Daniel Peterson wrote:barrelomonkeys wrote:As an outsider the LDS religion seems very, very, very complicated. I find that non-LDS Christians are simpler in their beliefs and I tend to like simpler things when it comes to religiosity.
I like the core principles of pretty much all of the world's religions. As someone reading and trying to understand LDS I can't say I understand the core principles of LDS. If it was merely just to follow Christ then I could say I understood somewhat... but it seems as if there is so much more required of a member than just Christ. But I may be wrong.
I suspect that your perception of Mormonism is a function of the way you choose to learn about it.
If you had first encountered Christianity via boards where critics and believers debated matters like the hypostatic union, the character of Renaissance popes, rival ecclesiologies, the "persistence of the saints," predestination versus freedom of the will, unconditional election, Christian views on pacifism and just-war theory, the Inquisition, monergism versus synergism, Christianity and slavery, dispensationalism, total depravity and Pelagianism, Jewish-Christian relations, ontological trinitarianism, the Crusades, different models of the inspiration of scripture, Arminian versus Calvinistic views of the atonement, solafidianism, and etc., and etc., I doubt that you would perceive the issues swirling about mainstream historical Christianity as altogether "simple."
I just have to pop in here and say that the above quote is a good example of the purpose and intention of apologetics, to take an issue which is simple, in the mind of a lay person, and make it complex, thereby obscuring the vision enough to create doubt.
It seems paradoxical but true that in order to have sufficient faith in a religious dogma, you must have a modicum of doubt.