KimberlyAnn wrote:I've been thinking for the past couple of hours, and I've just about decided the most important single issue separating Mormonism from traditional Christianity is the nature of God. But, I'm open to other suggestions, especially from Latter-day Saints.
Kimberly Ann
Being derisive in what you say to this group about Mormons, may appeal to their baser instincts, and may have them yearning for the good old days of burning heretics, but will it really make them better people? Shooting for a message that will encourage love and understanding seems to me to be much more spiritually uplifting in the long run for this group.
Hope this helps.
...please don't tell me you've been converted by Wade...
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
KimberlyAnn wrote:I've been thinking for the past couple of hours, and I've just about decided the most important single issue separating Mormonism from traditional Christianity is the nature of God. But, I'm open to other suggestions, especially from Latter-day Saints.
Kimberly Ann
Being derisive in what you say to this group about Mormons, may appeal to their baser instincts, and may have them yearning for the good old days of burning heretics, but will it really make them better people? Shooting for a message that will encourage love and understanding seems to me to be much more spiritually uplifting in the long run for this group.
Hope this helps.
Moksha, I do not want to be derisive at all! Is it derisive to point out differences that Mormons themselves acknowledge? I don't think so.
I hope I don't seem like such an anti-Mormon that you believe I have nothing positive to say about the Mormon church. Mormonism is my heritage, really, even if I'm no longer a believer. And I believe as a group they do many things well. I've expressed that many times to my non-Mormon friends and acquaintances and wouldn't give any presentation without mentioning what fine people Mormons are.
Obviously, the nature of God is an important difference. But I think the nature of revelation is probably equally if not more important. Perhaps these two idea could be treated together, since continuing revelation is the source for the Mormons' unusual God-concept, and the idea of progression is inherent in both (as well as in Mormonism's concept of salvation, which most Mormons themselves would probably consider the most important aspect of their theology).
Just a few thoughts to chew on.
Best,
-Chris
Yes, you're right. I think those two concepts can be treated together, Chris. Continuing revelation and the concept of salvation were two theological points I thought of when considering the focus of my presentation. I've only twenty minutes, but I think I can manage to combine those topics.
I recommend you use the 1916 statement from the FP on the Godhead. It reflects at least the most current view of the Godhead in LDS thought. Since you only have 20 minutes you do not have time to go into the early theology of Joseph Smith, how it evolved over the period of his ministry, how BY introduced some other ideas about Adam/God that were ultimately rejected and the solidification of the view about the Godhead in 1916. I do not think the current LDS orthodox and accepted view of the Godhead is much different if at all from the 1916 statement.
Explain the Mormon view of the Pre-Existence, with us as spirit children of God. Explain the "Plan of Salvation", with the Fall of Adam necessitating the Atonement by Jesus, and how Mormons believe that this was all understood, in advance, while we were supposedly still spirits. The idea being to come to Earth, be tested, and then return again, now with immortal bodies, to God's presence. Feel free to mention that the ultimate goal is become gods just like Heavenly Father. This is crucial "meat", and makes the whole Plan understandable. Mormons might shiver at the thought of you telling a congregation of non-LDS that Mormons plan to become gods, but this is really a crucial part of the whole Plan of Salvation.
So, pre-existence as spirit children. Mortal testing ground, existence with mortal, physical bodies. Salvation through Jesus's atonement breaking the bands of death, resurrection with physical bodies, return to God, with those worthy of his presence remaining there, those not worthy going to lesser kingdoms of glory, a small portion choosing Outer Darkness.
That's really the Mormon theology. The rest of it, about Joseph Smith, the belief in prophets, etc., is really all just administrative trivia, so don't focus on that. These are details about how Mormons believe God has chosen to inform his children of the Plan, and administer his Earthly Kingdom in the meantime - but Prophets, the Book of Mormon, etc. aren't the end, they are merely the means.
Anyhow, that's my opinion. It's all pie in the sky, but if this congregation wants to know what Mormons believe, and what really motivates them, that's it.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
It might be a bit late for this, KA, but if you can get your hands on this book through a library, Mormonism and the Nature of God, that in my opinion is the best critical descriptive chronology of the evolution of the idea of God in Mormon "theology". But Widmer does explain it as a progressive theology. The reading is a bit heavy, but it's not large, 160 pages, 202pp if you include the bibliography. I haven't read a better book on the subject than this one (predictably poo-pooed by the Maxwell Institute though).
Full title: Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1830-1915.
Gazelam wrote:We only worship the Father in the name of Christ.
I thought Mormons worshipped Christ as well...?
"Christian anti-Mormons are no different than that wonderful old man down the street who turns out to be a child molester." - Obiwan, nutjob Mormon apologist - Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:25 pm
Ray A wrote:It might be a bit late for this, KA, but if you can get your hands on this book through a library, Mormonism and the Nature of God, that in my opinion is the best critical descriptive chronology of the evolution of the idea of God in Mormon "theology". But Widmer does explain it as a progressive theology. The reading is a bit heavy, but it's not large, 160 pages, 202pp if you include the bibliography. I haven't read a better book on the subject than this one (predictably poo-pooed by the Maxwell Institute though).
Full title: Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1830-1915.
I think something that should be important to each and every honest, respectful discussion on Mormonism (or any religion) is that it makes sense to those that believe it. Perhaps it's that I'm an academic, but it does little good to ever explore any system of thought if one does not catch a glimpse into the reasoning and justifications within one's belief structure to truly understand what they believe. Does that make sense? Although you will probably never be able to fully paint a picture of a Mormon's worldview, to most members of the LDS church, it makes perfect sense.