ErikJohnson

Hey Just_A_Guy--Appreciate the answer to my question. And I know we're wandering from the original topic and so I'll have to ask for a little grace here. Did you really mean that part I put in bold? Do you really believe homosexual males have a "vested interest" in embarrassing LDS leaders? I have to say I'm a little shocked at how adversarial and direct your statement is. As a Christian, I recognize that all sexual relationships outside of marriage (as the Bible defines it--between a man and a woman) are sinful in God's eyes. There's no reason (that I can see) to single out homosexuals for special animosity. --Erik

Interesting link, Carl62. Read the various views and then read the full interview of D. Michael Quinn. He makes some pretty pointed observations--the content of which probably merits its own thread(s). Curious what other people think of Quinn. Do faithful LDS just dismiss him as an "anti"--or is there any actual concern about what he says? --Erik

I’ve never had reason to read an LDS Young Women’s manual, and I’ll take John Doe’s word for it that it doesn’t use the language found in the OP. But I’d be surprised to learn that it didn’t encourage LDS women give consideration to a man’s status as returned missionary. (Is anyone going to say the LDS YM’s program does not encourage this?) And I think it’s often difficult to distinguish recommendations from hard rules in a culture where the authority of spiritual leaders is not open to any serious discussion—even when the issue is seemingly trivial (e.g., the choice to wear a colored shirt to church instead of a white one). But that’s just my opinion and experience. I don’t mean to disparage anyone. Speaking as a former LDS member who never went on a mission—you certainly are stigmatized if you’re a life-long member and don’t have that credential. It’s usually subtle in the context of interactions in a singles’ ward. Where subtlety gets thrown out the window is on LDS singles’ internet sites. RM status was a top question on two of the sites I attempted back in the day. Women can filter out the guys who lack this essential qualification—and they do. Generally speaking, the ones who hadn’t already been married and were still within what statisticians call the prime child-bearing years—these were the ones most inclined to be sticklers. Often you couldn’t get a conversation started when the right box wasn’t checked. By contrast, the 30 and 40-somethings whose temple marriages hadn't stood the test of time and who were left raising the kids alone were usually quite interested. My employment status? That mattered to them. My RM status? Not so much. The collapse of their standards under the weight of circumstances might have been comical if the circumstances weren’t so tragic. And there are an astonishing number of divorced 30 and 40-something women on those sites, often raising children alone. But I digress. I’m quite certain I’d still be passing away the time on Sunday afternoons, in the upstairs room in the N. Seattle Stake center where the “Single Adults” met for Sunday school. They usually did a good job putting a brave face on things, but underneath it was a room of lonely, lost people clinging to a culture that teaches them “families are forever” and that blessings are obtained “by obedience.” Praise God He had other plans for my life, plans that included a wife, a child, and another on the way. And I don’t pretend for one moment that I deserved such blessings. God has been amazingly gracious to me. --Erik

Hey Rameumptom— Glad you found the dictionary.com definition helpful. I agree it’s reasonable and useful, though not necessarily complete. But certainly sufficient to make the previous point. And I think there should be much more unity among the various branches of the Christian religion, where Jesus is worshipped as the Eternal God. And of course there will be, ultimately. But at present, local and denominational church expressions of the Christian Faith are far from perfect, and disagreements abound. I think Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s words are worth keeping in mind-- If I had never joined a Church till I had found one that was perfect, I would never have joined one at all! And the moment I did join it, if I had found one, I should have spoiled it, for it would not have been a perfect Church after I had become a member of it. Regards, --Erik

Hey Justice-- Starting to wander from the purpose of my original thread--and I'm afraid I have no one to blame but myself. Maybe this will help you, once again from dictionary.com-- christian religion noun a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity] In your short list, Catholic and Protestant churches are branches of the Christian religion (a.k.a., "Christianity")--by the dictionary.com definition, which in my opinion, is quite reasonable. You may disagree with my judgment and submit a definition of your own, of course. But at least this should enable you to understand where I'm coming from. Make sense? --Erik

Hey Faded--Let's start with that. Can you establish that “born again” Christian ministers and pastors get "irritated" and/or "annoyed" when someone cites a passage from the Book of James. Can you furnish any references for the responses you claim to have experienced? I don't pretend to have seen the whole world--but I have yet to experience a Bible-believing Christian minister of the Gospel express irritation or annoyance over a passage of Scripture. Not saying it's never happened--just saying it's something I've never experienced (and certainly not at my Church). Also, you seem to use the words "born again" as a mark of distinction, to distinguish Christian ministers who are different than you. Out of curiosity, do you not consider yourself to have been born again? Regarding the number of Christian religions out there (I say one, you say many)—for the sake of efficiency, let’s leverage a previous thread for that discussion. Lastly, regarding the Weekly World News--I confess I probably haven't kept up with you. Has there been a recent citing of Bat Boy? Last I heard he was seen supporting the coalition forces in Afghanistan, but that was circa 2003... ;0) --Erik

Hey Maya-- For the record, I've never authored anything that could be considered "literature"--anti-Mormon or otherwise. I've produced a fair bit of technical documentation regarding reporting applications and databases for my clients, but that's about the extent of it. And I've never made a film or a film script. I'm not even much of a movie buff--although I enjoy the occasional show at the local theatre. It's as funny as it is strange. When I posted my intro on this site (about a year ago), several LDS made allegations that they had seen me on a variety of forums (via Facebook, Ask-a-Mormon, etc.). Places I'd never even visited, let alone posted. None-the-less, they bore their testimonies and witnesses against me. When I asked them to provide evidence, links, etc., they offered nothing to substantiate their claims (obviously). Yet when I called them out--none of them was willing to post a retraction. Maybe they had seen me doing the things they alleged through their "spiritual eyes." I really don’t know what else to make of it. Nor do I know what to make of your post. Perhaps you'll take the time to explain yourself, Maya. I'd certainly appreciate it. --Erik

Hey Ozzy— I’m definitely not. Once upon a time, I made full disclosure—here. And regarding whether my post could be counterproductive, I’m always happy to have folks contend with me when I have the benefit of a better argument. As someone once said (in defense of our adversarial system)—from the clash of adversaries, the truth will emerge. But I didn’t write the thread to try to get anyone riled up. It had been on my mind for a while that the passage in Jude, at least when taken at face value, is at variance with what I was taught back in my LDS days—that contention is of the devil, the devil is the father of contention, etc. Having a few moments last week, I put my thoughts together in the OP to see what LDS members here would say. The subject is interesting to me. And I also thought there is a tension between the traditional LDS view of contention and some of the goings-on in the LDS apologetics community (a minority—to be sure). I made mention of Dr. Peterson in my OP, and thought perhaps someone might articulate a similar conclusion along the way (although I didn’t directly raise the question). Anyhow, I do appreciate your responses, although I must disagree with one point you made previously. An English dictionary is actually an excellent resource to have in hand when reading the Bible in English. Your example of the evolution of the word “gay” really proves the point. Any decent dictionary will note both past and present usages, allowing the reader to understand both the meaning of the word in 19th century literature and also understand how the word could be misunderstood today. Incidentally, the Greek word rendered “contend earnestly” [NASB] is “epagonizomai.” Regards, --Erik

Hey Just_A_Guy—So presumably you would answer that Jude 1:3 has no bearing on a predominately LDS internet forum. Fair enough. If you don’t mind—may I ask where you think the passage would apply? Within the 4 walls of an LDS Church building? Among baptized members of the LDS Church, regardless of venue? Other situations? Please share your thoughts and reasoning. Regards, --Erik

Hey Faded— A pleasure to hear from you. But yours is not a fair statement, for a couple of reasons. Hopefully this will serve to clarify— First, I don’t agree with your premise that there are multiple Christian religions. I actually think there’s only one—a point I’ve endeavored to make previously. Those who worship Jesus as the Eternal God are Christians. There are many denominations and expressions, to be sure, but I submit there’s only one Christian Faith. Second, you are mistaken to suppose every Christian expression has its own “pet passages.” If there is an equivalent to “Seminary scripture mastery” where I am a member—the pastors have been wildly successful in keeping it secret from the membership (which seems like it would defeat the purpose). Our position would be that All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness—which happens to be what God Himself has revealed about the matter (2 Timothy 3:16). Does this make sense? --Erik

Interesting observation LM, so let's start with that. Why do you think most are ignorant of the passage in the New Testament and yet very well-versed in the Book of Mormon passage? --Erik

Contend, per Dictionary.com— 1. to struggle in opposition: to contend with the enemy for control of the port. 2. to strive in rivalry; compete; vie: to contend for first prize. 3. to strive in debate; dispute earnestly: to contend against falsehood. Questions: What do LDS make of the admonition in the Book of Jude for believers to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3 KJV)? The context is against false teachers and their false doctrines. How should LDS members apply that admonition here on the forum, especially when interacting with those who, from an LDS point of view, willingly and purposefully advocate false doctrines to LDS on this site? (E.g., that Jesus is the Eternal God, the second person of the Trinity.) In my experience, many LDS—even ones on internet forums—are hesitant to embrace and apply Jude’s words. In his July, 2008 admonition for LDS to share their “restored gospel” via the internet, Elder Russell M. Ballard wrote, “There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs.” Some (including Ballard himself) have contended that contention is inherently of the devil (which by definition puts them in an awkward spot). Obviously there are high-profile members who evidence no such qualms (e.g., Dr. Daniel C. Peterson at BYU & his followers). But it seems much more common to find LDS simply stating their own positions (or reciting those of their leaders) with little or no attempt to engage and debate important differences. Most appear heed Ballard, not Jude, if they’ve considered Jude at all. Certainly not advocating that anyone be contentious or disrespectful. But please share your thoughts regarding what it means to contend earnestly for your faith against false doctrines (if it does mean anything to you), and especially as it applies to internet forums. --Erik

Hey AnthonyB-- Yeah, I'm still kickin'. Between community, family and work, precious little time to enjoy perspectives on the forum. Regarding "baptismal regeneration"--I recently finished Lewis Drummond's biography, "Spurgeon - Prince of Preachers." This was a subject of controversy in Spurgeon's day. And I agree fully with his assertion--"Baptism without faith saves no one." Honestly not sure where LDS come down on the question. In my experience, no shortage of LDS 8-year-olds mouthing "testimonies" on their day of baptism (I was once one of them). From an LDS perspective, is it still a "saving ordinance" if the participant lacks "faith?" I think the answer for LDS would have to be "yes"--but I'm not certain. Always happy to take correction. Regards, --Erik

Hey Maxel— To sum up—LDS are to follow their prophet, even if he teaches a doctrine that contradicts their consciences, contradicts their reading of Scripture, and which will later be repudiated by successor prophets (e.g., Young’s “Adam-God” doctrine). You gave us an unequivocal answer to AnthonyB’s original question (post #22): “The person would be under no condemnation for following the prophet instead of his conscience.” And yes, you tacked on an additional requirement (variations of which you repeated several times)—that the member who finds himself/herself conflicted must make some reasonable amount of effort (via prayer and study) to try and reach an understanding. Once they’ve met this requirement, any conflicted LDS who choose to follow their prophet will stand “absolved” (as AnthonyB expressed it) from following the dictates of conscience, Scripture, or anything else. I appreciate your directness. But you take it further than I would be willing to go. You tell us—“it’s nigh impossible for the average member to concretely know whether the prophet is right or wrong concerning doctrinal matters…” Forgive me for saying it Maxel, but you seem to have a low view of the “average member” (or at least the average member’s capacity for discernment). Your experience may be quite different than mine—but I can’t agree with you on this one. And then you say it was the responsibility of the 19th century LDS Sunday School teacher to teach the Adam-God doctrine—even if the teacher knew in his heart the doctrine was a falsehood! You wrote: “Ultimately, though, the duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson.” Your reader will conclude you place a higher value on obedience than you do on truth, Maxel. Is that really your position? In the LDS “hierarchy of truth”—is the value of truth itself subordinate to the value of obedience? Have to admit I wouldn't have thought of this on my own, but reading your posts it sure seems to be the case. Always a pleasure to read your posts, Maxel. Plenty of food for thought. Between my reprimand and a lot of general busy-ness, I needed to take July off from the board. But I’ll try to be a bit more regular going forward, God willing. Regards, --Erik

Hey Maxel-- No need for any special definitions of moral responsibility. Wikipedia has an entry, if you'd like a refresher. We get what you're saying that LDS have a responsibility to pray, study, etc. if they find their consciences at variance with prophetic guidance. But no one is asking you what the protocol is for LDS if they encounter such a variance (or whether they will be held responsible for following the protocol). The question is how their choice (to follow the prophet or to follow conscience) will be judged by their God when the two are in conflict. And once again you appear to affirm that LDS responsibility before God is to follow their prophet above all else (your point #1). Their God expects them to pray and study (just as you say)--but ultimately he will hold them responsible for obeying their prophet, even when their prophet is wrong and they know it. My previous examples would be very good for illustrating the point-- If you're the 19th century Gospel Doctrine teacher (or Bishop, or Stake President) and the lesson manual contains Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine—you do your duty and teach it (even if in your heart you know it's a lie). If you're living in Utah in the early 1930's and the repeal of Prohibition is up for a vote and your conscience tells you the original amendment should be repealed—you vote against repealing it, because your prophet, Heber J. Grant “implored” the saints to do so (and according to Gordon B. Hinckley--it "broke his heart" when many church members disregarded his counsel and voted their conscience). God will judge LDS based on whether they follow their prophet, not whether they follow their consciences (or any spiritual witness) when the two are in conflict. That's the point AnthonyB was making (unless I've completely misunderstood him--which wouldn't be the first time). ;0) And you give every indication of agreeing with him, yet you insist you don't. How are we to understand you? --Erik

Hey Hemidakota--You must have missed the part where I mentioned I was part of the "Single Adult" program. Or did you mean hang a second millstone around my neck? Dravin—Interesting responses. You seem to suggest it's possible to get credit for obedience when there's absolutely no intent to be obedient. (And to be completely clear—as a Trinity-believing Christian, I have no intent whatsoever to be obedient to a Jesus who is a "spirit brother, "organized intelligence," "a God," etc. I deny the very existence of the entity that LDS seek to follow and obey.) Leaving my personal views aside—do you not think God (as LDS understand him) discerns and judges the intent of the heart? Doesn't the intent of the heart count for much more than any outward acts or appearance? And/or are you denying the very meaning of D&C 130:21 (at least as I was taught) that all blessings are predicated on acts of obedience? Please clarify when you have a moment. Again, I appreciate the comments. --Erik

I’m curious how LDS here understand D&C 130:21— “And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” First off, does it really mean what it says: Any blessing? And if so, can God change his mind and grant blessings regardless of obedience to LDS law—even when someone disobeys to the point of apostasy? I think of my own circumstances prior to my departure from the LDS Church. I was one of those misfits in the “Single Adult” program (some of you may shudder instinctively when you see those words—I understand, completely). I was active and tithe-paying, but no real knowledge of God, no prospects, deeply conflicted over doctrinal matters, and permanently stuck in my rut (and I’d still be there if God hadn’t willed otherwise). And in the 3 years following my official resignation, God blessed me with a wife and then a child and along the way made us part of an amazing Christian community here in Seattle. If D&C 130:21 was true at face value—it doesn’t seem like I could have been blessed at all, let alone in such great abundance. Yet that’s exactly what happened. To me, it’s evidence of a God of Grace—not one of quid-pro-quo. But the verse very strongly implies the latter. What do LDS say? Could D&C 130:21 be wrong or not applicable to every blessing in every situation? --Erik

I assume you meant tantamount when you wrote paramount, Maxel. None-the-less, you're in an awkward spot. On the one hand you've made clear AnthonyB's observation is inaccurate (post #29). And on the other, you say that a faithful LDS’s responsibility is to obey the prophet regardless of individual conscience or spiritual witness ("still living the commandments"—as you expressed it—which certainly includes obeying the prophet). And if obedience to the prophet is paramount in the eyes of God for LDS—then AnthonyB has it exactly right: God absolves LDS of any personal or moral responsibility as long as they follow their prophet’s teaching. The LDS God holds them responsible for following their prophet, not their consciences when the two are in conflict. Let’s throw a couple of examples out there to make it a little more practical: If you're the 19th century Gospel Doctrine teacher and the lesson manual contains Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine—you teach it (even if in your heart you know it's a lie). If you're living in Utah in the early 1930's and the repeal of Prohibition is up for a vote and your conscience tells you the original amendment should be repealed—you vote against repealing it anyhow, because your prophet, Heber J. Grant “implored” the saints to do so (and according to Gordon B. Hinckley--it "broke his heart" when many church members disregarded his counsel). Based on what you wrote, Maxel, AnthonyB appears to be spot-on. And in your dissent you are making a distinction without a difference. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. --Erik

Hey Maxel— Appreciate the clarification. I was unacquainted with the expression “correct hierarchy of truth” and thought perhaps you were its originator (though I was nowise sure of it). That long out-of-print book must have made quite an impression on you in your youth! But before you continue endorsing it, you might take a closer look at what the late Neil A. Maxwell was actually saying: “‘What is truth?’—has been answered only once…” This isn’t right. The reader of John’s Gospel knows the answer in advance of Pilate’s asking the question (18:38). Not just answered—answered definitively. The answer is Jesus (14:6). He is the Truth, the full revelation of God. Yet Pilate, with the Truth directly before him, can’t see (as his question makes plain). But John’s reader isn’t surprised, because all this too has been explained in advance— 6:37-39 All that the Father gives me will come to me… I shall lose none of all that he has given me 8:43-44 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil... 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep 12:40 He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them As a side note— Nietzsche, in his book, The Antichrist, claimed Pilate’s question was the high-point (and the undoing) of the whole New Testament. He too imagined it had gone unanswered, a hole left waiting to be filled. I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone, but it’s certainly a powerful illustration of how someone can read God’s Word and see nothing at all. (“Godless”—if you’re reading this and contemplating a trip to the bookstore, you’ll want to get H.L. Mencken’s translation to maximize the Nietzsche experience, at least in English. My only ask is that afterwards you open up a thread and give us a report.) ;0) Back to the thread—AnthonyB makes an interesting observation in his reply to you (post 22), his “impression.” Do you think his observation is accurate? --Erik

Interesting, somewhat analogous to the Roman Catholic notion of Sacred Tradition or Apostolic Succession it sounds. Never heard that particular phrase, which is why I asked.But it seems Maxel meant something altogether different by those words. And if he coined the phrase, then I suppose it's up to him to define it any way he pleases. (Although I think your attempt at a definition made more sense in light of the original context.) I would question his idea that truths can be stack-ranked or made hierarchical. Jesus is the Truth, the full revelation of God. But after that, it seems like it might turn into an exercise of which truth was truthier (or truthiest). A good topic for another thread, no doubt. Thanks rameumptom, --Erik

Hey Maxel--Help me out here. Is "correct hierarchy of truth" intended as a euphemism for LDS Church? --Erik PS. Has anyone else thought it ironic? LDS seek to deny their schismatic brethren (e.g., the FLDS) the title "Mormon" while at the same time taking deep offense whenever anyone suggests they aren't "Christian." Pot, meet kettle...

Maybe you should slow down, Maxel, and consider 3 Nephi 14:1 ("Judge not, that ye be not judged"). Obviously I don't agree with Dehlin's approach, but I will say he doesn't deserve your reflexive ad-hominine (which you seem to apply indiscriminately to anyone who makes a criticism of your church--and all the more when you don't appear to have an answer to the substance of the criticism). And on a related note--how is it we are supposed to rely on your "translations" of his paragraphs when you yourself said you "barely skimmed" his article? No doubt your words play well to a certain group on the board. But for the rest of them, your approach is almost certainly counter-productive. When I see someone attacked in so indecent a manner as you've attacked Dehlin--it leads me to think he must have had something important to say. Give it some thought, when time permits. --Erik

So marshac actually did have a valid point that LDS missionaries may be doing more harm than good given the low rate of convert retention. I thought there might be a flaw in his premise—but apparently not. The math would go something like this (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here): Supposing LDS missionaries baptize 5 "good" people who are all headed for the Terrestrial Kingdom. Two of them stick with it and upgrade to the Celestial, but the other three leave and get downgraded to the Telestial. That leaves us with a net effect of minus one. Obviously it works out well for the two who stayed with it—but it's clearly a bad outcome for humanity in the aggregate. Given LDS's great concern for humanity in general—wouldn't it be prudent to stop missionary efforts immediately until the problem with convert attrition gets sorted out? --Erik

I know I've ripped this from the surrounding context--but I'm just wondering if LDS really think it's true. Anyone care to defend this statement, provide a verse or cite a GA to back it up?--Erik

Hey Hemidakota—I still think your avatar should be a Dodge Dakota pickup truck w/ the Hemi engine logo. I can only assume you own one (or aspire to--in which case you better hurry, ChryCo's going down). So do you? Have to say the LDS responses (what few we've seen) have been surprising. The initial response (on the other thread) was that the definition was overly inclusive. This was followed by a-train’s assertion that it wasn’t inclusive enough (the Church of the Firstborn includes everyone). And then we have your somewhat cryptic reply. Hoping you can unpack yours a little for us. When you say organized—do you mean as Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 12? In it he writes, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body… God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.” Is this what you mean by organization—or do you mean something else? --Erik PS. There seems to be more non-LDS posters engaged on this thread than LDS. Where have all the LDS posters gone?