Jump to content

Mormons Starting To Think And Talk Like Protestants


Recommended Posts

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

 

I don't deny either of them. I don't know a whole lot about them either. I know the ideas behind them. So pending further revelation from God, I'm unwilling to say that my speculations are doctrine.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  

Protestants don't usually say they are waiting for further revelation to define doctrine from speculation.

 

As long as we depend on an open canon, I suspect we will be more than radical enough to stay faithful to our faith.

Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

 

Mmmm... I haven't heard so much of denouncing, more of a privatization.  As the world get's more modernistic, people can be less likely to be open to things like such, so we tend to be a bit more on the quiet side of things.

Link to post

Perhaps we are adopting the language of our Protestant brothern, especially with regards to grace, Christ as our personal saviour, etc, but the nuances of those words demonstrate key differences that set us apart from Protestant Christianity.

On a side note, I personally don't count Evangelical or non-denominational churches as Protestant. Neither was formed in protest to the Roman Catholic Church. That distinction should be reserved for the Lutherns, Anglicans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and so and so forth.

Those churches tend to be a little more conservative in their terminology.

Edited by halconero
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I posted this in another thread, but it should be here as well:

 

 

Additional scripture and open canon:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-10-scriptures?lang=eng

 

Pre-existence as spiritual children of God the Father:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family?lang=eng

 

Temples and proxy work:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-40-temple-work-and-family-history?lang=eng

 

Eternal marriage:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-38-eternal-marriage?lang=eng

 

Priesthood comes from authorized and ordained by God ministers, not the priesthood of all believers:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-13-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

The Fall was a good thing and Eve made a wise and blessed choice:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-6-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

 

We can become gods, have eternal increase and possess all that the Father and Son have, "all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge".

 

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

 

Oh yeah, manuals are sounding exactly like Evangelical teaching now.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

I don't think that this is true. I believe that Tacenda went to Nauvoo and according to her the missionaries gave a reading from the King Follett sermon. However, some exmembers do claim that the church is becoming more protestant. But this would be impossible. The lds church would have to embrace Nicene Creed and the Trinity. Also, sunday school we had a discussion about Joseph's polygamy. Not very protestant things going on in sunday school.

Link to post

I think that it was Bushman who claimed that Emma loved the kirkland joseph. Perhaps we can stretch it and claim that the church is becoming more kirlklandish these days and less nauvoo.

Link to post

Sorry, but pet peeve:  Kirtland, not Kirkland.

Edited by calmoriah
  • Upvote 4
Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

Did you take a wrong turn somewhere on the Interwebs?   Perhaps you were looking for the Community of Christ site? http://www.cofchrist.org/

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

 

We are? :huh::unsure:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-5-the-grand-destiny-of-the-faithful?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Is it all the 'shame on people who don't recycle' and 'what business is it of mine if two men who love each other want to marry?' that's making us supposedly sound like Protestants?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

 

That's something that has been bothering me quite a bit. I'd say we are not "losing" our theology per se, but in my opinion, part of the issue is that the Church seems to grow uneasy with certain aspects of its doctrine/theology which is closely related to its history. Combined with a desire to appeal to a wider audience, then you get particular issues being dust off under the rag, for the sake of focusing on what really matters, and the message being tailored to attract as many as possible, while avoiding those aspects (of course, mostly historical) which may be considered controversial. (Note that I know very well the Church holds its line on contemporary moral issues which some may find bothersome, but that is not the kind of controversial I'm referring to here.) And finally, since the Church evolves in the US, the language it adopts will be that which most people associate with religion, which in the States is heavily influenced by the protestant/evangelical discourse. Mix all of this, and I'd say we get to what you're talking about.

 

Still, this little analysis of mine stems from an impression. English is not my mother tongue, so maybe I don't get some of the subtleties, but when I first listened to pastors of different churches, it was striking to me how the tone and language used are similar to what we find in the Church, despite the profound difference in theology. Eventually, I came to realize that there are many ideas and concepts which the Church and protestant churches have in common, and we all seem to use those to fit our own understanding.

 

For instance, there is this idea that "in the end, everything will be made clear, the Lord will reveal the whole truth and people will come to accept / to understand that [insert particular belief such as the Bible is inherent, Joseph Smith is a true prophet, etc]". Also, maybe because I lacked the exposure to other religions/denominations growing up, I was a bit surprised when I learned that the concept of dispensations is not a unique teaching of the Church and did not even begin with it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_premillennialism.

 

I don't doubt that the Church certainly has very unique doctrine, and personally I find our theology so fascinating. But despite all of this, the impression, the feeling still lingers that we may simply be a variation on the same theme. I know that we have this concept that there was a first religion revealed to Adam, which he then passed to his descendants, which they in turn corrupted though maintaining certain original principles, and thousands of years later we end up with many different religions that have nonetheless very similar stories, doctrines, myths, etc. This is a very appealing teaching since it easily makes sense of everything else that is different and similar to us. But where I grow uneasy is when we start feeling comforted because despite all this confusion, you know, we can see through all of it, we have the correct understanding and teachings. Maybe that's just me, but I don't feel comfortable using this religious occam's razor. (I may just have invented that!)

 

 

/semi-rant, semi-contribution

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

Are they now claiming that someday they will be like God too, having children like he does and creating planets for them?  And that we lived in heaven with him before we came to this Earth to live as mortals?  And that we can receive revelation from him which is just as good as any other "scripture"?  And that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored a new dispensation of the priesthood on Earth?  And that the Book of Mormon is scripture, along with the D&C and Pearl of Great Price, including the books of Moses and Abraham?

 

Until Protestants start sounding like that I don't think there's much if any danger of us sounding like Protestants.   But maybe they are starting to catch up with the knowledge we have, a little bit.

Link to post

I don't think that this is true. I believe that Tacenda went to Nauvoo and according to her the missionaries gave a reading from the King Follett sermon. However, some exmembers do claim that the church is becoming more protestant. But this would be impossible. The lds church would have to embrace Nicene Creed and the Trinity. Also, sunday school we had a discussion about Joseph's polygamy. Not very protestant things going on in sunday school.

When I saw that the KFS was going to be a vignette, I thought to  myself, "Oh it'll probably leave out the man will become God part".  It was surreal while sitting in the same place that it occurred.  The missionary/actor that played the part, was very good and convincing.  The portion of the discourse was solely on the theme I thought would be left out, it was the HIGHLIGHT of the vignette!  That's why I believe that it's in our doctrine, or is our doctrine.  It separates us from other Christian faiths I believe.  Now I don't know if JS was so disillusioned (faith crisis) with the Christian way while he was young and impressionable and he took it this far, or if it really happened.  The different vision accounts make me question.  Our religion evolved, and it's possible God made it come in increments.  That's why the church shouldn't go backwards.  But after witnessing this vignette it doesn't appear it is.  OTOH, it seems to be quite vague in the newsroom announcements about our belief.  This one in particular....

Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?

Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

 

 

Of course I think this newsroom announcement was given in the heat of the Romney campaign if memory serves. 

Link to post

Mmmm... I haven't heard so much of denouncing, more of a privatization.  As the world get's more modernistic, people can be less likely to be open to things like such, so we tend to be a bit more on the quiet side of things.

 

Milk before meat?

 

Would this be an explanation of certain Hinckley interviews?

Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

It was funeral sermon, not the Sermon on the Mount. Snow is correct, we will become like him, but we will not become him, nor ever in any universe, his "equal". What people don't like is what people try to interject into KFD and trying to elevate it over canonized scripture.
Link to post

One reason some of these things are played down is because of the interpretation given by those who don't understand the doctrine. One forgets that back in the day of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young many of these things were said in closed settings to the faithful. Now they are available to anyone who wants to see them, and who are likely to misinterpret and use fo mock or criticize.

 

I certainly don't see the church sounding more Protestant. I do see them using discretion in what is openly preached to the world or where the world can twist words and use them to mock us.

Link to post

When I saw that the KFS was going to be a vignette, I thought to  myself, "Oh it'll probably leave out the man will become God part".  It was surreal while sitting in the same place that it occurred.  The missionary/actor that played the part, was very good and convincing.  The portion of the discourse was solely on the theme I thought would be left out, it was the HIGHLIGHT of the vignette!  That's why I believe that it's in our doctrine, or is our doctrine.  It separates us from other Christian faiths I believe.  Now I don't know if JS was so disillusioned (faith crisis) with the Christian way while he was young and impressionable and he took it this far, or if it really happened.  The different vision accounts make me question.  Our religion evolved, and it's possible God made it come in increments.  That's why the church shouldn't go backwards.  But after witnessing this vignette it doesn't appear it is.  OTOH, it seems to be quite vague in the newsroom announcements about our belief.  This one in particular....

Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?

Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

 

 

Of course I think this newsroom announcement was given in the heat of the Romney campaign if memory serves. 

This is exactly the type of sanitizing I was referring to.  Yesterday I finally got up and left a Gospel Doctrine class because the Bishop's wife was berating in a shrill whining voice the poor instructor who was just trying to moderate the discussion that most of the class was interested in for personal reasons about D&C 132, her complaint was that he was off message and not emphasizing a more sanitized approach that overlooked tough issues.  I have indicated to my hometeachers that I feel we are going to reap the whirlwind if we continue to offer only pablum on message information to appear more like mainline Christianity.  But perhaps I am wrong, this is above my pay grade.

Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

I found a re-enactment of the King Follet Discourse on Youtube, put up by Glenn Ostlund. There are 5 videos, 1-5.  Is this a reliable reproduction? I just don't hear anything in the discourse that seems that radical to me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

This is exactly the type of sanitizing I was referring to.  Yesterday I finally got up and left a Gospel Doctrine class because the Bishop's wife was berating in a shrill whining voice the poor instructor who was just trying to moderate the discussion that most of the class was interested in for personal reasons about D&C 132, her complaint was that he was off message and not emphasizing a more sanitized approach that overlooked tough issues.  I have indicated to my hometeachers that I feel we are going to reap the whirlwind if we continue to offer only pablum on message information to appear more like mainline Christianity.  But perhaps I am wrong, this is above my pay grade.

I don't believe that Sunday School(Gospel Rumor) is the best place for discussing off message tangential subjects. Better to tell them about "Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board". ;):lol:

Link to post

Milk before meat?

 

Would this be an explanation of certain Hinckley interviews?

The problem with the milk before meat is that when you turn all of the teaching manuals into milk, is that people eventually begin to doubt the existence of meat or become vegetarians.  Which is all well and good if you want to be a mainline Christian, I guess.

Link to post

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

 

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

Um so I found the King Follet Discourse, but am unable to find the Snow Couplet. Could you elaborate?

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By CCRW
      In hopes of a non-contentious discussion and in moving this from another thread:
       
      Questions:
      1. Is the Correlated Gospel something less than the "Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ".
      2. If so, why and does it matter?
       
      First a few of Scott's opening thoughts moved from a different thread thread:
       
      http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65233-lectures-on-faith/?p=1209489369
       
      Some further information on Elder Oaks talk quoted in Scott's comment:
       
      https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/076-07-10.pdf
       
       
      I would suggest that to a "Literal'ist"
      1. yes
      2. yes
       
      And to and an "intricate'ist"
      1. yes
      2. no
       
      (see http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65281-literalism/)
       
      Thoughts?
       
       
       
    • By Coreyb
      Tad R. Callister was just sustained as president of the Sunday school. What does this mean for future church curriculum? Many internet Mormons have been calling for changes in the way we teach in the church, especially our history. Elder Callister is seen by some as a bit too orthodox, and his teachings, though clear and straightforward, a bit to simplistic. Several of his talks and writings have been discussed on this board. So, at a time when many hope for curriculum that is more open, objective, nuanced, and innoculative (is that a word?) than ever, now we know who to look to. I pray he is sensitive to the "cries from the bloggernacle" as well as the needs of an ever expanding worldwide church. Most of all, I pray for his (and his counselors and advisers) sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. What do y'all think?
    • By Stone holm
      Today in GD we discussed why Gospel revelation is simple but things become complex. I suggested that complexity arises as we try to make various solitary teachings and revelations into a consistent whole. But then I live in a technicolor world not one of black and white. Your thoughts?
    • By David T
      There are 5, count them, 5 pictures of Joseph pointing to characters on the plates open on the table while he's dictating to a scribe in this issue. I think that may be a new record. One of which is a full-page inside-cover illustration called, "The Gift and Power of God", which is later repeated in a smaller form.
      Can someone please commission some new artwork with an accompanying article? Please?
      Can there be some sort of meeting between the Church History Department and Correlation? It's like they're in two completely different worlds.
      It's like they want church members to get shocked and offended and weirded out when the stumble upon historical sources giving a very different picture.
      The gap between Correlation and the Church Historical Department really needs to be closed soon. It's getting ridiculous.


×
×
  • Create New...