement.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant it bodes ill for Romney from a political perspective. I think it was Karl Rove who said getting evangelicals to go vote won Bush the election; this makes it seem like they will stay home instead of voting for Romney.
I also thought this comment would be particularly upsetting for LDS:
quote:"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe," said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year.
Don't most take exception when people call them not Christian?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe,"
Even though the beliefs are different, to say that Mormons are on the opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values is ridiculous. Either he misspoke or he doesn't have a clue.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are different definitions of Christian. I don't think evangelicals using their definition (which generally includes saying that Catholics aren't Christian either) is any worse than LDS labeling everyone who isn't them gentiles and saying that other Christian churches come from the Aposty. The Evangelicals have a specific definition of what it means to be Christian in the way they use it. LDS clearly do not fit that definition. It's not particularly repsectful, but the LDS don't exactly have much of a leg to stand on if we're talking about respecting others' religious beliefs.
I'm not sure that this is (edit: has to be) an instance of bigotry as much as it is their perspective that:
quote:"What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe,"
(edit: although I'd be suprised if anti-LDS bigotry didn't play a role.)
I don't think that not wanting someone to speak there simply because they have a different religion than you is really a great idea. But, then again, I think that speaking at commencement is usually accompanied by an honorary degree, which I could see being a problem. I wonder if there'd be an issue if, say, a Catholic was asked to speak.
quote:Another Republican presidential candidate, ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, will speak at Regent's executive leadership program in April. Giuliani is Catholic.
posted
Regent had William Pryor, a devout Catholic, speak in 2004. Can't find anything about whether he was protested or not.
Total side note: What I like about Pryor is that he's the one who forced Moore out of office in Alabama. Pryor agreed with Moore that the 10 commandments monument was acceptable under the first amendment but demanded compliance with the SCOTUS decision.
I disagree with both about the first amendment analysis, but I like a chief law enforcement officer who publicly enforces a civil rights ruling he disagrees with.
George Allen, 2005 Elaine L. Chao (Labor Secretary), 2003 Richard Armey, 2002
Edit: I do think there's a difference between protesting over commencement speakers and other types of speakers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, As I said, I think it might be a different issue for commencement than for other speaking occasions. I'm just trying to point out other options for a full perspective. Ultimately, it's a college of evangelicals founded by Pat Robertson. Yeah, I think that they very likely have a large pool of bigots, but I wanted to throw out another explanation that wasn't represented yet. edit: And it fits with what the guy quoted in the article is saying:
quote:Dowdey said he welcomed diverse viewpoints at Regent but that the university's commencement should reflect the school's distinctive religious values.
Dag, Your link doesn't work for me, but it's really no biggie. Having a devout Catholic speak weakens their argument quite a bit, I think, but, as you said, we don't know if there was a strong protest over that. Of course, the students now would likely know going in that the school asks non-Christians (by their definition) to speak at commencement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:the LDS don't exactly have much of a leg to stand on if we're talking about respecting others' religious beliefs.
Do you mean we DOCTRINALLY don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to respecting other peoples' religions? Because that's simply not true-- respect for other peoples' religion is practically encoded in the doctrine.
quote:The Articles of Faith 11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Or are you talking about the BEHAVIOR of some LDS members?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't think evangelicals using their definition (which generally includes saying that Catholics aren't Christian either) is any worse than LDS labeling everyone who isn't them gentiles and saying that other Christian churches come from the Aposty."
I do completely. Gentile is a religious word for non-Mormon, but it isn't anything that we would use outside of our own group. Second, we might have very different conceptions of Jesus (not to rehash the whole thing, but NOT the differences that change the role of Christ) and where the Christian churches went after the Apostles. What we would NEVER do is define a Christian by those beliefs.
There is a difference between holding beliefs that others don't hold, and showing respect and tolerance for those same people. This is especially the case when saying Mormons don't hold the same "Christian values" as they do. At best that would be true for a whole host of values for many people. Then again, evangilicals have not been known for tolerance.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Doctrinelly, you baptise the dead, pursue and active missionary program, regard the founders of the other Churches as apostates, and call every one else gentiles. Doctrinally, you deny the sacraments of the other religions have any validity or that their practiconers have any authority.
That's at least as disrespectful as them asserting their definition of Christianity that excludes you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the derogatory word 'Gentiles' hasn't enjoyed serious (or widespread) use among Mormons since World War II.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm not trying to be inflammatory or suggest that Mormons *should* be upset. I just thought it had potentially interesting political ramifications, and also was curious as to how LDS members would react to the comments in the second paragraph.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Second, we might have very different conceptions of Jesus (not to rehash the whole thing, but NOT the differences that change the role of Christ)
Yes, they do change the role of Christ, in important and fundamental ways. Your statement is based on a serious misperception of the role of Christ in non-Mormon religions.
I spent a fair amount of time calling Ron to task for telling Mormons what they believe. I wish you'd stop doing the same thing in reverse.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree and I protest your opinions MrSquicky so much that I feel violent! In what you point out the choice of offense is yours and not ours. Mormons do NOT believe that anyone is NOT Christian if they believe in Jesus Christ as Savior. What you are pointing out is not an argument against the definition of Christian. It is an argument about proper Authority and not Faith in the Lord.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't surprising at all, but it is an example of the intolerance that makes me wary of dealing with those who call themselves evangelical Christians. Heck, I've run into some who don't think Catholics are Christian either.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many students are we talking about? Maybe it's because I went to a protest friendly school, but a reporter can find a group of students to protest anything. This is a local issue, or maybe an educational issue, but I don't think this a Evangelicals hate LDS issue.
As I see it, there are discriminatory sides of all religions, which is fine because to the believer, the whole world is at stake, but the media instigating conflict isn't the same thing as reporting, is it? It seems Romney would do better in the Republican primary if he were an Evangelical Christian, but he is also a big white businessman with a photogenic family and a dull demeanor who likes tax cuts and is willing to stick it to gays. He is a familiar political character, even if his family wears different underwear. I figure as long as Romney doesn't say he is going to deliver the US to the Jews or Satan, he is good with the non-LDS Christian right.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occ, LDS believe in a fundamentally different God than evangelical Christians do. I could see from their perspective, you are much Christians as Muslims are, who, after all worship the God of the Old Testament. In fact, their conception of the deity is closer to the one that the Muslims hold than the one that LDS hold.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You've got a certain point here. I know lots of Christians feel it's disrespectful to the PERSON; how is it disrespectful to their religion?
quote:pursue and active missionary program
How is it disrespectful to other people's religion for us to have missionaries?
quote:regard the founders of the other Churches as apostates
You misunderstand Mormon doctrine here. The only apostates I'm aware of that we call apostates are those that have belonged to our church.
This has to do with the idea that in order for someone to apostatize from the truth, they have to know the truth first.
:shrug:
Mormonism is doctrinally exclusive. You're right about that-- we claim to be the one true religion. Most of your complaints are offshoots of this claim.
However, I dispute the idea that we don't respect other people's religions. I don't think that the term 'respect' means 'accept,' in other words. I don't think exclsivity, in the way it is doctrinally outlined within Mormonism is disrespectful of other religions; at the worst, it merely ignores them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This isn't surprising at all, but it is an example of the intolerance that makes me wary of dealing with those who call themselves evangelical Christians. Heck, I've run into some who don't think Catholics are Christian either.
Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
posted
PH, yes you are. That is because Catholics consider themselves Christians, Mormons consider themselves Christians, and some people who hardly can be called such still consider themselves Christian. To deny them that definition is to deny them a fundimental self-identification that is like calling someone un-American because they don't agree with you politically.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
It's not using a different definition, but asserting that the Catholic one is definitely wrong and that they have no right to call themselves Christian. I'm not sure that is necessarily intolerant, but it is disrespectful.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Yes, they do change the role of Christ, in important and fundamental ways"
How? You have YET to answer that question Dagonee. You have just said it does with no explanation.
First, I'm not demanding explanations of differences from you - I'm taking you at your word. It's getting very tiresome to have to correct certain people who, when explaining the difference or similarity between LDS beliefs and other beliefs, base their comparison on an almost complete misunderstanding of others' beliefs. I've seen this concerning the concept of authority, I've seen it concerning food and drink restrictions, I've seen it concerning the trinity. It's tiresome. You could give explanations of your beliefs without referencing ours. Several people do this all or essentially all the time - Scott, Geoff, Kat spring quickly to mind, but there are others. Or you could learn - seriously - about other faiths. MattB seems to have done this. But it's tiresome to go through this so regularly.
Second, there's a distinct difference in the fact that the the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection were undertaken by an incarnation of the Father himself. Third, the differences concerning the fall change the nature of what is corrected by the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection.
The reason for, the nature of the being doing, and the consequences of the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection are all different.
quote:That is probably the case, but I would like it addressed and not just stated.
You have demonstrated no basis for your claim that the role of Christ is identical in LDS beliefs and other Christian beliefs. I've addressed - at length - the differences in the nature of God. I've addressed - at length - the differences in beliefs about the nature of authority. Each time, I did so to correct statements about my faith that were inaccurate. It's systemic amongst a certain group here (one NOT defined by being LDS). I think at this point the credibility of that group is shot concerning non-Mormon beliefs just as much as Ron's is concerning LDS beliefs.
So, when you say that "X is the same as Y" without deigning to support your conclusions about Y, I'm not inclined to pull together a full explanation for you. I'm going to assert that your wrong and, if necessary, subsequently address any evidence you decide to present.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry I don't particularly care to locate the precise page but its towards the end not the beginning.
What I cannot understand is not the difference in opinion doctrinally, is that they stated a difference in "values" of the Christian variety as ground for opposing his speaking there.
I cannot think of what values they could be talking about. Unless acceptance of the 3 in 1 trinity constitutes a moral value, which it could be argued it does I am not sure what these evangelicals are saying.
Two years ago at Utah Valley State College there was a relative uproar when Michael Moore was invited to speak here. Most of the students are LDS and hate the message he was peddling, while others argued that at an academic institution of learning, and a government school, all view points must be given equal footing and none should be given preferential treatment.
I personally attended his speech, learned some things, and went away from it deciding that I disagreed with much of Moore's take on things.
Romney in this instance is not coming to talk about his Mormonism and why he believes in it. He is not proselyting, though setting a good example and by that means influencing others that Mormons are good people could be called proselyting.
I understand why Mormons are not being called Christian by the students/alumni, its unfortunate that their spectrum of moral compass is so narrow that Evangelical Christianity is on one side and Mormonism is on the other. It is to be wondered where they place hedonism, atheism, and Aztec sun God worship.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This isn't surprising at all, but it is an example of the intolerance that makes me wary of dealing with those who call themselves evangelical Christians. Heck, I've run into some who don't think Catholics are Christian either.
Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
-pH
I don't honestly understand what you're getting at here. All I suggested was that some people don't seem to think Catholics are Christian. I suppose I implied that such an attitude is intolerant, which I will come out right now and say that it is intolerant so there is no need to put words in my mouth any longer.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I cannot understand is not the difference in opinion doctrinally, is that they stated a difference in "values" of the Christian variety as ground for opposing his speaking there.
This part is incomprehensible to me. Unless they still think you practice polygamy (thinking which is basically inexcusable at this point), I can't think what they mean. If they mean beliefs, their using the word "values" in a counterintuitive fashion, plus they call out beliefs seperately.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, I don't understand the nature of your characterization. Could you provide your rationale for saying that? What am I not tolerating?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This isn't surprising at all, but it is an example of the intolerance that makes me wary of dealing with those who call themselves evangelical Christians. Heck, I've run into some who don't think Catholics are Christian either.
Wait, so if you use a different definition of "Christian" than Catholics do, you're intolerant?
-pH
I don't honestly understand what you're getting at here. All I suggested was that some people don't seem to think Catholics are Christian. I suppose I implied that such an attitude is intolerant, which I will come out right now and say that it is intolerant so there is no need to put words in my mouth any longer.
Um, I wasn't aware that I was putting words in your mouth in the first place...
And I also don't see it as particularly intolerant, considering that by the definition that some faiths give, Catholics and other denominations aren't Christian. And by the LDS definition, I'm not Mormon. Does that mean that if I go around saying I'm Mormon when I don't meet that definition, Mormons are intolerant?
posted
pH: Actually there are splinter groups that call themselves "Mormon Fundamentalists," as they refuse to accept that God discontinued polygamy. Our church vehemently denies that they can accurately be labeled as Mormons or "fundi mormons" as there are just too many doctrinal differences besides polygamy to accurately call them Mormons.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, a lot of the polygamist groups call themselves Mormon and that claim is contested by the LDS church. Also, there's an RLDS church from those who stayed in Illinois when the bulk of the Saints went West, and they, I think, also call themselves Mormon. It's actually an issue.
For Christian, it depends on your definition. It takes a fairly convoluted definition to exclude religions that worship Christ as the Son of God and believe that the atonement was necessary for salvation from being Christian.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see it as particularly convoluted to say "a Christian is someone who believes those things that a council, acting under apostolic authority and guided by God, compiled as the common underlying beliefs of Christianity."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a quick statement, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a Mormon who will say that Catholics/Protestants are not Christian. A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as savior and also in the principles he taught.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, that definition puts the decision of a council centuries after Christ lived as the sine qua non of Christianity. A simpler definition would be that someone who follows Christ as the Son of God is a follower of Christ as the Son of God.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I see the difference between the groups that departed from the LDS church (some of them claiming to be closer to "original" Mormonism) wanting to call themselves Mormon and groups that departed from mainstream Christianity (claiming to be closer to "original" Christianity) wanting to call themselves Christian.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: ]I don't honestly understand what you're getting at here. All I suggested was that some people don't seem to think Catholics are Christian. I suppose I implied that such an attitude is intolerant, which I will come out right now and say that it is intolerant so there is no need to put words in my mouth any longer. [/QB]
Not only intolerant, but the fact is that Catholics were the original christians and there would be no Christians, of any variety, without the Catholic church.
Having done a lot of examination of the evangelical christian faiths, and speaking with many evangelical christians, I can tell you from first hand experience that many evangelical christians do not consider the LDS faith christian. And some go so far as to consider it anti-christian. I won't go so far as to say satanistic, but many believe that the mormon church is a religion designed to "trick" christians into not believing in Jesus in the "proper" way, and a device of the devil to lure christians from being "saved". I say that not to inflame or offend, but because that is the truth as to what they believe. I've been told that by many of them. That's not what *I* believe by any means.
So when I saw that original post about Romney I was not suprised. There is a lot of animosity by evangelical christians towards mormons. And frankly, Romney has no chance of winning the evangelicals over in this election. IMO from my experience with the evangelicals.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Just a quick statement, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a Mormon who will say that Catholics/Protestants are not Christian. A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as savior and also in the principles he taught.
I'm speaking specifically to someone calling him/herself Mormon when most Mormons would not agree. If that isn't intolerant, then I fail to see how thinking that someone is not Christian when he or she does not meet your faith's definition of "Christian" is intolerant.
Also, for crying out loud, Catholics were not the original Christians. The Christian movement didn't start out with the Catholic church.
quote:I'm not sure I see the difference between the groups that departed from the LDS church (some of them claiming to be closer to "original" Mormonism) wanting to call themselves Mormon and groups that departed from mainstream Christianity (claiming to be closer to "original" Christianity) wanting to call themselves Christian.
I don't either, really. I think it's fine if they want to call themselves Mormon.
I do object to the press lumping them together with the LDS, though, because that means all sorts of people believe that all Mormons still practice polygamy as a result. I also strenuously object to them calling themselves "fundamentalist" Mormons. Polygamy is NOT the most fundamental of doctrines - it shouldn't be.
For that matter, I think other Protestants should object to term "fundamentalist Christian." Aknowledging that term is like saying those who AREN'T in that group are following something that is NOT part of the foundation of Christianity.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, that definition puts the decision of a council centuries after Christ lived as the sine qua non of Christianity. A simpler definition would be that someone who follows Christ as the Son of God is a follower of Christ as the Son of God.
There's a difference between "convoluted" and "not the simplest."
Nice use of "sine qua non," though.
To be clear, I think both definitions are accurate. If I were making an organizational chart of world religions, I'd have "Mormon" under the branch labeled "Christian."
I just don't think a definitition such as the one I put above is either particularly convoluted or necessarily ill-intentioned.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anything from the relicos in this debate is ill-intentioned - even the protesters at the university.
Hmm...I think there should be another term for those who believe the council at Nicea was authoritative. Right the term in use is "Christian", but that is causing problems all over, because you end of up several definitions for an emotionally charged word.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Second, there's a distinct difference in the fact that the the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection were undertaken by an incarnation of the Father himself. Third, the differences concerning the fall change the nature of what is corrected by the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection.
The reason for, the nature of the being doing, and the consequences of the incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection are all different."
That is better. That is something. Where you see the differences of the "consiquences" as an important distinction, I personally don't. For me the act of the "incarnation, crucifixion, and ressurection," or Atonement in LDS wording, by a God/Person named Jesus and called The Christ is far more important in labeling a person Christian then what they might mean in the theological long run. The biggest difference is if you are going to call someone Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or something else.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Dag.
