Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, Steve Noel said: Thank you for sharing this article. I was not aware of it. Bill McKeever & Eric Johnson are from Mormonism Research Ministries. They were the ones I was thinking about when I mentioned those who were critical of Millet and those evangelicals engaging in these dialogues. MRM and its associates aren't that great in the critic line, imo. Too much of allowing their own biases to prove the LDS faith false to get in the way of seeing how LDS actually view the world, in any variation. 2
Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 If you are interested in how many LDS view what many evangelical critics have done and are still doing, here is an article that deals with a review of a book by Hank Hanegraaff who uses what are seen as common approaches that err: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/20/1/S00012-5176a4ff41be113Norwood.pdf Did someone already post the Mouw and Mosser article with the subtitle "Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?". That is a classic in the LDS/Evangelical debate/discussion (use whichever term you prefer ). 1
Steve Noel Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: If you are interested in how many LDS view what many evangelical critics have done and are still doing, here is an article that deals with a review of a book by Hank Hanegraaff who uses what are seen as common approaches that err: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/20/1/S00012-5176a4ff41be113Norwood.pdf Did someone already post the Mouw and Mosser article with the subtitle "Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?". That is a classic in the LDS/Evangelical debate/discussion (use whichever term you prefer ). Thanks for sharing this. I read the review of Hanegraaff's book. In the past I have read books against Mormonism by evangelical apologists (James Whtie, Ed Decker, Walter Martin, etc.). I am still trying to evaluate these differing evangelical approaches to Mormonism. I have not read the Mouw and Mosser article before. I do own a book called The New Mormon Challenge where Mosser mentions that article. He says, "That article proved to be controversial in some circles, and there were some on both sides of the divide who misunderstood its intent and misrepresented its contents... The main point of the article was not to laud LDS apologetic scholarship or to highlight evangelical shortcomings. Rather, the main point was the call issued in the conclusion for evangelical scholars to make themselves aware of the work of their LDS counterparts and to thoughtfully engage the new LDS scholarly apologetics" (20). Edited March 31, 2016 by Steve Noel
Steve Noel Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: It is a better read than the Church's own Church History in the Fullness of Times, but the latter is the textbook for the CES church history course and you appear to be looking for the more typical LDS POV, so you might prefer it. It is also available online at lds.org for free Do you know about the book Mormon America by Richard and Joan Ostling? I have seen this continually recommend from evangelicals.
Storm Rider Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Steve Noel said: I am not familiar with Dr. Thomas but it looks like he is publishing a book on this:https://www.createspace.com/6109060 Steve, I am sure that you have noticed a wide range of opinions and views from within the LDS participants. I don't easily recommend this Board for a host of reasons, but the main crux of my opinion centers on the degree of heterodoxy found here among Latter-day Saints or Mormons. The Board has critics, past Mormons, disgruntled Mormons, questioning Mormons; those who attend actively, faithful Mormons, academic Mormons, and Mormons who are scholars, and just eveyday folks that enjoy talking about God. Further, we have Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox, and members of the Latter Day Saint movement. Each is appreciated and valued, but that does not mean that some of your questions will be answered well by all parties. I trust that you will continue to be cautious in your approach. I have a high degree of confidence with several, if not many, participants and lesser degrees confidence with others depending upon topic and depth of knowledge or understanding. If Kevin Christensen says it I will far more often than not be strongly supportive. The same with Robert Smith's comments. Calm is another when it comes to gospel topics that is generally spot on identifying truth and doctrine. There are several others, but my mind is like swiss cheese and I forget far more than I should. BTW, thank you for the information you shared on your religious background. I grew up in the south and am familiar with the Assemblies of God. Granted the Southern Baptists was the big dog in our small town of 4,000 people, but the community was well represented with the typical cast of churches and groups. I am a big fan of Robert Millet. I like him personally and admire him as a scholar. Stephen E. Robinson is also another scholar that I enjoy. 1
Storm Rider Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Steve Noel said: Do you know about the book Mormon America by Richard and Joan Ostling? I have seen this continually recommend from evangelicals. I am familiar with it, but have not read it. I suppose it is worth reading, but it is not a strong foundation upon which to build a good understanding of Mormonism. This opinion comes from reading short excerpts of their book. 1
Steve Noel Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 20 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Steve, I am sure that you have noticed a wide range of opinions and views from within the LDS participants. I don't easily recommend this Board for a host of reasons, but the main crux of my opinion centers on the degree of heterodoxy found here among Latter-day Saints or Mormons. The Board has critics, past Mormons, disgruntled Mormons, questioning Mormons; those who attend actively, faithful Mormons, academic Mormons, and Mormons who are scholars, and just eveyday folks that enjoy talking about God. Further, we have Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox, and members of the Latter Day Saint movement. Each is appreciated and valued, but that does not mean that some of your questions will be answered well by all parties. I trust that you will continue to be cautious in your approach. I have a high degree of confidence with several, if not many, participants and lesser degrees confidence with others depending upon topic and depth of knowledge or understanding. If Kevin Christensen says it I will far more often than not be strongly supportive. The same with Robert Smith's comments. Calm is another when it comes to gospel topics that is generally spot on identifying truth and doctrine. There are several others, but my mind is like swiss cheese and I forget far more than I should. BTW, thank you for the information you shared on your religious background. I grew up in the south and am familiar with the Assemblies of God. Granted the Southern Baptists was the big dog in our small town of 4,000 people, but the community was well represented with the typical cast of churches and groups. I am a big fan of Robert Millet. I like him personally and admire him as a scholar. Stephen E. Robinson is also another scholar that I enjoy. I follow you on the diversity here both within LDS circles and outside of them. It is a little confusing as I am not real familiar with everyone here yet. I am aware that the responses are coming from different perspectives. I appreciate the help. I am a bit of an odd duck. I am a Pentecostal graduating from a SBC Bible College.
Boanerges Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: I am sure that you have noticed a wide range of opinions and views from within the LDS participants. I don't easily recommend this Board for a host of reasons, but the main crux of my opinion centers on the degree of heterodoxy found here among Latter-day Saints or Mormons. The Board has critics, past Mormons, disgruntled Mormons, questioning Mormons; those who attend actively, faithful Mormons, academic Mormons, and Mormons who are scholars, and just eveyday folks that enjoy talking about God. Further, we have Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox, and members of the Latter Day Saint movement. Each is appreciated and valued, but that does not mean that some of your questions will be answered well by all parties. I trust that you will continue to be cautious in your approach. And that is what I like about the board. There are other places (the LDS.net forums, for example) where one can get a purely heterodox view of Mormonism and alternative points of view are frowned upon. Likewise, there are forums (which I will not name) where the vast majority of views are far more cynical and without the moderation of the more orthodox view. There are a few in between, but I have not found one where the broad spectrum of opinion and points of view can be discussed other than this one (noting of course that "anti" stuff is not tolerated here). I have those posters I like as well, and I have those I give less credence to and some whose opinions I respect but whom I don't pay much attention to (and a couple I have considered blocking). My point is, Steve, I think you are in the right place to get the answers you seek because of our diversity and I wouldn't dismiss anyone's opinion out of hand and particularly wouldn't go by someone else's recommendation on who to listen to and who not to listen to (just saying as probably one of the more liberal believers here). 1
mapman Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) I suppose that I'm not completely orthodox in all of my opinions, but I do try to be a faithful member of my church. I can only speak for myself, though. I think discussions about doctrine get confusing because people are using different definitions for doctrine. From what I have seen, there are three main ways that "doctrine" is used in Mormonism: 1. The Book of Mormon talks about the "doctrine of Christ" at various points (see for example 2 Nephi 31). The doctrine of Christ as described in that chapter is also called "the fullness of the Gospel" or "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" at other points in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants. The Articles of Faith call it "the first principles of the Gospel." It is important to keep in mind that despite the way it is used by some Mormons, "Gospel" in the LDS scriptures doesn't mean "church teachings," but instead refers to the Way for mankind to achieve salvation. It is specifically described numerous times to consist of the principles of faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end (in that order). Article of Faith 4 is the most succinct description of the "Doctrine of Christ." It is essentially the same idea as the ordo salutis in Christian theology. While Mormons might disagree on the nature, history, or character of God for example, it is pretty much impossible to find a Mormon who disagrees that a disciple's path in life is described as having faith, repenting, being baptized and renewing covenants with God, receiving the Holy Ghost in our lives, and enduring faithfully to the end. I disagree with those that say that Mormonism has no doctrine, because while everything else might be fuzzy to a certain extent, these simple principles are pretty much nonnegotiable. They are the essence and foundation of our religion. 2. The second way that Mormons use "doctrine" is as a synonym for "an official teaching." In other words, if it is something repeatedly taught in current manuals or talks by general authorities it is a doctrine. This is the way that the church defines "doctrine" in it's official explanation of what doctrine is: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine. It is what they mean when they say that seminary and Sunday school teachers should only teach doctrine. They want people in a church context to only teach what prophets and apostles have already taught and are currently teaching. It is important to understand that according to this definition of doctrine, doctrine has and will continue to change (despite the common belief among some Mormons that church teachings have never and never will change). This is according to the important Mormon belief in continual revelation. Sometimes our belief in continual revelation is represented by outsiders as "God changing his mind," but it is better understood as God helping us overcome our limitations in our understanding. 3. The third way that "doctrine" is used is as a synonym for truth. As I said many Mormons will conflate this third definition with the second, but many prophets and apostles have indicated that truth is greater than what is taught in the church currently. Under this definition, Mormons would say that any truth or goodness in the world is Mormon doctrine, even if we haven't systematically brought it into our church teachings yet. With this definition, scientific discoveries, doctrines of other churches, personal revelation, and any other true principles belong in Mormonism. Hopefully that clears things up a little bit Edited March 31, 2016 by mapman 2
Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Steve Noel said: Do you know about the book Mormon America by Richard and Joan Ostling? I have seen this continually recommend from evangelicals. Not much personally, though I have some scholar friends who don't have that high opinion of it, but it has been over a decade since I did any research into it and I can't remember specific issues. Here is a review fom a source I trust (FARMS/NAMI) though my lack of knowledge about the book prevents me from saying if he is spot on, mostly correct or veered off course this time around of course: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1455&index=10 I do believe it is one of the better books if my memory serves me correctly, I think iirc there is a problem with some not understanding it was written from a critical viewpoint and expecting it was a completely objective examination. Edited March 31, 2016 by Calm
cinepro Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Joseph Smith used to say: "We have no creed save it be all truth" (Sunday morning, Jan 1, 1843; cf. his clerk’s Rough Draft Notes for the Manuscript History: “L.D. Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist," B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church, V:215; "One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may," HC, V:499, July 9, 1843). It's a nice statement, but not doctrinal. 2
Steve Noel Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 11 minutes ago, mapman said: I suppose that I'm not completely orthodox in all of my opinions, but I do try to be a faithful member of my church. I can only speak for myself, though. I think discussions about doctrine get confusing because people are using different definitions for doctrine. From what I have seen, there are three main ways that "doctrine" is used in Mormonism: 1. The Book of Mormon talks about the "doctrine of Christ" at various points (see for example 2 Nephi 31). The doctrine of Christ as described in that chapter is also called "the fullness of the Gospel" or "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" at other points in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants. The Articles of Faith call it "the first principles of the Gospel." It is important to keep in mind that despite the way it is used by some Mormons, "Gospel" in the LDS scriptures doesn't mean "church teachings," but instead refers to the Way for mankind to achieve salvation. It is specifically described numerous times to consist of the principles of faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end (in that order). Article of Faith 4 is the most succinct description of the "Doctrine of Christ." It is essentially the same idea as the ordo salutis in Christian theology. While Mormons might disagree on the nature, history, or character of God for example, it is pretty much impossible to find a Mormon who disagrees that a disciple's path in life is described as having faith, repenting, being baptized and renewing covenants with God, receiving the Holy Ghost in our lives, and enduring faithfully to the end. I disagree with those that say that Mormonism has no doctrine, because while everything else might be fuzzy to a certain extent, these simple principles are pretty much nonnegotiable. They are the essence and foundation of our religion. 2. The second way that Mormons use "doctrine" is as a synonym for "an official teaching." In other words, if it is something repeatedly taught in current manuals or talks by general authorities it is a doctrine. This is the way that the church defines "doctrine" in it's official explanation of what doctrine is: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine. It is what they mean when they say that seminary and Sunday school teachers should only teach doctrine. They want people in a church context to only teach what prophets and apostles have already taught and are currently teaching. It is important to understand that according to this definition of doctrine, doctrine has and will continue to change (despite the common belief among some Mormons that church teachings have never and never will change). This is according to the important Mormon belief in continual revelation. Sometimes our belief in continual revelation is represented by outsiders as "God changing his mind," but it is better understood as God helping us overcome our limitations in our understanding. 3. The third way that "doctrine" is used is as a synonym for truth. As I said many Mormons will conflate this third definition with the second, but many prophets and apostles have indicated that truth is greater than what is taught in the church currently. Under this definition, Mormons would say that any truth or goodness in the world is Mormon doctrine, even if we haven't systematically brought it into our church teachings yet. With this definition, scientific discoveries, doctrines of other churches, personal revelation, and any other true principles belong in Mormonism. Hopefully that clears things up a little bit This was definitely helpful. Thank you for contributing to the thread.
mapman Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 I would second the recommendation to read Preach My Gospel, especially the five missionary lessons that missionaries teach to people investigating whether they want to join the church or not. If you want something more nuanced, I would recommend taking a look at Richard Bushman's Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction or the Oxford Handbook of Mormonism. 1
Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) Hmm..I have read some of the review (apparently it gets to the book later) and I should say I don't draw the line quite in the same place as Lou does in describing the evangelical debate. Edited March 31, 2016 by Calm
Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 For a contrasting view from another scholar I like, see: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23288629?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents In case that doesn't work, it is Armand Mauss' review of Mormon America.
Steve Noel Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Calm said: Hmm..I have read some of the review (apparently it gets to the book later) and I should said I don't draw the line quite in the same place as Lou does in describing the evangelical debate. It is quite long and I am too tired to read it tonight. I read a bit though. There is a definite difference in tone between this article and Norwood's response to Hanegraaff. Lou seems much more jaded and cynical towards evangelicals. My guess would be that there are some strong conservative LDS critics of people like Robert Millet, just as there are strong evangelical critics of Richard Mouw. Edited March 31, 2016 by Steve Noel 1
Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 Lou has a distinctive reputation among LDS apologists. I think he is excellent at pointing out things we should pay attention to even if I don't always agree (and in fact have been known to strongly disagree at times and strongly agree at others, we have had some interesting discussions in my opinion) with his positions on how we should view those things. His viewpoint is one that needs to be understood if you want to understand both the history and range of LDS apologetics (I am pretty certain he is both the oldest and the longest participant in apologetics FairMormon has...if I haven't mentioned it before, I am a member of FairMormon, been 15 years or so, though more behind the scenes besides my conversations here).
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 6 hours ago, Steve Noel said: Thanks for this. I regularly long for more time to read and study. I think I am struggling with this perspective because I equate doctrine with truth. To me saying "we have no doctrine" is tantamount to saying truth is relative. I understand your point about not having a body of teaching that is independent. And what theory of truth do you subscribe to then? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ Truth is relative to a context. Scientific truth is not the same as spiritual truth. Science cannot prove that Jesus is the savior yet both are true. So is that relative truth? In fact Alma 32 teaches that truth is what is "sweet" to us- that is something like the pragmatic theory of truth insofar as Pragmatism is a theory of truth
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Steve Noel said: This articulates my concern very well. This is what I am getting at when I seek to know what is "official" LDS belief. Can I know, as an outsider, if what I am being taught is a fringe belief or mainstream? Are there essential beliefs that one cannot reject and remain a faithful Mormon? We seem to be repeating ourselves. This is Ostler's point- the answer would be "no" with the exception of those principles found in the temple recommend interview. All of those questions require a "testimony"- a personal revelation of the truth of the principles described. Edited March 31, 2016 by mfbukowski
Rajah Manchou Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 IMO, the most critical requirement to understanding Mormonism can be found in the Joseph Smith quote in mapman's signature."One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." --Joseph Smith Mormonism acknowledges revealed truth over time, as revealed in different places and in different eras of time. A Mormon embraces all truth from the time of Adam to the Noahide Laws to the Law of Moses to the Gospels to the Restored Gospel. It is awkward trying to reconcile all laws under one roof (think polygamy, race, slavery and sacrifice) but these are issues all Abrahamic religions face. Mormonism tackles the variations of the past head on while leaving space for God to reveal more truth in the future. This is why I love Mormonism. Its not fixed at any one point in time or place. It has a feeling of To Be Continued... If you are looking for a Mormon Doctrine, you'll get the April 2016 edition through General Conference this weekend. That version will be valid at least until October 2016. 2
mfbukowski Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Thanks for the kind words, Bob!
mapman Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: IMO, the most critical requirement to understanding Mormonism can be found in the Joseph Smith quote in mapman's signature."One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." --Joseph Smith Mormonism acknowledges revealed truth over time, as revealed in different places and in different eras of time. A Mormon embraces all truth from the time of Adam to the Noahide Laws to the Law of Moses to the Gospels to the Restored Gospel. It is awkward trying to reconcile all laws under one roof (think polygamy, race, slavery and sacrifice) but these are issues all Abrahamic religions face. Mormonism tackles the variations of the past head on while leaving space for God to reveal more truth in the future. This is why I love Mormonism. Its not fixed at any one point in time or place. It has a feeling of To Be Continued... If you are looking for a Mormon Doctrine, you'll get the April 2016 edition through General Conference this weekend. That version will be valid at least until October 2016. That's really well said! I totally agree. One way I think about it is that if you are willing to sacrifice the comfort of complete consistency you are able to more easily accept more sources of truth and methodologies for finding it, even when they rub up against each other sometimes. At its most expansive (and for me most inspiring) Mormonism can embrace the smallest objects observed by physicists, to the secrets of the cosmos being discovered by astronomers, to the writings of the poet, to the teachings of prophets in all nations like Muhammad or the Buddha, to the impressions God puts in your own heart. It seems to me that the farther afield you go from our core doctrines, the less consistency you will find. But the more you explore the truth and good the world can offer you, the richer the experience will be and you will feel the desire to learn more and expand your worldview. I think Mormonism makes the most sense according to a pragmatist epistemology like that of William James or Charles Peirce, where truth is gradually discovered by observing its utility in the world. That being said, Steve should be aware that there are other strands of Mormonism that have a much greater emphasis on consistency, uniformity, and suspicion of outside methodologies like science and philosophy (such as Bruce R. McConkie or Joseph Fielding Smith). They would defend themselves as being the more faithful and orthodox version of looking at things. I'm not sure, but I think that the majority of Mormons in the 21st century are more comfortable with this way of looking at things, probably mostly because this way requires less personal initiative to go investigating things. Edited March 31, 2016 by mapman 2
Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) You have got me grinning over the To Be Continued... phrasing, such a satisfying way of encapsulating what my faith (my version of the LDS faith) means to me. A benediction for beginnings. Growth, eternal growth, infinite growth. Anticipation of excitment, hope, curiosity expanded and answered, and a bit of dread because part of me really, really doesn't like surprises, but something will come along to help me deal with that. Permission to add itto my signature? Edited March 31, 2016 by Calm
Robert F. Smith Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 7 hours ago, Steve Noel said: I am not familiar with Dr. Thomas but it looks like he is publishing a book on this:https://www.createspace.com/6109060 Thank you, Steve. I knew he was working on this remarkable book, but did not know that it would be out soon. Based on his presentations here in Provo, I can highly recommend his book.
Recommended Posts