Theologically Uninformed Evangelicals and LDS Beliefs

[Five Solas]

10 hours ago, danielwoods said:

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. 

There seems to be some underlying agreement here (danielwoods & mfbukowski - who'd have thunk?).

On the one hand, we have self-identified EVs who are ignorant of the basics in Christian theology.  I've argued (back on page 1) that this ignorance is largely due to apathy.

On the other, we have LDS members who deny even having a theology (see mfbukowki's Encyclopedia of Mormonism quote a few posts above - Wow!).  

And if we could grow a third hand, here we have this thread wherein we debate a rhetorical question.  Rhetorical because as mfbukowski explains, Mormonism doesn't actually have a theology for EVs to swap & embrace.  All that appears to matter in Mormonism is whether you obey whatever it is Thomas S. Monson, et al. asks of you. 

This a stunning admission and difficult to see how it doesn't render the whole thread moot.

--Erik 

PS.  As always, I'll gladly take correction if I've missed something.

:0)

[Calm]

11 hours ago, danielwoods said:

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? 

I never said that all those ignorant of theology claim revelation, but perhaps they might be open to the Spirit in ways that those who have been taught that such and such is truth by others besides God and the Spirit are not (this includes LDS who do not put the Spirit first as their teacher).  And if they are reading the Bible on its own and coming to conclusions closer to LDS doctrine than traditional evangelical theology, that should have some interesting implications, should it not?  

LDS don't do theology in the sense of systematic theology. We don't, or rather shouldn't, fill in gaps of revealed knowledge with speculative reason though of course we organize what has been revealed and teach and study that while seeking further enlightenment through revelation.

I have great respect for faiths that do make that choice of devoting their lives to trying to perceive God through reason, some of their beliefs are very inspiring and it is easily to understand the desire to embrace them and I believe there is much truth written in them, but LDS as a whole do not follow that path as we have been told by God to rely on continuing revelation, whether received by leaders or personal.  Our faith and doctrine is to be revealed knowledge, confirmed by personal revelation of the spirit.  We study God in our faith by studying scripture, not philosophy.  Philosophy may inform our understanding of how we and the world react to God as physics and chemistry do, but only God can tell us who he is with any significant meaning and all our studyshould be for the purpose of coming face to face with him, spiritually at first and eventually in the flesh.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

 

This a stunning admission and difficult to see how it doesn't render the whole thread moot.

--Erik 

PS.  As always, I'll gladly take correction if I've missed something.

:0)

Your error is substituting Pres. Monson's name for the Lord's.  There is nothing stunning in proclaiming LDS seek out God's voice.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, danielwoods said:

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. 

Joseph Smith learned directly from God.  And this is something he should be ashamed of?  Or something we should not diligently seek?

[Five Solas]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your error is substituting Pres. Monson's name for the Lord's.

A distinction without a difference, my friend.  For LDS, their prophet is their lord's mouthpiece.

:0)

--Erik

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

A distinction without a difference, my friend.  For LDS, their prophet is their lord's mouthpiece.

:0)

--Erik

Another huge error that comes from imposing your own assumptions on our beliefs.

 At the very least, Pres. Monson cannot be by our side day and night, inspiring, guiding, and revealing, as the Spirit is capable of doing.  Any LDS who relies solely on President Monson to hear God's word is missing out on the vast majority of communication that we are taught is available to us through scriptures and the Holy Ghost and at times our own prophets.

BTW, a friend is someone who tries to actually understand the other's POV, let's them speak for him/herself and does not dictate to them what they really believe, especially after being corrected.  That dismissal of correction as trivial is not friendship, but arrogance.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/10/listening-to-the-voice-of-the-lord?lang=eng

"In summary, the voice of the Lord may be received by listening to the Lord’s servants, studying the scriptures, and being prompted through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. And for those who not only hear but those who hearken to the Lord’s voice, the Lord calls them “mine elect,” “for mine elect hear my voice and harden not their hearts” (D&C 29:7).

I believe that our ability and our willingness to hear can be increased and that our ears can be opened to hear clearly the voice of the Lord. In section 136, verse 32, we find a guideline which will help to do this: “Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom by humbling himself and calling upon the Lord his God, that his eyes may be opened that he may see, and his ears opened that he may hear” (D&C 136:32). Through humility and prayer we can develop and improve our capacity to be attentive to the words of life which will bless our lives and the lives of our families."

Claiming that LDS only expect to hear God through the voice of Pres. Monson is a very stunted and absurd understanding of actual LDS belief.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

A distinction without a difference, my friend.  For LDS, their prophet is their lord's mouthpiece.

:0)

--Erik

But the prophet is not the same person as the Lord, neither are words of the prophet the only way that LDS receive God's will and inspiration.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

A distinction without a difference, my friend.  For LDS, their prophet is their lord's mouthpiece.

:0)

--Erik

And one other point-

For non-lds Christians, the men who wrote the bible are their Lord's mouthpiece.  

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But the prophet is not the same person as the Lord, neither are words of the prophet the only way that LDS receive God's will and inspiration.

But it seems that it is the only way it matters.  My inspiration from God does not say everything Pres. Monson says is correct.  As a member, I would be ostracized if I went against the prophet.  So what to do for members now?  Seek and ye shall find..take prophecies and pray about them..if it contradicts..one is always wrong and the prophet is always right..then the prophecy changes or time changes..there is nothing to connect the dots with anymore. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

PS.  As always, I'll gladly take correction if I've missed something.

Yeah, right.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

But it seems that it is the only way it matters.  My inspiration from God does not say everything Pres. Monson says is correct.  As a member, I would be ostracized if I went against the prophet.  So what to do for members now?  Seek and ye shall find..take prophecies and pray about them..if it contradicts..one is always wrong and the prophet is always right..then the prophecy changes or time changes..there is nothing to connect the dots with anymore. 

I know lots of people who don't do everything the prophet says and they aren't ostracized.  Some of them are even presidents in different church auxiliaries.  

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But it seems that it is the only way it matters.  My inspiration from God does not say everything Pres. Monson says is correct.  As a member, I would be ostracized if I went against the prophet.

That would greatly depend on how you went about following what you understand as your personal revelation.

[Jeanne]

Just now, bluebell said:

I know lots of people who don't do everything the prophet says and they aren't ostracized.  Some of them are even presidents in different church auxiliaries.  

This is probably true.  But let's say that I was involved in a Gospel Doctrine class and mentioned the questions that I had about certain prophecies...In the class I was in, I would have been shut out and silenced.  You can see that already in the different aspects and interpretations of others here. Many good people have been exed or disfellowshipped for not holding on to the prophecies or beliefs that are held by those who are sustaining prophets.  It is everywhere.I know a lot of people here don't see it this way..but the church has lost a lot of very good people because they saw things a little differently or had questions.  Some scholarship people have been ostracized  only to find out that they were right all along many years later. 

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

That would greatly depend on how you went about following what you understand as your personal revelation.

It would have to be done quietly.

[danielwoods]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I never said that all those ignorant of theology claim revelation, but perhaps they might be open to the Spirit in ways that those who have been taught that such and such is truth by others besides God and the Spirit are not (this includes LDS who do not put the Spirit first as their teacher).  And if they are reading the Bible on its own and coming to conclusions closer to LDS doctrine than traditional evangelical theology, that should have some interesting implications, should it not?  

LDS don't do theology in the sense of systematic theology. We don't, or rather shouldn't, fill in gaps of revealed knowledge with speculative reason though of course we organize what has been revealed and teach and study that while seeking further enlightenment through revelation.

I have great respect for faiths that do make that choice of devoting their lives to trying to perceive God through reason, some of their beliefs are very inspiring and it is easily to understand the desire to embrace them and I believe there is much truth written in them, but LDS as a whole do not follow that path as we have been told by God to rely on continuing revelation, whether received by leaders or personal.  Our faith and doctrine is to be revealed knowledge, confirmed by personal revelation of the spirit.  We study God in our faith by studying scripture, not philosophy.  Philosophy may inform our understanding of how we and the world react to God as physics and chemistry do, but only God can tell us who he is with any significant meaning and all our studyshould be for the purpose of coming face to face with him, spiritually at first and eventually in the flesh.

I can see how an LDS could view an article about apathetic EV's who don't study their own scriptures or theology, and see their similar beliefs and think that these EV's are possibly following the same spirit that they are. I get it. As an EV myself, I disagree with that view. I don't think these apathetic EV's are following any spirit but their own selfish one. The fact that it's similar to Joseph Smith's teaching is telling. The test is to ask these EV's to follow the LDS way and see their reaction. It would be my prediction that most would not accept the teachings of the LDS as true. 

 

[danielwoods]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Joseph Smith learned directly from God.  And this is something he should be ashamed of?  Or something we should not diligently seek?

Right, the claim is that Joseph Smith learned directly from God. It's also the belief of the LDS. I don't think the claim is credible nor share that belief. 

The answer is that study of theology doesn't displace hearing directly from the Lord. Neither does seeking and hearing directly from the Lord displace the study of theology. They go hand in hand to makes us whole and bring us closer to God. Essentially, studying theology is studying under those who have heard directly from God in the past, which brings our hearts and minds closer to hearing directly from him on a daily basis. The more we read his words, the more we are familiar with how he speaks. Which is why I reject much of what I have heard that Joseph Smith taught about God. 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Right, the claim is that Joseph Smith learned directly from God. It's also the belief of the LDS. I don't think the claim is credible nor share that belief. 

The answer is that study of theology doesn't displace hearing directly from the Lord. Neither does seeking and hearing directly from the Lord displace the study of theology. They go hand in hand to makes us whole and bring us closer to God. Essentially, studying theology is studying under those who have heard directly from God in the past, which brings our hearts and minds closer to hearing directly from him on a daily basis. The more we read his words, the more we are familiar with how he speaks. Which is why I reject much of what I have heard that Joseph Smith taught about God. 

Who did those who heard directly from God in the past study under?

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This is probably true.  But let's say that I was involved in a Gospel Doctrine class and mentioned the questions that I had about certain prophecies...In the class I was in, I would have been shut out and silenced.  You can see that already in the different aspects and interpretations of others here. Many good people have been exed or disfellowshipped for not holding on to the prophecies or beliefs that are held by those who are sustaining prophets.  It is everywhere.I know a lot of people here don't see it this way..but the church has lost a lot of very good people because they saw things a little differently or had questions.  Some scholarship people have been ostracized  only to find out that they were right all along many years later. 

I can't think of anyone who has been excommunicated or disfellowshipped for disagreeing with the Prophet. For teaching that their view was correct and that others should agree with them and for lobbying to make that happen, sure, but not just for disagreeing.

Who are you thinking of that had that happen to them?

[Jeanne]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can't think of anyone who has been excommunicated or disfellowshipped for disagreeing with the Prophet. For teaching that their view was correct and that others should agree with them and for lobbying to make that happen, sure, but not just for disagreeing.

Who are you thinking of that had that happen to them?

September 6...In the beginning, John Dehlin, a member of my home ward and a school teacher (LDS) who taught prehistoric life    Yes, I can see where John went of the rails according to the LDS church..and that was their right.  But in the beginning he was trying to keep people in.  Others were just more outspoken about the truth.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

September 6...In the beginning, John Dehlin, a member of my home ward and a school teacher (LDS) who taught prehistoric life    Yes, I can see where John went of the rails according to the LDS church..and that was their right.  But in the beginning he was trying to keep people in.  Others were just more outspoken about the truth.

He wasn't excommunicated in the beginning though, and that's the point.  He was allowed to disagree until he 'went off the rails' as you said.   It doesn't seem like he was ostracized either, but you probably have a better understanding of that than I do if you were a member of his ward or know people who were.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

September 6...In the beginning, John Dehlin, a member of my home ward and a school teacher (LDS) who taught prehistoric life    Yes, I can see where John went of the rails according to the LDS church..and that was their right.  But in the beginning he was trying to keep people in.  Others were just more outspoken about the truth.

Dehlin spoke out publicly against teachings of the Church for over ten years iirc before his leaders undertook discipline.  It was he who demanded his neighbors have no contact with him relating to the Church sometime before that even happened as well.  He spoke of his former bishop meeting with him many times trying to work with him.

The "Six" (not actually six if you listened to the individuals) were outspoken about their perception of the truth, including promoting teachings that countered those of the Church, such as praying to Heavenly Mother and teaching the Godhead consisted of her, Christ, and the Father.  I posted a quote from Maxine Hanks a day or two ago that stated she was unhappy with people insisting her experience was one thing, lumping her in as a victim into a box with the others for their own agenda, instead of letting her define herself...you seem to be one of those who continue to do this.  Gileadi seems to me to have resisted the victim box so many want him in as well.

The member of your ward I cannot comment on, the school teacher...do you have a name?

Edited October 20, 2016 by Calm

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Dehlin spoke out publicly against teachings of the Church for over ten years iirc before his leaders undertook discipline.  It was he who demanded his neighbors have no contact with him relating to the Church sometime before that even happened as well.  He spoke of his former bishop meeting with him many times trying to work with him.

The "Six" (not actually six if you listened to the individuals) were outspoken about their perception of the truth, including promoting teachings that countered those of the Church, such as praying to Heavenly Mother and teaching the Godhead consisted of her, Christ, and the Father.  I posted a quote from Maxine Hanks a day or two ago that stated she was unhappy with people insisting her experience was one thing, lumping her in as a victim into a box with the others for their own agenda, instead of letting her define herself...you seem to be one of those who continue to do this.  Gileadi seems to me to have resisted the victim box so many want him in as well.

The member of your ward I cannot comment on, the school teacher...do you have a name?

i do have his name but I don't feel comfortable putting it out there.  Friends/families are still members and as it has been many years, I am not sure of the dynamics of those relationships.

[Calm]

Then it is very hard to understand what took place and I hope you won't mind if some of us don't take such as evidence that there were members disciplined or ostracized for simply teaching the truth or disagreeing with the Prophet.

From what I have personally seen over the past almost 15 years of keeping a close eye on such things, it takes significant accusations of teaching false doctrine, such as happened with Snuffer after a couple of years promoting his own ideas as superior to the Church's and the Church essentially fallen into apostasy or Dehlin's style of progressive agnosticism to draw any action.

I am not saying it doesn't happen at all, I am saying it is rare that years don't go by with what I have viewed as likely apostate behaviour occurring without leadership doing anything besides attempts at counseling or just communication.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Calm

[Five Solas]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

But the prophet is not the same person as the Lord ...

Correct.  But no one ever suggested they are the "same person," bluebell.  I wish you wouldn't resort to this sort of argumentation (pretending the other person implied something he or she didn't).  It sure doesn't help the dialogue.  The context here is obedience, refer back to my post at the top of page 4 if you need to.  And to follow the counsel & commands of your prophet--it is the will of your lord, is it not? 

Hence my point back to Calm--she made a distinction without a difference.  A song comes to my mind, from back in my days as a member of the LDS Church--

Come, listen to a prophet's voice,
And hear the word of God,
And in the way of truth rejoice...

Whose voice, bluebell?  And whose word behind it?  If you can demonstrate a meaningful difference for LDS within the context of obedience--yours will be a bigger bombshell than the one mfbukowski dropped earlier in the thread (that LDS have no theology). 

:0)

--Erik