mordorbund

I must admit that I'm always a bit suspicious when I hear someone try to map their beliefs to my beliefs. Firstly (which this very dialog is trying to address), I'm suspicious that the other party is only trying to say what I want to hear. And secondly, I'm not sure that the other party understands what I believe well enough to make that mapping. I would have preferred Robinson had stated LDS view and let Blomberg poke around the answer a bit. It would give Blomberg an opportunity to share why the response sounds odd to Evangelical ears (sharing his beliefs while doing so) and Robinson could then respond in a cooperative way, clarifying his position and asking questions to clarify Blombergs. The mapping they make would be one they both agreed on, and I could trust that more.

Can I ask, what do you mean by this statement? M. Yes, you may ask. What do you mean by this statement? M. Thank you for asking. It's been a number of years since I read the books (and @MrShorty can correct me if my memory is faulty), but my impression is that Robinson frames the discussion on grace in Protestant terms. This typically happens in these conversations because Protestants have been (historically) more concerned about recognizing grace and placing it front and center in their soteriology. So in debates and discussions the Protestant brings up either grace, faith, or works to broach the subject, and the Latter-day Saint speaks to how the many works we're associated with still fit with grace*. Robinson takes this a step further and preaches a very Protestant model. I can't remember if he uses the actual terms, but he talks in very much a "grace alone" "100% grace" manner. And if memory serves, he uses a works-as-an-outgrowth-of-grace model, which I wouldn't say is traditionally LDS. *I think if it weren't brought up in a grace/works framing, LDS would speak more of salvation in terms of a covenantal relationship with God.

As far as the content, I thought Robinson perhaps carried a bit too much of his pre-conversion Protestant notions of Grace with him still. But I must admit that I'm probably left over from the old guard in this respect. Well, maybe not. But I will say that this is the sort of discourse I'm hearing from the younger people. One thing that I especially appreciated was Blomberg stepping in after Robinson answered a question about a Brigham Young teaching and instructed the audience on the impropriety of using doctrines that haven't been taught for 150 years as "typical" Latter-day Saint beliefs. I hope our friends on this forum see something similar when the Trinity is brought up (an attempt at accurate descriptions of belief rather than heretical strawmen).

That's what stuck out most in the book for me. It modeled convicted civility. I'll admit I've had some less-than civil discussions on religion in the past and, although scoring points is fun and the intellectual exercise is stimulating, it frightens spectators. I've also attended a number of InterFaith dinners/activities and, I gotta tell you, the lack of conviction is frustrating. If we're getting together as Mormons, Muslims, and Methodists, I'm gonna need you to give a Mormon, Muslim, or Methodist answer to the questions. The discourse was so spineless that no one could stand for their beliefs*. In contrast, this book showed two believers, who believed differently, able to really explore each others' beliefs because each had a well-defined belief and the courtesy to let the other define it. *see what i did there

"Say what now?" - this guy:

Sure, there was a lot of chance involved, but many previous options the player had have been removed. They no longer have: bet on the wheel stock (I think they still have it but it's less prominent now) toll bridge (incentivizing the player to take shorter paths to be the first across) millionaire tycoon first millionaire bonus Some elements they had that are chutes and ladder (in the sense that you only get them based on a roll of the dice), but that allow you to employ strategy in execution: share the wealth cards revenge I'm not arguing that there wasn't a lot of chance involved, just that there was more strategy options than now.

https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Life(1977vers).PDF Each child gave you $24K in retirement. I like the older version. The newer one plays like Chutes and Ladders by comparison.

It's a part of the current midweek youth activities (provided the youth leaders find value in including them). You can find some of the activities of the current youth program here. Even then, I would suggest that parents have the primary responsibility of teaching these skills and these activities should reinforce it.

Well there's your problem. We put up signs on the road to warn drivers, but does anyone put up signs in the woods to warn the animals?

syh indeed. I see you're quite proficient at pummeling strawmen and scarecrows. Careful Mr Wayne, people will guess your alter ego.

I'm not entirely sure what I just read, but now this is blasting through my head.

Viewing the Book of Mormon (as a whole) as inspired non-history is problematic because of the tangible physical way it was revealed. As I've written elsewhere:

This was our opening hymn:

I find it commendable that, even though you are not yet a saint, you are looking to find the sources that provide the greatest value. Like other recent converts (and many young people looking to grow in the teachings of Jesus), you're looking for an ordered hierarchical list but will be hard pressed to find one. I'd encourage you to make it a matter of prayer to see where the Lord wants you to spend your time in study. You may be surprised to find that there's a way for you to give both the Book of Mormon and the teachings of living prophets ample time.

Because no one has properly identified the first heavenly being as Jesus and the second as His son.