Theologically Uninformed Evangelicals and LDS Beliefs

[TOmNossor]

42 minutes ago, paulhadik said:

Hi Bob:

 

Happy Lord's Day from the Islands!  It is one thing to say the Roman Catholic Church was in error and quite another to say that the Catholic Church was in error or to say that there is a necessary "earthly" authority that must exist for the church to exist. I think this is closer to the Reformed pov then what you mentioned.  The trail of blood theory is one that certain Baptists groups hold to trace a "baptist" line back to the disciples. I do not see a point where Christ ever sanctioned a denomination or boxed in His church. Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name there I am also.

Take care, 

 

paul

Paul,

You are the other "Beach Bum" that I remember from ZLMB (over 10 years ago).  I was pretty new back then, and am still more of a lurker so you might not remember much of me, but I thought I would say HELLO.  I am not sure you would consider yourself "the other," but I haven't seen you around for a long time.

Hope all is well!

Charity, TOm

[Calm]

17 hours ago, paulhadik said:

the "uninformed evangelical"? Pretty oxymoron-ic don't you think? Those of us who have studied the Bible carefully (and there are many many around the world) do find serious issues with LDS teaching starting with the crux of the matter-the worldwide apostasy. Many "uninformed evangelicals" have never studied their Bible, get their theology from popular yet vapid mega-churches and are comfortable believing only comfortable thoughts like "all or most people get to heaven". (and some of us graduated from Bob Jones and married Pacific Islanders so we weren't too stained by southern backward thinking)

Brother Paul, so very, very, very, very, good to see you here.  (calmoriah here in case the shortened name is confusing---I was spaced out one night in the hospital on morphine and thought a short name would be so much better, lol)

[Calm]

2 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

Paul,

You are the other "Beach Bum" that I remember from ZLMB (over 10 years ago).  I was pretty new back then, and am still more of a lurker so you might not remember much of me, but I thought I would say HELLO.  I am not sure you would consider yourself "the other," but I haven't seen you around for a long time.

Hope all is well!

Charity, TOm

Reunion time.

Now if only David and Richard would show up.

Edited October 16, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, paulhadik said:

the "uninformed evangelical"? Pretty oxymoron-ic don't you think? Those of us who have studied the Bible carefully (and there are many many around the world) do find serious issues with LDS teaching starting with the crux of the matter-the worldwide apostasy. Many "uninformed evangelicals" have never studied their Bible, get their theology from popular yet vapid mega-churches and are comfortable believing only comfortable thoughts like "all or most people get to heaven". (and some of us graduated from Bob Jones and married Pacific Islanders so we weren't too stained by southern backward thinking)

Pride? is it possible for good Christians?  One faith one baptism, unity in all denominations.  Wonderful stuff

By their fruits....

Edited October 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Reunion time.

Now if only David and Richard would show up.

Wasn't there a Sally also?  I think that was on AOL?

[Calm]

Probably AOL...:)

[paulhadik]

Roars

Always a thrill to speak with you. May I say for the record you are just terrible with social media. I think I was your only friend on FB for about 3 years. Hope all is well my dear friend as with you Cal and Tom; it has been a long time. Island life occasionally takes its toll on my brain and I needed some refreshing dialogue. Of course, being a Calvinist I really had no choice in the matter (HAHAHAHA Oh, a little bit of that nutty, Reformist humor).  Hard to believe that ZLMB was about 15 years ago.

Anyway hope y'all don't mind if I stick around a bit. Out here in Chuuk I am now working with Forever Young Foundation out of BYU bringing out Education Majors to teach in our schools.  Sorry, didn't mean to distract from the topic at hand.

I suppose I will ask again: "What is an uninformed Evangelical?"

 

paul

 

(ps, I saw I got "reputation". What does that mean? Is it like street cred?)

[Calm]

Yeah...it means I am happy to see you.

PS:. I am doing fantastic right now, had this miracle improvement last month in my health (though it has been slowly improving over the last year and a half since started on a thyroid supp, it leaped ahead light years it feels like on some days, kind of holding my breath waiting to see if this is the new normal or a tender mercy---hoping both---because my daughter is having such a hard time and I need to be there for her).  How is your family doing?

Edited October 17, 2016 by Calm

[Five Solas]

On 10/11/2016 at 8:55 AM, TOmNossor said:

Mfbukowski and Five Solas and ALL,

Hello!

I want to respond to a simplistic summary:

MFB: Numerous Christians believe LDS theology in the main and only need it presented clearly to recognize where and how they could grow towards Christ.

FS:  No, the problem with Evangelical Christians who do not hold to the “orthodox” Christian view is that they are not committed Christians seeking truth.  Thus, the presentation of LDS views is not likely to move them.

 

As a BIASED LDS, I lean towards defending MFB’s position, but before I start let me acknowledge that there is GREAT deal of apathetic believers in the ranks of both our churches.  LDS typically call them “inactive” and sometimes they are more than just inactive, but intentionally separated from our church.  LDS also have many folks who attend, are passionately involved with Christ and His church, and yet have little use for theological definitions.  Non-LDS Christians have these groups too.

That being said, there are passionate Christians that when presented with the philosophical underpinnings or the Trinity baulk.

I will offer three things:

#1  Nobody prays to the immaterial being of orthodox Christianity.  Many who had loving fathers think of God as a more perfect, more glorified father figure better than our own father.  Many who had abusive or absent fathers think of God as the divine answer to what we didn’t get.  As a youth and young adult I envisioned God as a kind man dressed like a kind Catholic priest of whom I have no specific memories.  I would suggest it is almost impossible to pray to the immaterial force that rules the universe.

#2  Almost nobody believes in the Trinity. Here is what Dr. Bryan Cross says (bolding mine):

.

            It is impossible to actively embrace something that is “unintelligible to us,” and most Christians RUN from the idea that the Trinity is an “incomprehensible unity,” specifically because they know they do not believe in such.

#3  Nobody prays and few believe in an impassible God.  Here is what Catholic Father Thomas Weinandy says:

This quote is from Weinandy’s Does God Suffer.  https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/11/does-god-suffer

Weinandy will go on to defend the scholastic God of Aquinas and his points are not without merit.  I bought his book of the same name to see if I could be remotely persuaded, but BIASED as I am I was not.  To me his strongest point was that the first 4-7 councils utilized this impassible understanding of God to define the Trinity and if you embrace the Trinity then …, of course I do not embrace the philosophical Trinity.  Weinandy, Dr. Paul L. Gavrilyuk and others believe God is impassible.  Many scholars do not.  And virtually all the folks who pray to God do not pray as if God is so unchangeable that we cannot freely choose to pray and CHANGE Him through our reaching out in love and hope and pain and fear and ….  The two natures of Christ was defined as it was because clearly the human Christ hungered and … and such is not possible for the impassible God.

 

So, often when I dialogue with intelligent folks on the Internet, they CLAIM to not believe the above three things.  They seldom deny #1, but often deny parts of #2 and almost always deny #3.  That being said, when I meet folks in real life who love God so much we talk about it, they speak of God as a loving Father who is relationship with Son and Holy Spirit and with them.  This is not the God defined in the first 7 councils.  In real life I try to lift them up in their beliefs and seldom if ever invite them to reject the foundations of their beliefs.

 

Anyway, apathy is a big problem.  We worship sex, power, intellect, …  Just 200-300 years ago if you did not believe in God you were considered crazy.  Today, you are celebrated as “bright” or “liberated” or “recovered.”  If you believe AND let your belief inform virtually every aspect of your life, you are viewed as a little crazy.  The forces for apathy and non-belief are strong.  Many folks who understand that God is an impassible, impersonal, incomprehensible, immaterial being do not hold tightly enough to God to weather this force.  Thus, many of the “informed” are apathetic, and many of the passionate are uninformed.

Charity, TOm

 

 

Okay, on the treadmill this AM and have a few minutes to re-read and reflect. 

I'll take your points #1 - #3 in order.

#1.  I agree with this.  Christian prayer may commence in a number of ways (e.g., Father God, King Jesus), but I've never heard anyone begin a prayer with the word Trinity.  When Jesus prays in the Garden (Mark 14:36) he begins "Abba, father..."  It can't be wrong for a Christian to think of God the Father as his or her perfect father.  And if Galatians 4:6 is to be believed, that thinking, that language is in the believer's very heart. 

#2.  I believe in the Trinity, so can't agree with you on this one.  There is an undeniable element of mystery in what Scripture reveals concerning the nature of God (three persons, One God, what have I been reading?).  But I don't think the concession of mystery makes it untrue (although many LDS sure like to think so).  

Here's how I sometimes think of it (and I'll gladly take critique).  There is creation and there is a Creator separate and apart from His creation.  The former (creation) includes all of us, everything we see and even the things we can't.  The latter (Creator) is God, consisting of three persons who exist and dwell together eternally, each person is fully God.  But not to be understood as three Gods, the Bible is emphatic on this point.  And if we're going to be true to Scripture, than we simply can't yield from One God, no matter how foolish it may seem to outsiders.   

And this leads us into--

#3.  An "impassible" (meaning doesn't feel pain) God?  Nobody who believes in the Incarnation, in the person of Christ and in His work on the cross believes that, do they?  God suffered, died an agonizing, shameful death nailed to a Roman cross.  Why?  Because he loved us, "He is the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2).  

Afraid I followed your prediction/script rather closely, didn't I?

;0)

--Erik

[boblloyd91]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Okay, on the treadmill this AM and have a few minutes to re-read and reflect. 

I'll take your points #1 - #3 in order.

#1.  I agree with this.  Christian prayer may commence in a number of ways (e.g., Father God, King Jesus), but I've never heard anyone begin a prayer with the word Trinity.  When Jesus prays in the Garden (Mark 14:36) he begins "Abba, father..."  It can't be wrong for a Christian to think of God the Father as his or her perfect father.  And if Galatians 4:6 is to be believed, that thinking, that language is in the believer's very heart. 

#2.  I believe in the Trinity, so can't agree with you on this one.  There is an undeniable element of mystery in what Scripture reveals concerning the nature of God (three persons, One God, what have I been reading?).  But I don't think the concession of mystery makes it untrue (although many LDS sure like to think so).  

Here's how I sometimes think of it (and I'll gladly take critique).  There is creation and there is a Creator separate and apart from His creation.  The former (creation) includes all of us, everything we see and even the things we can't.  The latter (Creator) is God, consisting of three persons who exist and dwell together eternally, each person is fully God.  But not to be understood as three Gods, the Bible is emphatic on this point.  And if we're going to be true to Scripture, than we simply can't yield from One God, no matter how foolish it may seem to outsiders.   

And this leads us into--

#3.  An "impassible" (meaning doesn't feel pain) God?  Nobody who believes in the Incarnation, in the person of Christ and in His work on the cross believes that, do they?  God suffered, died an agonizing, shameful death nailed to a Roman cross.  Why?  Because he loved us, "He is the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2).  

Afraid I followed your prediction/script rather closely, didn't I?

;0)

--Erik

I liked some of what you wrote, seemed thoughtful to me. Elaborate if you could on what you mean by the bible forbidding the idea of three Gods.

Edited October 18, 2016 by boblloyd91

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

I liked some of what you wrote, seemed thoughtful to me. Elaborate though on where it is forbidden in scripture to believe in the Godhead as three distinct beings that could called "Gods", I guess I don't see where a prohibition for this could be.

I think it is a semantic problem.

How many congresses are there in the USA?   Two houses, one "congress"

How many persons are there in the one congress?  Hundreds.  All are "congressmen/women".

How many Gods are there?

One.  Three persons called "Gods".

How many in the Smith family? 8.  What are they called ?  "Smiths"  How many Smith families are we talking about?  1

Why is this so hard?

[Gray]

2 Nephi 31:

 

Quote

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

 

[Five Solas]

9 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

...

Elaborate if you could on what you mean by the bible forbidding the idea of three Gods.

As I suspect you know already, nowhere does the Bible explicitly forbid belief in any specific number of gods, two, three, four--or pick whatever number you like.  Does this lack of specific prohibition mean Christians are at liberty to espouse polytheism?  Hardly.  It says there is "one God" throughout Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4) and New (e.g., Mark 12:29-34).  James tell us, "Even the demons believe that--and shudder" (2:19). 

Joseph Smith in his Book of Abraham re-wrote portions of Genesis, inserting "Gods" (capital 'G', plural) along his way.  That is polytheism.  But those words back in the Book of James ought to curb your enthusiasm for Smith's work--when you hear even demons wouldn't be fooled by what he authored...

Make sense?

--Erik

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

2 Nephi 31:

 

 

It's interesting how the Book of Mormon mostly affirms the Trinity (except in one or two instances where it veers off into Modalism, seemingly by accident).  But ~ half a decade later Joseph Smith jettisons it completely in his Book of Abraham.  Quite a "semantic" evolution in those few short years, right mfbukowski?

;0)

--Erik

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

As I suspect you know already, nowhere does the Bible explicitly forbid belief in any specific number of gods, two, three, four--or pick whatever number you like.  Does this lack of specific prohibition mean Christians are at liberty to espouse polytheism?  Hardly.  It says there is "one God" throughout Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4) and New (e.g., Mark 12:29-34).  James tell us, "Even the demons believe that--and shudder" (2:19). 

Joseph Smith in his Book of Abraham re-wrote portions of Genesis, inserting "Gods" (capital 'G', plural) along his way.  That is polytheism.  But those words back in the Book of James ought to curb your enthusiasm for Smith's work--when you hear even demons wouldn't be fooled by what he authored...

Make sense?

--Erik

I don't know what we are going to do with you theologically uninformed EV's.

There were cults of Eloheim and cults of Yahweh and the Hebrews were constantly chasing after "other gods".   Monotheism developed as the solution to the problem

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahwist-source

Quote

As noted before, in Mesopotamia the patriarchs worshiped “other gods.” On Canaanite soil, they met the Canaanite supreme god, El, and adopted him, but only partially and nominally, bestowing upon him qualities destined to distinguish him and to assure his preeminence over all other gods. He was thus to become El ʿOlam (God the Everlasting One), El ʿElyon (God Most High), El Shaddai (God, the One of the Mountains), and El Roʾi (God of Vision). In short, the god of Abraham possessed duration, transcendence, power, and knowledge. This was not monotheism but monolatry (the worship of one among many gods), with the bases laid for a true universalism. He was a personal god too, with direct relations with the individual, but also a family god and certainly still a tribal god. Here truly was the “God of our fathers,” who in the course of time was to become the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abraham#ref266152

Edited October 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It's interesting how the Book of Mormon mostly affirms the Trinity (except in one or two instances where it veers off into Modalism, seemingly by accident).  But ~ half a decade later Joseph Smith jettisons it completely in his Book of Abraham.  Quite a "semantic" evolution in those few short years, right mfbukowski?

;0)

--Erik

Yes, the Mormon tradition evolved very, very quickly, from something that was mostly traditional Protestantism to a new creature altogether. 

[boblloyd91]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

As I suspect you know already, nowhere does the Bible explicitly forbid belief in any specific number of gods, two, three, four--or pick whatever number you like.  Does this lack of specific prohibition mean Christians are at liberty to espouse polytheism?  Hardly.  It says there is "one God" throughout Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4) and New (e.g., Mark 12:29-34).  James tell us, "Even the demons believe that--and shudder" (2:19). 

Joseph Smith in his Book of Abraham re-wrote portions of Genesis, inserting "Gods" (capital 'G', plural) along his way.  That is polytheism.  But those words back in the Book of James ought to curb your enthusiasm for Smith's work--when you hear even demons wouldn't be fooled by what he authored...

Make sense?

--Erik

No, not really. I'm especially confused when you say demons won't be fooled by what he authored. Furthermore I don't think what we consider "Monotheism" has always meant what people think it does in this day and age. I don't claim to be an expert, but from what I've read on the rapidly expanding scholarship of the divine council, it's looking more and more like monotheism in ancient Israelite times was coming from a completely different paradigm than what we have today. Robert Smith or Kevin Christiansen could probably provide more resources, but I know David Bokoyov and Michael Heiser have written about this. Also I don't know how much he posts here but there is a guy named Daniel O. McClellan who is quite knowledgeable about the subject.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/16/2016 at 6:43 PM, paulhadik said:

Roars

Always a thrill to speak with you. May I say for the record you are just terrible with social media. I think I was your only friend on FB for about 3 years. Hope all is well my dear friend as with you Cal and Tom; it has been a long time. Island life occasionally takes its toll on my brain and I needed some refreshing dialogue. Of course, being a Calvinist I really had no choice in the matter (HAHAHAHA Oh, a little bit of that nutty, Reformist humor).  Hard to believe that ZLMB was about 15 years ago.

Anyway hope y'all don't mind if I stick around a bit. Out here in Chuuk I am now working with Forever Young Foundation out of BYU bringing out Education Majors to teach in our schools.  Sorry, didn't mean to distract from the topic at hand.

I suppose I will ask again: "What is an uninformed Evangelical?"

 

paul

 

(ps, I saw I got "reputation". What does that mean? Is it like street cred?)

Yep its street cred.

My thesis is that the bulk of Evangelicals who do not know theology or the details even of Christian belief actually believe many if not most of the things Mormons believe

All if this is laid out in the first post of the thread.  

[paulhadik]

I don't know what " the bulk of Evangelicals who do not know theology or the details even of Christian belief" even means.  There may be people out there who call themselves Evangelicals but that counts for nothing. Can a person truly be a Latter Day Saint without having learned the beliefs, or studied the BoM? If I posit that I have met "uninformed LDS" who agree with Evangelical teaching wouldn't your first response be "that is because they aren't versed in the truth"?  Because teenagers like professional wrestling does that make it real?

[danielwoods]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep its street cred.

My thesis is that the bulk of Evangelicals who do not know theology or the details even of Christian belief actually believe many if not most of the things Mormons believe

All if this is laid out in the first post of the thread.  

I'm not sure I'd be proudly proclaiming this fact if I were LDS. Why? 

The bulk of Evangelicals who don't know theology and that's a good thing? Equating that with what the Mormons believe doesn't seem like a positive point for the LDS. What is says to me is that the beliefs of Mormons are based, not on a solid study of theology, but ignorance of theology. 

[Calm]

If theology is the creation of man and not revelation from God, why should it be preferable to be an expert in it instead of ignorant when it comes to one's belief in God?

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

I'm not sure I'd be proudly proclaiming this fact if I were LDS. Why? 

The bulk of Evangelicals who don't know theology and that's a good thing? Equating that with what the Mormons believe doesn't seem like a positive point for the LDS. What is says to me is that the beliefs of Mormons are based, not on a solid study of theology, but ignorance of theology. 

You are missing the point.   Did you read the article quoted in the OP by an Evangelical theologian bemoaning the fact that uninformed Evangelicals believe things that are NOT typical Christian theology?

I am pointing out that what the EVANGELICAL theologian says these people believe is very close to LDS beliefs.

We proudly proclaim that we don't HAVE "theology", we have scriptures and individual testimonies of the scriptures.    Encyclopedia of Mormonism:   http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Theology

Quote

Not having what has traditionally been understood as theology, Latter-day Saints instead have texts that describe theophanies and special revelations and contain inspired teachings, along with several accounts of God's establishing his covenant people, usually coupled with accounts of a dialectic of obedience and disobedience that followed such events. These accounts may be said to contain "theology," but not in the sense that their meaning is discovered by human ingenuity instead of disclosed through the proclaimed word and will of God.

Contrast that with the formulation of the Trinity in the Catholic Nicene Creed in a very human council largely politically motivated, 1700 years ago based on pagan Greek philosophy.

The implication is that most Christians if left untainted from the details of the trinity, salvation based on knowledge and faith in Christ alone,  and other confusing "Christian" doctrines, they could well be potentially LDS.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, paulhadik said:

I don't know what " the bulk of Evangelicals who do not know theology or the details even of Christian belief" even means.  There may be people out there who call themselves Evangelicals but that counts for nothing. Can a person truly be a Latter Day Saint without having learned the beliefs, or studied the BoM? If I posit that I have met "uninformed LDS" who agree with Evangelical teaching wouldn't your first response be "that is because they aren't versed in the truth"?  Because teenagers like professional wrestling does that make it real?

For at least the second time I would invite you to read the article in the first post of the thread from an EVANGELICAL writer who raised the issue

Don't blame me for HIS question. 

[danielwoods]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

If theology is the creation of man and not revelation from God, why should it be preferable to be an expert in it instead of ignorant when it comes to one's belief in God?

I don't recall reading a claim to revelation from God by those who are ignorant of theology. Theology is the "Study of God" Theos (God) Ology (Study of). Even Mormon's study God. I've never heard or read that the LDS are promoting "Don't study God..." Just seek a revelation? Are they? 

[danielwoods]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You are missing the point.   Did you read the article quoted in the OP by an Evangelical theologian bemoaning the fact that uninformed Evangelicals believe things that are NOT typical Christian theology?

I am pointing out that what the EVANGELICAL theologian says these people believe is very close to LDS beliefs.

We proudly proclaim that we don't HAVE "theology", we have scriptures and individual testimonies of the scriptures.    Encyclopedia of Mormonism:   http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Theology

Contrast that with the formulation of the Trinity in the Catholic Nicene Creed in a very human council largely politically motivated, 1700 years ago based on pagan Greek philosophy.

The implication is that most Christians if left untainted from the details of the trinity, salvation based on knowledge and faith in Christ alone,  and other confusing "Christian" doctrines, they could well be potentially LDS.

I did read the article, when you first started the thread, actually. I've been thinking about it. And when I saw the thread was still active, I posted my opinion. I still think I wouldn't be proud of it. 

It does make sense to me though. Joseph Smith wasn't a person who studied theology so it makes sense. I just don't think it's something to be proud of.