HEY TONY PINA: re LDS beliefs

This is very true. One very intelligent friend, after finding out that I had many Mormon relatives seriously asked me if they engaged in extra-marital sex on the visits to the Mormon temples! He was so convinced of this that when I told him that I'd never actually been in a Mormon temple he was very reluctant to believe my emphatic (but amused) denials.

The wierdiest ideas seem to be associated with the temple rituals. I assume because the details are kept so secret.

 

Re: Re: Bill and Bill

Our Eighth Article of Faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." This seems to square with your comment above. Since we have no originals of any biblical manuscript (although the tiny Rylands fragment gets close for the Book of John), the original languages and critical texts are the best that we have.

It seems pretty obvious to me that evangelical protestantism, liberal protestantism, catholicism, LDS and other Christian-affiliated faiths each have certain parameters outside of the Bible itself that help define belief.

Tony

 

Thanks Tony and wecome back.

 

Re: Re: Bills Question #2

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

 

Re: Re: Bill and Bill

Originally posted by Bill Grover

So, in a way our parameters actually somewhat overlap! In those places dialogue can occur and dialog even can survive if we speak to each other respectfully where our parameters are different.

AMEN!!! Our parameters overlap in many areas (far more, I believe than they differ). I think that many Evangelical Protestants are closer to Latter-day Saints than to many liberal Protestants.

This is important because LDS beliefs may be misrepresented, mine too.

Absolutely right. Too many Mormons believe that Evangelical Protestants believe in modalism and "easy" grace.

Tony indicates in responses on 1:18 of John and the translational problem of 'monogenes' and the textual problem of what word that adjective modified in the original is open to investigation. Tony indicates as well an open mind re possible grammatical insights as on John 10:30 and the neuter adjective. Further, Tony indicates that Mormon leadership and its writings are not infallible (neither does the LDS believe the Bible so).

You are almost 100% correct. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" (Eighth Article of Faith). This accounts for our open mind regarding translations of John 1:18 and 10:30. We believe in the infallibility of God, but not of scripture of Church authorities. We believe that God will not allow His prophets to lead us astray, but do not hold them to a standard of infallibility. After all, they are men.

Finally LDS feels some of its own tenets and practices( as racial discrimination) are subject to change. (I hope I have not here misrepresented Tony).

We do not really believe that tenets are subject to change, but that practices are certainly subject to change. The change regarding blacks and the priesthood changed no doctrine, but surely altered practice. The limitation was never meant to be permanent.

Now none of this requires us therefore to throw our hands up in despair and say we can never comprehend each other's position and we have nothing to talk about because our parameters are different. Rather I see here points of agreement or openess which can occasion discussion. The major one is the authority of the Scriptures, which I understand , Tony subscribes to, but not exactly in the way I do. I have no problem in allowing an LDS insider to clarify what and why he believes, this to me is part of a search for understanding. My bet is, Tony and I could spend much time together discussing various Scriptures. Have we different beliefs in our hearts, sure, but we feel no need to lop off the other guy's head.

I could not have said this better myself.

Perhaps had such dialogue occured more often in church history the pages of that narrative would be less covered with blood.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN !!!!!!!!

 

Bill H: I have one for both of you. This actually happened to me.

During my first ever visit to Temple Square in Salt Lake City, I was accosted by a woman who was handing out pamphlets about all of the "wierd things that go on in Mormon temples". I asked if she had ever been inside a Mormon temple to witness any of these "wierd things"...she hadn't.

I usually let these things slide off me, but this time I could not resist having some fun.

I then said, "Well, you don't know the half of it. I understand that to be a member in the Mormon Church, you have to undergo this wierd ritual where they pretend to drown you and then raise you from the dead as a new person".

She answered "That's just baptism. We do that in my church, too".

"Okay", I answered, "I've heard that they perform this other wierd ritual where they pretend to eat flesh and drink blood, like cannibalism".

"Oh, that's just the eucharist, the sacrament of the Lord's supper." She exclaimed. "We do that in my church, too".

I stared in mock amazement, "Really? Do you see how some people not of your faith who do not understand the meaning and symbolism of those ordinances might see them as wierd?" I then shared Titus 1:15 with her (to the pure all things are pure but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure).

She was not amused.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

Originally posted by North

The main thing is that dialogue occur and that it is respectful. Tolerance is allowing people to feel and believe differently than you without believing that they are necessarily correct.

I feel exactly as you do.

I do not believe that the Mormons worship that same God I do (once was a man, stage progression, one of many Gods etc vs RC/protestant/evangelical christian view). I do not believe that Muslims worship the same God as Jews & Christians. BUT I absolutely respect their right to believe they way they do and even that they believe they have the correct perspective.

Here is a perfect case in point. I absolutely believe that we worship the same God, as do Muslims, since there is only one God the Father. I do not know Arabic, but I understand that the name "Allah" is just the Arabic form of "El" (The God of Jews and Christians). The First Article of Faith in my church states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost." You may argue that my doctrine of the nature of God is incorrect, but I reject the whole "Mormons worship a different God and believe in a different Jesus" line of thinking.

I have witnessed several well educated folks on Degreeinfo debating the nature of the Godhead with differing views. Yet only I am considered non-Christian by certain evangelicals. So there appears to be a limit to which one can deviate from Nicaean theology and remain a Christian, but no one has ever explained to me what that limit is.

I find the whole idea much like comparing a description of Bill Clinton by James Carville to one by Sean Hannity. One can surely say to the other, "Your Bill Clinton is different than mine", however, no one would suggest that there are two separate men named William Jefferson Blythe Clinton who served as U.S. President from 1992-2000.

I find the actions of extremist protestants who picket Temple Square and yell and name call at Mormons to be disgusting & unChristian behavior. Some of these folks even disrupt Mormon wedding parties trying to take pictures. These folks are rude & intolerant and their nasty signs are not likely to convert many Mormons. If I were a Mormon I would find these folks to be just a little nutty.

I have dealt with many of them. Many are sincere, but many are both nutty and unChristian. However I have seen numerous conversions to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a direct result of such activities.

The other thing is that we as Protestants should not be so smug that we think we can with a couple of words defeat Mormon theology. Your average protestant who sits in his bible study class on how to deal with Mormons laughs & ridicules what he believes to be simplistic nonsense. Yet, when you look at sites such as Jeff Lindsay's very well done site (along with other Mormon apologetics sites such as FARMS & FAIR) you quickly realize that they have a well thought out theological & doctrinal perspective that cannot be easily answered by a layman. Even a pastor I know (MDiv) did not have a solid answer for the Elohim issue and said basically "Well we have always just believed it is singular and did the Jews".

Lindsay's site, Fair-LDS, SHIELDS, and of course FARMS, (and many others) are all examples of Latter-day Saints who take it upon themselves to engage in Apologetics. None of these are official and they vary in quality. But I can be proud of the fact that nothing equivalent to the hatred-filled counter cult ministries exists in the LDS Church.

Many Latter-day Saints are guilty of oversimplifying evangelical belief and not giving it the respect it deserves. (mainly because of ignorance). However, I have never heard of any Latter-day Saint who makes a living attacking the faith of others.

The last thing is that we have to realize that we are somewhat myopic in the sense that we look at things from within our own paradigm. I found it very interesting to look at Jewish sites where they were really hacked about Messianic Jews (who they do not consider Jews) and were taking apart Christan doctrine and scripture. To an Orthodox Jew we as Christians may not look a whole lot different than Mormons do to us. Orthodox Jews could look at us as some sort of cultic off shoot with extra biblical literature and fantastic claims.

Most Christians that I know believe that the ability to view the world from the Christian "paradigm"--rather than that of the world--is a great blessing. I know that I feel that way.

Tony

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

In fact, a perusal of literature during the first few centuries A.D. reveals that most of the world saw Christians as precisely that.

I remember vividly a conversation with a friend who studied under Walter Martin at Melodyland. I quoted him several passages that he said wre identical to what he was being taught regarding Joesph smith and the Mormons. He was stunned when I told him that the source of my quotes was "On the True Doctrine", Celsus' 2nd century apologetic work against Jesus and Chrstianity. It turns out that Martin's arguments were nearly two centuries old and used against Jesus and His followers.

I was not convinced by either Martin or Celsus.

Tony

 

North, are you under the impression that "Mormon" theology is Arian in nature? Nothing could be further from the truth. We certainly do not believe that Christ was a created being and that "there was a time when the Son was not".

Tony

 

What a riot! How ironic it is that an important part of the temple ritual is that men and women covenant to NEVER engage in extra-marital sex! The Book of Mormon actually declares that this is the most grevous sin next to denial of the Holy Ghost or pre-meditated murder.

We do not discuss details about temples because we hold them to be sacred. But since you brought up sex, an analogy is the husband and wife who do not discuss the details of their intimate relationship with others because they hold it sacred--something to be shared only with each other.

Tony

 

I'm home from work today with a nasty virus. This Degreeinfo thread has been a very pleasant diversion for me today (although I have probably strained the patience of all of the rest of you). Please pray for my speedy recovery from this nasty virus, otherwise, I'll have to keep writing...and writing...and writing....

In the immortal words of that great theologian, Tigger,

TTFN (Ta Ta For Now)

Tony

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

 

a Celsus side note

Interestingly, the University I attended had R. Joseph Hoffman (of Celsus fame) as a professor or visiting professor. He left the semester after I took his class on Greek humanities. The arguments he presented in class against Christianity seemed weak to me, and I was not a Christian. I still thought he was a very personable instructor, and I enjoyed chatting with him in his office.

We also had another professor who was a member of the Jesus Seminar, whose arguments were even weaker. Although I was an atheist at the time, I was appalled at how little logic and evidence they seemed to have.

In a way, perhaps R. Joseph Hoffman sowed seeds of discontent that led to my being willing to consider Christ at a later date.

 

Re: a Celsus side note

I love stories like yours (people led to Christ by the efforts of anti-Christians). God bless you. I have found Celsus arguments against Christianity unconvincing as well. Perhaps Professor Hoffman has not learned well from his 2nd Century prototype.

I am completely unimpressed by the Jesus Seminar and unconvinced by its conclusions--because I reject its trendy liberal methodology. One of the Seminar's "Fellows" is, of course, Paul Verhoeven, director of "Basic Instinct" (best known for Sharon Stone's nudity) and "Showgirls" (known, if at all, for being a classless porn film). Hey, with credentials like those, I'm really interested in Verhoeven's opinions on the Savior (yea, right). I'd rather read the folks on Degreeinfo--at least I can learn something here.

All the best

Tony Piña
School of Education, La Sierra University
&
School of Education, Cal State U. San Bernardino