Posted on 11/10/2006 9:50:22 AM PST by Alex Murphy
I was chided recently by someone who was upset with me because of my extensive dialogues with Mormon scholars. "How can you engage in friendly conversations with people who believe such terrible things?" he asked me. I tried to explain that if we are going to criticize Mormonism, it should be on matters that they actually believe, not on what we think they believe. I said the best way to know Mormon beliefs is to actually engage in dialogue with Mormons.
"You don't need to have dialogue with Mormons to know what Mormonism is all about," the person retorted. "All you have to do is read Walter Martin! He had those folks figured out!"
As a high school student in the 1950s in New Jersey, I was a Walter Martin fan. He was not as well known in those days as he would be after 1965, when he published his much-reprinted Kingdom of the Cults. But he was already a dynamic speaker who could stir up an evangelical audience with his engaging, sharp-witted critiques of Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-day Adventists (this last group he would later remove from his list of dangerous cults).
I wanted to explain to my critic that I had been exposed to Walter Martin's views on Mormonism long before he had discovered Martin's writings, but my critic made it clear that the conversation was over. Even more than touting my credentials as a Martin reader, I would like to have said that in my dialogue approach, I was following good counsel that I learned from Walter Martin himself.
'It Looked Like a Grackle'
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Excellent advice.
It's how I've always discussed the issues with my LDS friends. Of course, what my friends believe and what the leadership has taught historically and publicly, are often very different things indeed. It's when we discuss that juxtaposition that the sparks usually fly....
"...While certain doctrines are enunciated in the standard works and some doctrinal issues have been addressed in formal pronouncements by the First Presidency, there is nothing in Mormonism comparable to the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Augsberg Confession. Few of the truly distinctive doctrines of Mormonism are discussed in official sources. It is mainly by unofficial means -- Sunday School lessons, seminary, institute, and BYU religion classes, sacrament meeting talks and books by Church officials and others who ultimately speak only for themselves -- that the theology is passed from one generation to the next. Indeed it would seem that a significant part of Mormon theology exists primarily in the minds of the members... the absence of a formal creed means that each generation must produce a new set of gospel expositors to restate and reinterpret the doctrines of Mormonism..."Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1982
Re: Your quote from Dialogue, I have three comments:
1. Sunday School and Institute lessons from approved materials ARE official sources -- not to mention the Scriptures (first and foremost, and yes, we do believe the Bible and accept Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer, who provides for us the only way to return to God, through his Atoning sacrifice), the monthly Ensign magazine, which always contains a First Presidency Message and in May and November a report on the semi-annual General Conference, and Priesthood and Relief Society lessons, to name a few, are additional official sources. We have quite a number of official sources. And no, we don't have to redefine ourselves from generation to generation.
2. Dialogue can hardly be described as an authoritative source, since it is an independent publication with no ties to the LDS Church other than the membership of its contributors. I don't know who wrote the quoted paragraph, but it's wrong. If I were to research the doctrines of the Church, I would and do look to the above-identified official source. I'm not saying everything Dialogue publishes in wrong, of course, just that not everything you read in Dialogue can be considered the final word from the horse's mouth.
3. If you'd really like to know what we think and teach, we'd love to have you attend a meeting or two. Just sit in the back and listen. As a matter of fact, come lots of times and listen to lots of talks and lessons, and you'll see the consistency of what we teach. I've been a member all my life, and the doctrines I learned in Sunday School, Sacrament Meeting, and Seminary when I was 16 years old are the same ones I'm hearing now umpteen years later.
You bring up an important good point that is often overlooked when Mormonism is discussed (even here on Free Republic).
As the Dialogue article correctly notes, the LDS Church does not have a formal creed. Although there exist some core beliefs that most if not all Mormons share, there is room for a range of beliefs and interpretations on other theological issues.
I frequently disagree with my co-religionists on a variety of doctrines. In most cases, it is their Mormon folklore that I object to. However, even when we disagree on some things, we nevertheless tend to agree on the essential matters. In my opinion, faith, testimony, and behavior are more important to us than theologizing.
read later
What a revolutionary concept!
Logophile is correct, we don't have a formal creed, in the same sense as the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Nicene Creed. But we do have official doctrine.
Yes, we do have official doctrine. And as you pointed out in your first post, it has remained remarkably consistent over the years.
One reason for this consistency is that the prophets of the Church have tended to confine their official pronouncements to essential matters related to the Gospel. Thus, they have often testified about Jesus Christ, the Atonement, the Restoration of the Gospel, and so forth. These are issues upon which Mormons tend to agree.
However, there are many issues on which the leaders of the Church have never taken an official position. For example, the LDS Church has no official doctrine on Evolution. This seem surprising to many people, Mormons and non-Mormons alike, especially since prominent Mormons have expressed strong opinions on the subject in the past. Nevertheless, the leaders of the Church have refrained from taking sides in the Evolution-versus-Creationism controversy.
Thus it is quite possible to find Mormons in good standing who believe in Young-Earth Creationism and others who believe in Darwinism.
What is this Born-again, but still on the official rolls of the LDS Church, Christian supposed to do. I'm not sure either side wants to listen to me.
Resume with your dialog....I'll just listen. BUT I will remind you that much of the back-and-forth, give-and-take about this subject is absolute BS. Don't forget the "milk before meat" unofficial doctrine of the LDS. Some things are just too sacred to "share" with you unbelieving infants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.