Professor Daniel Peterson says LDS and Evangelicalism are more alike than we realize


Recommended Posts

He quotes from a recent evangelical scholar who listed six evangelical convictions.  Peterson more or less says we agree on five, and that the sixth (which he lists first) brings LDS more in line with Catholic teaching.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865630003/Six-evangelical-convictions-and-Latter-day-Saints.html

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an interesting article.

 

The first thing that stood out to me was #4 where he claims that both Mormons and Evangelicals believe that "personal repentance and personal commitment are indispensable." As much as Evangelicals "bash" on us with the "sola fide" arguments, I found it interesting that this one was declared a commonality. Perhaps it is just my own misunderstanding of exactly what "Sola fide" means, and how repentance and obedience fit into and/or are at odds with this central tenet of the Protestant Reformation, or maybe that I see a lot of discussion amongst Protestants and Evangelicals trying to "pin down" for themselves exactly how repentance fits in with this aspect of their theology. Part of me would like to see a deeper discussion of this "commonality" to understand better how it is a shared belief, and how it is different.

 

The second thing was how significant the Sola scriptura argument still are. As he noted, we are more like Catholics than Protestants in this regard, in that it is really difficult to find anything in Mormonism that even resembles "scripture alone".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MrShorty, I agree that Prof. Peterson is a little too quick with the repentance and obedience discussion.  He's trying to show commonness, so I sorta get it.  However, your intuition that this is not a settled area is correct.  We do question the seeming propensity of LDS to tie repentance and obedience together.  On the other hand, we Evangelicals miss that for LDS "salvation" is more about attaining entry into the highest heavenly realm than it is about simply escaping judgment.  So, we end up talking about apples and oranges, in our doctrinal dispute.  Peterson brushes the difficulties aside, and says we both know that we need to repent and obey.  True.  "Yeah, but..."  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is just me and my prejudice but it appears to me the the basis of the whole article is to say that in essence LDS basically believe everything Evangelicals do - but with more conviction, determination, purpose and extended understanding and reason. Somewhat like the answer Jesus gave to the rich young man that asked - What do I lack (difference) for salvation?  It reminds me of the LDS idea that converts bring with them and keep all the good things they have learned and it will be added to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, perhaps--but that would depend on the professor's original audience.  If he was being interviewed by a newspaper reporter, and he wanted to parallel Jesus, he might appeal to the commonness with Evangelicalism, and say to the secular inquisitor, "We're very similar to your Evangelical neighbors, but with some added understandings."  If he was speaking to an Evangelical, he might say, "We're not so different as most of you think--see here, we track right along with one of your major thinkers."  If he was speaking to an LDS source, he might say what you said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is good to find "commonalities". My own experience and understanding of Protestant and Evangelicalism has been enhanced as I have found "commonalities". For example, My early impression of "faith alone" was something along the lines of "pray your sinner's pray, then you can resume your hedonistic lifestyle." As I have become more familiar with what actually gets taught over the pulpit, I see that it is much more nuanced than that, and that relatively few really teach this version. Finding this "commonality", even if it is much more complex than a couple of paragraphs can really cover, helps me understand the debate more clearly.

 

In some ways, it is much like those old "compare and contrast" type essay questions from back in school. If you only describe the commonalities, you get half credit, if you only describe the differences, you get half credit. The purpose of the question to explain and try to understand both the commonalities and the differences.

 

Interestingly, another interesting thing I see is those LDS who respond with some form of "Mormon Exceptionalism". "Mormonism is just different (better, more correct, etc.) than others and we should not be trying to understand these commonalities, because we'll end up losing what makes us special and become like them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought is I learned a lot. 

And you have helped my testimony.

Thanks for your post.

What comments do you have about the comments that I see below the article?  I don't know if those show on your link to your link.

One comment is that they want the LDS church to be different, otherwise there would be no reason for the church to exist.

The other is that Dr Peterson and the Church are trying to be more "mainstream". 

The second comment concerns me.  I don't like the idea that the chuch would sacrifice principle to be popular.

dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally find many commonalities. I also would say that many of the differences come from two things: First, and emphasis on different parts of the gospel, and Second, a LDS 20th century effort to separate ourselves from the rest of Christianity.  There was a focus on the differences, which included how grace was compartmentalized away  from obedience, etc., or the 3 degrees not always considered levels of glory/heaven, or Salvation usually meant exaltation.

 

I think we're getting away from our 20th century language cognitive dissonance.  Pres Uchtdorf explained grace in a way that would many any evangelical proud. Elder Holland explained Christ's atonement in a way that evangelicals would love (we are all forever falling into the abyss, and only Christ can reach out and grab us).  We now know that we cannot earn salvation nor exaltation; we can only prepare ourselves to receive levels of grace through repentance and faith, our obedience an outward sign of an inner change of heart.

 

Perhaps the two biggest differences are Creatio Ex Nihilo and the Homoousias of the Trinity.  Still, we believe God formed/created all things and the Godhead are united/One in all things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could simply be a subtlety, such as new revelation from church prophets suggesting that the past LDS emphasis on the apostasy, and on the undue influence of Greek philosophy on traditional Christian theology, was necessary to establish the Restoration.  However, now, as Christian faith in general is under increasing attack, the time has come to build bridges of cooperation with the larger Christian world.  In such a context, professors and scholars, like Peterson and Millet, could be charged with doing even more to explain LDS commonalities with Evangelicalism (and Catholicism, for that matter).

 

I'm not predicting or prophesying such an event.  However, if something like that happened, might we not be one or two generations away from LDS being perceived much like Adventists--having unique teachings, but being within the family?  God's done bigger things before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could simply be a subtlety, such as new revelation from church prophets suggesting that the past LDS emphasis on the apostasy, and on the undue influence of Greek philosophy on traditional Christian theology, was necessary to establish the Restoration.  However, now, as Christian faith in general is under increasing attack, the time has come to build bridges of cooperation with the larger Christian world.  In such a context, professors and scholars, like Peterson and Millet, could be charged with doing even more to explain LDS commonalities with Evangelicalism (and Catholicism, for that matter).

 

I'm not predicting or prophesying such an event.  However, if something like that happened, might we not be one or two generations away from LDS being perceived much like Adventists--having unique teachings, but being within the family?  God's done bigger things before.

 

I find your response most interesting.  In line, even with older not so long ago teachings, is that as the end time approaches the entire world will be divided into two basic camps.  The foundation of the two camps - we understand to be Christ and his restored church and those that for what ever reason align themselves with us - this is called Zion and her allies.  The other camp will be be called Babylon and those that align themselves with her.

 

Perhaps as LDS we need to be more welcoming (even forgiving and trusting) with our friends - this would not require any new revelation and only a little change in attitude.  Anyway that is my thought - as as for change in attitude - I am almost there already.  So regardless of who thinks they are first at it - may I welcome you to this great cause.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting take on the issue:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/06/what-i-learned-from-the-responses-to-my-post-about-mormonism/  He mentions Millet, and sees some of the same issues I do:

 

1.  Increasing trend towards explaining LDS doctrines in a way that sounds orthodox to traditional Christian ears.

2.  Sidelining (though not dismissing or disowning) of some teachings that are controversial to those same ears.

3.  Recognizing that many LDS teachings now fit within traditional orthodoxy.

4.  Recognizing that some still do not

5.  Finding easier to believe that many LDS fit into a traditional, even evangelical, understanding of "Christian"

6.  Realizing that the church institutional still officially declares doctrines that are not traditional or evangelical (thus not "orthodox" to our understanding)

 

Yes/no/maybe/maybe/no/yes...

 

Of course, if it was easy, many of us would not still be here.  :-) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting take on the issue:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/06/what-i-learned-from-the-responses-to-my-post-about-mormonism/  He mentions Millet, and sees some of the same issues I do:

 

1.  Increasing trend towards explaining LDS doctrines in a way that sounds orthodox to traditional Christian ears.

2.  Sidelining (though not dismissing or disowning) of some teachings that are controversial to those same ears.

3.  Recognizing that many LDS teachings now fit within traditional orthodoxy.

4.  Recognizing that some still do not

5.  Finding easier to believe that many LDS fit into a traditional, even evangelical, understanding of "Christian"

6.  Realizing that the church institutional still officially declares doctrines that are not traditional or evangelical (thus not "orthodox" to our understanding)

 

Yes/no/maybe/maybe/no/yes...

 

Of course, if it was easy, many of us would not still be here.  :-) 

 

I'd go with: Maybe/no/yes/yes/huh?/yes

 

But simple yes/no answers don't tell the complete story.

 

In short, there is a distinct effort being made to gather people into "the fold", so to speak, and sharing common beliefs is a part of that. The only sidelining or abandoning of core LDS doctrinal oddities that is occurring is by the wolves-in-sheeps-clothing who are more concerned with pride and how the world views them than they are about bringing people to our understanding of the truth.

 

This, of course, is a natural occurrence in a church that has physically grown and grown in a world that has meanwhile spiritually decayed and decayed. But it has no real bearing on the literal teachings and beliefs of "the church". It only, imo, reflects upon the fact that the church has more dissenters inside of it. Oh...and it also reflects, obviously, on the internet-world we now live in where every schmoe with a phone now has a world-wide voice.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I tend to see this more as us trying to use the language that Evangelicals are accustomed to as we try to explain our theology in words they will hopefully better understand. At the same time, I also think that we sometimes try to put the best possible "spin" on it so that it will be more palatable.

 

2) I think we do sometimes "sideline" controversial topics, mostly seeing them as a "line upon line" thing. When you understand and accept the "milk" of LDS theology, then you will be in a better position to understand the deeper "meat" of LDS thought.

 

3-6) Yes, I think that we are (or maybe just I am) getting better at discerning the things we share in common and the things that truly separate us. I sometimes think that this improves as we become less fearful of looking anything like the other side. I see some LDS who reject some of the truths that I see in Evangelicalism because, "we cannot afford to look anything like them." Sometimes I wonder if this also shows up on the other side of the divide -- "that sounds like something Mormons might believe so I have to reject it."

 

It is an interesting discussion as it goes. I do not know if we will ever be done with this discussion, until Christ Himself returns to the earth and teaches us all how He views the discussion. Until then, I hope that we continue to try to have a rational, respectful debate that acknowledges both the commonalities and the differences between our belief systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In short, there is a distinct effort being made to gather people into "the fold", so to speak, and sharing common beliefs is a part of that. The only sidelining or abandoning of core LDS doctrinal oddities that is occurring is by the wolves-in-sheeps-clothing who are more concerned with pride and how the world views them than they are about bringing people to our understanding of the truth.

 

 

 

The article was pretty clear in saying that "sidelining" meant more of a "downplaying," or even just placing less emphasis on.  I was pretty clear that nothing had been denied or actually forsaken.  Then again, you may be addressing "in-house" concerns that I am unaware of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article was pretty clear in saying that "sidelining" meant more of a "downplaying," or even just placing less emphasis on.  I was pretty clear that nothing had been denied or actually forsaken.  Then again, you may be addressing "in-house" concerns that I am unaware of. 

 

I read the article and my personal impression is that such Evangelical scholars are in essence cut from the same cloth as the Pharisees and Scribes of 2000 years ago.  When faced with the forces and wrath of the Roman empire they will make friends - even with Samaritans but given their choice without such threat and they would not consider any actual open discussion on doctrine with the "Unclean" or UnChristian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in that article the guy says "I suspect many Mormons are saved, but in individual cases it’s not my business to decide. But as a Christian theologian it is my business to decide, for myself and those whom I influence, which churches should be considered authentically Christian"

 

This statement is, for me, at the crux of this ridiculous contention.  Because this guy reads a lot he's entitled to take upon himself authority to declare who is Christian or not?  And I have to what...justify my beliefs to him and others like him or I'm not a real Christian? 

 

It's this simple, as far as I'm concerned.  If I declare myself a Christian, here's how it is proven.  "By this shall all men know if ye are my disciples.  If ye have love one to another." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in that article the guy says "I suspect many Mormons are saved, but in individual cases it’s not my business to decide. But as a Christian theologian it is my business to decide, for myself and those whom I influence, which churches should be considered authentically Christian"

 

This statement is, for me, at the crux of this ridiculous contention.  Because this guy reads a lot he's entitled to take upon himself authority to declare who is Christian or not?  And I have to what...justify my beliefs to him and others like him or I'm not a real Christian? 

 

It's this simple, as far as I'm concerned.  If I declare myself a Christian, here's how it is proven.  "By this shall all men know if ye are my disciples.  If ye have love one to another." 

 

You answered your own question.  He does not get to decide which individual soul is Christian or not.  Even he admits as much.  

 

"Teacher" is both a gift of the Spirit and a role of leadership in the church.  So, just as Robert Millet could speak with a good deal of authority about what is LDS orthodoxy and what is not, so an traditional Christian theologian could do so for historic doctrines.  After all, if a Restoration was necessary, does that not imply that, in the Church's teaching, traditional Christian theology was wrong?  If so, why take offense when a traditional Christian theologian says that LDS theology does not comport with traditional Christian teaching?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Millet could speak with a good deal of authority about what is LDS orthodoxy and what is not

 

He can? Who on earth is Robert Millet and who cares?

 

If so, why take offense when a traditional Christian theologian says that LDS theology does not comport with traditional Christian teaching?

 

If only that was the actual implication and meaning of, "Mormons aren't Christian."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk Prophet...you may need to read the article and the nuance of this string.  It's not a typical "Are Mormons Christians Christian?" topic.  Just the opposite.  Robert Millet, and Daniel Peterson, are LDS scholars.  They study doctrine as a profession.  So, though they may not speak for the church, they can speak intelligently about the church.  Further, because they are versed in evangelical academic thought, they can do so in my language.  As for the linked article, the only implication was that some LDS doctrines remain troubling for traditional Christians.  The author even said it was not his place or right to judge individual souls.  Is that not encouraging, since it was directed towards LDS by an evangelical professor?

 

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that this string, that started as a moderately encouraging discussion about a trend towards openness and understanding on both sides, has encountered some discomfort.  I suppose it is inevitable that when parties approach each other, hope and suspicion both increase. 

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When LDS was primarily a Utah or American Church, it dealt mostly with Christianity. And it did so in a period of time when most Americans were Christian and attended church.

 

Today, we are a global church, teaching millions in areas that do not know Christ.  And in those areas once known for being bastions of Christianity (Europe and USA), we find that people are quickly losing their religion, replacing it  with materialism and sex.  Both evangelicals and Mormons have an increasing need to band together against the evils in today's world. Someone who agrees with you in 80 percent of things is better than the person who agrees with you on only 10 percent.

 

And as the world gets more wicked, we'll see all true Christians banding more and more together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk Prophet...you may need to read the article and the nuance of this string.  It's not a typical "Are Mormons Christians Christian?" topic.  Just the opposite.  Robert Millet, and Daniel Peterson, are LDS scholars.  They study doctrine as a profession.  So, though they may not speak for the church, they can speak intelligently about the church.  Further, because they are versed in evangelical academic thought, they can do so in my language.  As for the linked article, the only implication was that some LDS doctrines remain troubling for traditional Christians.  The author even said it was not his place or right to judge individual souls.  Is that not encouraging, since it was directed towards LDS by an evangelical professor?

 

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that this string, that started as a moderately encouraging discussion about a trend towards openness and understanding on both sides, has encountered some discomfort.  I suppose it is inevitable that when parties approach each other, hope and suspicion both increase. 

 

I did read it PC. I'm not particularly pro scholar-as-religious-authority is all.

 

I think, maybe, you're reading some antagonism into my posts that I'm not intending though. There shouldn't be any discomfort.

 

There are two points of interest here.

 

1. There is a faction in the LDS world intent upon downplaying those things that separate us from mainstream Christianity. I do not think this faction represents the common LDS thinking, though it may be growing. I think it starts from a place of good intent but quickly gets out of hand and becomes a subtle tool of the devil. We can discuss this further if you'd like.

 

2. There are many "Christians" who, in the well-intentioned spirit of trying to get along, try and re-define what's being said when other Christians say that Mormons aren't Christian. They try and put it into terms of mere definition, and take all offense out of the idea. I understand this idea. I understand why they are doing this. I even appreciate it. But it has to be realistically understood that the primary motivation in a general claim that Mormons aren't Christian is more than this. It is, at it's core, more-so an implication of damnation, beware, shun-this, etc. This doesn't, per se, offend me. Clearly, were I to state that some group were not Christians (even obviously so -- as in Muslims or the like) there is implications of the same. But on the other hand, I'm not about to agree, even with these well intentioned Christians -- "You're right. We're not Christian!" ;)

 

As to the nuance of the string...meh. I say what I think (as I've said). If you want to discuss further, great. If not, disregard.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share