Baptist Scholar Claims Shift In Mormon Doctrine

[Freedom]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/baptist-scholar-says-mormonism-is-evolving-toward-becoming-christian-denomination-with-biblical-evangelical-view-of-christ-and-salvation-140518/

 

The article lacks any substance so it is not possible to identify how he claims our doctrines are changing. I would also be interested in knowing what beliefs the members have that is so different from what the church leaders teach. Perhaps it is our unwillingness to forgive each other or our propensity to lie and cheat. I particularly like the ignorant and unchristian posts.

[Avatar4321]

So I guess we really believe the Book of Mormon when it says Christ is our salvation now. And before we were just non Christian for believing the same thing.

[Robert F. Smith]

Roger Olson's views are quite interesting, and I had to laugh when reading this comment from and about his experience at BYU:

 

At the end of the two-weekend event at BYU, he was asked by a group of Mormons whether or not he thought Mormons were Christians. He responded by asking the group of Mormons whether they believed "Jesus is God." The Mormons responded with a resounding "yes." Olson then asked the group "Was he always God?"

"One said 'No' and another said 'Yes' and the third simply stared at me and the others," Olson described. "Then the three of them (and as I recall a few others) fell into deep conversation among themselves about what they believe about the preexistence of Jesus Christ and his eternal deity."

 

Because it reminds me very much of some of the conversations we have on this board, in which participants don't really know or agree on what Mormons believe, nor what is correct doctrine.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[bjw]

I think it is wrong for anyone to condemn someone based on theological views. Not one Christian truly fully understands all of the mysteries of heaven, including the trinity. Basing salvation on knowledge borders on gnosticism, since the only true salvation comes through the Atonement, all other doctrine is an appendage. Many know they are saved by the blood of Christ, but have no knowledge beyond that through no fault of their own. I believe Christians are those saved by Christ through the Atonement.

[Calm]

The article is probably summing up a blog commentary on Patheo.  The link I give below can get you to it and then you can find the recent comments by Olson here and there.

 

This is the response that Millet wrote to Olson, the same Millet that Olsen is claiming is demonstrating the shift iirc (I haven't read all his comments over the last few days.  I underlined what I thought were the crucial points that show that RO, even if a good scholar and a nice guy from what I hear, is likely letting his own bias and desires cause him to misread what is going on:

 

Dear Roger:

A few days ago one of my colleagues forwarded to me your article on Mormonism. I appreciated the opportunity to read it and felt it might be worthwhile to comment on a number of your perspectives. I didn’t want to simply add one more addendum to the Patheos article but wanted to devote a bit more time to my response. Here goes:

First, twice in your article you state that you are not persuaded that Mormonism in the local ward (congregation) is necessarily the same as Mormonism among LDS scholars. First let me say that I would suppose that such would be the case, as well, with most any Evangelical or Roman Catholic congregation; those in the pews have not generally been involved in the academic study of the faith and would no doubt provide quite different answers to questions about the tradition than would PhDs who have spent decades plumbing the depths of the beliefs and practices and learning how best to articulate the essential tenets.

But having said that, let me kindly disagree with you. I have spoken all over the LDS Church, throughout the U.S. and in several foreign countries, have taught the same doctrines in the same way to Latter-day Saints as I have written about them in my books. For that matter, most of my books have been published by the Church’s publishing company, Deseret Book. You would think if I were proclaiming some new doctrine, some “progressive” dimension to the faith, some unusual avenue to Mormonism, that by now I would have been called out, corrected, silenced, or at least questioned by Church leaders, local or general. Such has certainly not been the case. For that matter, I have worked closely with LDS Church Public Affairs for almost twenty years and have been asked scores of times by Public Affairs to be interviewed by the media, to host representatives from other faith traditions, to answer questions about the faith with CNN, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Faith Angle Forum (a subset of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.), and a long list of radio and television stations. I hardly think my views are in any way considered heterodox or out of the mainstream.

Second, you make mention of the strong desire of Latter-day Saints to be recognized as Christians. You’re certainly right there; we do want to be acknowledged as being followers of Jesus Christ, believers in His divine birth, His timeless teachings, His miracles, His sufferings and death for the sins of the world, and His triumphant rise from the tomb as a physical, glorified, resurrected Being. No question about it.

Having said that, however, I hasten to add that we have no desire to become a part of mainstream Christianity. We do want to be better understood and appreciated for what and who we are, but we are not traditional Christians and have never claimed to be. We do in fact see ourselves as Christians with a difference. Mormonism professes to be restored Christianity, and its adherents believe that God has chosen to restore the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ through a modern prophet, Joseph Smith, and that the divine priesthood authority he received—the power and authority to act in the name of God, apostolic authority—has continued in rightful succession to modern apostles and prophets within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. Not too long before he passed away, I had occasion to meet with Father Richard John Neuhaus in New York City. We chatted for a little less than an hour, and as I stood to leave, he shook my hand and said: “I know of the dialogue you have been engaged in with Richard Mouw and the Evangelicals for some time now, and I appreciate the work you folks are doing.” He then added: “There simply has to be more conversation between Latter-day Saint Christians and Nicene Christians.” I said to Richard: “Now that’s a distinction with which no thinking Mormon would take issue.”

Third, those you speak of as “progressive” LDS thinkers are persons who tend to take more seriously the teachings within our own scriptural texts. For example, a person need not believe Joseph Smith’s report of having received and translated golden plates in order to read the Book of Mormon, looking especially for theological matters. You aren’t very deep into the story before you begin to encounter again and again what I would call redemptive theology—namely, the constant and ever-recurring themes of the nature of fallen humanity, the need to be born again, and salvation only through the merits and mercy and grace of Jesus Christ. The Church’s 13th President-Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, charged and commissioned the Latter-day Saints in practically every public sermon he delivered during his decade as our leader (1985-2004), to read and study the Book of Mormon, focusing particularly on the doctrinal teachings. Mormons who did so—and that was the bulk of the Church—found themselves then turning more regularly to the Bible, and especially the New Testament, and picking up on similar theological themes there. It was inevitable as a result of a decade in which the people of the Church were “baptized” in the doctrine of Christ that you would begin to see, on both the general and local levels, a greater emphasis and focus upon the person and powers of Jesus; the means by which we can apply the atoning blood of Christ; and a people who speak more regularly of and live their lives more consistently with what they have come to know as the “enabling power” (grace) of the Savior. In short, what you are witnessing among those academics who speak and write on these topics is a much more generalized emphasis within the whole of the Church, not merely a scholarly phenomenon. In case you haven’t done so, you might appreciate reading a short book by Stephen Webb, a Roman Catholic scholar, entitled Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-day Saints (Oxford, 2013); Webb’s conclusions may surprise you.

Fourth (and in case you have not signed off by now), you seem to have gotten a false impression of my view of the Lorenzo Snow couplet, the notion that “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” I do accept fully as doctrinal the latter part of the couplet, since deification is definitely a part of LDS theology. I do not know very much at all about the first part, and it is not in fact something the Church or its leaders speak of very often. I am attaching a copy of an article I wrote on that subject that will appear in a book that Rich Mouw and I are editing, a volume that should be out in August, entitled Talking Doctrine: Mormons and Evangelicals in Conversation (IVP Academic, 2015). I hope the article clears up any misunderstanding.

Sincerely,

 

Bob

Robert L. Millet, Coordinator

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/06/robert-bob-millett-gets-the-final-word-for-now/

 

RO also responds to LDS who responded in the What I have learned blog...I like that he made significant effort to learn about us, I just don't understand why he is making some pretty significant mistakes.  I guess that is what worldviews can do to you, keep you from seeing another's worldview all that clearly.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/06/what-i-learned-from-the-responses-to-my-post-about-mormonism/

 

And now I must stop as the letters are turning strange colours and attempting to turn into reptiles.  I think I got a good batch tonight...or maybe finally taking it the right way on an empty stomach gave me a double punch...whatever...can't read a thing and only hoping I maintain spelling long enough to say "continued tomorrow".

 

Bed time.

[sunstoned]

Even though I am not sure this is accurate, I thought the article ended on a positive note:

 

 

"LDS Beliefs is much more Christ-centered than earlier books of Mormon beliefs and more grace-centered. Less emphasis is placed on the necessity of works for ultimate salvation and more emphasis is put on Christ's atoning work, God's grace and mercy and human faith — all without diminishing the importance of personal holiness and faithfulness as fruits of forgiveness and reconciliation."

 

 

Edited June 20, 2015 by sunstoned

[The Nehor]

And Muslims are becoming more like Scientologists, Evangelicals are becoming Wiccans, and Baptists are basically Satanists at this point.

 

This game is fun.

[Freedom]

We all see and judge others through our own paradigm. I suppose when one assumes that we are not christian and then finds so many modern references to the atonement that there is an assumption that something has changed.  

[Five Solas]

Roger Olson's views are quite interesting, and I had to laugh when reading this comment from and about his experience at BYU:

 

At the end of the two-weekend event at BYU, he was asked by a group of Mormons whether or not he thought Mormons were Christians. He responded by asking the group of Mormons whether they believed "Jesus is God." The Mormons responded with a resounding "yes." Olson then asked the group "Was he always God?"

"One said 'No' and another said 'Yes' and the third simply stared at me and the others," Olson described. "Then the three of them (and as I recall a few others) fell into deep conversation among themselves about what they believe about the preexistence of Jesus Christ and his eternal deity."

 

Because it reminds me very much of some of the conversations we have on this board, in which participants don't really know or agree on what Mormons believe, nor what is correct doctrine

 

To which Robert L. Millet responds with anecdotes of his own.  So it goes...

 

Helpful hint for readers, especially when the names are close (Roger/Robert), the discussion gets long & you start losing track of which side is being represented--4 out of 5 times the one who includes his middle initial is the LDS one. 

 

You're welcome

:0)

 

--Erik

[bjw]

We all see and judge others through our own paradigm. I suppose when one assumes that we are not christian and then finds so many modern references to the atonement that there is an assumption that something has changed.

Exactly, I think the problem is so many false reports have circulated about what we believe when they do see we are Christians by their own standards they have to conclude the church has changed, or is trying to be more like mainstream Christianity. If they would lose the baggage created by the countercult community I could see LDS considered as maybe a charismatic-type denomination one of these days, since there is a heavy belief in continuing revelation and spiritual experience.

I think the test of whether or not we are Christians should rest solely on the Atonement. God's past and future, or what He plans on giving us once we are in Heaven are theological beliefs, and should not be used to disqualify us from being Christians, especially since most denominations do not even agree fully on these issues anyway.

[Robert F. Smith]

To which Robert L. Millet responds with anecdotes of his own.  So it goes...

 

Helpful hint for readers, especially when the names are close (Roger/Robert), the discussion gets long & you start losing track of which side is being represented--4 out of 5 times the one who includes his middle initial is the LDS one. 

 

You're welcome

:0)

 

--Erik

Actually, Roger E. Olson uses his  middle initial at his blog, which is very much worth reading -- even if he isn't a Mormon -- and the comments which follow his blog entry are civil and meaningful, and Roger actually replies to what people say.

[Tacenda]

My husband and I met a former LDS woman and her husband who was a former member of the Worldwide Church of God. We met them while camping next to them last Friday night. We had never let our awning down on our trailer before, maybe it was fatigue, not sure, but I finally convinced my husband to ask our neighbors next door. They were super nice and the guy came over and helped us let it down. During conversation, he mentioned he was a pastor in a Baptist church in Salt Lake. We told them we were LDS, but that I was struggling. He invited us over to their place so he could share some Bible verses. So later we walked over. The wife had always been very spiritual and wanted to have a better relationship with Jesus, she said she felt something was missing. She had been married previously to someone in the temple. Apparently her new husband convinced her somehow to leave the LDS church. So I guess they thought my struggling would be a way to teach us the LDS church was not going to lead to salvation. They started in John and then Hebrew and Romans. The pastor read the passages, and while doing it my husband has a habit of saying them by memory. He knew every one of them by memory. We finally had to tell them my husband baptized a Baptist minister on his mission in the south and that it had had a huge congregation. This guy had 30 in his flock, but more power to him. And they were a little struck that it could happen.

Then they proceed to tell us we should get out of the church and it was leading us to hell, not in so many words. That's when I started defending our church. I mentioned the quote from President Uctdorf on Grace, and that it was not of our doing. And mentioned things I still love about the church. It's amazing how that happens! They also mentioned that we won't be angels in heaven and that they are created beings, but we will be goddesses...interesting. I may have heard that wrong.

[Five Solas]

Actually, Roger E. Olson uses his  middle initial at his blog, which is very much worth reading -- even if he isn't a Mormon -- and the comments which follow his blog entry are civil and meaningful, and Roger actually replies to what people say.

I apologize for my moment of cynicism, Robert.  I actually considered the humor might backfire if Roger Olson did use his middle initial on the blog--but I was near the end of my morning treadmill session and decided it was a funny observation to make regardless.  I concede my post had no substance--and the issues discussed are substantial.  I think it would be interesting to take his anecdote about the BYU students and turn it into a poll for the forum.  Maybe after the one I have up about Nephites finishes. 

 

--Erik

[cinepro]

FWIW, this is from his follow-up post:

 

 

 

To the extent that Mormons teach and believe that there is more than one God, that Jesus Christ was not always God, equal in deity with the Father, that human beings can be “exalted” to deity (equal in divinity with God the Father and ruling over their own planet in exactly the same manner he rules over earth), that adult humans are not all sinners in need of salvation (forgiveness, reconciliation, new abundant life as a gift of God), that some part of salvation can be earned by good works, that all churches except the LDS Church are “apostate,” they are not Christians.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/06/what-i-learned-from-the-responses-to-my-post-about-mormonism/

 

I don't know what Millet has been telling him, but if you put all those criteria on a bingo card I'm pretty sure the LDS Church would hit the jackpot.

Edited June 21, 2015 by cinepro

[Bobbieaware]

FWIW, this is from his follow-up post:    I don't know what Millet has been telling him, but if you put all those criteria on a bingo card I'm pretty sure the LDS Church would hit the jackpot.

Where does he come up with the idea that there are some adults who don't need to be saved by the atonement of Christ? I've never heard this accusation before now.

[Calm]

that adult humans are not all sinners in need of salvation

Except does this make sense to anyone?

[mfbukowski]

Except does this make sense to anyone?

I think it was just a rhetorical device.  He listed several beliefs which he judged to be necessary for someone to be a "Christian"

 

So the format of his argument was essentially as follows:

 

"To be classified as a Christian one must believe:

1-

2-

3-

4-

5-

To the extent that Mormons teach

Not 1

Not 2

Not 3

Not 4

Not 4

They are not Christians."

 

So he was just going back and denying each point of his defined criteria, to illustrate several points that Christians CANNOT believe (according to his criteria) and STILL be Christians.

 

I did not get the impression that he necessarily was saying Mormons believed or disbelieved ANY of those points- just simply the argument is structured to say that IF anyone does NOT believe any of those principles, they are NOT Christians (in his belief)

 

His intent was not to represent Mormon beliefs, but to describe certain beliefs which would disqualify any Mormons believing those principles from being "Christian"

 

 

People who have read this blog even casually over the years know what I think those essentials are. For me to consider a church Christian it must preach and teach (or at least espouse on paper) that Jesus Christ is God and Savior, that God is one transcendent, eternal, omnipotent being always existing as three persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that all humans who have reached the age of accountability (except Jesus) are sinners needing salvation and that salvation (reconciliation with God, forgiveness and abundant life) is through the atoning death of Jesus Christ alone and by God’s grace alone through faith, that Jesus Christ was God the Son incarnate who died and rose bodily (empty tomb) and is the one mediator between God and people, that he will return to establish his forever Kingdom in a new heaven and new earth, and that the Bible is the sole supreme authority for Christian faith and practice.

To the extent that Mormons teach and believe the above, they are Christians......

 

To the extent that Mormons teach and believe that there is more than one God, that Jesus Christ was not always God, equal in deity with the Father, that human beings can be “exalted” to deity (equal in divinity with God the Father and ruling over their own planet in exactly the same manner he rules over earth), that adult humans are not all sinners in need of salvation (forgiveness, reconciliation, new abundant life as a gift of God), that some part of salvation can be earned by good works, that all churches except the LDS Church are “apostate,” they are not Christians.

Edited June 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Where does he come up with the idea that there are some adults who don't need to be saved by the atonement of Christ? I've never heard this accusation before now.

He was not saying we believed that, but just that IF we did we would not be "Christian"

 

So it was not an "accusation".

[Broker]

It was interesting to read the comments for the article (referenced in the first post) and see fellow Baptist "christians" throw one of their own overboard for showing any empathy towards Mormons.

[Rivers]

To me it sometimes seems there are two different belief systems within Mormonism. On one hand we have teachings about Christ, the atonement, and grace. On the other hand we have temple theology which is focuses strongly on covenants, ordinances, obedience, sacrifice, etc. The former sometimes gets a little bit overshadowed by the latter in mormon discourse. The teachings of the Boom of Mormon at times take a back seat to Mormonisms later developments. I'm not saying that these two facets of the gospel conflict with each other. But it looks that way sometimes.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Rivers

[Freedom]

To the extent that Mormons teach and believe that there is more than one God

 

 

Scholarship seems to be on our side of this argument

 

 that Jesus Christ was not always God, equal in deity with the Father,

 

 

If Jesus was always God, why does not not show up in the old testament?

 

that human beings can be “exalted” to deity (equal in divinity with God the Father and ruling over their own planet in exactly the same manner he rules over earth),

 

 

We do not teach that we will have our own planet, this is a strawman argument. But yes, we do accept, as the bible teaches, that we will be joint heirs with Christ. 

 

that adult humans are not all sinners in need of salvation (forgiveness, reconciliation, new abundant life as a gift of God),  

 

This is news to me. Where does this doctrine come from? Perhaps he is referring people who are mentally incapacitated? 

 

that some part of salvation can be earned by good works,

Oh, you mean like going to a church and accepting Jesus as your savior? And Catholics are not Christians? 

 

that all churches except the LDS Church are “apostate,” they are not Christians

So it is ok for you to teach this about all other religions, but if anybody says this about you they cannot be christian? Nice. 

[bjw]

To me it sometimes seems there are two different belief systems within Mormonism. One one hand we have teachings about Christ, the atonement, and grace. On the other hand we have temple theology which is focuses strongly on covenants, ordinances, obedience, sacrifice, etc. The former sometimes gets a little bit overshadowed by the latter in mormon discourse. The teachings of the Boom of Mormon at times take a back seat to Mormonisms later developments. I'm not saying that these two facets of the gospel conflict with each other. But it looks that way sometimes.

I think this is where many misconceptions come from to those not familiar with LDS theology. When protestants see the church they view it through the lens of the heaven and hell dichotomy, in that you are either saved or you will burn in hell eternally. The basis of LDS theology is much different, in that the atonement takes the hell part out of the way, and the temple covenants, obedience, and sacrifice are for various higher rewards in the next life as well as insuring a happier existence in this life. However, for shock value many antimormons try to say it is a cult with a long drawn out process for salvation, not pointing out it is an entire different definition of salvation. That's why I think if more knew the basics of Mormonism, not just the sensationalized stuff, there wouldn't be as much misunderstandings.

[cinepro]

We do not teach that we will have our own planet, this is a strawman argument. But yes, we do accept, as the bible teaches, that we will be joint heirs with Christ.

 

 

Just have to share this anecdote every time the subject comes up.  While it is becoming less fashionable to talk about it, LDS doctrine certainly logically leads to the belief that we will "have our own planet" as gods if we achieve exaltation.

 

This is a teaching from President Lorenzo Snow, as published in this manual.

President Snow was visiting a Kindergarten with BY Academy President Brimhall when this happened:

 

 

“‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” (Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, 658–59).

Between this and the infamous "couplet", President Snow either had a very clear and inspired view of the eternal scheme of things, or he was innovative in ways that modern LDS apologists perhaps wish he hadn't been.

Edited June 22, 2015 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

We do not teach that we will have our own planet, this is a strawman argument. But yes, we do accept, as the bible teaches, that we will be joint heirs with Christ. 

One lousy planet? Why do they think our futures would be so limited? Planets are a dime a dozen.

[stemelbow]

Sometimes I get the impression that if we ain't shifting, we ain't doing it right.

I like when McConkie told people that past leaders were working with less knowledge than they had later, thus the shift in the priesthood ban. Hopefully as we continue forward we get more revealed and learn more. causing us to shift.

As to whether we are shifting to the evangelical form of Christianity? I think I see it. We align ourselves with them in many ways in the western culture. I can see how others see us shifting in their direction.