Theologically Uninformed Evangelicals and LDS Beliefs

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I'm really curious what the several advocates of Mormons-have-no-theology on this forum make of James E. Talmage & his work, Jesus the Christ--a textbook definition/example of systematic theology as ever there was.

Is Talmage's legacy an embarrassment to what 3DOP calls, "Modern Mormonism" (near top of page 5) and best ignored/forgotten?  Or do you pretend his work must have been something else?

--Erik

There are many writings about Mormonism- I already cited Givens, Ostler etc.

Talmadge is in the same category- not systematic theology.  I suggest you re-read what I wrote about that.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Yes, it certainly would.  But it's all hypothetical, as you acknowledge in your second word, "if." 

And *if* LDS had confidence the Bible leads its readers away from "evangelical theology" and toward LDS un-theology (or whatever we're now supposed to call it)--you'd think they'd hold it in a little higher regard, not insist it's been systematically stripped of "plain and precious truths," etc.  You impeach the witness when you don't like what the witness has to say.

And where does the Bible get you, when you believe "Sola Scriptura" (the second of the Five Solas from whence I take my forum user name)?  Does it look like Mormonism?  Or does it look like the Protestant Reformation?  I submit history has already answered that one, Calm.

:0)

--Erik

What Calm may have meant is that, when biblical scholars study Holy Writ generally, they tend to attribute meaning to it that is consonant with LDS doctrine rather than with the standard evangelical doctrine.  One can see this in academic journals and books, as well as in reference works, such as the Anchor Bible and the Anchor Bible Dictionary.  This is not a new phenomenon, and has been true for generations.  Indeed, prominent evangelical scholars even demonstrate that same tendency -- when they willingly allow Scripture to speak for itself.  The circular nature of sola scriptura is problematic, but real scholars don't allow themselves to be hemmed in by it.

[waveslider]

17 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

And *if* LDS had confidence the Bible leads its readers away from "evangelical theology" and toward LDS un-theology (or whatever we're now supposed to call it)--you'd think they'd hold it in a little higher regard, not insist it's been systematically stripped of "plain and precious truths," etc.  You impeach the witness when you don't like what the witness has to say.

We do have confidence the Bible leads its readers towards LDS truths. It isn't so much away from Evangelical theology, but building upon the truths that are in that theology, surpassing anything that is brought into that theology by man. The key is praying for guidance by the Holy Spirit as we search the Bible because; "20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21) This can be done in spite of plain and precious truths missing from the Bible, not because of such.

Edited October 24, 2016 by waveslider
got rid of an extra word

[Five Solas]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You probably misunderstand what Bukowski and others have said.  While it is true that the biblical prophets say that obedience is better than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22), what they mean is that God prefers to be obeyed, rather than someone offering a sacrifice to him.  Just going through the motions is insincere and unsatisfactory purely as a practical matter, from the Mormon point of view.  By all means, pay your tithing, but do not do so petulantly or resentfully -- which makes such an offering worthless in God's eyes.  God is more interested in a pure and humble heart than in outward appearance (1 Samuel 16:7).  If you put an unholy twist on it, of course you will stir things up.  You need to understand that one must obey God, not man, and that the Holy Spirit is the source of inspiration and confirmation in all matters of obedience and truth-seeking.  If you put a ridiculous claim of lockstep obedience on Mormonism, then of course we will think that you just don't get it, Erik.

mfbukowski will speak for himself, of course.  but I actually doubt he's going to claim his words--

"Some writers maintain that we actually have no doctrine and no orthodoxy, just "orthopraxis"- correct behavior   Joseph himself promoted that kind of belief..."

--weren't meant to be taken at face value.  Which I certainly did. 

As to whether my posts constitute an "unholy twist" (not to be confused with Chubby Checker)--well, I'm pretty sure I'd remember if I'd been charged with that before.  A rep point for novelty, RFS.

:0)

--Erik 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Kinda what I said back on the top of page 4.  What matters in Mormonism is that you obey whatever the current prophet/leadership might tell you (including, of course, what he might tell you to say and believe).  When I wrote it, kicked up a fuss.  When you wrote it, a certain calmness prevails.  

Funny how there's so much surface tension, while so much underlying agreement.  Sometimes I think it matters more--the messenger over the actual message. 

--Erik

Not so obviously the truth is the direct opposite- read the quotes above in which I quoted Givens quoting Joseph

One does not have to obey the current prophet- if you had read my posts that would have been clear.  I will not repeat it- go back and look for yourself. Prophets are not infallible and the Holy Spirit always trumps what they say. Anything else results in self-contradiction.  One must first go to God to find out if the church is "true" for that individual.  That single act alone obviously trumps the prophet.   If God says not to join the church- the prophets cannot be correct.  Moroni 19:4-5 trumps the prophets as does Alma 32.

Mormon writings can be more correctly classified as "scriptural commentary" than systematic theology.

Mormons are not philosophers- and we eschew the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture".  

On the other hand every word out of anyone's mouth is a philosophy of man.  The difference is whether or not what is said is inspired.  Inspiration makes it scripture- lack of inspiration makes it philosophy.  

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

mfbukowski will speak for himself, of course.  but I actually doubt he's going to claim his words--

"Some writers maintain that we actually have no doctrine and no orthodoxy, just "orthopraxis"- correct behavior   Joseph himself promoted that kind of belief..."

--weren't meant to be taken at face value.  Which I certainly did. 

.......................................................................................

I thought that Bukowski's words were indeed meant to be taken at face value.  Those are not idle observations, Erik, and many serious scholars accept them as normative -- which is not to say that you must go along with them.  But you said you did anyway, which is fine by me.

[Five Solas]

Keep going on this thread...

Watch Seahawks vs. Cardinals...

Keep going on this thread...

Watch Seahawks vs. Cardinals...

[Jeanne]

Just now, Five Solas said:

Keep going on this thread...

Watch Seahawks vs. Cardinals...

Keep going on this thread...

Watch Seahawks vs. Cardinals...

Go Seahawks!!

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

mfbukowski will speak for himself, of course.  but I actually doubt he's going to claim his words--

"Some writers maintain that we actually have no doctrine and no orthodoxy, just "orthopraxis"- correct behavior   Joseph himself promoted that kind of belief..."

--weren't meant to be taken at face value.  Which I certainly did. 

As to whether my posts constitute an "unholy twist" (not to be confused with Chubby Checker)--well, I'm pretty sure I'd remember if I'd been charged with that before.  A rep point for novelty, RFS.

:0)

--Erik 

Of course I claim my words- I wrote them, did you think I was joking?

Did you look at the references??

Go ahead your self and google "Mormon systematic theology" and see how many articles you get which agree with my point.

We always start with the scriptures and write scriptural commentary about interpretations of scripture.  That is not systematic theology.  Systematic theology starts with philosophy and provides a metaphysical basis for belief as Aquinas did for Catholics

The difference is the primacy of scripture, not philosophy

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought that Bukowski's words were indeed meant to be taken at face value.  Those are not idle observations, Erik, and many serious scholars accept them as normative -- which is not to say that you must go along with them.  But you said you did anyway, which is fine by me.

Yep- you got it of course

Does anyone know how to  read anymore?

Maybe I should make a video or make a game out of it- that's all that people care about nowadays

[mfbukowski]

Here's the post no one read I guess

 

[mfbukowski]

What do you think a Mormon prophet would have to say about absolute truth?

There IS absolute truth and it is obey ME right?

wrong!

President Kimball on absolute truth:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

Quote

 

Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field. Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation. The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” (D&C 93:30.) A geologist who has discovered truths about the structure of the earth may be oblivious to the truths God has given us about the eternal nature of the family.

If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. To become a plumber, one must study the laws which govern plumbing. He must know stresses and strains, temperatures at which pipes will freeze, laws which govern steam, hot water, expansion, contraction, and so forth. One might know much about plumbing and be a complete failure in training children or getting along with men. One might be the best of bookkeepers and yet not know anything of electricity. One might know much about buying and selling groceries and be absolutely ignorant of bridge building.

One might be a great authority on the hydrogen bomb and yet know nothing of banking. One might be a noted theologian and yet be wholly untrained in watchmaking. One might be the author of the law of relativity and yet know nothing of the Creator who originated every law. I repeat, these are not matters of opinion. They are absolute truths. These truths are available to every soul.

 

So absolute truth only exists within a sphere and is itself in some sense "relative".   There is nothing constant but change itself, within spheres.  This is a scriptural commentary on DC93.

If truth only exists in "spheres" how can you have a systematic theology that explains all truth in one theory?

I have no idea why critics do not know these things about Mormonism at its most basic but clearly they don't.  They take the most literal odd and authoritarian interpretation possible when that is not Mormonism at all.

Perhaps if I was raised as they were and taught that by authoritarian parents I would understand these former mormon fundamentalists better

Edited October 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Five Solas]

While I'm not thrilled with the outcome, it could have been worse & I'm not regretting my choice. Those folks in the University of Phoenix Stadium, while no doubt disappointed as well, undeniably got their money's worth.  That was quite a game.

6 - 6 Final/OT

:0)

--Erik

[mfbukowski]

Since we are having trouble reading on this thread, I have decided to add more emphasis to my words.

I posted this on another thread and I think I will post it here as well to put a nail in the coffin of this thread- showing more about the definition of "doctrine" for Mormons.

This is a quote from official sources allegedly defining "doctrine" and is widely taken as the "official" definition of doctrine.  On the other hand, it is a press release published by the church, and does not necessarily follow it's own guidelines for what IS doctrine- so the definition of doctrine may actually not be doctrinal!   It is highly ambiguous and my reason for posting it here is to give my interpretation of what it says and doesn't say.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Quote

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, theDoctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern(Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being.  In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

 

Note that it says that the church does not preclude CHANGES to its teachings and practices, and that the church is "living and dynamic".

Note it also says that "Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine."   That is a far cry from "OBEY THE PROPHET" which has been declared on this thread to be the only church doctrine.

But the section which often gives us trouble is this one, quoted immediately below.  I have added emphasis to help others understand what it says

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, theDoctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

 

OK so let's parse that a little

UNDER INSPIRATION the 15 ESTABLISH DOCTRINE which resides in the Standard works, including proclamations Articles of Faith and official declarations.

They also "consistently proclaim" it in official church publications.

Yes, these publications contain scripture and proclaim it!

The set of doctrines in the Standard Works including what is included in the standard works are consistently proclaimed by the church publications.

Nowhere does it say that what is published by the church BECOMES doctrine!  If they wanted to say "Whatever the church consistently proclaims is doctrine, they would have said that!!

It does not say that church publications define doctrine- anywhere!

In fact it explicitly says that some doctrines are less important than others- like the location of the Garden of Eden, which is "consistently published" and yet only "peripheral" as doctrine.  That says that church publications may publish marginal or "peripheral" doctrine.

Let's look at it logically

The set of doctrine is large and consists of:

"What is "established UNDER INSPIRATION by the 15  and which resides in the Standard works "

A subset of that is:

"... consistently proclaimed in OFFICIAL church publications"

No where does it say "whatever the church publishes is doctrine."

That is confusing the larger set of what is in the standard works with what is published in church publications, about which it explicitly states that "may be peripheral" or an "isolated statement taken out of context"

Hopefully this we serve to clarify my position on doctrine.

Edited October 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Five Solas said:

While I'm not thrilled with the outcome, it could have been worse & I'm not regretting my choice. Those folks in the University of Phoenix Stadium, while no doubt disappointed as well, undeniably got their money's worth.  That was quite a game.

6 - 6 Final/OT

:0)

--Erik

Games.  On a theology thread.  Point made.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The circular nature of sola scriptura is problematic, but real scholars don't allow themselves to be hemmed in by it.

Exactly.  The bible is true because it says it is.  Circular.  It is self-referential.

And yet we base our understanding on direct revelation personally through testimony, but they want to take over what they know for themselves, the philosophies of men, yet no one can explain the trinity.

I'll take my own eyes ears and heart over philosophy any day of the week.

But of course my philosophy IS that my eyes ears and heart ARE philosophically constructing reality as I know it anyway, so for me it's a win- win!!  People wonder why I am so confident- seeing the world as I do, I have not choice!  And so, I think are the "real scholars" who also see their reality this way.  I do not need to go to "theologians" for anything but new scriptural interpretations I have never thought of.

THAT is the crux of MY understanding of the gospel! 

[danielwoods]

On 10/22/2016 at 11:39 AM, bluebell said:

My understanding of scripture is that after the Fall, God no longer dealt directly with anyone, except under very special circumstances (almost exclusively to introduce His Son).  That's what the fall meant-a separation from God.

There certainly was a separation caused by sin in man's heart. But, there's no evidence that everyone desired that separation. Adam and Eve walked with God, there's no reason to think this stopped simply because they sinned. God was looking for them after they had sinned. God made a covering for them. Another bit of evidence is the fact that Enoch walked with God. One can glean from the scriptural evidence that Adam was still alive when Enoch was growing, so it's conceivable that he learned directly from Adam. It would seem to me to be an error to conclude that Enoch was alone in his relationship with God, since that was the goal of his creation in the first place. Later we see Noah and then Moses interacting directly with God. 

[danielwoods]

On 10/22/2016 at 10:55 PM, mfbukowski said:

These are not our beliefs at all.

We believe God sent messengers actually to Adam and Eve immediately after the fall and taught them gospel princples, and that Noah himself was a prophet and leader of a dispensation as was Abraham later

I understand. We differ. I take Genesis for what it says. I was simply answering the question posed to me. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

There certainly was a separation caused by sin in man's heart. But, there's no evidence that everyone desired that separation. Adam and Eve walked with God, there's no reason to think this stopped simply because they sinned. God was looking for them after they had sinned. God made a covering for them. Another bit of evidence is the fact that Enoch walked with God. One can glean from the scriptural evidence that Adam was still alive when Enoch was growing, so it's conceivable that he learned directly from Adam. It would seem to me to be an error to conclude that Enoch was alone in his relationship with God, since that was the goal of his creation in the first place. Later we see Noah and then Moses interacting directly with God. 

That's what the Fall is-a spiritual and physical separation from God. The Atonement overcomes spiritual and physical death, essentially fixing the Fall for each individual person. 

From my understanding, those men (prophets) interacted with Christ, not God the Father. 

[danielwoods]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's what the Fall is-a spiritual and physical separation from God. The Atonement overcomes spiritual and physical death, essentially fixing the Fall for each individual person. 

From my understanding, those men (prophets) interacted with Christ, not God the Father. 

They all walked with God. Christ is God. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

They all walked with God. Christ is God. 

But He is our mediator between us and the Father.  That's an important distinction.  If it wasn't for the Fall (if it wasn't for our separation from God the Father), we wouldn't need a mediator, or a Savior.  

The Separation is real, and that's why the need for a Savior is real. 

[danielwoods]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

But He is our mediator between us and the Father.  That's an important distinction.  If it wasn't for the Fall (if it wasn't for our separation from God the Father), we wouldn't need a mediator, or a Savior.  

The Separation is real, and that's why the need for a Savior is real. 

Right. Our Mediator is also God. They all walked and talked directly with God. Your contention is that the fall separated them to the extent that no one could communicate with God directly. I don't see evidence for this. Rather, as I pointed out I see evidence that God did continue his relationship with his people. Yes, It was a pre-incarnate Jesus. Yes, he is our mediator, and yes he is fully 100% God. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" and "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father."

I do see evidence that this direct type of communication with God started to wane just before flood. Gen. 4:26 "People started to call on the name of the Lord" However, it's stated of Noah that he walked with God. I take that to mean direct communication like Adam had. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Right. Our Mediator is also God. They all walked and talked directly with God. Your contention is that the fall separated them to the extent that no one could communicate with God directly. I don't see evidence for this. Rather, as I pointed out I see evidence that God did continue his relationship with his people. Yes, It was a pre-incarnate Jesus. Yes, he is our mediator, and yes he is fully 100% God. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" and "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father."

I do see evidence that this direct type of communication with God started to wane just before flood. Gen. 4:26 "People started to call on the name of the Lord" However, it's stated of Noah that he walked with God. I take that to mean direct communication like Adam had. 

What do you believe the effect of the Fall was?  Was it only the expulsion from the garden of Eden in your view?

[danielwoods]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

What do you believe the effect of the Fall was?  Was it only the expulsion from the garden of Eden in your view?

In Adam all died. Death resulted from sin entering the world. The curse had some specific judgements for all three parties involved, yet it appears to have an effect on all creation. What's interesting, with reference to our conversation about talking/walking with God, is that knowledge was lost due to a lack of interest. Imagine what it would have been like to learn directly from Adam, the knowledge and experience that he probably did convey to those who were interested would have been an amazing thing to witness. 

Essentially, Jesus was the second Adam, and he told the wind to stop, told the dead to rise. Amazing stuff. And he said that we would do greater things than he was doing. 

[Five Solas]

On 10/24/2016 at 10:32 AM, mfbukowski said:

Exactly.  The bible is true because it says it is.  Circular.  It is self-referential.

And yet we base our understanding on direct revelation personally...

You're proving yourself prolific here on page 6, mfbukowski.  And while I can't keep up with all of it--one or two things are worth addressing. 

Yes, the Bible is as you say, self-referential.  But Christians aren't oblivious to circular reference.  Christians don't read a text and believe because the parchment affirms itself.  Yes, there are "uniformed evangelicals"--as you remind us with the title of your thread.  But you do err to suppose everyone who claims Biblical inerrancy a naif. 

There's more to belief in the Bible than mere failure to perceive logical fallacy.  You've left out something important.  Consider--

But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself (John 16:13), but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word.  Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.  

--John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

Christians don't believe the Bible because of the Bible, mfbukowski.  One need barely peruse the New Testament to find adherents of the Hebrew Bible (Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees) who miss the person and work of Christ completely.  And not through lack of study or lack of discipline.  

It's the work of the Holy Spirit that seals the truth of the gospel, of the Bible on the minds of believers.  Alone.

--Erik