| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" |
| Date: |
18 Jan 2005 01:10:53 AM |
| Object: |
Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
From the religious bigotry & hate web site religionnewsblog.com
Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss
Deseret Morning News, Jan. 15, 2005
Carrie A. Moore
deseretnews.com
In the two months since a leading evangelical Christian
apologized, on behalf of his fellow believers, to Latter-day
Saints for mischaracterizations of their faith, several
conservative Christians have voiced their displeasure with his
remarks.
Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, spoke Nov.
14 at the Tabernacle on Temple Square as part of an "Evening of
Friendship." The meeting featured Christian philosopher Ravi
Zacharias as the keynote speaker and was co-sponsored by a local
group of evangelical ministers called Standing Together
Ministries, and the Richard L. Evans Chair for Religious
Understanding at Brigham Young University.
"Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against
you," Mouw said, noting a tendency among some Christians to
distort the truth about the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. "We have told you what you believe without
making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe."
Mouw went on to explain that "we have even on occasion demonized
you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is
'really' trying to accomplish in the world. And even at our best,
we have — and this is true of both of our communities — we have
talked past each other, setting forth oversimplified and distorted
accounts of what the other group believes."
Latter-day Saints have often responded in kind to such actions, he
said, lamenting, "Friendship with each other has not come easily
for our two communities."
He lauded the event as a step toward mending strained relations.
But his remarks didn't sit well with some conservative
evangelicals, a few of whom have posted lengthy responses to his
published text on their own Web sites and have encouraged others
to make their displeasure known to Mouw.
As the backlash began following his speech, Mouw, who is also a
columnist for Beliefnet.com, a nondenominational Web site, allowed
the text of his remarks to be posted there with an explanation of
the background for the meeting in Salt Lake City.
In posting the text, still available at
www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10044.html, Mouw wrote that, "The
speech is making the rounds among surprised and generally pleased
evangelical and Mormon groups."
But several conservatives were not pleased.
A story following the event in Baptist Press, which writes about
the Southern Baptist Convention, quoted three local ministers —
Mike Gray, pastor of Southeast Baptist Church; Roger Russell of
Holladay Baptist Church; and Tim Clark of the Utah-Idaho Baptist
Convention — saying Mouw unfairly impugned their ministries and
activities by making a blanket apology to Latter-day Saints.
"(Mouw) was wrong," the story quoted the Rev. Gray as saying. "He
had no business. And it will hurt.
"He doesn't live here and he doesn't know what we do," the Rev.
Gray said. "We haven't been ugly to our Mormon neighbors. We love
them and care about them."
The article said Mouw had responded to such criticism with an
e-mail to Baptist Press saying he "certainly did not mean to imply
that every evangelical has sinned in this regard," Mouw wrote.
"Suppose I were to address an African-American gathering and say
that we whites have sinned against you blacks. Who would deny that
this is a correct assessment? But who would think that I was
speaking about and on behalf of all white people?"
Another Utahn troubled by Mouw's remarks, Ronald V. Huggins,
assistant professor of theological and historical studies at Salt
Lake Theological Seminary, posted a text of his own in response at
a Web site of the Institute for Religious Research,
www.irr.org/mit/authentic-dialogue.html, under a section titled,
"Mormons in Transition."
Huggins said he and other faculty at the Salt Lake Theological
Seminary asked Mouw in August 2004 to "avoid following the pattern
he had established in writing and public events during the past
few years of disparaging earlier Christian efforts to reach
Mormons for Christ. Regrettably, Dr. Mouw ignored the SLTS
faculty's concern."
Several faculty at Fuller Theological Seminary have met in recent
years with several religion faculty at Brigham Young University to
discuss topics of faith, and the seminary has hosted a couple of
scholarly forums focusing on beliefs and doctrine of the LDS
Church.
"Evangelicals present at the (Tabernacle) event, even some of
those sitting on the stage, went away with the clear impression
that Mouw was aiming his criticism at them," Huggins wrote.
While he said he agrees that some Evangelicals "have certainly
been unkind to Mormons and have been guilty of inaccurately
portraying Mormon beliefs," the approach "does not characterize
the attitudes and actions of most evangelical churches and
ministries, which is what made Mouw's blanket apology
inappropriate."
He said some Christians in Utah "were surprised and disappointed
by the apparent bad faith reflected in the LDS Church's post-event
coverage; others, including myself, expected it on the basis of
the conviction that, contrary to the belief and hope of many
Evangelicals, the LDS Church does not appear ready for, nor does
it seem to really desire, authentic dialogue with Evangelicals.
What the LDS Church certainly does seem to desire is mainline
respectability."
He said the church "appears to be interested in 'dialoguing' only
with evangelicals who lack an in-depth knowledge of Mormon history
and doctrine, and who are thus more likely to take at face value
the representations of its PR people."
Huggins wrote that two weeks after Mouw's remarks, he and about
two dozen local Christian leaders met with Standing Together
director Greg Johnson to discuss the event and expressed their
feeling that Mouw's apology "was both ill-advised and
inappropriate; a significant number of those present (again
including myself) felt it was highly inappropriate."
As for Standing Together, Huggins wrote that "evangelicals
associated with that ministry have developed unhealthy, lopsided
relationships with the Mormon apologists. Several years ago I came
up with a name for this 'evangelistic strategy' — the
'Pander/Slander' method: 'If you want to pander to the Mormon
apologists not ready for real dialogue, the cost is going to be a
willingness to slander the Christian brethren that went before
you.' "
The Rev. Johnson said he told the group concerned about Mouw's
apology, "if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it."
"I would not accuse Mouw of hubris or arrogance or being proud.
Did he fully appreciate the ramifications of his statement?
Probably not. I'm sorry that his words and presentations were such
a distraction to the purpose of the evening."
While he acknowledged the remarks were "very bold, they were his
words, not mine. I wouldn't invite a Christian leader of his
stature to the podium and ask him to submit the speech to me. Some
have said I should have."
Despite the criticism, the Rev. Johnson said he believes "there
were a whole lot of people thrilled with that evening."
As evidence, he said Standing Together has received more than 400
orders for a DVD or CD of the event. "We get a lot of notes now
from people who have watched it and heard about it," noting it's
been the subject of several radio programs across the country with
"a lot of extremely good feedback."
"I've tried to say to people 'get the DVD and judge it for
yourself.' Focus on the Family just ordered today 100 sets for
their student leadership forum. They just called to get them.
That's a nice thing."
---
http://lastliberal.org
Guns don't kill people: Republicans kill people.
"No Evidence. Never had any, never will, don't need any and still I
believe. 'Happy are those who have not seen yet believe.'" --- Robert
Burke
.
|
|
| User: "Stormin Mormon" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
20 Jan 2005 01:38:30 AM |
|
|
Has anyone seen a study on this? The last I knew, the murder rate was
highest in the black, mostly liberal areas of the US.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
"The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote
in message
---
http://lastliberal.org
Guns don't kill people: Republicans kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Paulson" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
21 Jan 2005 07:46:00 PM |
|
|
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:358ghiF4j04guU1@individual.net...
Has anyone seen a study on this? The last I knew, the murder rate was
highest in the black, mostly liberal areas of the US.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
Actually, Christopher, the highest rate is among males. Watch your back.
--
Regards,
Lee, the James
Kill your television.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
20 Jan 2005 03:45:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:38:30 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote:
Has anyone seen a study on this? The last I knew, the murder rate was
highest in the black, mostly liberal areas of the US.
Since you did not quote, no one knows what you mean by "on this."
Nor do I know what you could possibly mean by "liberal areas."
The FBI does keep tract of the "race" of murder victims and
murderers. (While the whole concept of "race" makes no sense from
a biological / evolutionary perspectives, most humans still
consider "race" to be a valid denominator: I do not).
For year 2001, 6,750 "white" people were murdered (4,785 males,
1,962 females); 6,446 "black" people were murdered (5,350 males,
1,095 females). 33.4% of the murderers were "white," 35.6% were
"black," 1.8% were "other," and 29.2% were "unknown" (the "unknown
will break down in similar percentages as the known, as per
standard statistical practice where no further data is available).
Why "black" people murdered at at rate of 35.6% while "black"
people make up around 12% of the USA population is something
sociologists should look at. Also, women murderers are only 7% of
the murdering population, which is also something sociologists
should study. Why do "black" males murder more than "white" males?
Why do "white" males murder more than "black" women? Why do
"black" women murder more than "white" women? If sociologists knew
the reasons why, perhaps prevention would be possible. They should
also look at why most murderers are between ages 20 and 24 years.
The murders on September 11, 2001, are not included in the above
figures.
--
Christopher A. Young
---
http://lastliberal.org
Guns don't kill people: Republicans kill people.
If you EVER try to proselytize to me again I will order your demons to mash
your underdeveloped gonads between two rocks! - Joseph Voigt
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
20 Jan 2005 04:34:13 PM |
|
|
"The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:358nrsF4k2dk3U1@individual.net...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:38:30 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote:
Has anyone seen a study on this? The last I knew, the murder rate was
highest in the black, mostly liberal areas of the US.
Since you did not quote, no one knows what you mean by "on this."
Nor do I know what you could possibly mean by "liberal areas."
The FBI does keep tract of the "race" of murder victims and
murderers. (While the whole concept of "race" makes no sense from
a biological / evolutionary perspectives, most humans still
consider "race" to be a valid denominator: I do not).
It shouldn't be. However, since the 'races' themselves think that it is, it
is. Shoot, if a group of people decide to define themselves by the number of
freckles on their noses, the color of their eyebrows or the shape of their
earlobes, then THOSE would be a 'valid denominators'. It's all arbitrary,
but if accepted by those to whom they apply, they are also valid.
For year 2001, 6,750 "white" people were murdered (4,785 males,
1,962 females); 6,446 "black" people were murdered (5,350 males,
1,095 females). 33.4% of the murderers were "white," 35.6% were
"black," 1.8% were "other," and 29.2% were "unknown" (the "unknown
will break down in similar percentages as the known, as per
standard statistical practice where no further data is available).
Why "black" people murdered at at rate of 35.6% while "black"
people make up around 12% of the USA population is something
sociologists should look at.
They have. The largest percentage of crime in this area is 'black on black'.
That is, black men going after black men and women. The reasons behind this
are varied, and have nothing intrinsically to do with skin color. It's all
got to do with where their skin color gets them 'put', that is, in ghettos
and gangs and government projects.
Also, women murderers are only 7% of
the murdering population, which is also something sociologists
should study. Why do "black" males murder more than "white" males?
Poverty and gangs. Get 'em out of that meliu, into middle class society and
black men do not murder with any more frequency than any other person of
lighter pigmentation. It's about culture and money, not skin color.
Why do "white" males murder more than "black" women?
Why do men murder more than women? Testosterone.
Why do
"black" women murder more than "white" women?
Culture and money.
If sociologists knew
the reasons why, perhaps prevention would be possible. They should
also look at why most murderers are between ages 20 and 24 years.
They do, they have....but it's not politically correct to pay attention to
the results. You wanna know why, really? Listen to Bill Cosby. He's quite
clear about it.
Diana
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Paulson" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
21 Jan 2005 07:47:02 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:94RHd.8956$ef6.8433@trnddc07...
"The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:358nrsF4k2dk3U1@individual.net...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:38:30 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote:
Has anyone seen a study on this? The last I knew, the murder rate was
highest in the black, mostly liberal areas of the US.
Since you did not quote, no one knows what you mean by "on this."
Nor do I know what you could possibly mean by "liberal areas."
The FBI does keep tract of the "race" of murder victims and
murderers. (While the whole concept of "race" makes no sense from
a biological / evolutionary perspectives, most humans still
consider "race" to be a valid denominator: I do not).
It shouldn't be. However, since the 'races' themselves think that it is,
it
is. Shoot, if a group of people decide to define themselves by the number
of
freckles on their noses, the color of their eyebrows or the shape of their
earlobes, then THOSE would be a 'valid denominators'. It's all arbitrary,
but if accepted by those to whom they apply, they are also valid.
For year 2001, 6,750 "white" people were murdered (4,785 males,
1,962 females); 6,446 "black" people were murdered (5,350 males,
1,095 females). 33.4% of the murderers were "white," 35.6% were
"black," 1.8% were "other," and 29.2% were "unknown" (the "unknown
will break down in similar percentages as the known, as per
standard statistical practice where no further data is available).
Why "black" people murdered at at rate of 35.6% while "black"
people make up around 12% of the USA population is something
sociologists should look at.
They have. The largest percentage of crime in this area is 'black on
black'.
That is, black men going after black men and women. The reasons behind
this
are varied, and have nothing intrinsically to do with skin color. It's all
got to do with where their skin color gets them 'put', that is, in ghettos
and gangs and government projects.
Also, women murderers are only 7% of
the murdering population, which is also something sociologists
should study. Why do "black" males murder more than "white" males?
Poverty and gangs. Get 'em out of that meliu, into middle class society
and
black men do not murder with any more frequency than any other person of
lighter pigmentation. It's about culture and money, not skin color.
Why do "white" males murder more than "black" women?
Why do men murder more than women? Testosterone.
Why do
"black" women murder more than "white" women?
Culture and money.
If sociologists knew
the reasons why, perhaps prevention would be possible. They should
also look at why most murderers are between ages 20 and 24 years.
They do, they have....but it's not politically correct to pay attention to
the results. You wanna know why, really? Listen to Bill Cosby. He's quite
clear about it.
Diana
Very good points, Diana.
--
Regards,
Lee, the James
Kill your television.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
21 Jan 2005 02:00:17 AM |
|
|
Poverty and gangs. Get 'em out of that meliu, into middle class society and
black men do not murder with any more frequency than any other person of
lighter pigmentation. It's about culture and money, not skin color.
Joseph Smith certainly thought this was true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
21 Jan 2005 05:03:45 AM |
|
|
"RetroProphet" <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cspnnh02lhi@drn.newsguy.com...
Poverty and gangs. Get 'em out of that meliu, into middle class society
and
black men do not murder with any more frequency than any other person of
lighter pigmentation. It's about culture and money, not skin color.
Joseph Smith certainly thought this was true.
Yes, he did, as a matter of fact.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stormin Mormon" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
20 Jan 2005 04:26:04 PM |
|
|
I barely glanced at your numbers. But assuming they are correct, it would
seem that blacks commit more murders. If I'm correct, blacks are more likely
to be liberal democrats. So, it would make sense that "guns don't kill
people, liberal democrats kill people".
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
"The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:358nrsF4k2dk3U1@individual.net...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:38:30 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote:
Has anyone seen a study on this? The last I knew, the murder rate was
highest in the black, mostly liberal areas of the US.
Since you did not quote, no one knows what you mean by "on this."
Nor do I know what you could possibly mean by "liberal areas."
The FBI does keep tract of the "race" of murder victims and
murderers. (While the whole concept of "race" makes no sense from
a biological / evolutionary perspectives, most humans still
consider "race" to be a valid denominator: I do not).
For year 2001, 6,750 "white" people were murdered (4,785 males,
1,962 females); 6,446 "black" people were murdered (5,350 males,
1,095 females). 33.4% of the murderers were "white," 35.6% were
"black," 1.8% were "other," and 29.2% were "unknown" (the "unknown
will break down in similar percentages as the known, as per
standard statistical practice where no further data is available).
Why "black" people murdered at at rate of 35.6% while "black"
people make up around 12% of the USA population is something
sociologists should look at. Also, women murderers are only 7% of
the murdering population, which is also something sociologists
should study. Why do "black" males murder more than "white" males?
Why do "white" males murder more than "black" women? Why do
"black" women murder more than "white" women? If sociologists knew
the reasons why, perhaps prevention would be possible. They should
also look at why most murderers are between ages 20 and 24 years.
The murders on September 11, 2001, are not included in the above
figures.
--
Christopher A. Young
---
http://lastliberal.org
Guns don't kill people: Republicans kill people.
If you EVER try to proselytize to me again I will order your demons to mash
your underdeveloped gonads between two rocks! - Joseph Voigt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
23 Jan 2005 05:26:56 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:26:04 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
I barely glanced at your numbers. But assuming they are correct, it would
seem that blacks commit more murders. If I'm correct, blacks are more likely
to be liberal democrats. So, it would make sense that "guns don't kill
people, liberal democrats kill people".
Only if they're being liberal democrats is what causes them to commit
murder. Otherwise it's just dishonest misuse of statistics.
--
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stormin Mormon" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
20 Jan 2005 04:24:52 PM |
|
|
The Last Liberal wrote:
Since you did not quote, no one knows what you mean by "on this."
Actually, if you scroll down to the bottom of the screen, you may find the
quote I was referring. I am replying to my own message, here. Hang on, I'll
make it easy for you.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:358ghiF4j04guU1@individual.net...
Has anyone seen a study on this? The last I knew, the murder rate was
highest in the black, mostly liberal areas of the US.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
"The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote
in message
*************READ THIS, DAVID******************
---
http://lastliberal.org
Guns don't kill people: Republicans kill people.
*************END QUOTE *************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
21 Jan 2005 05:09:00 AM |
|
|
TV's Stormin Mormon wrote:
The Last Liberal wrote:
Since you did not quote, no one knows what you mean by "on this."
Actually, if you scroll down to the bottom of the screen, you may find the
quote I was referring. I am replying to my own message, here. Hang on,
I'll
make it easy for you.
That's why it's a bad thing to top post.
--
"Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast" -
Meatwad
"The Constitution was written on reefer by dudes with wooden teeth" - OG Loc
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stormin Mormon" |
|
| Title: Re: Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss |
20 Jan 2005 01:39:43 AM |
|
|
On behalf of all Anti-Mormons, I would like to apologize for persecuting the
true church of Jesus Christ. I would further like to say that we will never
do it again, and we desire to learn the six investigator discussions and be
baptized as soon as possible.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
"The Last Liberal / ShyDavid / Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:35360vF4es2cjU3@individual.net...
From the religious bigotry & hate web site religionnewsblog.com
Speaker's apology to LDS stirs up fuss
Deseret Morning News, Jan. 15, 2005
Carrie A. Moore
deseretnews.com
In the two months since a leading evangelical Christian
apologized, on behalf of his fellow believers, to Latter-day
Saints for mischaracterizations of their faith, several
conservative Christians have voiced their displeasure with his
remarks.
Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, spoke Nov.
14 at the Tabernacle on Temple Square as part of an "Evening of
Friendship." The meeting featured Christian philosopher Ravi
Zacharias as the keynote speaker and was co-sponsored by a local
group of evangelical ministers called Standing Together
Ministries, and the Richard L. Evans Chair for Religious
Understanding at Brigham Young University.
"Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against
you," Mouw said, noting a tendency among some Christians to
distort the truth about the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. "We have told you what you believe without
making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe."
Mouw went on to explain that "we have even on occasion demonized
you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is
'really' trying to accomplish in the world. And even at our best,
we have — and this is true of both of our communities — we have
talked past each other, setting forth oversimplified and distorted
accounts of what the other group believes."
Latter-day Saints have often responded in kind to such actions, he
said, lamenting, "Friendship with each other has not come easily
for our two communities."
He lauded the event as a step toward mending strained relations.
But his remarks didn't sit well with some conservative
evangelicals, a few of whom have posted lengthy responses to his
published text on their own Web sites and have encouraged others
to make their displeasure known to Mouw.
As the backlash began following his speech, Mouw, who is also a
columnist for Beliefnet.com, a nondenominational Web site, allowed
the text of his remarks to be posted there with an explanation of
the background for the meeting in Salt Lake City.
In posting the text, still available at
www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10044.html, Mouw wrote that, "The
speech is making the rounds among surprised and generally pleased
evangelical and Mormon groups."
But several conservatives were not pleased.
A story following the event in Baptist Press, which writes about
the Southern Baptist Convention, quoted three local ministers —
Mike Gray, pastor of Southeast Baptist Church; Roger Russell of
Holladay Baptist Church; and Tim Clark of the Utah-Idaho Baptist
Convention — saying Mouw unfairly impugned their ministries and
activities by making a blanket apology to Latter-day Saints.
"(Mouw) was wrong," the story quoted the Rev. Gray as saying. "He
had no business. And it will hurt.
"He doesn't live here and he doesn't know what we do," the Rev.
Gray said. "We haven't been ugly to our Mormon neighbors. We love
them and care about them."
The article said Mouw had responded to such criticism with an
e-mail to Baptist Press saying he "certainly did not mean to imply
that every evangelical has sinned in this regard," Mouw wrote.
"Suppose I were to address an African-American gathering and say
that we whites have sinned against you blacks. Who would deny that
this is a correct assessment? But who would think that I was
speaking about and on behalf of all white people?"
Another Utahn troubled by Mouw's remarks, Ronald V. Huggins,
assistant professor of theological and historical studies at Salt
Lake Theological Seminary, posted a text of his own in response at
a Web site of the Institute for Religious Research,
www.irr.org/mit/authentic-dialogue.html, under a section titled,
"Mormons in Transition."
Huggins said he and other faculty at the Salt Lake Theological
Seminary asked Mouw in August 2004 to "avoid following the pattern
he had established in writing and public events during the past
few years of disparaging earlier Christian efforts to reach
Mormons for Christ. Regrettably, Dr. Mouw ignored the SLTS
faculty's concern."
Several faculty at Fuller Theological Seminary have met in recent
years with several religion faculty at Brigham Young University to
discuss topics of faith, and the seminary has hosted a couple of
scholarly forums focusing on beliefs and doctrine of the LDS
Church.
"Evangelicals present at the (Tabernacle) event, even some of
those sitting on the stage, went away with the clear impression
that Mouw was aiming his criticism at them," Huggins wrote.
While he said he agrees that some Evangelicals "have certainly
been unkind to Mormons and have been guilty of inaccurately
portraying Mormon beliefs," the approach "does not characterize
the attitudes and actions of most evangelical churches and
ministries, which is what made Mouw's blanket apology
inappropriate."
He said some Christians in Utah "were surprised and disappointed
by the apparent bad faith reflected in the LDS Church's post-event
coverage; others, including myself, expected it on the basis of
the conviction that, contrary to the belief and hope of many
Evangelicals, the LDS Church does not appear ready for, nor does
it seem to really desire, authentic dialogue with Evangelicals.
What the LDS Church certainly does seem to desire is mainline
respectability."
He said the church "appears to be interested in 'dialoguing' only
with evangelicals who lack an in-depth knowledge of Mormon history
and doctrine, and who are thus more likely to take at face value
the representations of its PR people."
Huggins wrote that two weeks after Mouw's remarks, he and about
two dozen local Christian leaders met with Standing Together
director Greg Johnson to discuss the event and expressed their
feeling that Mouw's apology "was both ill-advised and
inappropriate; a significant number of those present (again
including myself) felt it was highly inappropriate."
As for Standing Together, Huggins wrote that "evangelicals
associated with that ministry have developed unhealthy, lopsided
relationships with the Mormon apologists. Several years ago I came
up with a name for this 'evangelistic strategy' — the
'Pander/Slander' method: 'If you want to pander to the Mormon
apologists not ready for real dialogue, the cost is going to be a
willingness to slander the Christian brethren that went before
you.' "
The Rev. Johnson said he told the group concerned about Mouw's
apology, "if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it."
"I would not accuse Mouw of hubris or arrogance or being proud.
Did he fully appreciate the ramifications of his statement?
Probably not. I'm sorry that his words and presentations were such
a distraction to the purpose of the evening."
While he acknowledged the remarks were "very bold, they were his
words, not mine. I wouldn't invite a Christian leader of his
stature to the podium and ask him to submit the speech to me. Some
have said I should have."
Despite the criticism, the Rev. Johnson said he believes "there
were a whole lot of people thrilled with that evening."
As evidence, he said Standing Together has received more than 400
orders for a DVD or CD of the event. "We get a lot of notes now
from people who have watched it and heard about it," noting it's
been the subject of several radio programs across the country with
"a lot of extremely good feedback."
"I've tried to say to people 'get the DVD and judge it for
yourself.' Focus on the Family just ordered today 100 sets for
their student leadership forum. They just called to get them.
That's a nice thing."
---
http://lastliberal.org
Guns don't kill people: Republicans kill people.
"No Evidence. Never had any, never will, don't need any and still I
believe. 'Happy are those who have not seen yet believe.'" --- Robert
Burke
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
