Is LDS theology becoming for 'traditional' 'orthodox'?

[prisonchaplain]

Richard Mouw, retired president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and long-time veteran of Evangelical-Mormon dialogues, believes the LDS may be approaching orthodoxy..  I admit to only have glanced over the article myself. However, the idea tracks with similar ideas expressed by a pastor in our area, after meeting with one of the 12 apostles.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy

Thoughts?

[Aish HaTorah]

This is very interesting on many levels to me as a complete outsider both to "mainstream" Christian thought as well as LDS thought.  To what extent do extra-biblical teachings hold precedence over the minds of followers?

I look forward to learning from you and others.

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

This is very interesting on many levels to me as a complete outsider both to "mainstream" Christian thought as well as LDS thought.  To what extent do extra-biblical teachings hold precedence over the minds of followers?

I look forward to learning from you and others.

Well each person is going to be different on were they end up here is the general outline of precedence for the LDS faith

The current living Prophet and Apostles  as a living Oracles of G-d.  Each member of the LDS faith is expect to gain their own spiritual witness that G-d has a active prophets alive today.

The scriptures. For LDS this is Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants And the Pearl of Great Price.

Other Good and True works as confirmed by the spirit of G-d into the heart of the individual

[Aish HaTorah]

38 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Other Good and True works as confirmed by the spirit of G-d into the heart of the individual

What are considered "other Good and True works?"

[estradling75]

17 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

What are considered "other Good and True works?"

If you are asking if there is an official list.  There isn't one (although people might have there own)

Which makes it highly subjective.

In a general sense anything that enlightens ones understanding and helps one draw closer and better serve G-d

[zil]

I didn't read the whole article (no time for a few days), but the end makes me think that the author is suggesting that the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is de-emphasizing the doctrine that God was once a mortal man, in favor of the doctrine that man can become like God.  I haven't observed any change in this regard.  Of course we don't (never have in my lifetime) spend a lot of time on the idea that God was once mortal, because, well, what else is there to say?  And of course we do spend a lot of time on the idea that we can become like God, because, well, that's the Plan of Salvation.

At the end of the article, the author writes, "My own sense is that many in the LDS community, including several of its leaders, recognize that the first half of the Snow couplet, the statement about God having been like man, is incompatible with what they genuinely want to sing about: spiritual reliance on the all-sufficient Savior."

...but I don't see that happening, nor is God's previous mortality incompatible in any way with spiritual reliance on the Savior.  FWIW.

[Jane_Doe]

I also thing that LDS folks (leaders and "regular guys") have also gotten a lot better at explaining ourselves to Evangelicals and other mainstream Christians.  This reduces communication errors, and allows similarities to be better seen.

[tesuji]

The article seems quite confused. It's wrong.

From the recently-published, official Gospel Topic essay on LDS.org:

Quote

The doctrine of humans’ eternal potential to become like their Heavenly Father is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ and inspires love, hope, and gratitude in the hearts of faithful Latter-day Saints.

Becoming Like God, https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by tesuji

[Just_A_Guy]

Three things leap out at me from my first skimming of the article.

First, Snow's couplet has always had two facets--first, God's history; and second, man's potential.  The point of the entire couplet, is to reinforce the latter facet; and that has always been Mormonism's focus--that man can, indeed, become like God.  As for the first part--we do believe that God was, at one time, a mortal.  Full stop.  We don't know, nor have we ever presumed to know, what His time as a mortal was like, or where it was spent, or how it ended.  Was the mortal Elohim a carpenter?  A butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker?  Was he married?  Did he have children?  Did he sin?  Did he perform an atoning role on His world, even as Jesus did on ours?  We don't know, and we have never professed to know these things.  Not now, not in the 1970s, not in the 1920s, and not even in the 1880s or the 1840s.  The closest you get are some statements, obviously drawn from John 5:19 and/or 12:49, hinting that Jesus did nothing that the Father Himself had not already done beforehand in some other sphere; and such musings have never been considered canonical.

Second, Mormonism's focus on the second facet is that couplet is, I think, alive and well; and Mouw strikes me as being a little too glib to dismiss the fact that Snow's couplet appears in the recent church instructional manual evaluating his (Snow's) teachings.  Those manuals are intended for modern audiences and are therefore carefully edited to align with modern Church teaching--you won't find anything in them about polygamy, for instance; or the Adam-God theory.  The couplet appears in the Lorenzo Snow manual because, fundamentally, we still believe it.  Moreover, our "Gospel Principles" manual, (which is used by the Sunday school class for recent converts) defines "exaltation" as "eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation."  The manual goes on to baldly state that those who attain exaltation will become gods.

Finally, Mouw presents a moving portrait of Latter-day Saints singing the hymn I Stand All Amazed, and treats it as some sort of revelation that Mormons do indeed see Jesus as a personal Savior.  Well, he's spot on--we do see Him that way.  But then again, I Stand All Amazed has been in Mormon hymnals since 1909.  And the equally powerful I Know That My Redeemer Lives dates all the way back to the very first Mormon hymnal, published in 1835.  For a hundred and eighty years we've sung those hymns, we've believed them, we've loved them, and we've done our best to live them.  Nothing has changed there.  The change, I submit, is rather that it's finally dawning on some folks that all this Mormon talk about Jesus is not merely a Kabuki theater intended to deceive outsiders--they're starting to realize that our expressions of devotion and affection and faith are, in fact, genuine.

(I do concede that as Mormonism has become less concerned with building new societies in the wilderness from scratch, or implementing revolutionary new church programs; its rhetoric--particularly in areas where it is well-established--tends to become a little less works-oriented; which I suppose might give us a little more street cred with the man-is-justified-by-faith-alone crowd.)

Edited April 15, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[theSQUIDSTER]

In President Snow's quote " As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be. " we are reminded of the importance of eternal progression.  

In my understanding, the point of contention for many/most Christians who consider themselves orthodox is that God cannot have ever been a man like us, He has ALWAYS been God.  God is unchanging.  He would never debase himself or remotely be like us. This is an absolute for them and, understandably, they see anything else as heresy.  Seems pretty clear-cut, right?  But things get kind of muddy when you continue along this train of thought... ok ... so then who was JESUS?  Was He God?  Was He always God?  Would it not also be blasphemy to then say that "Jesus (God) increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man"? (Luke 2:52) How could a God deign to do that when He is supposedly already at the pinnacle of everything?  ... The idea that God would come down and be with man, live like man, even appear to die like man...  What could be more disrespectful and blasphemous than that?  Interesting thing is, in the Book of Mormon we have a story of a man who preached such a doctrine many years BEFORE the birth of Christ.  His name was Abinadi.  He preached to the court of the wicked King Noah and his priests who taught (or claimed to teach) the Law of Moses.  Abinadi preached that God would indeed descend from above and come to live with man and almost be like man and save man from their sins, but not IN their sins.  They burned him to death, supposedly for that doctrine.  Or that was their official reason.

So, does it debase God to be "like" us at some point in time?  Does it diminish Him to be with us in the flesh?  To be subject to the flesh?  If this is a problem, maybe we need to become Muslims... or some other religion... because if we call ourselves "Christians," don't we believe that God would and DID indeed descend from His throne to be with us and to love us and die for us...?  And how would that diminsh Him?  Do we speak of his earthly life to diminish Him?  Or to revere and marvel at who He was and what He did and what He taught us?

Note, I haven't gotten into anything about the Trinitarian doctrine that some claim... whether Jesus and the Father were the same individual or not... but either way I think the same case can be made...?  If a life on earth didn't debase Jesus, then how could a life on this or some other earth debase the Father or make Him somehow less our God?  Didn't Jesus say He only ever came to do "what He seeth the Father do?" (John 5:19)

[prisonchaplain]

7 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I also thing that LDS folks (leaders and "regular guys") have also gotten a lot better at explaining ourselves to Evangelicals and other mainstream Christians.  This reduces communication errors, and allows similarities to be better seen.

Could it be that the efforts that so many members now make to communicate with traditional Christians has the effect, over years, of driving belief towards a more traditional understanding? It is not that doctrine changes dramatically, but rather that it gets interpreted in ways that are less in-conflict with other churches.

I also wonder if Mouw's observations are something of a double-edged sword. The more traditional LDS theology seems to be the less distinctive it is. The less distinctive, the less necessary. In other words, if LDS teaching becomes almost-traditional then what's the point of the Restoration.  On the other hand, it might be nice to answer most traditionalist questions with, "Well, we actually believe that too . . . "

[Jane_Doe]

18 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Could it be that the efforts that so many members now make to communicate with traditional Christians has the effect, over years, of driving belief towards a more traditional understanding? It is not that doctrine changes dramatically, but rather that it gets interpreted in ways that are less in-conflict with other churches.

I also wonder if Mouw's observations are something of a double-edged sword. The more traditional LDS theology seems to be the less distinctive it is. The less distinctive, the less necessary. In other words, if LDS teaching becomes almost-traditional then what's the point of the Restoration.  On the other hand, it might be nice to answer most traditionalist questions with, "Well, we actually believe that too . . . "

I would say that the influx of converts makes communicating with non-LDS easier: converts are speak both "languages" to say.  But I would not say that the influx of converts has changed doctrine.  

LDS have gotten more focused on the essentials-- they are so needed and the world gets further away from Christ by the day.  Focusing on the essentials does mean that the fringe stuff get lest spotlight.  Not that these beliefs are being abandoned, but definitely less focus.

[Anddenex]

Richard J. Mouw appears to be trying to illustrate that LDS doctrine is seeking to conform to historic/modern orthodox teachings relating to God's nature in comparison to the sons and daughters of God. He provides different thoughts from President Hinckley as evidence of this fact; however, President Hinckley said it best when he said, "Bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it." This invitation is given to everyone.

Scriptural Truth: Confirming Lorenzo Snow's Couplet
1) Jesus is a spiritual offspring of the Father
2) Jesus is God 
3) Jesus was once a man (albeit no ordinary man)
4) Jesus is an exalted man (like his Father)

A Father is not lessened when a Son becomes a Father also. The honorably acts of offspring magnify Fathers. The Savior's, Jesus's, atoning act was the greatest act of love for us and the Father, which glorified (magnified) the Father even more. I, as a father, am not debased when my sons/daughters become like me -- I am also magnified.

Modern Scriptural Truth: Confirming Couplet

1) Joseph Smith was visited by two glorified personages, the Father and the Son
2) Joseph learned, and taught, literally we are made in the image of God, the Son being the express image of the Father, and we in the image of both
3) Confirmation of previously expressed truths (Jesus was once a man, and we can become like Christ)

Scriptural Confirmation (Canonical Doctrine) Regarding the Father and President Hinckley:

1) We do not know the life the Father, there isn't much said, "That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about" -- true, nothing conforming to orthodox  Christian teaching.
2) Nothing concealed, canonical scriptures do not teach anything regarding the life of the Father -- unknown. No reason to discuss on live TV, nor openly public, the origin of the Father when it has not been revealed to the Church collectively.
3) The origin of the Father, if at all, will be revealed through proper proclamation methods to the body of the Church, not through media outlets.
4) The prophets are not unsure, they know God's method of revelation and nothing has been revealed. They may know personally and recognize when to share and when not to share. They accept the First Vision. 

Conclusion, Mormonism is not becoming orthodoxy.

[Guest]

I think it's accurate to say that there is a lot that we don't know.  A recent thread that @prisonchaplain started that morphed into the nature of omnipotence opened my eyes to a doctrine that I thought was pretty well established.  But I began realizing that there is still a lot we don't know about it.  How can we?

I believe we call it "Eternal Progression" rather than "becoming a god" for a reason.  I'm not sure "god" is the right term in common lingo.  We do know that inheriting the Celestial Kingdom "with all the bells and whistles" will mean that we will continue throughout eternity learning and growing and increasing in glory.  How are we to actually boil that down and explain that in mortal terms?  I don't think we can.  So, I don't know how much we can actually talk about it and be confident that we're in the realm of fact.

In the spirit of following suit with the article linked in the OP, I'll share this conversation with an atheist friend (Elie) many years ago.  He was raised as a Catholic in Lebanon.  He later gave up his faith and declared himself an atheist.

El: Here's something I just don't understand about a belief in God.  If there really is such a grand, omnipotent being that is so far above us that we can only compare ourselves to an amoeba or even worse, then why in any universe would such a being even have any notice or care of such insignificant beings such as man?  It seems like he'd consider us a virus and want to wipe us out.

Knowing he was familiar with Psalms 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6, we discussed that for a while.  He went on.

El: If we're a "little lower than angels" that makes angels not that grand.  So, my question remains the same.

Carb: Or it makes us more grand.  What if the difference between us and God is not as great as you are saying?  It isn't that God is to us as we are to the amoeba.  It is that a single fertilized cell may appear significantly different from a man, and very similar to an amoeba.  But the potential for an amoeba to grow is limited.  The fertilized egg has the potential to grow into a man.

El: That has nothing to do with man and God.  We're nothing like God.

Carb: We believe we are His children.  I just told you that I'm about to become a father. (This was at the time that we just found out about Ffenix, my son who reads this forum).  As far as I know now, he's just a mass of cells, in no way similar to a grown man in physical shape.  Yet I love him now, today.  That is why God gives a darn about us.  He loves us because we are His children.  We may not be in any way similar to Him today.  But we have potential that cannot be measured.

El: If we're his children, then that means we can become gods ourselves one day.

Carb: Yes, it does. <Romans 8:17>.  What do you think "joint heirs with Christ" means.  What does your Catholic upbringing tell you?

El: I guess that makes sense.

If this atheist with no dog in the fight could make this logical conclusion from basic facts, then there must be some other reason that evangelicals never made that leap.

The wide divide here is not simply the conclusion (our potential), but the basis for it.  As Mormons, we believe we are the literal offspring of God.  Evangelicals see it as figurative.  If figurative, there is no way for us to become like God (and I'd repeat Elie's question).  If literal, there is no way to believe otherwise.  Even so, I don't know if we can truly understand what that means without it being revealed through the Holy Ghost.

As far as whether we are becoming more orthodox (as PC puts it) no.  I don't see anything that has changed.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Guest

[theSQUIDSTER]

On 4/16/2016 at 9:42 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Could it be that the efforts that so many members now make to communicate with traditional Christians has the effect, over years, of driving belief towards a more traditional understanding? It is not that doctrine changes dramatically, but rather that it gets interpreted in ways that are less in-conflict with other churches.

I like this.  PC, I always love to read your posts.  I don't know that the individual doctrines of our denominations are necessarily changing/evolving so much as WE are changing one toward another.  I think the Lord is softening each of our hearts and helping us to see one another more as brothers and sisters in Him.  Our doctrines and certainly our individual understandings vary ... but is it not in all of our best interests to see what/Who we all cherish most?  Even our Lord.  There is so much that we still don't know about Him.  But I think enough of us know ENOUGH to say that He IS our Lord and the Lord for each of us, despite our individual weaknesses and failings.

We have a choice in how we treat each other.  We can focus on doctrinal differences, individual short-comings and the like.  Or we can choose to magnify the things where we agree and make that our foundation rather than our differences.  Once we build that positive foundation, then we can work toward understanding our differences in a more constructive and edifying way, with less intent to harm, discredit and more intent to become ONE even as He commanded.  For me, the Lord's commandment to become one doesn't just apply to my brothers and sisters who are LDS, but to EVERY brother and sister.  I'm still striving to understand more fully what that means and how to do it... but to my brothers and sisters who already have a belief and faith in the Lord, we're so much closer to being one than my brothers and sisters who have no understanding or belief in our Savior.

[Traveler]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 10:42 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Could it be that the efforts that so many members now make to communicate with traditional Christians has the effect, over years, of driving belief towards a more traditional understanding? It is not that doctrine changes dramatically, but rather that it gets interpreted in ways that are less in-conflict with other churches.

I also wonder if Mouw's observations are something of a double-edged sword. The more traditional LDS theology seems to be the less distinctive it is. The less distinctive, the less necessary. In other words, if LDS teaching becomes almost-traditional then what's the point of the Restoration.  On the other hand, it might be nice to answer most traditionalist questions with, "Well, we actually believe that too . . . "

Part of the problem is in the landscape from which each side (LDS and Evangelicals) tend to define terms.  When LDS say we believe that we are part of the “family” of G-d – Evangelicals tend to think that we are making ourselves G-d.  As to Evangelicals description of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - To be honest I do not really understand the “Traditional Orthodox” definition of the Trinity.  I find the terms used to describe and define G-d within traditional orthodoxy contradictory. 

The problem is that doctrine in divine scripture is vague.  Both for LDS and traditional Christians.  A liberal definition of terms in the extent of possibilities does allow for a great deal more intersection of the sets of divine attributes than either side is willing to accept.   But there is another problem.  In all my life experience I have personally talked to only one individual that claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ and personally conversed with him.  I know of no such possibility or claim among traditional Christians for well over 1,000 years.

We know from scripture that there was a time that it was not odd that Jesus showed his resurrected self to individuals – even following his ascension as per the example of Paul.  I am most disappointed in the manner many that follow traditional orthodox Christianity depict this event of an appearance before Paul in modern art and cinema.  This is because I have come to understand that when G-d manifests truth that he will provide collaborating witness.  Not one individual in scripture ever testified that the flesh of the resurrected Christ was not human flesh – nor is there any witness that such flesh has ever been depicted in any other form than that of a human.   And Jesus referred to himself as a son of man.

The mission of the Messiah, or Jesus the Christ was to save mankind and be the only mediator to represent the Father before man.  There is no witness in scripture that G-d modeled man after any other living creature other than himself.  So pronounced is this idea that man is the model image and likeness of G-d that orthodox Christians deny evolution of man to come from any “inferior” life form such as monkeys or apes.

I believe that Evangelicals trying to understand the LDS doctrine of the G-dhead will perhaps find more similarities than differences but never-the-less miss the essence of G-d as a being that can, should and must replicate his nature and what he is or he is not G-d.  If the possibility does not exist that G-d can replicate himself – such a being cannot be G-d.  If G-d can replicate himself and does not – his claim to create good is not a true and honest claim.

 

The Traveler

[Steve Noel]

On 4/15/2016 at 2:44 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Richard Mouw, retired president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and long-time veteran of Evangelical-Mormon dialogues, believes the LDS may be approaching orthodoxy..  I admit to only have glanced over the article myself. However, the idea tracks with similar ideas expressed by a pastor in our area, after meeting with one of the 12 apostles.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy

Thoughts?

Roger E. Olson has said this as well HERE There are several Evangelical theologians who have said this. It seems the common denominator among them is conversations with Robert Millet. 

Other Evangelical critics of Mormonism view this very differently. HERE is another viewpoint.

 

[Guest]

Regarding his observation of Mormons singing the hymn "I Stand All Amazed", Mouw said:

Quote

What did those tears “mean” in relationship to, say, the first half of the Snow couplet? Were the words that the LDS scholar was singing informed by his desire to become his own “god”? Or did his personal experience of what it took for him to be reconciled to God the Father “mean” that he looked forward to the eschatological posture of kneeling in praise and adoration at the “glorified throne,” in gratitude for “hands pierced and bleeding to pay the debt”?

 

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

When LDS say we believe that we are part of the “family” of G-d – Evangelicals tend to think that we are making ourselves G-d. 

PC said in another thread

Quote

LDS: 1+1+1 = (1+1+1 ... + exalted humans) i.e., one set, I suppose

I finally see this.  Is it really a belief among evangelicals that Mormons believe we'll become part of the "Nirvana" of the Godhead?  To be clear, that doesn't even make sense to Mormons.

[Rhoades]

On 4/16/2016 at 0:42 AM, prisonchaplain said:

Could it be that the efforts that so many members now make to communicate with traditional Christians has the effect, over years, of driving belief towards a more traditional understanding? It is not that doctrine changes dramatically, but rather that it gets interpreted in ways that are less in-conflict with other churches.

I also wonder if Mouw's observations are something of a double-edged sword. The more traditional LDS theology seems to be the less distinctive it is. The less distinctive, the less necessary. In other words, if LDS teaching becomes almost-traditional then what's the point of the Restoration.  On the other hand, it might be nice to answer most traditionalist questions with, "Well, we actually believe that too . . . "

>> driving belief towards a more traditional understanding?

It's NOT that the doctrine of the LDS church is becoming more traditional.  The doctrine is the same.  What is happening is that more outsiders who thought LDS doctrine was non-traditional are learning for themselves what the doctrine actually is.  The Internet has helped with this, as well as the fact that there are many more members.  I've talked to hundreds of other Christians and am well aware that most who think they know LDS doctrine have a wrong understanding.  For the few that are open to learning, the more they learn the more they realize most basic truths they already know are agreeable with LDS doctrine.  Your quote about "we actually believe that too" made me smile because I find myself thinking that often.  I sent my two youngest children to a local Baptist preschool.  I have no problems with the doctrines taught.  Jesus is our Savior and the only way to salvation.  The Bible is true.  Jesus created the world.  We believe all of that.

 

>> The less distinctive, the less necessary. In other words, if LDS teaching becomes almost-traditional then what's the point of the Restoration.

Great question.  The Restoration was needed to clarify and correct doctrines, but many truths were already around.  Think about the non-LDS doctrinal views of baptism.  Is baptism even necessary for believers?  Does baptism need to be done by immersion?   Should infants be baptized? Who can perform the ordinance?  There are a variety of differing opinions.  The Restoration is a gift from God to clarify truths to the world, including this simple example of baptism.  Because of the Restoration, we know who baptism is for, whether it is necessary, and how it is to be done.  Additional truths hinted at in the Bible although lost over time were also revealed (such as proxy baptism for the deceased).  Although lots of the beautiful truths about baptism (and other doctrines) were already available, the Restoration clarifies and helps increase our understanding.  It allows God's children to come in the "unity of the faith" and not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine". (Ephesians 4:13-14).  A correct understanding of God and His gospel allows us to develop stronger faith in Him.

 

In addition to restoring and clarifying some truths, we also need living apostles and prophets.  If you teach a people truth and then leave them to themselves, they'll get lost over time.  Circumstances come up for which inspired guidance is needed.  God uses prophets for timely guidance and direction for the whole body of believers.  In addition to giving us timely guidance, the Church with a foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus as its corner stone is God's way of helping his people become holy (Ephesians 2:19-22).

 

Lastly, the Restoration provided more than truths.  It also provides ordinances and authority.

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Roger E. Olson has said this as well HERE There are several Evangelical theologians who have said this. It seems the common denominator among them is conversations with Robert Millet. 

Other Evangelical critics of Mormonism view this very differently. HERE is another viewpoint.

 

I tried to make the point that doctrine is not a good means of determining who is a Christian.  In fact – my own personal feelings and efforts to follow Christ has somewhat convinced me that even though doctrine does have some bearing that it is not only a poor determination of what it is Christian – that those that endeavor to define discipleship of Christ based on doctrine are more of the cloth of a Pharisee than a Christian.   Parables of the nature of the Good Samaritan, lost sheep and other teachings of Christ convince me that his disciples are more inclusive than exclusive.   Even the case Jesus makes of discipleship based on the widow and her might distracts in the face of the experts and their devotions based on talents in comparison.

I made the point that scripture is vague.  In fact, even a simple doctrine concerning the resurrection of Christ has wide and varied definition within the confines of the so called traditional orthodoxy of modern Christianity.  I would also purport that an honest scholarship investigation of what has been authorized as “Christian” scripture to even define doctrine is bewilderingly inconsistent with modern archeological discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scriptures.

There is a tendency in human societies to point at the individual that is “different” and exclude them from the inner circle or any circle.   I am of the belief that the Christian obligation is similar to the doctrine of forgiveness - to be inclusive, welcoming and open to (as a child) to make friends (to love) and to be less like an adult that wants to be exclusive and skeptical of others.   At the time of Jesus, he used a Samaritan of the most corrupt doctrine (not even clergy – that are experts in doctrine) as the example of a Christian.  Not because of doctrine but because of compassion, love and kindness.

For sure a disciple of Christ does not cut off dialog or discussion or be argumentative or accusative, but is long suffering and open to new ideas and ways to befriend.   A Christian teaches repentance – doctrine in my mind is overrated and over preached in the hearts of men.   But doctrine is fun to discuss.

 

The Traveler

[Rhoades]

20 hours ago, Carborendum said:

PC said in another thread

LDS: 1+1+1 = (1+1+1 ... + exalted humans) i.e., one set, I suppose

I finally see this.  Is it really a belief among evangelicals that Mormons believe we'll become part of the "Nirvana" of the Godhead?  To be clear, that doesn't even make sense to Mormons.

 

Agreed.  The New Testament teaches that although the faithful will inherit all things, Jesus Christ will still be their God and He shall rule over them.  "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." (Revelation 21:7)  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords shall rule and reign forever.

 

Some Christians are hesitant with the "heirs of God" doctrine because they feel like an all powerful being would not be as great and glorious if he can have offspring that he can help to become like him.  They feel like it lessens God.  But, it's actually the opposite.  It adds to His glory and greatness.  Someone that helps and lifts others around them is truly great.

 

This reminds me of the principle taught in Mark 10, when James and John said they wanted to sit with Jesus as he ruled in glory, one on his right and one on his left (vs 37).  He taught them that to truly be great, you don't exercise lordship and authority over others like the rulers in this world do (vs 42).  Instead, you minister to others.  "But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:  And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.  For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (vs. 43-45)  God being able and willing to do such great things for us does NOT lessen Him.  It makes Him greater.

[Blackmarch]

On 4/15/2016 at 0:44 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Richard Mouw, retired president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and long-time veteran of Evangelical-Mormon dialogues, believes the LDS may be approaching orthodoxy..  I admit to only have glanced over the article myself. However, the idea tracks with similar ideas expressed by a pastor in our area, after meeting with one of the 12 apostles.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy

Thoughts?

when cultures mingle, ideas are shared, especially when an individual transfers from one culture to the other.

[bytebear]

I recently read a rebuttal of the article on an evangelical news site.  It was your basic beware of the Mormons, and don't be fooled into believing they are Christians.  The problem I have with the premise was that it was attacking essentially a straw man argument, that Mormons believe Jesus was not always God (not true).  And that Mormons don't believe in the Trinity. Yes, Mormons do not believe in the Trinity (the 4th century doctrinal definition) but we certainly believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and that they are one God as stated both in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Well, I think the reason outsiders are seeing Mormons as more "Orthodox" is because they are looking beyond the strawman and seeing what we really believe.

Edited April 21, 2016 by bytebear

[Steve Noel]

2 hours ago, bytebear said:

Well, I think the reason outsiders are seeing Mormons as more "Orthodox" is because they are looking beyond the strawman and seeing what we really believe.

I think this is true. I recently finished How Wide the Divide? and was really impressed with the LDS contributor, Stephen E. Robinson. In many ways he changed my perspective on Latter-day Saints. One of the things he points out over and over is the miscommunication that often happens because we use similar terms or phrases differently. Many current Latter-day Saints have studied Evangelical theology and are able to communicate LDS beliefs in that context. I am currently reading through Terryl Givens' Wrestling With the Angel. I was thinking today about how much I enjoy his writing. He has studied our theology and so can describe the LDS faith in a context that I can understand.

[bytebear]

That is really a brilliant book.  I learned a lot of where the evangelicals were coming from, and got a much fuller understanding of the trinity from the evangelical point of view.  When I talk to evangelicals or discuss the Godhead/Trinity, I find there is a difference, but there are far more similarities when you peel away the layers of straw (to keep with a metaphor).