Lds Author Spreads False Doctrine On A National Scale...?

[Glenn101]

Though I don't agree with everything Robinson says (and I don't think the bicycle parable was his best work), I'm a big fan of his. I think he's been doing a great job of getting Mormons to start thinking about classical Protestant ideas. The Book of Mormon is full of these ideas, and most Mormons don't even recognize them. How many Mormons, for example, realize that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin? We don't recognize the original sin parts of the Book of Mormon because we don't really understand what original sin is, and wrongly assume it is precluded by the 2nd Article of Faith. If Mormons started believing again in original sin, that would take a big bite out of the theological void between us and Protestants or Catholics.

That is an interesting idea. Would you mind explaining what you understand by original sin and where it is taught in the Book of Mormon? Maybe in another thread so as not to hijack this one?Glenn

[alter idem]

Cinepro, it wouldn't have been 'Twilight'; the book is fiction; for entertainment only and though I'm sure many LDS women read it, I doubt it was ever discussed in Priesthood meetings and certainly not discussed in terms of church doctrine. But Bettie Eadie's book very well could have been.

I'm pretty certain Bookofmormonluvr is correct--Bettie Eadies book.

From this website--I believe it's an Evangelical site:

http://www.iclnet.or...b/crj0171a.html

Another possible reason is ecclesiastical disapproval of her story. According to an article in the October 23, 1993 Salt Lake Tribune, "in a meeting with male LDS stake leaders in Sandy [utah] last spring, Apostle Boyd K. Packer called the book 'bunk,' a witness said."

The book mentioned in the quote above is "Embraced by the Light".

[Calm]

I'm pretty certain Bookofmormonluvr is correct--Bettie Eadies book.

I remember there being something that was actually published by Elder Packer discussing the false doctrine and other problems with her work and promotion (I think by that time she was embracing the idea that all faiths were equally salvific, but I could be wrong). Maybe it's time for a googling.

Like this article: http://docs.google.c...xlEmYzPV4aNjYeQ

Haven't found anything yet....

Edited September 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[Ariarates]

More importantly, who was the GA who reportedly said this: "It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the Latter-day Saints can be when it comes to printed material like this. Our lack of doctrinal depth and gospel understanding in general makes many of us an easy prey to every passing craze"?

It seems rather cynical to me to call the Saints "gullible" while presenting us with the shallowest of lesson materials and discouraging every expression of critical thought in church settings. Provided the quote is accurate, this GA seems to have forgotten that our "gullibility" also provides him with his modest stipend.

[cdowis]

How many Mormons, for example, realize that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin? We don't recognize the original sin parts of the Book of Mormon because we don't really understand what original sin is, and wrongly assume it is precluded by the 2nd Article of Faith. If Mormons started believing again in original sin, that would take a big bite out of the theological void between us and Protestants or Catholics.

I think Mormons understand the true concept of original sin as taught in the BOM, but do not use that specific term for a reason:

Original sin^[1] is, according to a theological doctrine, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man.^[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.^[3] Wiki

We associate this term with infant baptism, for example, which is specifically banned in the BOM. This is just another one of those cotton candy insights.

Edited September 24, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

It seems rather cynical to me to call the Saints "gullible" while presenting us with the shallowest of lesson materials and discouraging every expression of critical thought in church settings. Provided the quote is accurate, this GA seems to have forgotten that our "gullibility" also provides him with his modest stipend.

How typical, how predictable. "They are afraid to lose their stipend if they tell us the truth."

How pathetic.

The teaching materials are designed for the new convert to the life-long member. The instructor is responsible to fit the material to the understanding of the class. Some of the recent phd/RS manuals have taught many doctrinal concepts which I personally have found very thought-provoking.

Edited September 24, 2011 by cdowis

[Duncan]

More importantly, who was the GA who reportedly said this: "It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the Latter-day Saints can be when it comes to printed material like this. Our lack of doctrinal depth and gospel understanding in general makes many of us an easy prey to every passing craze"?

It seems rather cynical to me to call the Saints "gullible" while presenting us with the shallowest of lesson materials and discouraging every expression of critical thought in church settings. Provided the quote is accurate, this GA seems to have forgotten that our "gullibility" also provides him with his modest stipend.

That was Pres. Harold B. Lee speaking in General Conference in the early '70's

[jo1952]

How typical, how predictable. "They are afraid to lose their stipend if they tell us the truth."

How pathetic.

The teaching materials are designed for the new convert to the life-long member. The instructor is responsible to fit the material to the understanding of the class. Some of the recent phd/RS manuals have taught many doctrinal concepts which I personally have found very thought-provoking.

Indeed! Are our manuals then much as scripture is? When we are ready, the Holy Ghost reveals deeper and multiple layers of understanding. The listener receives from the lesson whatever they are supposed to. The Church doesn't try to prevent us from receiving truth. Quite the contrary. In their focus on personal prayer, obedience, repentance, learning to recognize the Holy Ghost's influence in our lives, etc., they are effectively teaching us how to be prepared to receive MORE truth.

Regards,

jo

[mbh26]

How many Mormons, for example, realize that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin? We don't recognize the original sin parts of the Book of Mormon because we don't really understand what original sin is, and wrongly assume it is precluded by the 2nd Article of Faith.

I liked the older brand of Mormonism that was further away from Protestant thinking. To see Mormonism reverting to that in the interest of including more people and trying to make the religion more palatable to more people has been disheartening to me but I think I'm in the minority.

[The Nehor]

More importantly, who was the GA who reportedly said this: "It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the Latter-day Saints can be when it comes to printed material like this. Our lack of doctrinal depth and gospel understanding in general makes many of us an easy prey to every passing craze"?

It seems rather cynical to me to call the Saints "gullible" while presenting us with the shallowest of lesson materials and discouraging every expression of critical thought in church settings. Provided the quote is accurate, this GA seems to have forgotten that our "gullibility" also provides him with his modest stipend.

I would point out that it instead shows the disobedience of the LDS people. We have been counseled to read our scriptures regularly. Our Sunday lessons should make up less then a third of our actual gospel study.

I agree with the quote. Those who won't endure sound doctrine will find silly doctrine elsewhere. If only there were a scripture about this to make it more explicit.

[Loran Blood]

I have a copy of Embraced by the Light. I read it "20 years ago." Close enough. Eadie was a Mormon, briefly, then went off looking for more light. I have not heard a thing about her since then. I don't recall anything about the book's assertions about the afterlife that seemed blatantly false doctrine to me at the time. I accepted that Eadie had had an experience. And the exact details did not have to agree with other NDE experiences....

Or more money, or ego gratification, or whatever. She quickly became a major New Age guru/self help/spiritual guide in pursuit of which she milked her Amerindian background for all it was worth.

This is all quite sad, as the book impressed me deeply on an emotional/psychological level when I first read it, but all too soon I realized that she was not what she appeared (as Millett has pointed out, some of her doctrinal concepts were, while very close to LDS theology in a number of ways, oddly mutated. Her second book was the easiest and final nail in the coffin on that wise).

Edited September 26, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Though I don't agree with everything Robinson says (and I don't think the bicycle parable was his best work), I'm a big fan of his. I think he's been doing a great job of getting Mormons to start thinking about classical Protestant ideas. The Book of Mormon is full of these ideas, and most Mormons don't even recognize them. How many Mormons, for example, realize that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin? We don't recognize the original sin parts of the Book of Mormon because we don't really understand what original sin is, and wrongly assume it is precluded by the 2nd Article of Faith. If Mormons started believing again in original sin, that would take a big bite out of the theological void between us and Protestants or Catholics.

But, why would we want to take a bite, of any size, out of the "theological void between us and Protestants or Catholics?" One of the main purposes of the Restoration was, after all, to create that very void, not between any particular LDS and any particular Protestant or Catholic, but between the true gospel and its organized, institutional counterfeits. It should also be noted that the Church does not teach the concept of "original sin," in the Catholic or Protestant sense, this being a false sectarian idea descended, to a great degree, from St. Augustine's beliefs surrounding the place of grace in the overall plan of salvation (which he and many of his contemporaries had virtually no understanding of in any case).

Christ's Atonement overcomes and transcends the broad effects of the Fall, in which case all little children, up to a certain point, are beyond the reach of Satan, and only those who understand the teachings of the gospel, but will not live them, need be concerned.

[Programmer]

The real issue is not about "working out our own salvation," but about keeping God's commandments. Those are two different concepts. The Protestants have introduced the former idea into the discussion as a red herring in order to obscure and escape their obligations under the latter requirement. Throughout the scriptures, Old and New Testaments, as well as in modern revelation, the requirement has been laid out in uncompromising terms that we must repent and keep God's commandments or we cannot be saved. That is in spite of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Without the Atonement we could not have been saved at all, with or without repentance. In fact, without the Atonement we could not have repented at all. The Atonement has made possible our repentance, and the keeping of God's commandments; and that is a necessary requirement for salvation. I like the way the Book of Mormon has said it:

.

Mosaiah 4

:

.

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

Amen. Let God worry about Grace, and let us worry about keeping the commandments. The whole discussion about grace versus works is all theoretical anyways, and is irrelevant to forgiving others so we can be forgiven.

[Kevin Christensen]

I have a copy of Embraced by the Light. I read it "20 years ago." Close enough. Eadie was a Mormon, briefly, then went off looking for more light. I have not heard a thing about her since then. I don't recall anything about the book's assertions about the afterlife that seemed blatantly false doctrine to me at the time. I accepted that Eadie had had an experience. And the exact details did not have to agree with other NDE experiences....

Eadie remains a member in good standing (see recent responses to claims otherwise here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Latter_Day_Saints,) which I think demonstrates the real quality of her faith in light of some of the high profile criticism directed her way.

I have an unpublished book length defense of her work by Tom Nibley titled. "Defending Betty: An Examination of the Near Death Experience in the Light of Mormon Doctrine." Tom N. shows in well documented detail that everything in her book that is supposedly questionable can be supported by statements by early LDS authorities and scripture.

NDEs are personal experiences, and as such, are not subject to corrolation. They are subject to the understanding and recounting of those individuals. On the other hand, NDEs are fairly common, so they are subject to comparison. My favorite NDE book remains Zaleski's Otherworld Journeys, which attempts cross cultural comparison between modern and medieval accounts.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA