A Different God?

[Steve Noel]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

 

The following is an interesting thread that sheds some light on this struggle across the spectrum of TBM where the "B" is the changing spectrum.  Poor sister Oscarson is crying out for Orthodoxy, a growing silent cry as the G.I and baby boomers grow old and die off.  Note how some here are giving her a three-cheers, desiring solid orthodox doctrine which is quickly slipping away to the extreme opposite of preaching of no doctrine, no orthodoxy.

The Church is walking a very thin line here, keeping the current base of those born or raised by old school parents to transition if needed to a brave new world.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67352-sister-oscarsons-talk/

What is G.I? I've seen you mention that several times now.

 

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Steve, I know Bill McKeever.  To be frank, I don't spend a lot of time studying the works of critics.  In my life I have found there is so much positive things to study that spend a lot of time reading books or documents that are trying to build faith, build holiness.  

The reality of Church history, Church teaching, etc. is that there was never a monolithic "teaching".  There has always been a spectrum; it was not black and white.  When I read or hear critics who try to paint the history of church teaching in black and white I tend to shut-off.  Their work has little appeal because I understand that their position is agenda driven rather than truth driven.  Make sense?

I take the same approach to people - if I am going to invest time in something then I need to enjoy it.  If someone wants to yammer on and on about how terrible "X" is without making any effort to improve their lives I don't have time for it.  

Thanks. I have seen Dr. Robert Millet say that the changes in Mormonism is a change in emphasis, but not doctrine. Let me ask you this. How do you account for the perception among many that the LDS Church has been shifting away from many early teachings? I have referenced THIS long blog post by Evangelical theologian Roger. E. Olson as an example of this perception. Olson briefly compares James Talmadge's A Study of the Articles of the Faith (1890), Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine (1979), and LDS Beliefs (2011) by Robert Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner, and Brent L. Top. Here is a contracted form of what he writes:

"When I compare the three (at least relatively) authoritative books of Mormon doctrine mentioned above I find in them an evolution of Mormonism over time. Some of it is explicit and some of it is a matter of tone... I think LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference constitutes a quantum leap from Talmage and McConkie with regard to tone and expression of Mormon doctrines...What I am suggesting is that there is a gradual but discernable shift taking place in the LDS Church and its Mormonism, or at least in the Mormonism being defined and re-defined by BYU scholars. "

This is a very common perception by outsiders. I am learning here that it also seems to be how some inside the LDS Church view things. 

[salgare]

58 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

What is G.I? I've seen you mention that several times now.

 

For some reason some definitions refer to it simply as the G.I. generation.  The official name always seemed a bit weird to me

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/here-is-when-each-generation-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks. I have seen Dr. Robert Millet say that the changes in Mormonism is a change in emphasis, but not doctrine. Let me ask you this. How do you account for the perception among many that the LDS Church has been shifting away from many early teachings? I have referenced THIS long blog post by Evangelical theologian Roger. E. Olson as an example of this perception. Olson briefly compares James Talmadge's A Study of the Articles of the Faith (1890), Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine (1979), and LDS Beliefs (2011) by Robert Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner, and Brent L. Top. Here is a contracted form of what he writes:

"When I compare the three (at least relatively) authoritative books of Mormon doctrine mentioned above I find in them an evolution of Mormonism over time. Some of it is explicit and some of it is a matter of tone... I think LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference constitutes a quantum leap from Talmage and McConkie with regard to tone and expression of Mormon doctrines...What I am suggesting is that there is a gradual but discernable shift taking place in the LDS Church and its Mormonism, or at least in the Mormonism being defined and re-defined by BYU scholars. "

This is a very common perception by outsiders. I am learning here that it also seems to be how some inside the LDS Church view things. 

You have probably already heard this, but McKonkie got in a little bit of trouble for publishing Mormon Doctrine precisely because the prophet was concerned that people would believe it was an authoritative source and that McKonkie spoke for the church in it. 

I would suggest, on the bigger question, that it's not uncommon for different people to speak about the same gospel of Jesus Christ in different ways.

The New Testament writers would seem to be a great example of that, especially in how the teachings of one can sometimes be said to contradict the teachings of another, depending on how the reader interprets it. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks. I have seen Dr. Robert Millet say that the changes in Mormonism is a change in emphasis, but not doctrine. Let me ask you this. How do you account for the perception among many that the LDS Church has been shifting away from many early teachings? I have referenced THIS long blog post by Evangelical theologian Roger. E. Olson as an example of this perception. Olson briefly compares James Talmadge's A Study of the Articles of the Faith (1890), Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine (1979), and LDS Beliefs (2011) by Robert Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner, and Brent L. Top. Here is a contracted form of what he writes:

"When I compare the three (at least relatively) authoritative books of Mormon doctrine mentioned above I find in them an evolution of Mormonism over time. Some of it is explicit and some of it is a matter of tone... I think LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference constitutes a quantum leap from Talmage and McConkie with regard to tone and expression of Mormon doctrines...What I am suggesting is that there is a gradual but discernable shift taking place in the LDS Church and its Mormonism, or at least in the Mormonism being defined and re-defined by BYU scholars. "

This is a very common perception by outsiders. I am learning here that it also seems to be how some inside the LDS Church view things. 

Hello Steve, I think I can understand this perception you highlight with the quote.  My knee-jerk response is that their conclusion is based three sources that I would not use.  Mormon Doctrine is not an ideal source.  Elder McConkie was a man that grew into his later stature of an incredible man of God - a description I would not have used for him while he was active in his earlier life.  Another way of saying this is that he once saw in black and white and the older he got the more he saw in a wider range, with more nuances.  Regardless, I would be interested to see the same analysis without that book involved.

More to your point, that Mormonism has been evolving.  On the surface this is in keeping with LDS theology.  We saw the same type of progression with Joseph Smith - a growth of line upon line, precept upon precept.  He remarked this same growth as the Spirit directed him to more truth and a better way of governing the church itself.  

During my lifetime I have seen a deeper appreciation of the frailty of leaders - i.e. that they are prophets when they speak as a prophet and a man when they speak as a man.  As I say this I must acknowledge that the concept is not novel within LDS teaching - both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were clear that the saints must pursue a spiritual conviction of all truth regardless of who says what.  

Throughout the history of the Church there have been periods where one doctrine or doctrines would rise in prominence or emphasis and then another set of doctrines would replace them.  For example, there was a time when the Word of Wisdom was a major, discussed distinction for the saints.  The Church moved away from this position in the 70s - it remains a teaching, but the emphasis has moved on to other teachings.  

In the 80s the Book of Mormon became known officially as another Testament of Jesus Christ.  This was always an understanding of the saints regarding the Book of Mormon, but the emphasis was to change the title so that all would see it for what it is.  

Additionally, the Church has moved away from cultural teachings - those statements made by some leaders at one time or another.  I see the difference in some who think that every word that comes from the mouth of the prophets and apostles, or is recorded in any lesson manual or other publication, is the same as scripture.  This is juxtaposed against those who feel that doctrine is recorded in scripture.  If it is not stated in scripture than it is not doctrine.  This remains a contested point among the saints at present.  Though I fall into the later camp I understand and respect those who feel differently than I do.  

I think President Hinckley had a significant impact on what we now term doctrine and dislodge older teachings that are not found in scripture, but were words of the prophets and apostles.  This was a change in emphasis for the saints and supports the premise discussed above.  

Just some of my quick thoughts.  I don't think I have answered your question adequately, but these are my initial thoughts. 

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Steve, I think I can understand this perception you highlight with the quote.  My knee-jerk response is that their conclusion is based three sources that I would not use.  Mormon Doctrine is not an ideal source.  Elder McConkie was a man that grew into his later stature of an incredible man of God - a description I would not have used for him while he was active in his earlier life.  Another way of saying this is that he once saw in black and white and the older he got the more he saw in a wider range, with more nuances.  Regardless, I would be interested to see the same analysis without that book involved.

More to your point, that Mormonism has been evolving.  On the surface this is in keeping with LDS theology.  We saw the same type of progression with Joseph Smith - a growth of line upon line, precept upon precept.  He remarked this same growth as the Spirit directed him to more truth and a better way of governing the church itself.  

During my lifetime I have seen a deeper appreciation of the frailty of leaders - i.e. that they are prophets when they speak as a prophet and a man when they speak as a man.  As I say this I must acknowledge that the concept is not novel within LDS teaching - both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were clear that the saints must pursue a spiritual conviction of all truth regardless of who says what.  

Throughout the history of the Church there have been periods where one doctrine or doctrines would rise in prominence or emphasis and then another set of doctrines would replace them.  For example, there was a time when the Word of Wisdom was a major, discussed distinction for the saints.  The Church moved away from this position in the 70s - it remains a teaching, but the emphasis has moved on to other teachings.  

In the 80s the Book of Mormon became known officially as another Testament of Jesus Christ.  This was always an understanding of the saints regarding the Book of Mormon, but the emphasis was to change the title so that all would see it for what it is.  

Additionally, the Church has moved away from cultural teachings - those statements made by some leaders at one time or another.  I see the difference in some who think that every word that comes from the mouth of the prophets and apostles, or is recorded in any lesson manual or other publication, is the same as scripture.  This is juxtaposed against those who feel that doctrine is recorded in scripture.  If it is not stated in scripture than it is not doctrine.  This remains a contested point among the saints at present.  Though I fall into the later camp I understand and respect those who feel differently than I do.  

I think President Hinckley had a significant impact on what we now term doctrine and dislodge older teachings that are not found in scripture, but were words of the prophets and apostles.  This was a change in emphasis for the saints and supports the premise discussed above.  

Just some of my quick thoughts.  I don't think I have answered your question adequately, but these are my initial thoughts. 

You don't need too put to much time into it. This is a helpful summary. I think this is similar to what I've read before. Thanks.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Steve Noel

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

You don't need to put to much time into it. This is a helpful summary. I think this is similar to what I've read before. Thanks.

First a bit on Priesthood organization.  A given Ward today has two Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums (Elders, High Priests).  I don't remember exactly and a quick google search was not reviling it, but it seems it was pre 1970's there was a third quorum in every ward, the Seventies.  Historically it was the Seventies that were over Missionary work and their ability to take those the teachings of the Restored Gospel to the world.

B.H. Roberts was the GA level President of the Seventies over all these quorums in each ward.  Part of his responsibility was to provide the Sunday lesson material to be taught the members of the quorum.  These books are all online available for free I believe.

https://archive.org/details/seventyscoursein00robe

Instead of comparing the works of individual members (works not signed by FP),  Compare official Church teaching materials, intended for weekly Sunday teaching of members of two different times ... Seventies Course in Theology and any of these that were being rotated through for High Priest instruction last I attended:

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=teachings+of+the+presidents

The problem with the thoughts of the like of "line upon line" to justify the changes would seem to imply new knowledge, Truth and doctrine is being acquired over time, when the reality is a dummy down and loss of these things.

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by salgare

[Russell C McGregor]

10 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Storm

From what I can ascertain, the way salgare is describing what's been going on in Mormonism is similar to how many Evangelical critics (anti-Mormon writers from the LDS perspective) have described the difference between past and current Mormonism (e.g. James White & Bill McKeever).

I agree with you. Salgare is parroting boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda.

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

What is G.I? I've seen you mention that several times now.

 

Gastrointestinal. The GI generation is the one that has the most digestive trouble.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

First a bit on Priesthood organization.  A given Ward today has two Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums (Elders, High Priests).  I don't remember exactly and a quick google search was not reviling it, but it seems it was pre 1970's there was a third quorum in every ward, the Seventies.  Historically it was the Seventies that were over Missionary work and their ability to take those the teachings of the Restored Gospel to the world.

B.H. Roberts was the GA level President of the Seventies over all these quorums in each ward.  Part of his responsibility was to provide the Sunday lesson material to be taught the members of the quorum.  These books are all online available for free I believe.

https://archive.org/details/seventyscoursein00robe

Instead of comparing the works of individual members (works not signed by FP),  Compare official Church teaching materials, intended for weekly Sunday teaching of members of two different times ... Seventies Course in Theology and any of these that were being rotated through for High Priest instruction last I attended:

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=teachings+of+the+presidents

The problem with the thoughts of the like of "line upon line" to justify the changes would seem to imply new knowledge, Truth and doctrine is being acquired over time, when the reality is a dummy down and loss of these things.

 

That's almost as good as Walter Martin's authoritative declaration that an LDS ward is run by a bishop and two teachers.

Every ward has an Elders' Quorum, but the High Priests' Quorum exists only at the stake level. Likewise with the former stake quorums of Seventy.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

First a bit on Priesthood organization.  A given Ward today has two Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums (Elders, High Priests).  I don't remember exactly and a quick google search was not reviling it, but it seems it was pre 1970's there was a third quorum in every ward, the Seventies.  Historically it was the Seventies that were over Missionary work and their ability to take those the teachings of the Restored Gospel to the world.

B.H. Roberts was the GA level President of the Seventies over all these quorums in each ward.  Part of his responsibility was to provide the Sunday lesson material to be taught the members of the quorum.  These books are all online available for free I believe.

https://archive.org/details/seventyscoursein00robe

Instead of comparing the works of individual members (works not signed by FP),  Compare official Church teaching materials, intended for weekly Sunday teaching of members of two different times ... Seventies Course in Theology and any of these that were being rotated through for High Priest instruction last I attended:

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=teachings+of+the+presidents

The problem with the thoughts of the like of "line upon line" to justify the changes would seem to imply new knowledge, Truth and doctrine is being acquired over time, when the reality is a dummy down and loss of these things.

 

You are consistent in the spin category.  Do you go to school for that somewhere or is this just all natural with you?  Just curious.  Hmm,  and who is the ruler of the natural man?  I know I have heard it, but I have been dumbed down so much I cannot think of it.  Carnal and devilish, almost there...dang it.  Just cannot think of it.

[salgare]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You are consistent in the spin category.  Do you go to school for that somewhere or is this just all natural with you?  Just curious.  Hmm,  and who is the ruler of the natural man?  I know I have heard it, but I have been dumbed down so much I cannot think of it.  Carnal and devilish, almost there...dang it.  Just cannot think of it.

Dang I miss this site. thread banned from my our thread, put on restricted for what, trying to seriously discuss something? Well Steve appears I spread the curtain just a bit too far for the comfort of the apologist here.  Good luck with your studies and God bless

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, salgare said:

Dang I miss this site. thread banned from my our thread, put on restricted for what, trying to seriously discuss something? Well Steve appears I spread the curtain just a bit too far for the comfort of the apologist here.  Good luck with your studies and God bless

If you were banned I assure I had nothing to do with in in a direct manner.  However, you did nothing to discuss anything.  You exhibited the proverbial drive-by shooting, providing no facts, and an abundance of innuendo, opinion, and misdirection.  My advice - STOP IT.  If want to discuss begin by stating your opinion as your opinion ONLY AFTER you have posed a question.  

Steve would be an excellent example for you.  He is a student of religion and certainly has his own thoughts and opinions and yet, not a single time, has he demeaned, distorted, or condemned anyone on the Board, Church history, church leaders, teachings, etc.  He is respectful, something a number of people fail to be.  

[salgare]

49 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

If you were banned I assure I had nothing to do with in in a direct manner.  However, you did nothing to discuss anything.  You exhibited the proverbial drive-by shooting, providing no facts, and an abundance of innuendo, opinion, and misdirection.

It was in no means a drive by shooting,  I had hoped for a nice long discussion.  I was foolish enough to derail my own thread by responding to issues that would explode into a derail.  I should have just keep pulling back to the issues of discussing the patterns of old guard apologetics, new guard apologetics, and nuanced apologetics and if other religious organizations see similar trends. 

I was silenced by the stated reasons of not giving CFR's and not responding to others posts.  I don't have easy access to that thread (guest for a handful of looks) but I believe that ban happened within two or three hours of the thread being opened.  One of my last replies to Robert noting that I was sorry for the slow responses.  I was at work multi-tasking and for some reason the page loads there are horrible slow.  I was responding to posts in order and in fact hit submit to my reply to Julian's first reply which was rejected with the ban.

I would like to apologize to those that called me on being wrong about the time-photo deal.  I had heard it was removed, I had not verified it and I was wrong for that uninformed passing of a rumor.

I would also like to apologize to all the FairMormon supporters as I was quickly reminded of how touchy a topic of the reputation is. It was not my intention to do a "drive by" and insult and cause problems.  As I stated it was a critics statement, which I believe Steve would want to consider.  In my response to Julian which was rejected, I was encouraging her and others, that now I have presented Steve with the critics view, you guys give him your view.  But of course my intentions here went very badly.

My advice - STOP IT.  If want to discuss begin by stating your opinion as your opinion ONLY AFTER you have posed a question.

Steve would be an excellent example for you.  He is a student of religion and certainly has his own thoughts and opinions and yet, not a single time, has he demeaned, distorted, or condemned anyone on the Board, Church history, church leaders, teachings, etc.  He is respectful, something a number of people fail to be.  

IMO, Steve knows more about Mormonism than he might let on.   I can image the conversation with a Professor, or scholar; Steve: "Hey I want to go study these creatures in their native environment", MDDB savy person: Don't get too close they bite! (i.e. just boot ya). 

Like I mentioned to Steve in his social Hello thread, I'd love to hear one of his sermons, or papers or be in an environment where he could speak his mind and still get close and personal to the people he is trying to learn about.

I suspect my being silenced in the thread, now restricted to not be able to start a thread, limited posts per day, no IM and for what?   Here is a good example of why Steve is such a model guest.

My comments embedded in blue

Edited April 8, 2016 by salgare

[Storm Rider]

29 minutes ago, salgare said:

My comments embedded in blue

I don't doubt Steve's knowledge or his objectives.  More importantly, I don't really care; those are his personal issues.  What I care about is that he approaches the topic with a degree of respect and openness. We have all seen the Evangelical arrive on the Board thinking (s)he is going to show those stupid Mormons a thing or two.  Unfortunately, they crash and burn before we get anywhere substantive because all of us have learned the basic anti-Mormon attacks since we were missionaries, if not before then.  They too often don't know the Bible, don't know Christian history, and don't know their own theology.  It is refreshing to have an Evangelical arrive with a degree of humility.  He may think we are all a pack of raving lunatics and confused baboons - he just doesn't voice those opinions here.  That is good enough for me to respect him.  

 

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't doubt Steve's knowledge or his objectives.  More importantly, I don't really care; those are his personal issues.  What I care about is that he approaches the topic with a degree of respect and openness. We have all seen the Evangelical arrive on the Board thinking (s)he is going to show those stupid Mormons a thing or two.  Unfortunately, they crash and burn before we get anywhere substantive because all of us have learned the basic anti-Mormon attacks since we were missionaries, if not before then.  They too often don't know the Bible, don't know Christian history, and don't know their own theology.  It is refreshing to have an Evangelical arrive with a degree of humility.  He may think we are all a pack of raving lunatics and confused baboons - he just doesn't voice those opinions here.  That is good enough for me to respect him.  

 

I understand that, and agree.  I would not be surprised if Steve is not doing this for a needed work at school, or a book, or simply to be a better informed apologist as he approaches a time that he can utilize all of his studies to date.  I have not addressed anything toward Steve over the last several days with any intention of souring him, or dissuading him, good heavens he's not some golden contact.  His initial statements stated he wanted to observe faithful members.  Hopefully I was somewhat helpful in his realizing that faithful Mormons are in transition and cover quite a spectrum.

And I certainty had no drive by intentions of simply offending the regulars.  I did address that OP to him.  My whole desire has been to honestly present him with other sides of the story.  This has come up before in the last few days.  I proposed getting views from NOM, MDB and here for an individual truly wanting to understand where Mormonism has been, where it is now and where it seems to be heading.  Equal time at all three would be required to get the big picture here.  Critics don't fear that, only apologist do.

I was reminded yesterday that Mormon Apologetics, was not, is not and will not be ad hominum.  And yet in the course of a few hours I was accused of being an angry, uninformed, malicious etc. etc. and quickly silenced instead of addressing the issues of the OP and allowing all to contribute.  Unfortunately Mormon Dialogue and Discussion is still moderated and the dominant regulars remain FAIR and MADD at heart.  Simply removing the word apologetics from the name only provided moderate results.

Edited April 8, 2016 by salgare

[igonzals]

Steve, ¿Jesus's human nature was truly human? ¿Was He Truly Man? ¿The Christ's human nature is separable or unseparable of His Being/Person that has allways has been God? Then Jesus and all of us are of the same race. ¿Was Christ's human nature perfected until be perfect in his resurrection (Jesus's Tehosis)? ¿His human nature reached a fullness of glory? Then why his children are not capable to progress like him in his nature until have a full deification? The interesting question at this point is this deificated being is god or God (only from our scripture we can assure "g"od. See D&C 76, 132). This has been - in my opinion - an unrevealed issue. I understand that BY and other prominent mormons says is the same. If it is so, God and Man are the same race.

Jesus said that His Father was Man like him. It may be the key to approximate that the statement of "same race" has high importance and it would be a tremendous theological contribution from Mormonism.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/7/2016 at 7:36 AM, Storm Rider said:

Salgare, do you work in politics?  Your ability to spin is admirable.  If you don't work in politics then it should be your next field of endeavor.  Such a calm, forked tongue, yet after reading your words one realizes you have said nothing of fact and are left with a sour taste.  

I have noticed this of him again and again.

He creates categories out of thin air with no evidence for their existence.

I absolutely deny any assertion that I am anything but  a "True Believing Mormon" and reject any title like "Nuanced Mormon".

I consider that slander and will take action if necessary.  I am tired of it.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

I understand that, and agree.  I would not be surprised if Steve is not doing this for a needed work at school, or a book, or simply to be a better informed apologist as he approaches a time that he can utilize all of his studies to date.  I have not addressed anything toward Steve over the last several days with any intention of souring him, or dissuading him, good heavens he's not some golden contact.  His initial statements stated he wanted to observe faithful members.  Hopefully I was somewhat helpful in his realizing that faithful Mormons are in transition and cover quite a spectrum.

And I certainty had no drive by intentions of simply offending the regulars.  I did address that OP to him.  My whole desire has been to honestly present him with other sides of the story.  This has come up before in the last few days.  I proposed getting views from NOM, MDB and here for an individual truly wanting to understand where Mormonism has been, where it is now and where it seems to be heading.  Equal time at all three would be required to get the big picture here.  Critics don't fear that, only apologist do.

I was reminded yesterday that Mormon Apologetics, was not, is not and will not be ad hominum.  And yet in the course of a few hours I was accused of being an angry, uninformed, malicious etc. etc. and quickly silenced instead of addressing the issues of the OP and allowing all to contribute.  Unfortunately Mormon Dialogue and Discussion is still moderated and the dominant regulars remain FAIR and MADD at heart.  Simply removing the word apologetics from the name only provided moderate results.

I categorically deny your characterization of me as a "Nuanced Mormon" and strongly encourage you to stop characterizing me as such.

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, salgare said:

For some reason some definitions refer to it simply as the G.I. generation.  The official name always seemed a bit weird to me

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/here-is-when-each-generation-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/

This of course does not make sense- the article does not refer to "GI" at all.

Perhaps your question was about "GA".  That would refer to "General Authorities".  They are a certain class of authorities in the church as opposed to "Area Authorities".  Some authorities have leadership responsibilities over local areas only, and some are authorities over the church at large, and are like supervisors to area authorities

[Steve Noel]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

My comments embedded in blue

I assure you all that I have no ulterior motives here. I have a passion for studying Scripture, theology, Church history, etc. I do not personally know anybody else who cares at all what Mormons believe. I do not personally know any Mormons. I also do not know any Evangelical scholars. I attend a small Pentecostal church in Michigan. I am getting my BA in Religion degree online through Luther Rice University. I wish I could talk to high level scholars. I was surprised to get a response on Facebook when I sent Carl Mosser questions about Mormonism. My interest in Mormonism has nothing to do with my schooling. I am currently taking only 1 course (my last one!), and it is English Composition II. I do have to write a research paper for this course, but I am not writing on Mormonism. I am doing my paper on why Genesis 1 should be translated literally and not figuratively.

Sal thinks I may know more about Mormonism than I am articulating. I don't know if that is true. I do know a good bit about Mormonism, but much of that knowledge comes from Evangelical apologetic works on Mormonism. I have read Walter Martin's chapter on Mormonism in Kingdom of the Cults, James White's Letters to a Mormon Elder, Janis Hutchinson's The Mormon Missionaries, Ed Decker's The God Makers, parts of Gerald & Sandra Tanner's The Changing World of Mormonism, Marvin Cowan's Mormon Claims Answered, Ron Rhodes' chapter on Mormonism in The Challenge of the Cults, and Richard Abanes' One Nation Under Gods. In addition I have read sections of many other books from Christian apologists or former Mormons who have written against Mormonism. I have also listened to many hours of teachings, podcasts, and debates on Mormonism from folks like James White, Walter Martin, Bill McKeever, and Robert Morey. Several years ago I read through the book of Mormon in about 3 weeks. This was when Mitt Romney was running for President and I was listening a lot to Glenn Beck. After reading through the Book of Mormon I went to Mormon.org and had the missionaries come over. I was not interested in joining the LDS Church. I just wanted to discuss Mormonism with actual Mormons. We had some good discussions, but they were very basic. The missionaries were not really prepared too get too far off the path of their lessons. Many times when I would challenge a belief or interpretation they would just begin to state, "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet..." I could not get them to really dig into the Bible with me. I now know that this is not what they are trained to do.

So do I know a lot about Mormonism? I thought that I did. In the last several years I happened upon the public conversations that Greg Johnson and Robert Millet were having. I was very impressed with Dr. Millet. I bought several of his books and started reading them all. I then learned about How Wide the Divide? by Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson. I bought that and started reading it too. I then became aware of a book by several Evangelical scholars/apologists called The New Mormon Challenge, and I started reading that. Notice a theme? I have read the preface, forward, and 1st chapter of a lot of books . Even though I was lacking discipline, I did learn through from these books that my knowledge of Mormonism may actually be inaccurate. These newer books all strongly criticized most of the Evangelical writings on Mormonism that I had read. I have never shared or enjoyed the acerbic tone of some Evangelical writers against Mormonism. I have often thought that the tone and style of some Evangelical works against Mormonism were not representative of the fruit of the Spirit. I am a Pentecostal Arminian. I have experienced the arrogance, condescension, sarcasm, mockery, misrepresentation, etc. that sometimes comes from theologically/apologetically minded Evangelicals (especially online). So here I am. My desire is to get a true understanding of the LDS faith. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This of course does not make sense- the article does not refer to "GI" at all.

Perhaps your question was about "GA".  That would refer to "General Authorities".  They are a certain class of authorities in the church as opposed to "Area Authorities".  Some authorities have leadership responsibilities over local areas only, and some are authorities over the church at large, and are like supervisors to area authorities

Lol. I didn't find it either. I just let it go.

[Calm]

I thi k he meant GI as in GI Joe and the GI Bill, GI is apparently short for Government Issue...if I am remembering the post and following the conversation correctly.

Ignore if I am not, too lazy to doublecheck.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I assure you all that I have no ulterior motives here. I have a passion for studying Scripture, theology, Church history, etc. I do not personally know anybody else who cares at all what Mormons believe. I do not personally know any Mormons. I also do not know any Evangelical scholars. I attend a small Pentecostal church in Michigan. I am getting my BA in Religion degree online through Luther Rice University. I wish I could talk to high level scholars. I was surprised to get a response on Facebook when I sent Carl Mosser questions about Mormonism. My interest in Mormonism has nothing to do with my schooling. I am currently taking only 1 course (my last one!), and it is English Composition II. I do have to write a research paper for this course, but I am not writing on Mormonism. I am doing my paper on why Genesis 1 should be translated literally and not figuratively.

Sal thinks I may know more about Mormonism than I am articulating. I don't know if that is true. I do know a good bit about Mormonism, but much of that knowledge comes from Evangelical apologetic works on Mormonism. I have read Walter Martin's chapter on Mormonism in Kingdom of the Cults, James White's Letters to a Mormon Elder, Janis Hutchinson's The Mormon Missionaries, Ed Decker's The God Makers, parts of Gerald & Sandra Tanner's The Changing World of Mormonism, Marvin Cowan's Mormon Claims Answered, Ron Rhodes' chapter on Mormonism in The Challenge of the Cults, and Richard Abanes' One Nation Under Gods. In addition I have read sections of many other books from Christian apologists or former Mormons who have written against Mormonism. I have also listened to many hours of teachings, podcasts, and debates on Mormonism from folks like James White, Walter Martin, Bill McKeever, and Robert Morey. Several years ago I read through the book of Mormon in about 3 weeks. This was when Mitt Romney was running for President and I was listening a lot to Glenn Beck. After reading through the Book of Mormon I went to Mormon.org and had the missionaries come over. I was not interested in joining the LDS Church. I just wanted to discuss Mormonism with actual Mormons. We had some good discussions, but they were very basic. The missionaries were not really prepared too get too far off the path of their lessons. Many times when I would challenge a belief or interpretation they would just begin to state, "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet..." I could not get them to really dig into the Bible with me. I now know that this is not what they are trained to do.

So do I know a lot about Mormonism? I thought that I did. In the last several years I happened upon the public conversations that Greg Johnson and Robert Millet were having. I was very impressed with Dr. Millet. I bought several of his books and started reading them all. I then learned about How Wide the Divide? by Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson. I bought that and started reading it too. I then became aware of a book by several Evangelical scholars/apologists called The New Mormon Challenge, and I started reading that. Notice a theme? I have read the preface, forward, and 1st chapter of a lot of books . Even though I was lacking discipline, I did learn through from these books that my knowledge of Mormonism may actually be inaccurate. These newer books all strongly criticized most of the Evangelical writings on Mormonism that I had read. I have never shared or enjoyed the acerbic tone of some Evangelical writers against Mormonism. I have often thought that the tone and style of some Evangelical works against Mormonism were not representative of the fruit of the Spirit. I am a Pentecostal Arminian. I have experienced the arrogance, condescension, sarcasm, mockery, misrepresentation, etc. that sometimes comes from theologically/apologetically minded Evangelicals (especially online). So here I am. My desire is to get a true understanding of the LDS faith. 

Our conversations and your conversations with others have been taken at face value.  You have enough experience to imagine the caliber and/or quality of conversations many of us have had with Evangelicals on this Board if not in our own lives.  Based upon the books you have read it is clear you know the tone.  I grew up in the south and Evangelicals were by far the overwhelming majority.  That experience has colored most of my interactions with Evangelicals.  Suffice it to say that I am guarded.

Regardless, I appreciate your participation here and wish only the best for you.  

As far as Mormonism today, it is my opinion that we have little to fear by the actions and/or efforts of other churches.  Our problems come from within.  It is not an uncommon problem elsewhere in Christianity. 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 4/1/2016 at 9:08 PM, Steve Noel said:

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

I am absolutely floored by this clueless/ (of his own historical facts) of any Sincere Christian coming here or anywhere touting this baseless claim, in a way one has to love it, who has a basic knowledge about the distinction between Baptist/Catholic/Calvinist Deity.....Why would you go there? Bloomberg and Craig are apologists...Why wouldn't you read a Bible Historian like Bart Ehrman and he has very good books on the subject.