Albert Mohler played a clip from Larry King on his Friday broadcast (click here: go 12 minutes in). I will play it on the DL in the morning, but you might want to listen now. Bill Maher openly admits his deep prejudice (if he were a conservative, he’d be a bigot, but we all know liberals cannot be bigots).
Oh, I finally saw Dave Armstrong’s graphic about me. Here it is. It is properly copyrighted, “Rhys Tuck (c) 24 May 2004.” The only thing missing is, “Rhys Tuck, Age 9, 3rd Grade, Detroit Elementary School, Mrs. Klingenhoffer’s Class.” Wow, folks, like Rush says, leave that kind of stuff to the professionals!
Elsewhere, Kevin Johnson wrote a 44k, 16 page reply on rCism. In summary, any conclusion I present is “ludicrous,” I have misrepresented all of rCism pretty much constantly, and even my personal story about my history regarding the doctrines of grace is to be interpreted as “ad-hominem.” Nothing positive could possibly come from trying to unravel the mass of misunderstandings and misrepresentations: best to let the reader decide. Only one issue calls for further attention: D&C 20:73 gives the formula for baptism in the Mormon Church, and it is in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When I pointed this out, Johnson replied:
A Mormon’s baptism is rejected quite simply apart from his profession of faith. His profession of faith is simply irrelevant.
His baptism (and hence membership in Christ’s Church) is rejected because it is not truly in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In other words, Mormon baptism is not Christian baptism and a baptized Mormon is rejected because they have not been baptized in the name of the triune God.
I don’t understand. When I say baptism apart from the gospel is not Christian baptism, I am told that I am being a “neo-Donatist” and a “schismatic” and that my sacramentology stinks like a construction site porta-potty at a fancy wedding. I am told I cannot “parse” the profession of faith of a person as long as they are baptized properly. Yet, what makes for a “proper” baptism? I can’t tell. D&C 20:73 states, “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” OK, now, that’s in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (unless the use of the term “Ghost” is the question). So, to say “they have not been baptized in the name of the triune God” would demand that Johnson is “parsing” what the Mormons believe about the doctrine of God and rejecting that baptism on that basis (and believe me, I agree, 1000%, with said rejection). But, when I say “baptism done in the triune name and yet in the service of a false gospel is likewise irrelevant to the unity and nature of the Christian faith” I become a schismatic, stinky neo-Donatist. Someone help me out here. Is this a double-standard?