Traditional Christian Professor Says Mormons Obsessed with Jesus Christ

[prisonchaplain]

While this article is not "pro-LDS," the author repents of past condescension, and, from a traditional perspective, offers a benign analysis:

Article | First Things

[Jennarator]

Interesting article.

I thought it was interesting he thought the BoM was "lack luster." But we are entitled to our opinions.

I did like the comparison to the dead grandfather and other mounrers that had different, yet still respectful stories about the grandfather.

[Gwen]

Very interesting.

[pam]

I liked the comments about Mormons being more Christian than many Christians out there.

[SanctitasDeo]

Too bad he got the virgin birth part wrong. Otherwise, interesting article. He has some points, and it is a much different perspective than I am used to hearing.

The eternal embodiment of the divine is metaphysically audacious, and it explains why Mormonism is so inventive. Mormon metaphysics is Christian metaphysics minus Origen and Augustine—in other words, Christianity divorced from Plato. Mormons are so materialistic that they insist that the same unchanging laws govern both the natural and the supernatural. They also deny the virgin birth, since their materialism leads them to speculate that Jesus is literally begotten by the immortal Father rather than conceived by the Holy Spirit.

[prisonchaplain]

The virgin birth description stings because that caricature is taught by Antis. However, he seemed to accept it because he wanted to stress the LDS belief that the Father and Son have had bodies even before the incarnation of Christ.

[Maureen]

Too bad he got the virgin birth part wrong. Otherwise, interesting article. He has some points, and it is a much different perspective than I am used to hearing.

I was kinda curious as to how some LDS viewed that comment...about the virgin birth.

M.

[Windseeker]

I was kinda curious as to how some LDS viewed that comment...about the virgin birth.

M.

I don't really understand Prisonchaplains explaination of that comment. I'm pretty sure that we LDS believe that our Savior was born to a virgin Mary. Yes, we believe that God the Father has a body of flesh but I don't think it's doctrine that mortal means of procreation were what resulted in the conception. If it was then it wouldn't be a virgin birth would it?

[Windseeker]

The virgin birth description stings because that caricature is taught by Antis. However, he seemed to accept it because he wanted to stress the LDS belief that the Father and Son have had bodies even before the incarnation of Christ.

I also don't think LDS believe that Christ had a physical body prior to receiving one on this earth. Same way we all receive one.

[jerome1232]

Regarding God and Mary, I think that portion is accurate since he didn't say that's what we believe, merely what some speculate, and quite frankly some apostles have expressed that belief in the past.

[pendragon]

PrisonChaplain: Excuse the intrusion on this thread. It is clear from the closure of a particular thread that discussion which intrudes into people's comfort zones is somehow not acceptable. I will abide by your decision and exit the board. It was fun while it lasted. I am not sure exactly just what your motivation is to participate on a discussion board that really is only about Mormons confirming their beliefs but I think there is real danger that you might allow yourself to become a tool in the ongoing Mormon effort to acceptance and respectability within Christendom. It is not my intent to be offensive to you but I have lived around Mormons long enough, and have studied Mormon theology long enough, to see the pattern. I have known many Mormons, I have very good Mormon friends, but I do not allow nor give a valid place at the Christian table to their "other gospel" and I refuse to not speak out...conscience and commitment within the Holy Spirit will not allow it. In his peace.

[Windseeker]

good riddence...

kind of ironic in light of the topic

[Vort]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. (Or do. I don't really care.)

[Windseeker]

I'm sure his "unchurched" mormon friends appreciate his effort to ensure they are unacceptable and disrespected.

[jerome1232]

I don't really think that's necessary.

[Windseeker]

Wel the author said they, not some, and hes talking about our beliefs.

[Vort]

While this article is not "pro-LDS," the author repents of past condescension, and, from a traditional perspective, offers a benign analysis:

Article | First Things

I appreciate the token effort this author makes and his willingness to admit his own fault. However, at some point, tokenism must stop. The author must make a real effort to understand LDS doctrine and represent it correctly. Seriously, how long would it have taken him to find that Latter-day Saints do indeed believe in a virgin birth? The man claims to have read the Book of Mormon, yet somehow missed Alma 7:10:

...he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin...

I can appreciate his good intentions and effort but still insist that he actually do his homework before publishing such an article.

[prisonchaplain]

I also don't think LDS believe that Christ had a physical body prior to receiving one on this earth. Same way we all receive one.

You would know better than I...my main point is that the author seems to have gotten that matter wrong. However, I think his point was to underline the very literal and material understanding LDS have about the nature of God.

On the other hand, some Anti-LDS ministries have said that LDS teach that God impregnated Mary "in the way of men." They use it to create scandal and shock--but the author of this article had no such intention, as far as I can tell.

[jerome1232]

Wel the author said they, not some, and hes talking about our beliefs.

ah, didn't see that actually, Your right.

[prisonchaplain]

I appreciate the token effort this author makes and his willingness to admit his own fault. However, at some point, tokenism must stop. The author must make a real effort to understand LDS doctrine and represent it correctly. Seriously, how long would it have taken him to find that Latter-day Saints do indeed believe in a virgin birth? The man claims to have read the Book of Mormon, yet somehow missed Alma 7:10:

...he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin...

I can appreciate his good intentions and effort but still insist that he actually do his homework before publishing such an article.

While you are not wrong, I think he deserves a bit more slack. This was a noticeable gaffe, in an otherwise overall pleasant article. Further, I do not believe he was attempting an academic presentation. So, taken as a school report, most teachers would drop him a grade, and give him a B.

Besides, when was the last time you read a traditional Christian accuse LDS of being obsessed about Christ? The headline alone is worth quite a bit.

[Windseeker]

Overall a great article and glad you shared it PC

[Vort]

While you are not wrong, I think he deserves a bit more slack. This was a noticeable gaffe, in an otherwise overall pleasant article. Further, I do not believe he was attempting an academic presentation. So, taken as a school report, most teachers would drop him a grade, and give him a B.

Besides, when was the last time you read a traditional Christian accuse LDS of being obsessed about Christ? The headline alone is worth quite a bit.

Can't argue with you there.

[Connie]

Most interesting. Thanks for sharing PC.

His opinion of The Book of Mormon was quite interesting to me. "..it is dull precisely because it is all about Jesus. There are many characters in this book, but they change as little as the plot. Nobody stands out but him." A little odd that a Christian would find something all about Jesus to be dull, but it's certainly a unique opinion for someone not LDS.

I rather liked how he described Mormonism as "Christianity divorced from Plato."

[SanctitasDeo]

I liked the bit about "Christianity divorced from Plato" as well.

You would know better than I...my main point is that the author seems to have gotten that matter wrong. However, I think his point was to underline the very literal and material understanding LDS have about the nature of God.

On the other hand, some Anti-LDS ministries have said that LDS teach that God impregnated Mary "in the way of men." They use it to create scandal and shock--but the author of this article had no such intention, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, it is pretty clear from Ether 3 (Book of Mormon) and elsewhere (Doctrine and Covenants) that Christ does not have a body before he is born. In that sense, he is the same as us--he had to be born to receive a body, too.

I can understand the desire to underline LDS materialism. That makes sense. The virgin birth issue may have jumped out at me because another Anti-LDS ministry tactic is to refer back to certain things without entirely explaining, since their audience will understand what the reference means without needing it spelled out. However, this is probably more my sensitivity than his ill intent (of which I detect none).

It was a pleasant article. This election year has been good for that. Thanks for posting it.

[norah63]

may we see more like this article in the days ahead.