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

[prisonchaplain]

Folk, we're in that mushy middle.  Frankly, if I were an LDS scholar, I'd probably be like Traveler, and want to highlight why belief in Exaltation is a magnificent distinctive of the Restoration, rather than trying to "evangelicalizing" the most palatable doctrines, to achieve some kind of tepid agreement.  As an outsider, I can actually appreciate both sides, because, as Ram points out, we are all doing this same thing with the secular world.  We're not so bad, not so different, we all love love right?  Sometimes I just want to yell, "Repent, sinners, before a holy God!"  :-)

[MrShorty]

And here is Brother Millet's response to all of this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/06/robert-bob-millett-gets-the-final-word-for-now/

[Windseeker]

And here is Brother Millet's response to all of this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/06/robert-bob-millett-gets-the-final-word-for-now/

 

QFT

 

“There simply has to be more conversation between Latter-day Saint Christians and Nicene Christians.”

 

He's doing it right 

[prisonchaplain]

What I appreciate about Prof. Millet is that he has an obvious knowledge and intellect, yet writes in a manner that is down to earth, and approachable.  Often people dismiss academics because they seem to dismiss those that are not.  Researchers may get away with that, but teachers cannot.  They embrace their audience, regardless of background knowledge and training. 

[The Folk Prophet]

More speaking what's on my mind:

 

What I appreciate about Prof. Millet is that he has an obvious knowledge and intellect, yet writes in a manner that is down to earth, and approachable.

 

My problem with Millet is not his style. I don't even think it's entirely accurate to call it a "problem". But for lack of a better word, I think that he and other "intellectual" Mormons are making an effort to redefine things that they ought not. They are making excuses for things that need no excuses made. And they are wielding the responsibility they have (in being respectable in academic circles) in moderately irresponsible ways.

 

But, let me be clear. The only reason I have a "problem" with this sort of thing is because it is LDS scholardom. In the LDS world we believe that we are led DIRECTLY by God via inspiration, and therefore the only ones who have the right and authority to define our stand on any given issue is those who are in authority to receive said revelation. For anyone to define things beyond this, particularly in a role where they garner respect, and particularly in a role where they wield that respect to the world at large, is problematic, imo.

 

Often people dismiss academics because they seem to dismiss those that are not.

 

There may be truth to this. But as described above, my dismissal of Millet (which, once more, is probably putting it too extremely. I don't "dismiss" him entirely.) is related to the organization, authority, responsibility, etc., of the church at large.

 

Researchers may get away with that, but teachers cannot.  They embrace their audience, regardless of background knowledge and training. 

 

I have found this to be, by and large, untrue. Teachers are the worst offenders, in many cases, of dismissing those who they consider inferior.

 

Lest you misunderstand me concerning Millet, I'm not really down on the guy. I'd never heard of him prior to this Olsen article, and my main view of what he is and is not comes from Olsen's description and understanding of him, which may be entirely unfair.

 

I'll give you a brief example of my "problem"...

 

Question to Mormon scholar: Do you believe in the Lorenzo Snow couplet, "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be"?

 

The correct and obvious answer to this should be simply: Yes.

 

Apparently though, however Millet answered it did not communicate this to Olsen. Rather, it came across, intentionally or not, as if there's a potential shift in Mormondom that will make it more palatable to Christiandom at large. But there is no shift. We believe, the same as always, that the couplet is truth. Of course this gets messy. Because who is "we"? Is there, as I've implied, a faction that is, indeed, working to downplay doctrines that are offensive to Christiandom? Are there many, perhaps a growing number, who reject the truth of the first part of the couplet? Maybe. But that only means there are those who don't believe what is plainly taught by the LDS church, from repeated traditional and contemporary sources.

 

I have the same complaint about apologist Jeff Lindsey's response on the matter http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#man

 

Bending over backwards to apologize for what is clear and plain. As if other Christian's views on LDS teachings have any bearing on the matter.

 

And beyond this, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how someone who is supposedly "intellectual" and, moreover, "educated" on LDS teachings can possibly believe these sorts of "softened" theories. It's not like the plain teaching is obscure. To dismiss it one must engage in various mental and semantic gymnastics.

[Traveler]

Folk, we're in that mushy middle.  Frankly, if I were an LDS scholar, I'd probably be like Traveler, and want to highlight why belief in Exaltation is a magnificent distinctive of the Restoration, rather than trying to "evangelicalizing" the most palatable doctrines, to achieve some kind of tepid agreement.  As an outsider, I can actually appreciate both sides, because, as Ram points out, we are all doing this same thing with the secular world.  We're not so bad, not so different, we all love love right?  Sometimes I just want to yell, "Repent, sinners, before a holy God!"  :-)

 

I see the problem as multidimensional.  I would purport that any intelligent person that considers a look at Christianity or any religion in general will very quickly discover that whenever "doctrine" is made an issue there are always divisions that cannot be reconciled.  What is even more interesting (at least to me) is that often the doctrinal differences are more vague than specific.  What I am saying is that the more specific we make doctrine the more we are divided; yet our references to justify specifics are seldom so structured and much more vague.

 

The other dimension is love (though some consider love doctrine it is actually a work that transcends theory-critical definitions)  -  love as a concept is very vague and impossible to pin down in strict rhetorical terms.  This is because the specifics of love can behave differently in situations that are seemingly identical. 

 

Thus I see the problem as a difference in many thing but specifically between inclusion and exclusion.  When we make exceptions for those we want to include and deny the exact same exceptions for those we do not want we are exercising acts of exclusion and to anyone taking a truly unbiased look realize that in so doing we are a contradiction to our basic values and core religion that G-d is no such respecter of persons.