Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Anybody catching Elder Holland's talk? He's engaging in some rather vigorous apologetics on the matter of trinitarian vs. LDS doctrine and whether that qualifies as an excuse for excluding Latter-day Saints from Christianity.Add-on: Now he's moved on to the corporeal nature of God. This is great stuff. Memo to self: Get a digital copy of the talk to carry in my PDA.
maklelan Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 He's reaming traditional Christianity. I think it's awesome.
Lachoneus Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Anybody catching Elder Holland's talk? He's engaging in some rather vigorous apologetics on the matter of trinitarian vs. LDS doctrine and whether that qualifies as an excuse for excluding Latter-day Saints from Christianity. Great sermon! Can't wait to study the text.
cksalmon Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 The various transcripts have long been available on FAIR. I'm not hearing anything revelatory here, other than that perhaps LDS apologetics is trickling up to the GA's. Best.CKS
cksalmon Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 He's reaming traditional Christianity. I think it's awesome.Yeah, it is pretty awesome when other folks' belief get reamed. You'd almost think Elder Holland was an anti-traditional-Christian. But, on the other hand, it was a sort of a vague, general reaming. Still awesome, though.
Lachoneus Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 The various transcripts have long been available on FAIR. I'm not hearing anything revelatory here, other than that perhaps LDS apologetics is trickling up to the GA's. You have to listen with more than your ears.
flameburns623 Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Someone--Jeffrey Holland mebbe? I don't know LDS leadership by sight, unfortunately--is currently doing an apologetic on whether Mormons are Christians and specifically addressing the issue of the LDS Godhead. Nice to see an issue confronted head-on from GC pulpit. I do think the discussion has unfairly characterized the Nicene Creed as a '4th-century' doctrine. THAT is precisely the issue over which Christians and heretical sects generally are disagreeing over: Christians insist that the Nicene doctrine is the distillation of what the Scriptures reveal about God; heretical groups feel it is a mischaracterization of the same. The speaker certainly misses the point about the 'incomprehensibility' of the Christian God: it does NOT imply that there are no aspects of God that we cannot understand, that He has not revealed to us, or that we can at least 'apprehend' by way of analogies and similes. It DOES imply that there is considerably more to God as an infinite Being than finite humans can ever fully know. That talk has concluded and is being followed up with an apologetic on the Book of Mormon. Hopefully these talks will be published in the Ensign, where they can be more carefully broken-down and critiqued. Comments? Thanks to all who may participate but please keep comments respectful. God bless!Note to mods: please blend this with other threads on the same topic. Thanks!
BCSpace Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 The various transcripts have long been available on FAIR. I'm not hearing anything revelatory here, other than that perhaps LDS apologetics is trickling up to the GA's. Any neophyte can easily take down the trinity.
Lachoneus Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 The various transcripts have long been available on FAIR. Link please.
flameburns623 Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Anybody catching Elder Holland's talk? He's engaging in some rather vigorous apologetics on the matter of trinitarian vs. LDS doctrine and whether that qualifies as an excuse for excluding Latter-day Saints from Christianity.Add-on: Now he's moved on to the corporeal nature of God. This is great stuff. Memo to self: Get a digital copy of the talk to carry in my PDA.I posted a thread on the same issue. Attention moderators: when you are free to do so, can you blend these two threads? Thanks!!!!
Jigglysaint Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 This is Elder Holland: This is Elder Holland on the Trinity: Any questions?
cksalmon Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Link please.I suppose my attempt at sarcasm was less than effective.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2007 Author Posted October 6, 2007 Yeah, it is pretty awesome when other folks' belief get reamed. You'd almost think Elder Holland was an anti-traditional-Christian. But, on the other hand, it was a sort of a vague, general reaming. Still awesome, though.He's disclaiming condemnation of other's sincerely held religious beliefs. At the same time he's denouncing using differences in belief as a tool for excluding Latter-day Saints from Christianity.I think he's on solid ground.I posted a thread on the same issue. Attention moderators: when you are free to do so, can you blend these two threads? Thanks!!!!You are one of at least three of us. Alter idem has suggested we use this one.
Bsix Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 I just listened to the talk. Elder Holland was clear and unequivocal in discussing the LDS view of the nature of the Godhead as compared to the doctrine of the trinity. The context of his remarks was to refute those who reject Mormons as Christians because we do not accept this post-biblical teaching.He went out of his way to explain that he was not attempting to belittle the Trinitarian beliefs of others.He was exceptionally forceful in stating the LDS position as it relates to the creedal doctrines of today's traditional Christianity. I would not say in any way that he was 'reaming out' or attacking traditional Christianity.Regards,Six
cksalmon Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 (1) He's disclaiming condemnation of other's sincerely held religious beliefs. (2) At the same time he's denouncing using differences in belief as a tool for excluding Latter-day Saints from Christianity.I think he's on solid ground.(1) Yeah, that's what I heard, too. I guess Maklelan missed that part. (2) Again, agreed. That was his point. Of course, I don't agree about the legitimacy of his point. But, then, I wouldn't as a bitter "anti-Mormon."Best.CKS
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2007 Author Posted October 6, 2007 I suppose my attempt at sarcasm was less than effective.News flash for cksalmon: LDS apologetics didn't start with FAIR.
Bernard Gui Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 So much for the critics' claim that the Mormons are trying to remake themselvesin the image of "traditional" Christianity.Bernard
katherine the great Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 I do think the discussion has unfairly characterized the Nicene Creed as a '4th-century' doctrine. THAT is precisely the issue over which Christians and heretical sects generally are disagreeing over: Christians insist that the Nicene doctrine is the distillation of what the Scriptures reveal about God; heretical groups feel it is a mischaracterization of the same. The speaker certainly misses the point about the 'incomprehensibility' of the Christian God: it does NOT imply that there are no aspects of God that we cannot understand, that he has not revealed to us, or that we can at least 'apprehend' by way of analogies and similes. It DOES imply that there is considerably more to God as an infinite Being than finite humans can ever fully know. I think there is plenty of misunderstanding on both sides. I think Elder Holland's remarks were intended more to strengthen LDS members' conception of God than try to convince Evangelicals that we really are Christian. It would be nice if our leaders could engage in open discussion with other church leaders on each side of this issue. I agree with you that there is probably much misunderstanding of our people on the early church as well, and the education should extend both ways.
cksalmon Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 News flash for cksalmon: LDS apologetics didn't start with FAIR.Thanks, Scott. I'm really going to have to get that sarcasm checker fixed. It seems to be functioning at less than peak. CKS
katherine the great Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 He went out of his way to explain that he was not attempting to belittle the Trinitarian beliefs of others.He was exceptionally forceful in stating the LDS position as it relates to the creedal doctrines of today's traditional Christianity. I would not say in any way that he was 'reaming out' or attacking traditional Christianity.Regards,SixThose were my impressions of his talk as well.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2007 Author Posted October 6, 2007 So much for the critics' claim that the Mormons are trying to remake themselvesin the image of "traditional" Christianity.BernardYeah. Better bookmark the link when the talk appears on lds.org.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2007 Author Posted October 6, 2007 I just listened to the talk. Elder Holland was clear and unequivocal in discussing the LDS view of the nature of the Godhead as compared to the doctrine of the trinity. The context of his remarks was to refute those who reject Mormons as Christians because we do not accept this post-biblical teaching.He went out of his way to explain that he was not attempting to belittle the Trinitarian beliefs of others.Or, to put it another way, we didn't start this fight.
maklelan Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Yeah, it is pretty awesome when other folks' belief get reamed. You'd almost think Elder Holland was an anti-traditional-Christian. But, on the other hand, it was a sort of a vague, general reaming. Still awesome, though.When they are pagan beliefs that traditional Christianity aggressively tries to shove down my throat, yeah, it is awesome. His talk is defensive, not offensive. If our belief in Christ had not been under so much criticism for several decades this talk would not be made, but if a bunch of bullies beat you over the head again and again about how you're stupid because you believe A instead of B, it is awesome when it is pointed out to those bullies that they are misguided. You may continue to condescend if you truly believe that we have no right to defend our beliefs.
cksalmon Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 The various transcripts have long been available on FAIR. I'm not hearing anything revelatory here, other than that perhaps LDS apologetics is trickling up to the GA's. Best.CKSUPDATE: I should stated that I've also encountered his arguments here on this very MB.
maklelan Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 (1) Yeah, that's what I heard, too. I guess Maklelan missed that part.Or perhaps you just misunderstood.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.