Christian Philosopher of Religion converts?????

[_cksalmon]

An interesting observational data point re: Mormonism.

Mormons must feel some sort of historical angst vis-à-vis the ECFs.

The verdict of history is largely irrelevant. New Testament perhaps somewhat less so.

The important ECFs were "Mormon," or, when it counts, completely supportive of "Mormonism" in their pronouncements.

But, then, the ECFs must function as theological ciphers.

[_Stormy Waters]

I should add, and I think this is very important, that I felt I was experiencing the same God that I had experienced on many occasions throughout my Christian life. However, I felt like this being was showing me a different face, side, or aspect to Himself, or – better yet – a different mode of my relationship to Him. I felt a certain validation of my spiritual journey, both past and present. I had gone so far in my Christian faith, but it was now necessary for me to relate to God as Lord Krishna

I find it difficult to rely on spiritual experiences when they lead so many people in so many different directions. But the account here implies an interesting proposition. Could all spiritual experiences be from the same God, merely manifesting himself in different ways? Could it be that the spiritual experiences I had in the Mormon church were real and that I was merely being shown a different 'mode' of God?

It's an interesting proposition, but it's not one that I can accept. Because this implies a God who doesn't care if you believe all of the falsehoods that come as baggage. For example, it means that God manifested himself to me, but that he didn't care that his manifestations were directly contributing to me believing in things that are false. As has been said on the board elsewhere, paths to truth are convergent, not divergent.

[_MrStakhanovite]

To bad you are no longer on your William James kick and parading around as a Pragmaticist, because I was borrowing an idea from one of those people you name drop but never read

Hawt watah burn baybee?

Perhaps you are mistaken.

Oh I’m pretty sure I am anything but mistaken that you’re inadequate crank, you couldn’t even find my simple point, you just made some stupid comment about reading beyond the second paragraph, provided a wall of text quote that doesn’t touch on the issue, and then some link.

[_Samantabhadra]

Oh I’m pretty sure I am anything but mistaken that you’re inadequate crank, you couldn’t even find my simple point, you just made some stupid comment about reading beyond the second paragraph, provided a wall of text quote that doesn’t touch on the issue, and then some link.

I think the TBM's are so used to seeing textual citations proven irrelevant or misleading by being given their proper context (see bcspace's quotes from Irenaeus, above) that it has been somehow ingrained in their minds: if you expand on a quote, the point the quote is supposed to be making will evaporate. Of course this is only true when the quote in question is being used to justify e.g. the idea that "horse" really means "tapir," leading to great confusion when the quote used (your citation from James) actually does support your argument.

[_huckelberry]

Sudduth, a well-respected, articulate, oft-cited, and, by all accounts, a genuinely-friendly, formerly-Reformed-Protestant Christian, now presents himself as one who is definitionally in a state of open apostasy vis-à-vis Christianity. He's an apostate, for now.

(...)

But, by any traditional accounting--Catholic (of whatever rite), Orthodox, Coptic, Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical, Charismatic, etc.--Sudduth has apostatized from Christianity, privileging and preferring Lord Krishna over Jesus Christ. And abandoning his former metaphysics for strange fire.

This is, as noted, pretty much definitional across the board.

But he's doing all right by Mormon standards, near as I can tell. Best he can. It'll come out in the wash.

Maybe another instance in which Mormons are "Christian" while disagreeing with every vested other who names the name.

CkSalmon, sidestepping the federal headship concept a moment, I wanted to point out that Mormons do not have an assumption that this fellows apostasy will all work out ok. Mormons would not think all hope for him is now over. Similarly most Protestants and Catholics would not put him under final judgement at this time. I,myself,who is more liberal than Mormons on this sort of question, see that he is headed in the wrong direction and think that there is danger of destruction in the wrong direction. On the other hand I can also think perhaps he may be learning something now and he will later turn back to the Lord. I do not imagine that there is no truth to be learned out side of Christianity. However there is error to be learned as well. I feel no happiness in this apostasy but I would not set aside hope.

I thought at first that perhaps you thought Mormons do not make distinctions between truth and error in their understanding. I think BCspace points out clearly that they do and they see eternal consequences to choices in that context. On the other post I made I stated you could be seen as apostate. Of course not from Mormons in the direct sense as you pointed out. As standing outside Gods church you resists his call and lead, intstead turning towards darkness. (at least from a Mormon point of view) Mormons would not condemn you at present. They keep hope that you will turn. Similarly they (and I ) would hope for this Philosophers turning.

[_cksalmon]

CkSalmon, sidestepping the federal headship concept a moment, I wanted to point out that Mormons do not have an assumption that this fellows apostasy will all work out ok. Mormons would not think all hope for him is now over.

Okay, but. I don't see how Mormons can meaningfully identify him as an apostate. An apostate from what? Another apostate organization?

"Ok" is relative, of course. If it does work out "ok" for Sudduth on the Mormon view, it won't be because he returns to some form of traditional (read: apostate) Christianity. He would just be back to square one.

My tongue-in-cheek comment that it will come out in the wash was in reference to D&C 76:89 and the frequently-cited, but perhaps apocryphal, teaching by Joseph Smith to the effect that even the Telestial Kingdom is so sweet that humans would kill themselves to attain even that relatively meager estate. (HT to Blair Hodges for pointing out somewhere the questionable nature of the quotation, by the way.) Whether or not Smith taught precisely that, the idea of the general awesomeness of the Telestial Kingdom (vis-à-vis, say, the traditional Christian concept of hell) has become a folk belief among Latter-day Saints. I've seen this come up on more than one occasion as a point in favor of Mormonism, contrasted with the doctrine of hell which, by report, rankles and offends the conscience. That's anecdotal. But, haven't you?

Similarly most Protestants and Catholics would not put him under final judgement at this time.

I don't either. Thus: "He's an apostate, for now."

I thought at first that perhaps you thought Mormons do not make distinctions between truth and error in their understanding. I think BCspace points out clearly that they do and they see eternal consequences to choices in that context.

Of course they make such distinctions. But, their specific doctrinal distinctions are alien to traditional Christianity. Thus, if bcspace is a reliable guide, there's no eternally-significant difference between my status now as a Protestant Christian and Sudduth's status now as a convert to Vaishnava Vedanta. Other Mormons may disagree.

On the other post I made I stated you could be seen as apostate. Of course not from Mormons in the direct sense as you pointed out. As standing outside Gods church you resists his call and lead, intstead turning towards darkness. (at least from a Mormon point of view) Mormons would not condemn you at present. They keep hope that you will turn. Similarly they (and I ) would hope for this Philosophers turning.

I'm sure evangelistic-minded Mormons hold out hope that we'll both convert to Mormonism. At least I hope they do.

But, that's a different issue than whether or not Mormons can meaningfully identify Sudduth as an apostate from "Christianity." They can do so only if they define Christianity (even if only temporarily and merely for the sake of argument) in something approaching a traditional manner.

On its own terms, however, I don't see how their worldview can't afford such a distinction.

To put it another way: how is your hope similar to your hypothetical Mormon's purportedly-analogous hope? Do you hope that Sudduth and yourself will both become Mormons? Do you and your Mormon analog hope that Sudduth will return to traditional Christianity and that Mormonism will stop viewing traditional Christianity as an apostate religious organization?

The point is not that Mormons, as a people, are generally wishy-washy on doctrine and throw up their hands and say, "Meh. Who cares?" They are not and they don't.

The point is that if Mormons are unable to identify Sudduth as an apostate from "Christianity" on their own terms, then they're not "Christians" on my terms, or on those of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism, etc., etc.

See what I mean?

[_mfbukowski]

The point is that if Mormons are unable to identify Sudduth as an apostate from "Christianity" on their own terms, then they're not "Christians" on my terms, or on those of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism, etc., etc.

See what I mean?

I do.

I can't speak for other LDS but in my opinion it is more important that he understands the nature of personal revelation than he remain a "Christian" who does not understand personal revelation.

Just as "all roads lead to Rome," I feel that if he follows that path, he will eventually end up where he should be, regardless of his present "doctrine". He "gets" the methodology which will lead him on- it is an individual and personal methodology which makes "where he's coming from" irrelevant. THAT is the essence of that James quote, linked above which says:

That unsharable feeling which each one of us has of the pinch of his individual destiny as he privately feels it rolling out on fortune's wheel may be disparaged for its egotism, may be sneered at as unscientific, but it is the one thing that fills up the measure of our concrete actuality, and any would-be existent that should lack such a feeling, or its analogue, would be a piece of reality only half made up

He is willing to put his spiritual experience ahead of his intellectual conditioning- assimilating it, but nevertheless putting the experience first- THAT is what is important.

[_huckelberry]

cksalmon,
"federal headship" As best as I can understand Mormon thinking the closest ideas in Mormon understanding to this idea I think would be the two church idea, church of the devil and church of God. That pattern of seeing presupposes a division between the call of Gods spirit and the human currupt tendancy to turn from God towards greed pride etc. The Book of Mormon is quite willing to speak of people being dragged into slavery by the influence of the devil.When they turn from the Spirit of God.

This sort of view has a good deal of Biblical support as well. It does allow some flexibility in how involvement in human institutions reflect allegance to which actual headship. I do not think this particular aspect of Mormon thought is one of its more idiosyncratic aspects. Yet there is variation in how people might understand how headship functions for individuals. These variations would appear withing the group Mormon and would also appear within the group Protestant I think..

[_MCB]

This idea of repeated saviors, hidden in Mormonism, is an interesting idea that many have played with. However, the church of God vs the church of the devil, within a Gnostic framework (if such really exists LOL), gets highlighted when one compares Mormonism to Ba'hai, which rose at the same time. Ba'hai teaches dignity of women and people of all races, the good in all religions, etc.