Bill McKeever talks about the importance of looking to published statements of the LDS institution as more representative of Mormonism than neo-orthodox writings of BYU professors.
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Side note: Someone said that the newly uploaded MRM videos on YouTube had a “quite bad” audio quality. Are you guys having the same trouble?
He’s probably right, but it would have been nice to get some examples.
I’ve heard Mormons say that since BYU professors have not been publicly rebuked, LDS authorities must be in agreement with their teachings and giving an implicit stamp of approval.
If that is the case, who are the REAL authorities of the LDS church? Have the modern revelations of Living Prophets been supplanted by the teachings of men (i.e. BYU professors)?
This is the best example I know.
AARON; thanks for the link……now that we have THAT cleared up….what’s for breakfast…maybe ….waffles ??? mmmmm…..tastey…..
some are trying to be as ev. as possible….some are mocking the ev. position as “easy believism” . While we wait for the voices on HIGH (SLC) to say something clear and simple…… and wait….
Once again the folks at Mormon Coffee have brewed up another false dichotomy to misrepresent the LDS Church. The implication that there exists a division between the BYU academics and the leadership of the LDS Church over who has authority to interpret doctrine is false. The ultimate authority for the interpretation of doctrinal matters has always and will always reside with the proper priesthood authority of the Church; namely the Prophet and the Apostles.
To utilize an imperfect analogy consider posing the same question to the Roman Catholic Church as to who has the authority to interpret Church doctrine to its members: the theological professors of Notre Dame University or the Pope and the College of Cardinals. The answer is clear as it is obvious.
The great irony here is that in contrast to the LDS or Roman Catholic Churches, doctrinal interpretation for the members of evangelical sects is largely influenced by academics in various protestant schools of divinity. The result of this veritable Tower of Babel of theological opinions is that Protestantism is constantly morphing into new sects with every shifting wind of doctrine. Hence the existence of over 3,000 different Protestant sects each professing different interpretations of the Bible.
In reference to a comment made by Jessica, the professors of religion at BYU may express their own opinions. If the academics should stray too far from official LDS doctrine then they will be set straight through the appropriate priesthood and academic channels. However, should an individual academic at BYU continue to publish opinions that are in direct opposition to the Church after much counseling then various disciplinary measures will be taken. This course of action would be no different at Notre Dame University or Bob Jones University should an academic pursue a course that was in direct opposition to those respective institutions and faiths.
So why did he ask the question when he knew the answer? Of course it’s the Prophet and under his guidance the GAs that have the authority to interpret the doctrine.
As he said – it APPEARS that the GAs don’t care about what the BYU profs say/write. I do not know what they are or have been doing. Maybe there has been private communication maybe not. But the only ones tht can give doctrine are the GAs – all LDS know that.
Easy answer.
STeveH, you wrote
The result of this veritable Tower of Babel of theological opinions is that Protestantism is constantly morphing into new sects with every shifting wind of doctrine.
this is probably true…..but no less true for the wide variety of “Mormon” faiths, and similar groups that allow for “scriptural” modern revelation… so there you go, either way you wind up with lots of variations of what “truth” is, and who GOD is….
Rather than bet on the LDS package , complete with the mouthpeice for GOD (again, not at all unique, there are many of these around) , I’ll take my chances with the OLD BOOK, and orthodoxy, warts and all.
Ragged, I admit, but I KNOW I’m in good company.
GERMIT
PS: the POPE offers a difference, I think, with the way that office regularly comes out with “encyclicals” or statements of faith that (as far as I know) are binding upon RC members. These encyclicals often give insight into RC doctrine and practice, and come from the Vatican itself…. does this seem different than SLC and the GA’s ?? Just wondering…..
GERMIT…..the lapsed RC….
In the days of McConkie, perhaps it was more so, but today this is an assumption that I do not share. I believe the Mormon leadership appreciates having various theological camps (however contradictory) in the religion to make multiple kinds of people feel at home. Whether all those camps fall in line with the Robinsonian or Kimballite model of repentance, for example, isn’t as important to the leadership as whether or not the people are fundamentally still positive in their loyalty to the Church. In other words, loyalty to the institution is more important in their eyes than loyalty to the theology of the institution.
That doesn’t change the fact that there are important scriptures and doctrines that are interpreted in radically different ways in SLC than in Provo. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in a gradual and quiet way (in way that lacks integrity), SLC adopts some teachings from Provo teachers in abandonment of older institutional teachings. See more here on how some non-leader Mormons justify this kind of thing.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
SteveH,
How many sects practice Sola Scriptura as taught by the Reformers in the 16th century? What are the doctrinal differences in these sects that practice Sola Scriptura as taught by the Reformers in the 16th century?
How many different Mormon sects are there? What are the doctrinal differences that caused the many divisions of the Mormon sects? Why is it that the Mormon sect based in Utah should be considered the true sect and not the Mormon sect based in Independence, MO? Didn’t the Independence sect leave because of polygamy? haven’t they been proven correct?
SteveH,
I was just reading the other day that there are 122 Mormon denominations. That means, if you take 1830 as the starting point there have been approximately 1-2 new Mormon denominations every 2 years since the official beginning of the religion. Not much better that 3000 divided into 2000.
If you look at Protestantism, many of the separations between the denominations are not really even doctrinally differences. I know of many like minded Presbyterian denominations to the one we are members of (Associate Reformed Presbyterian), in fact there is little difference between most Conservative Bible believing Reformed Churches – the main divide is with those who don’t believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God and those who do believe the scriptures and base their faith and practices on the truths found there rather than the doctrines and ideas of men. Our church even has pastors from another denomination (Presbyterian Church in America) come and preach on occasion, and our denomination works cooperatively with the PCA and other denominations on missions, etc. There are some real differences between other Bible believing Churches, but on the essentials many if not most times there is little difference.
The separation between the Mormon denominations are much more vast and serious doctrinally than many of the (some times non-existent) distinctions between protestants. You could even say there is a “Tower of Babel” of theological distinctions and differences between these followers of Joseph Smith. Some accept Brigham Young as a prophet of God, some don’t, some believe in the trinity, many don’t, some retain the practice of the eternal commandment of polygamy, some don’t, some accept additional scriptures that others don’t. There are vast and many huge theological differences between these many Mormon faiths. And now BYU professors are trying to make all the pieces of Mormonism fit together with limited geography theories, 2 Hill Cummorah theories, rationalizations of the origin of American Indians, etc. They are trying the dog-gone best to make it all fit, despite the teaching of the Mormon authorities. Perhaps we are witnessing the early beginning stages of another new Mormon religion.
Germit, Morris, Gundeck, et al,
Germit,
You make mention of the “wide variety of Mormon faiths”. This is a common misconception amongst Mormon “critics” that such diversity exists. In reality, there are only THREE (3) groups of LDS origin with a membership of over 5,000: the Fundamental LDS (FLDS) with around 30 to 40 thousand members (numbers are uncertain given the furtive nature of the this group), the Community of Christ (formerly known as the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) with 195,605 members in 2006, and the Utah based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with over 13.5 million members.
While there may have been some other offshoots such as the Temple Lot Church, the Strangites, the Bickertonites etc., most of the 122 offshoot groups mentioned by Morris have long ceased to exist. Those few, obscure others that still exist have a nominal membership at best. Thus it is clear that the Utah based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is by far and away the largest and most predominant Mormon Church.
These plain facts conclusively refute the notion that there is a vast array of Mormon sects and theological interpretations. I hope this in part clarifies this commonly held misconception.
SteveH,
Is it your argument that the size of a sect makes it the true sect?
So what about the proof that the Independence sect was correct about polygamy and had the true prophet? Didn’t the Independence Sect build the temple that Joseph Smith prophesied about? I am beginning to think that the Utah Sect might not be the real Mormon sect.
SteveH,
You said:
“You make mention of the “wide variety of Mormon faiths”. This is a common misconception amongst Mormon “critics” that such diversity exists.”
Likewise the false premise of 3000 different Protestant faiths. I have even seen 33,000 put forth as the number of protestants. Sure, there are differences between Reformed/Lutheran, Baptist, Wesleyan faiths, and Charismatic/Pentecostal churches – but many share a common faith in the sufficiency of Christ for salvation and unmerited salvation by grace, the fallen nature of man, and God’s triune nature. As I said, the main divide is with those who through higher criticism, doubt the reliability of the Bible much like Mormons do (who believe many precious things have been removed – despite a complete lack of evidence that this has happened).
On the other hand, the divide between the 3 predominant Mormon groups you mention is HUGE. They have different ideas about the very nature of God, how many gods there are, who is a prophet of God, how one attains heaven in God’s presence, and what to accept as scripture. Not minor differences.
– Morris
Gundeck,
I do not make the argument that the relative size of the sect (ie the Community of Christ [RLDS] at 195,000 members versus the Utah based LDS Church at 13.5 million) is a measure of “truthfulness”. It that were the case the Roman Catholic Church with around 1.3 billion members would be the clear favorite. Rather, it is more a question of which group holds divine apostolic authority (a concept foreign to Protestant theology). I think it is clear where my sympathies are.
SteveH: well, you’ve kind of lost me….are you saying that your group has the right authority because you number in the millions ?? What difference, as far as establishing true or false, does that make ??
Just in the past month, I’ve met a member of a Mormon splinter group at work, and my best friend has a co-worker who is “fundamentalist” RLDS….both these guys are sure that they are following the truth, and very grateful for the “right revelation”. Do you see my point ?? I’m NOT saying they are right and you are wrong, I’m saying that the ‘prophet and revelation for today” approach can get JUST as fractured as any other……that’s not news to you is it ??? Any way you cut it, we all make choices as to whom or what to trust, whether it’s your style of church, or mine. In that respect, we are not that different..
Peace and mercy on your house
GERMIT
Just an interesting side point – The LDS missionaries wear white shirts, while Bill in the video is wearing a black shirt !!!!! 🙂
Germit,
I thought I was clear when I stated:
“I do not make the argument that the relative size of the sect (ie the Community of Christ [RLDS] at 195,000 members versus the Utah based LDS Church at 13.5 million) is a measure of ‘truthfulness’.”
Furthermore I stated:
“It that were the case the Roman Catholic Church with around 1.3 billion members would be the clear favorite. Rather, it is more a question of which group holds divine apostolic authority (a concept foreign to Protestant theology).”
Throughout all the ages divine truth from God is revealed to mankind through His chosen prophets. My point is that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds the divine apostolic authority of God. You do not have to agree with this and that is your prerogative.
Steve H,
Your comments are so ill informed it it hard to know where to begin. Yes, this is an imperfect analogy:
“. . . consider posing the same question to the Roman Catholic Church as to who has the authority to interpret Church doctrine to its members: the theological professors of Notre Dame University or the Pope and the College of Cardinals. The answer is clear as it is obvious.”
It is so imperfect that it does not apply. The Magistrium of the RCC at least knows its theology (as wrong as it is) and can expound on it. I cannot say that for your church. Cardinals and former Popes have expressed their theology in writing. Those men are theologically trained and at least know the issues. I can not say that about the top 15 in SLC. Those authorized to speak in the RCC can and do speak with a frequency that exceeds the leaders of your church. Plus, those theologians who have are not clerics often seek an imprimatur from the church before their works go to print.
The Council of Bishops put out an “authorized” translation of the Bible, the NAB, awhile back and that is more than your church has done. With its living prophet and apostles, plus a whole host of scholars, your church has yet to put out a correct translation of the Bible into English. The guys at the top of your religion are (former) business men; everyone of the guys at the top of the RCC was at one time a lowly priest.
Your top guy (Hinkley) was not even sure about eternal progression. I know that concept is goofy, or even repulsive to some, but at the least the guys at the top of the RCC have had the guts to stick by that ridiculous idea known as transubstantiation. The guys at MRM did not brew this up. Mormons have noticed this trend, as evidenced by the link he provided. The problem is some people, both Mormon and Evangelical, interpret the silence of the “key holders'” in your church, in regards to published works by prominent Mormons, as tacit approval. This is especially true when these ideas are put forth by men who teach at an LDS institution (BYU) and have formerly worked for the church. The case is even stronger when this theological dissemination has occurred at LDS wards and stake buildings.
The frustration non-Mormons here share is when we do cite your prophets and apostles, Mormons often back away from them like the plague and call the teaching utterances of supposedly divinely appointed men “his opinion”. Seriously, if you are saying that apostles and prophets or your church speak with authority and then Mormons do not fall in line with the teachings of your own guys – how do you think that is perceived by outsiders? If apostolic teaching from general conference cannot be trusted then what can? What is the point of the restoration? Could you tell us where these professors erred? Where has your church officially taught anything other than the Standard Works (people at MRM have even cited church manuals and I have seen Mormons back away from those)?
FYI apostolic authority and succession are not concepts that are “foreign to Protestant theology”. We are quite aware of the issues and have been addressing them long before your church came on the scene. Drop the misconception.
Ralph,
“Just an interesting side point – The LDS missionaries wear white shirts, while Bill in the video is wearing a black shirt !!!!! :)”
Where have you been the last hundred years! Good guys where black. I cite as evidence the cartoon and soon to be feature film G.I. Joe. The good ninja snake eyes wears black while the evil ninja storm shadow wears white 🙂
David: very good post and I appreciate the distinctions made between the RC’s and the Mormons on this. I was raised RC, and didn’t always like what the church had to say, but at least I KNEW what the church had to say. The RC’s have their own official theologians, others may disagree, but I can’t think of too many areas where anyone, outsider included, is at a loss for where Rome sits on an issue. And that would include a wide variety of issues, including many of the “thornier” ones like medical ethics, women in leadership, social justice, etc. RC’s like my mom may not CARE too much for the Vatican position, but we know what it is. ALSO: Rome is not very keen on ANYONE speaking for them, so they are movivated to clear things up , when necessary. And that’s to the world at large, and not just “in house”.
Again, good post.
STeveH: you were the one to bring up numbers, I think….and I’m not sure why….of course you believe your group has “the right authority”….and so does the “splinter group guy” where I work , and the fundamentalist RLDS guy my friend knows….and on and on….. just like the multiple views of the Bible….not that different.
Happy Wednesday all
GERMIT
PS: I like the black shirt….just do NOT add a RAIDER’s logo….or I’ll have to go off on him…
Actually, the shirt is a plum color. Don’t worry Germit, I was raised in San Diego. No chance of a Raider’s logo being anywhere near my person.
David,
To reiterate your own comments: “Your comments are so ill informed it it hard to know where to begin.”
Yes it is very clear that you are very ill informed about LDS doctrine, history and culture. Your comments concerning the LDS Church reveal a profound ignorance and definite malevolence.
I would suggest trying to learn a little more about the LDS Church prior to venting your venom. Perhaps a good place to start would be to actually the read the Book of Mormon or attend a local LDS chapel one Sunday. Wow, what a novel concept! However, given the general tone of your comments that is probably beyond you.
David,
FYI, apostolic authority and succession are most certainly “foreign to Protestant theology” – meaning that they are not ascribed to by Protestantism – get a clue. Protestant theology derives its authority solely from the scriptures. Do the terms sola fide and sola scriptura mean anything to you?
FYI, every General Authority in the LDS Church started off as a “lowly priest”.
A question for the LDS.
In the Video, Bill Quotes the Prophet/president J.F.S, In the Doctrines of Salvation. Let me add something from the Book, I will back up as it were a line or two, In Volume 3 on Page 297 it says,
Now when he says, God has called and appointed men, who are the men J.F.S Is speaking of? Prophets, leaders, presidents.
If What J.F.S has said is true, then How could BY claim Adam God was from God and was scripture and our salvation or damnation hangs upon these teachings? If J.F.S was wrong, then Why was he writing books called “Doctrines of salvation”?
Then you could use what J.F.S said in the Book and ask the question I have asked many times, If LDS cannot give us straight answers to Topics like Adam God, or Blood Atonement and Still many questions under that topic were never answered or avoid, then it begs the question, if your God is so loving and wants us to be saved, Why does he not speak to the prophet, answer these questions for everyone.
Instead these questions go unanswered, we are going back and forth, and even LDS cannot answer many of them, shows much confusion and confusion is not from God. Then maybe it is just me, but it seems the Prophet does not care about the people because it seems a waste of time and a burden to him to say, OK, I will go before the Lord and ask Him to give me revelation and once and for all, answer some or all of these question.
The thing I look most forward to is, How the LDS will answer me on why, the prophet does not need to go before God and get an answer, or how the LDS will say, you really dont want an answer that is why the Prophet will not bother in going to the Lord. And if you reply like that, I will ask you, how you can tell us and have told us, were are not to judge one another, only God can do that, yet you seem to judge my heart and motives and assume I am not really wanting an answer. Rick b
CORRECTED VERSION: Concerning SteveH’s comments– Just because there are only 3 Mormon splinter groups that have a certain minimum membership does not show that the idea that “there are many Mormon faiths” is fiction from ‘critics’. Read Steven Shields’ “The Divergent Paths of the Restoration”, for one source. It doesn’t matter how small most are. The fact is that there are many Mormon splinter groups. Their beliefs do NOT match in many, many areas- some believe that Adam is God the Father, that polygamy should never have stopped, some are liberal, some teach in literal Godhood like the Utah LDS Church does (1985 Utah LDS Church’s Melchizedek Priesthood manual, pp. 151-158/Lesson 21, D&C 132, etc), while others don’t and the list can go on quite long.
You made a distinction without a difference
SteveH,
Talk about venom. For your information I have read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover as well as the rest of the standard works. I have attended LDS wards on occasion even on fast and testimony Sundays (no, I have never been LDS). So, who here is ignorant and who here is assuming?
According to Sola Scriptura one can have apostolic succession and authority (it’s Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura). It is just that we do not call church leaders infallible but we do call the Bible that. Tradition and church teaching can be formative they are just subordinate to scripture. What would you put in place of Sola Scripture? Usually any attempt to not follow Sola Scriptura ends up in some form of Sola Ecclesia. Again, what other than the standard works are you willing to put on par with them?
We do not have the same view of apostolic authority as you do, so it is foreign to us? Try again. We have been dealing with Rome long before you guys came along so you back up with that.
The elephant in the room of this conversation is the reason why professors are being looked to for guidance more than the GA’s. It’s because the profs simply know more. Many of the profs who write books are linguists and know a thing or too about Biblical languages. Many know more about Mormon doctrine and history than the GA’s. Also, some of these guys writing books actually have the guts to throw their view out there for criticism. In other words, the BYU profs (rightly or wrongly) have been cranking out meat compared to the milk of the current GA’s; they are much more willing to touch thorny issues. I think the current GA’s are content to pass this dirty work onto the profs. The tacit approval thing works great as at any time the GA’s can challenge anything written and say that is not official, but until that time a profs view can have the force of official doctrine.
mrgermit
Thanks for the compliment. I am sure many an RC would not like their church being roped into this very American theological discussion. However, while I believe that Rome has been more clear and consistent than Mormonism on some issues that is not saying much. On some issues like salvation current RCC teaching is all over the place, so an RC can go theologian or parish shopping. Also, many an honest RC cleric will tell you that much of what constitutes RC dogma is the result of “development”. They would not take the same view as I do on these developments, however, many will freely admit that certain theological biggies like Papal Supremacy did not always exist and did indeed “develop”.
Somewhat like Mormonism, Catholicism has a chasm between its academics, many of whom are clerics, and its apologists. The pop apologists, like the ones at EWTN and Catholic Answers, hold to a view of doctrine that the academics accepted about 150 years ago but have long abandoned. You do not have to possess a degree from Notre Dame to know that Catholic academia, again usually clerics, are far more liberal than rank-and-file Catholics including lay apologists. However, those liberal, academic clerics know their faith well. I would love to take a bet between Benedictine and Monson on who knows more about his respective faith and who could defend it better.
DAVE wrote:
The elephant in the room of this conversation is the reason why professors are being looked to for guidance more than the GA’s. It’s because the profs simply know more. Many of the profs who write books are linguists and know a thing or too about Biblical languages. Many know more about Mormon doctrine and history than the GA’s. Also, some of these guys writing books actually have the guts to throw their view out there for criticism. In other words, the BYU profs (rightly or wrongly) have been cranking out meat compared to the milk of the current GA’s; they are much more willing to touch thorny issues. I think the current GA’s are content to pass this dirty work onto the profs. The tacit approval thing works great as at any time the GA’s can challenge anything written and say that is not official, but until that time a profs view can have the force of official doctrine.
this is a long cut and paste, but I offer no apology….this indeed, is the elephant described well………. great job DAVE
GERMIT
PS: I esp. like the comment about how at least these academics have the GUTS to put their views out there….yes, I think COURAGE is at least part of the issue.
David,
To again reiterate your comment:
“Your comments are so ill informed it is hard to know where to begin.”
I employed the comparison to the RCC merely to illustrate the point that LDS Church doctrine is set by the proper priesthood authority, namely the Prophet and the Apostles, rather than BYU academics. This is a fairly obvious assertion yet Mormon “critics” somehow come up with the false notion that BYU academics interpret doctrine to members.
Your ill informed comments reveal your ignorance of even the basic tenets of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. To wit you stated:
“Your top guy (Hinkley) was not even sure about eternal progression.”
This is such an ignorant statement on your part that it hardly merits comment. It is apparent that you have never read any of Gordon B. Hinckley’s writings or listened to any of his General Conference talks. The doctrine of eternal progression is a cornerstone doctrine of the LDS faith.
You stated:
“The guys at the top of your religion are (former) business men.”
Again this is an ignorant statement. The leadership of the LDS Church come from all walks of life and all professions – not just business. Many are distinguished academics, jurists, doctors, scientists, lawmakers, bankers, statesmen, farmers etc. and ALL , I repeat ALL, started off as “lowly priests”. All have dedicated their lives to the study and practice of their faith.
You stated:
“The elephant in the room of this conversation is the reason why professors are being looked to for guidance more than the GA’s. It’s because the profs simply know more.”
Again your words belie your ignorance of the LDS faith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded upon direct revelation between God and man. Who is more knowledgeable of the teachings of Christ: a theologian who merely studies the writings of prophets or a prophet who speaks directly with Christ face-to-face? Who has the divine authority of Christ to administer His Church: an academic or His divinely anointed Prophet and Apostles?
I can understand your fixation with theologians as being arbiters of doctrinal interpretation because that is all you have to rely upon. In contrast, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is guided directly by Christ Himself and His divinely anointed Prophets and Apostles.
SteveH,
I understand that you have a great regard for your own understanding of Protestant theology but sometimes you demonstrate an ability to simplify complex issues to the point that they no longer represent the truth. It is true that the Reformed Churches do not believe in an episcopal system for the succession of apostolic authority, these Churches look to the faithful teaching and transmission of the Apostles doctrines as the grounds for authority, and the true apostolic succession. It is also true that many Protestant Churches hold to a form of apostolic succession of authority. The Anglican Communion holds to apostolic succession for its Bishops that has at various times been recognized and rescinded by the Roman see. Some Lutheran denominations hold to an episcopal polity ruled over by Bishops who also claim apostolic succession. The United Methodist Church also teaches a form of episcopal government with all of the ordained having apostolic authority. I would also point you to the numerous “apostolic” bible and charismatic Churches who claim a form of apostolic authority without trying to prove a lineage of succession.
With all of this said, I am sure that you can now see that apostolic succession has been an issue that was around long before Joseph Smith’s claims of apostolic authority. This may come as a shock to you, not all Protestant Churches hold to Sola Scriptura, in fact there are some who don’t hold to any of the “5 solas”. For that matter I am still trying to figure out why you claim that sola fide has anything do with apostolic succession?
In view of the many times that I have corrected your misunderstandings of Christian doctrine, I have come to the conclusion that you might just not know as much about beliefs outside of your Church as you think you do. Or you might have known everything that I posted above and chose to ignore it in order to make a cheap shot.
Gundeck,
Thank you for your comments.
I am using the terms “Apostolic Authority” and “Apostolic Succession” in the Catholic sense wherein such authority and succession implicitly denote a direct priesthood lineage of succession from the Apostles Peter, James, and John who received their priesthood authority directly from Jesus Christ, Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration.
The Church of England became estranged from the Roman Catholic Church through the King Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy yet still maintains that it has its Apostolic Authority intact. For Martin Luther (and hence Lutheranism) the doctrine of priesthood authority always posed a sticky theological conundrum which he never clearly resolved to his satisfaction and thus Lutheranism claims a form of apostolic authority notwithstanding the fact that it is cut off from the RCC.
The problem Protestant theology has is that its genesis stems from a rejection of the the Papal authority of the Roman Catholic Church which act in itself entails a cutting off from the direct lineage of succession of priesthood authority.
When I say that apostolic authority is a concept foreign to Protestant theology I mean that Protestant Churches (excluding the Anglican Church) do not claim direct priesthood lineage from the Apostle Peter in the manner that the Roman Catholic Church does. The “5 solas” you refer to arose from need of Protestant theologians to establish some form of legitimacy in the sense that they had effectively cut themselves off from the RCC and hence the authority of direct priesthood lineage.
LDS doctrine holds that the Apostolic authority (The Keys of St. Peter if you will) or priesthood lineage claimed by the Roman Catholic Church was extinguished from the earth when the original Apostles were martyred. This loss of Apostolic authority led to the Great Apostasy prophesied by many prophets and apostles and thus necessitated a Restoration of Apostolic Authority which occurred 1829 when Apostles Peter, James and John conferred this Apostolic Authority upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery through the priesthood ordinance of laying on of hands. This is the source of the great claim to divine Apostolic Authority made by the LDS Church.
I hope that I have clarified any misunderstandings.
STeveH; you clarified some, then created others…..you wrote
The problem Protestant theology has is that its genesis stems from a rejection of the the Papal authority of the Roman Catholic Church which act in itself entails a cutting off from the direct lineage of succession of priesthood authority.
how is this a problem?? You don’t accept the popes as legitimate successors to the apostles, correct ? So if Prostestants say the same thing, we actually agree with the LDS on this one, that the Popes were not the legitmate successors. If you think they are legit, then why aren’t you RC ??
Puzzled in the p.m.
GERMIT
SteveH,
You are over simplifying the complex again. In the Roman, Othodox, and Anglacan Churches only Bishops trace their liniage to the 12 Appostles. This has nothing to do with priesthood authority.
The 5 Solas have nothing to do with ligitimacy or authority, except for the authority of Christ alone.
“This is such an ignorant statement on your part that it hardly merits comment. It is apparent that you have never read any of Gordon B. Hinckley’s writings or listened to any of his General Conference talks. The doctrine of eternal progression is a cornerstone doctrine of the LDS faith.”
I was referring to the Larry kIng interview that Hinckley gave. I think any fair minded viewer (who knows history of eternal progression) will get the vibe that at the very least Hinckley “fudged” during that interview..
Yeah, I know that not every quorum of the 12 member is/was a businessman but a high percentage are/were. All may have started off as lovely preisthood holders. However, priests in the RCC (like clerics in many religions) are professional clergy. I am not saying professional or lay clergy are better than the other. However, many in your camp flaunt the benefits of haing amateur (nothing wrong in that word) clergy. However, the downside is that often your clergy from the ward bishop to the First Presidency are not so knowledgable. I do not see that problem as being as big in the RCC.
“Again your words belie your ignorance of the LDS faith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded upon direct revelation between God and man.”
Do you really believe this or is this polemical rhetoric? Do you really think that I do not know that your church claims to be founded on the restored keys? Your venom is showing to any unpartial observer. If you beleive that I am indeed ignorant could you name a non-Mormon critic (preferably at this website) who does articulate your position accruately? I have seen your objection before. You call disagreement ignorance and then proceed to slander your opponent.
“Who is more knowledgeable of the teachings of Christ: a theologian who merely studies the writings of prophets or a prophet who speaks directly with Christ face-to-face?”
I can legitimately say it depends. I would say that a theologian who has the witness of several prophets can be more knowledgeable than a given prophet. I would say that the theologian and apostle Paul knew more than Moses (while he was alive on earth). Why? Paul had the testimony of every prophet before Moses, the testimony of Moses, as well as every prophet since plus his own experience with the Almighty.
One would think that this “line upon lin, precept upon precept” concept would hold true in your religion however it appears to be the opposite. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young appear more knowledgable (and truculent) in regards to their religion than any “prophet” of the 20th or 21st century.
“I can understand your fixation with theologians as being arbiters of doctrinal interpretation because that is all you have to rely upon. In contrast, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is guided directly by Christ Himself and His divinely anointed Prophets and Apostles.”
I understand you may be feeling frustration, but could you please lend something substantive to the conversation? I have the Holy Spirit and a testimony so you can put your straw-man down. I believe in continuing revelation. I beleive there does exist more than scripture and theologians.
You told me to read the Book of Mormon which I already have. You told me to go to a LDS ward/chapel which I already have. You don’t seem so smarmy now about those challenges 🙂 Non-Mormons are not the only ones who have noticed the increase influence that Mormon theolgians are experiencing. For the record, we are not saying, nor have we ever stated, that theologians officially determine/arbitrate for your religion. However, at an informal level it has been the observation of many that some theologians do influence Mormons substantially.
Damn and here I thought that I had a very convincing argument about the shirt colour!
Germit, the Raiders’ colours are green and white, no black at all. OK, that’s the Canberra Raiders in the league comp.
David,
I do not mind people disagreeing with LDS doctrine but I do take exception to those individuals such as yourself who take it upon themselves to slander and malign good people such as Gordon B. Hinckley simply because their belief in Christ differs from yours.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of even basic LDS tenets of doctrine (as outlined in my previous post). You claim to have read the Book of Mormon and the other standard works (Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) but it is most apparent that you possess only a cursory knowledge of their contents at best. You claim to have attended an LDS Sunday service but apparently you did not learn very much from the experience.
As I stated before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded upon direct revelation between God and man. This is not polemical rhetoric (as you put it) but the foundational belief of the LDS Church. Know you nothing of the history of the LDS Church? I do not (as you put it) call disagreement of LDS doctrine ignorance rather I call ignorance (of the slanderous and maligning type as you have so amply demonstrated) of LDS doctrine ignorance.
The sad truth is that I have rarely encountered a non-Mormon critic who can accurately articulate LDS doctrine, history or culture. I believe that the problem stems from the fact that few Mormon “critics” are even willing to make the modest effort required to learn what Latter-day Saints actually believe. Instead they turn to such luminaries of LDS doctrine as Ed Decker (author of ‘The Godmakers’) or Walter Martin. With luminaries such as these hacks to inform them it is no wonder that Mormon “critics” are so ignorant in their views of LDS doctrine, history and culture.
You have the freedom to believe and worship as you see fit – but please do not be so arrogant as to lecture Latter-day Saints on what their doctrine and faith is – especially when you yourself do not know what constitutes LDS doctrine.
Bill said “Actually, the shirt is a plum color.”
What! Bill’s a Queenslander now? Go Maroons!
(Ralph would understand).
SteveH wrote “it is most apparent that you possess only a cursory knowledge of their contents at best”
..and I was thinking “how many times have I applied this statement to the knowkedge of the Bible that the LDS leadership has demonstrated”…
…and others have argued that this illustrates the level of ignorance that the LDS movement has of the teachings of its foundational leaders.
Wait a minute…if David had read the BoM from cover to cover, wouldn’t that be enough to persuade him of its truthfulness? I’d wager that he did pray over it and earnsetly sought the Holy Ghost’s direction over it. What more do you need for the magic of the BoM to do its work?
StevenH,
1) You complain that only a “few” “non-Mormon critics” take the time to “learn what Latter-day Saints actually believe”. I have heard, read, and seen over and over how Mormons, including its leaders in the official Ensign and elsewhere misunderstand and misrepresent what conservative Christianity teaches. I have seen far more “non-Mormon critics” who have quoted far more LDS materials, than mormons quote of other faiths’ materials.
2) You said: “I employed the comparison to the RCC merely to illustrate the point that LDS Church doctrine is set by the proper priesthood authority, namely the Prophet and the Apostles, rather than BYU academics. This is a fairly obvious assertion yet Mormon “critics” somehow come up with the false notion that BYU academics interpret doctrine to members.”
I know who interprets ‘scripture’ for Mormons, and so on. I have, however, read, and seen confusion by Mormons on what is official- is it only Standard Works? If more, what? I can quote official literature on what is official, etc., but Mormons are not always right about their own church. I know BYU profs are not the Divine Interpreters for Mormons, and I can quote from official sources, including the D&C.
3) “The sad truth is that I have rarely encountered a non-Mormon critic who can accurately articulate LDS doctrine, history or culture. I believe that the problem stems from the fact that few Mormon “critics” are even willing to make the modest effort required to learn what Latter-day Saints actually believe. Instead they turn to such luminaries of LDS doctrine as Ed Decker (author of ‘The Godmakers’) or Walter Martin. With luminaries such as these hacks to inform them it is no wonder that Mormon “critics” are so ignorant in their views of LDS doctrine, history and culture.”
To use Martin, who is NOT always wrong, but who also has made errors, and the ever-dubious ed Decker as the examples is far from accurately representing actual “non-Mormon critics”. Decker is fringe, or should be. I am ex-Mormon, and used to promote the God Makers movie & Decker, but have stopped over a decade ago. I have written refutations of Decker to those who have asked, or to those who have promoted him on YouTube. Please clean up the poor understanding that Mormons have of non-Mormon beliefs from Christianity. Even General Authorities in the Ensign and General Conference or Church pamphlets can’t get it right.
4) 4) The Does the LDS/Mormon Church teach:
– That the LDS God the Father was once a mortal man, and BECAME A God?
“This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: ‘It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did’ (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).”
Gospel Principles, “Chapter 47: Exaltation” p 305. LDS Church: 1997 edition.
– That the LDS Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate Gods?:
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (Joseph Smith, quoted as is in Ensign, March 2008, p. 68, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 41–42).
– That Lorenzo Snow, later a Mormon prophet, can be AS GREAT AS God (as an exalted God with “all power”, as we can also become through Mormonism (MP guide 1985, pp. 151-158, D&C 132)?:
The LDS Church says officially: “..Lorenzo Snow was promised BY THE LORD through the Patriarch to the Church that through obedience to the gospel he could become AS GREAT AS God, ‘and you CANNOT wish to be GREATER.'”-Melchizedek Priesthood study guide 1985, p 151.
Take care & I look forward to reading your reply.
StevenH,
REVISED version- I ADDED SOME THINGS. I only had less than 2 minutes to revise with the original post. I had to post a new one to revise it:
1) You claim that only a “few” “non-Mormon critics” take the time to “learn what Latter-day Saints actually believe”. I have heard, read, and seen over and over how Mormons, including its leaders in the official Ensign and elsewhere, misunderstand and misrepresent what conservative Christianity teaches. I have seen far more “non-Mormon critics” who have quoted far more LDS materials, than Mormons quote of other faiths’ materials.
2) You said: “I employed the comparison to the RCC merely to illustrate the point that LDS Church doctrine is set by the proper priesthood authority, namely the Prophet and the Apostles, rather than BYU academics. This is a fairly obvious assertion yet Mormon “critics” somehow come up with the false notion that BYU academics interpret doctrine to members.”
* A- The NEW Testament changed from a clerical, male-only priesthood to all Christians being spiritual priests, offersing spiritual sacrifices to God:
“To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ … Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 1:1; 2:5 NKJV).
“John, to the seven churches which are in Asia: … To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
(Rev. 1:5-6 NKJV)
Peter referred to his entire elect group of Christians as priests offering spiritual sacrifices, and John wrote to the 7 churches and called all of them priests, noit just certain ones of one gender.
* B: I know who interprets ‘scripture’ for Mormons, and so on. I have, however, read, and seen confusion by Mormons on what is official- is it only Standard Works? If more, what? I can quote official literature on what is official, etc., but Mormons are not always right about their own church. I know BYU profs are not the Divine Interpreters for Mormons, and I can quote from official sources, including the D&C.
3) “The sad truth is that I have rarely encountered a non-Mormon critic who can accurately articulate LDS doctrine, history or culture. I believe that the problem stems from the fact that few Mormon “critics” are even willing to make the modest effort required to learn what Latter-day Saints actually believe. Instead they turn to such luminaries of LDS doctrine as Ed Decker (author of ‘The Godmakers’) or Walter Martin. With luminaries such as these hacks to inform them it is no wonder that Mormon “critics” are so ignorant in their views of LDS doctrine, history and culture.”
To use Martin, who is NOT always wrong, but who also has made errors, and the ever-dubious Ed Decker as the examples is far from accurately representing actual “non-Mormon critics”. Decker is fringe, or should be. I am ex-Mormon, and used to promote the God Makers movie & Decker, but have stopped over a decade ago. I have written refutations of Decker to those who have asked, or to those who have promoted him on YouTube. Please clean up the poor understanding that Mormons have of non-Mormon beliefs from Christianity. Even General Authorities in the Ensign and General Conference or Church pamphlets can’t get it right.
4) 4) The Does the LDS/Mormon Church teach:
– That the LDS God the Father was once a mortal man, and BECAME A God?
“This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: ‘It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did’ (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).”
Gospel Principles, “Chapter 47: Exaltation” p 305. LDS Church: 1997 edition.
– That the LDS Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate Gods?:
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (Joseph Smith, quoted as is in Ensign, March 2008, p. 68, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 41–42).
– That Lorenzo Snow, later a Mormon prophet, can be AS GREAT AS God (as an exalted God with “all power”, as we can also become through Mormonism- see MP guide 1985, pp. 151-158, D&C 132)?:
The LDS Church says officially: “..Lorenzo Snow was promised BY THE LORD through the Patriarch to the Church that through obedience to the gospel he could become AS GREAT AS God, ‘and you CANNOT wish to be GREATER.'”-Melchizedek Priesthood study guide 1985, p 151.
Take care- I look forward to reading your reply.
Martin,
I thought Storm were purple. All I can say is GO THE KNIGHTS!
SteveH,
It isn’t slander if it is true and slander is not the same thing as ignorance. Either Gordon B. Hinckley really was ignorant about eternal progression or he lied on Larry King. Either presents big problems. I do not mind when someone disagrees on matters of religion. I do mind when someone “fudges” on a key part of his/her religion simply because it comes across as hokie.
What was I really so ignorant about? This just seems like a baseless charge that you have thrown out there in order to malign someone who disagrees. Also, it seems that it is not genuine as it comes off as retaliatory. Let the record show that I first made that claim against you. The actually term I used was “ill informed”.
This statement here shows a lot –
“As I stated before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded upon direct revelation between God and man. This is not polemical rhetoric (as you put it) but the foundational belief of the LDS Church. Know you nothing of the history of the LDS Church? I do not (as you put it) call disagreement of LDS doctrine ignorance rather I call ignorance (of the slanderous and maligning type as you have so amply demonstrated) of LDS doctrine ignorance.”
You clearly were not listening to the other side. I know the claim is put forth that your church is founded upon the restoration of the primitive church (this occurred by revelation and stets up continuing revelation). When I wrote –
“Do you really believe this or is this polemical rhetoric? Do you really think that I do not know that your church claims to be founded on the restored keys? Your venom is showing to any unpartial observer.”
The “this” is explained in the next sentence. The “polemical rhetoric” is not your claim to revelation but you assertion that I am ignorant. I will ask the question again. Do you really believe that I am not aware of the fact that Mormonism claims that angels and dead people of significance visited Joseph Smith (as well as God Himself)? Do you think that I am not aware of the fact that your top guy is called a “living prophet”?
Do you really believe I am ignorant or is it mere polemical rhetoric?
This speaks volumes:
“The sad truth is that I have rarely encountered a non-Mormon critic who can accurately articulate LDS doctrine, history or culture. I believe that the problem stems from the fact that few Mormon “critics” are even willing to make the modest effort required to learn what Latter-day Saints actually believe. Instead they turn to such luminaries of LDS doctrine as Ed Decker (author of ‘The Godmakers’) or Walter Martin. With luminaries such as these hacks to inform them it is no wonder that Mormon “critics” are so ignorant in their views of LDS doctrine, history and culture.”
I can tell you that many critics have taken substantial effort to learn your religion. You dismissiveness comes across as merely a defensive reaction instead of one born out of experience. Honestly, how would you know for certainty that someone has or has not spent a substantial amount of time learning about your religion? I can tell you that I have not just read the Book of Mormon but the entire standard works. I can state that is also true for many here on this blog. I know that Bill McKeever has spent so much time researching Mormonism that some people think he is weird – but not me Bill :). Are you also unaware that many people who criticize your church are former members who at one time ate, slept, and breathed Mormonism?
The names you did mention say a lot about you. Ed Decker is indeed fringe and while he is still around I do not think he is nearly as active or as influential as he once was. And Walter Martin . . . He has been dead for decades! Even those guys have/had studied Mormonism extensively. Honestly, people would take you more seriously if you did not cry ignorance every time someone states something bad about your church.
Where have I stated what your church officially believes? I will let the readers decide who’s post has contained more venom and ignorance.
For the rest who are reading, this is one of the huge challenges one encounters with Mormonism. If you quote church leaders, and the quote makes the church look bad, then the quote is just opinion. Mormons can bring in the writings of Mormon theologians, but if a non-Mormon even dares mention one then /she is simply being deceptive and ignorant. What some Mormons may fail to realize is that Bill’s vlog post is true for non-Mormons as well as Mormons. So many non-Mormons are naive and want to believe only the best of the best of Mormon theology that they will gravitate to the writings of Mormon theologians (which are unofficial) verses church manuals and quotes from Mormon leaders.
DAVE: you wrote:
So many non-Mormons are naive and want to believe only the best of the best of Mormon theology that they will gravitate to the writings of Mormon theologians (which are unofficial) verses church manuals and quotes from Mormon leaders.
Knowing this, it’s to the LDS leadership to let the Robert Millets just talk on….they can always be disavowed, in necessary, and in the meantime , they are casting a net in today’s ecumenical ocean. You never know, you might catch something there. The GA”s can play hard ball when needed and it’s a “win win” for the LDS. A variety of views and theologies does not a conspiracy make……and I’m quick to admit that the ev.’s (or alleged ev.’s ) are all over the board theologically, but the silence of the SLC foks is lame, and I think it was DAVE who characterized them as “businessmen”. That’s how they come across to me…..plenty of time to build temples and open malls…not so much time to actually present an explanation of doctrine TO THE WORLD….which one would expect from the ONE TRUE CHURCH.
Interesting that (like the RCC) , giving the theologians a lot of leeway may come back t bite them occaisionally. There may be a “liberal fringe” that picks up more steam than wanted…
GERmIT
. . . and I’m quick to admit that the ev.’s (or alleged ev.’s ) are all over the board theologically, but the silence of the SLC foks is lame, and I think it was DAVE who characterized them as “businessmen”.
I am quick to call a spade a spade and I will freely admit that many leaders in our ranks act like politicians so they can rightly be called “politicians”.
I think Aaron has pointed out before that the spectrum of LDS belief is huge and that what really matters is fidelity to the church and its leadership.
David said “what really matters is fidelity to the church and its leadership.”
I would go further and say that this is all that matters to the Mormon religion.
Personally, I think that the LDS church should replace every single public declaration of its faith that it has ever issued with the simple summary “We believe in whatever our prophets say”.
Well, the statement “There is One God, and [insert name here] is His Prophet” has already been taken.
My problem with this is that Jesus said “whoever believes in me…” (John 3:16 etc etc etc) and it is a perilous mistake to substitute “faith in Christ” with “faith in my Faith”, or even “faith in my religion”.
(Did you notice that I don’t consider Jesus to be a prophet of your religion?)
Billy McKeevster,
The confusion is a fabrication- because church leadership has made CLEAR who is authorized on matters of doctrine. If BYU professors were authoritative, we’d be teaching from their syllabus’ in gospel doctrine class…and we don’t- and there is a reason for that. Ev’s are confused because they’ll take statements from members like Steve Young about Islamic nations–and try to turn His personal beliefs into an official statement by the church leadership- kind of like taking Nancy Pelosi’s support of abortion rights as the official position of the Catholic church.
If there isn’t one direct source for church position and doctrine–then the message of the gospel is subject to individual interpretations, hijacking and reinventing doctrines for the purposes of wielding power over others (which we see in ‘Christian’ history)- which is the foundation of heresy, and apostasy!
This confusion Billy alleges is actually underlining the statement of Pres. Ezra Taft Benson. There is an unavoidable, fundamental need for authority when acting in God’s name. And it is unrealistic for Bill to be so critical of this dynamic when a similar and even more pronounced dynamic exists within evangelical circles. I know this because my husband’s family argues all the time about what they believe, and bases their opinions on their own personal beliefs–and their partiality to either the Southern Baptist Convention, or the more modern interpretations (sorry, forgot the name of the other one…). I think Bill would serve his own faith better by clarifying these differences than throwing proverbial stones.
HI Mrgermit, you said,
“some are trying to be as ev. as possible….some are mocking the ev. position as “easy believism” .
Certainly no one in LDS leadership has EVER made such a statement. I’m sure many LDS have made ignorant statements like this– but that is not what we are taught- quite the opposite, actually. In this social climate, it is not easy to believe in God, marriage, and other virtues that ev’s share with LDS. There is public scrutiny–as we saw with Prop 8– and even at the Academy Awards– we are being shamed. I think more than ever, we need to come together on common ground- and rethink where the spiritual war is being waged.
I don’t know if any of you saw the film FITNA…where verses from the quran are juxtaposed with all-too familiar images of Islamic terrorism. Can evangelicals make a similar film juxtaposing BoM verses with the ‘helping hands’ of mormons in disaster-stricken areas- and think their allegations that the BoM is the work of Satan stick in the minds of reasonable truth-seekers? By their fruits ye shall know them– It is time we give credit where credit is due–and that goes for both ev’s and mormons. Evangelicals are our ally’s on the spiritual battleground. And the sooner we acknowledge this, the sooner God will bless our efforts with great power and purpose. I believe we are getting closer to understanding each other, regardless of the minority on this website that seems to think differently.
🙂
It was asked early on in this thread if examples could be given to show the conflict between what the BYU spin doctors and the GA’s are putting out. Robert Millet, one of the modern leaders at BYU who is creating spin in attempts to schmooze over and con the ignorant investigator out there, lays out in his book “A Different Jesus” his personal case on how the Mormon Jesus is not different than the Christian Jesus. He fails miserably because the more the reader gets near the end of the book the more the “onion in peeled” and we see Millet baring it all. However, he does his best at the beginning of the book of trying to gain acceptance. Here is an example:
“Several years ago two colleagues and I met with three representatives of the Southern Baptist Convention…one of our visitors spoke in a rather harsh tone: ‘WHy don’t you people just admit it: You worship a different Jesus!’ My colleagues and I spent the next half hour or so trying to convince them of our acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth, as set forth in the New Testament. We left that meeting somewhat frustrated, sensing that we had somehow failed to communicate adequately how deeply the Latter-day Saints feel about Jesus Christ. I have asked myself many times since that meeting: Do we worship the same Jesus worshipped by our friends of other Christian faiths? This question is not answered quickly or easily. It strikes at the heart of who the Latter-day Saints are and what they really believe.” (A Different Jesus: Why This Book Was Written, page xi & xii)
The “question is not answered quickly or easily”? Really? The General Authorities had no trouble addressing and answering this very issue in Conference Report and in the Church Newsroom:
“It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons. Christ followed by the Mormons is not the Christ followed by traditional Christianity.” (Bernard P. Brockbank, Elder, First Quorum of the Seventy, 147th LDS General Conference, Ensign, May 1977, page 26)
In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints “do not believe in the traditional Christ”, “No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they [traditional Christianity] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.” (Church News, June 20, 1998, p.7)
“While respecting the divergent views of other people of faith, Church leaders WANT TO BE CLEAR about the beliefs that help define Latter-day Saints. Among the MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES with other Christian churches are those concerning the nature of God and JESUS CHRIST and the Holy Spirit.” (LDS Newsroom, LDS.org, “Core Beliefs: Why and How are Mormons DIFFERENT”) [Emphasis mine]
Meanwhile, BYU students and Mormons continue to scream and yell at Christians about Millet’s and Robinson’s writings demanding that we accept them when they are not authoritative. I used to read their works. I no longer do because they are not doctrinal or authoritative on what the Church believes. When Millet’s or Robinson’s books have the LDS Church stamp on the back, then we can start referencing their work and dissecting it for dialogue on the basis of doctrine. Until then, well, as the saying goes among our Mormon friends: “That’s just his opinion”.
Berean
[email protected]
Bill, love ya, but i have to call you out here…EVERYONE:
Bill makes a seriously flawed connection in referring to what Pres. Joseph F. Smith says about the principles of righteousness.
“… if you point to the leadership of the church, they are telling you the truth”
Which is for the most part an accurate characterization of JFS’s remarks…BUT THEN Bill goes on to claim you can adequately shame his statement because those OUTSIDE OF LEADERSHIP (BYU professors) don’t agree. That is what we call a logical fallacy in its’ purest form. After reading all these quotes, and submitting them on your digital presentation software–I’m only assuming you actually read them and understood them–but your arguments fly in the face of clarity and the integrity of content. Basically, you are asking rhetorical questions that are rhetorically answered by the very quotes you think are supporting these rhetorical questions!!! Wait, have I been punk’d?
I have to say, I find it a bit shocking, and not in a bad way because it is NEVER bad to quote a prophet– that people of a different faith are so focused on the beliefs of another faith, and discuss it ad nauseam. Some say it is in the spirit of ministry. But I disagree. Christ never taught by pointing to what Satan taught (for ev’s, I am comparing BoM and prophets to satan, I’m sure you are pleased)–NO–Christ taught true principles. Why would He give a platform to the devil? It makes no sense, if the church is a cult- to delve into the gutter!! That would be like taking your Sunday school class to a strip club in order to SHOW them wickedness and abomination! Can you imagine Bill attempting that subject matter…”hey class…when we enter the strip club, be very careful not to be seduced by these young ladies, just a warning!” C’mon Bill- these warnings are disingenuous.
No, the reason the restored gospel is a focal point in any discussion is because it is peculiar. It is different, and people find it fascinating. These are not dynamics that stem from ministry- they are dynamics that stem from curiosity- something I find promising.
Bill, the only sound reasoning you exhibit in this video is the ensemble you picked out, and the handsome haircut…otherwise, I’m giving you a D-.
Amanda,
If you want people here to take you seriously and read your posts, then cut the childish crap of adding letters to their names. His name is Bill McKeever – not “Billy McKeevster”. The man is due some respect. He sure hasn’t “dissed” you personally on here. If you had a thimble level of the love for the Christians that Bill McKeever does for the Mormons you’d be the female version of the Grinch from the Christmas cartoon whose heart almost popped out of his body after he realized the errors of his ways at the end of the Christmas cartoon.
Present your case and leave out the snide remarks in the disrespectful twist of a person’s given name.
Berean
[email protected]
Berean, I’m stunned!
“If you had a thimble level of the love for the Christians that Bill McKeever does for the Mormons you’d be the female version of the Grinch from the Christmas cartoon whose heart almost popped out of his body after he realized the errors of his ways at the end of the Christmas cartoon.”
“cut the childish crap”
“He sure hasn’t “dissed” you personally on here” (your erroneous assumption of sinister intention on my part doesn’t give YOU much credibility, either)
The difference between my alleged insult and your ACTUAL insult is that mine wasn’t personal–yours was.
I certainly meant no offense. I’ve been posting on this website for well over a year, and have had many respectful exchanges with Bill, Aaron and Sharon. I wonder if you would condemn anyone else directing perceived insults at me? Let’s start with condemning your own, because they were completely out of line.
…Irregardless of any pending apology from you, I do not desire the approval of an anonymous person so willing to attack my integrity, unprovoked! I would not be wise to seek company with the coveted approvals of strangers who care little for my welfare and make ridiculous demands of my personal behavior.
noble indeed