Article from today's Wall Street Journal

[_truth dancer]

Hi Richard,

I think this article demonstrates the problem many have with the LDS church.

While Scott was technically accurate, he was deceptive, in my opinion.

Does the LDS church believe in polygamy? No question about it, but apologists give the impression they do not by saying they do not "practice" it.

Do member believe God had sex with Mary? Many do, there are prophets who taught that he did. While technically there may not be official doctrine on the point, I think it is very safe to say most faithful believers would say that it is doctrine that God is the literally (as in sperm donor) father of Jesus.

Do members believe humans can become Gods? No question about this. Saying, "we don't teach this" is deceptive, in my opinion.

Do members believe there are more than one God? I would say no question about this. Scott's answer while accurate does not address the question.

The list goes on...

It can be frustrating to those trying to understand the LDS church. And unless one really understands the teachings/doctrine/beliefs, they do not catch the twisting.

Another thing, why interview Scott when he is not a representative of the LDS church? Why did they not interview an actual leader, representative, or PR person?

~dancer~

[_Trevor]

I believed in more than one God long before I joined the LDS church. Scott's problem is, although his reply is accurate, it didn't answer the question.

I think the real problem here is how one takes the phrase "believe in." When Hulse made his announcement that Mormons "believe in" more than one god, it was in the sense of "exercise faith in" or "offer worship to" more than one god, not simply "believe in the existence of" more than one god. When Mormons sing "I believe in Christ," it isn't a simple statement that they believe Christ exists. It is a statement of faith and worship.

The problem is that the conversation of what is means to "believe in" more than one god is too complicated for the average Christian to grasp in a way that would leave them with anything other than the impression that Mormons are way off theologically.

[_richardMdBorn]

I believed in more than one God long before I joined the LDS church. Scott's problem is, although his reply is accurate, it didn't answer the question.

I think the real problem here is how one takes the phrase "believe in." When Hulse made his announcement that Mormons "believe in" more than one god, it was in the sense of "exercise faith in" or "offer worship to" more than one god, not simply "believe in the existence of" more than one god. When Mormons sing "I believe in Christ," it isn't a simple statement that they believe Christ exists. It is a statement of faith and worship.

The problem is that the conversation of what is means to "believe in" more than one god is too complicated for the average Christian to grasp in a way that would leave them with anything other than the impression that Mormons are way off theologically.

You're describing a type of henotheism which was rejected in the Old Testament.

[_harmony]

I believed in more than one God long before I joined the LDS church. Scott's problem is, although his reply is accurate, it didn't answer the question.

I think the real problem here is how one takes the phrase "believe in." When Hulse made his announcement that Mormons "believe in" more than one god, it was in the sense of "exercise faith in" or "offer worship to" more than one god, not simply "believe in the existence of" more than one god. When Mormons sing "I believe in Christ," it isn't a simple statement that they believe Christ exists. It is a statement of faith and worship.

The problem is that the conversation of what is means to "believe in" more than one god is too complicated for the average Christian to grasp in a way that would leave them with anything other than the impression that Mormons are way off theologically.

You're describing a type of henotheism which was rejected in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament is as out there as anything the Mormons ever thought up. I suspect being rejected by the authors of the Old Testament texts isn't such a bad thing (slavery and child sacrifice just don't make the cut, in my opinion).

[_Trevor]

You're describing a type of henotheism which was rejected in the Old Testament.

Since I don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I have no problem with the fact that Old Testament writers 'rejected' henotheism. Of course, how consistently it rejects it is arguable, and I am sure someone like Enuma Elish would know much better than I about it.

What do you say Enuma? Consistent rejection of henotheism in the Old Testament?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hebrew Henotheism
One of the transitional stages from polytheism to monotheism has been called "henotheism, a situation in which there are many gods but one God prevails as ...
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Sounds like LDS teaching to me... Which really doesn't mean much when it comes to life effecting knowledge... Roger

[_The Dude]

It seems to me that Scott Gordon sure gets a lot of public air time. Are his rebuttals in any way "official" or is he just some dude with a lot of opinions?

Everything Scott said is true but in fact he only answered the part of the assertions that he has a good answer for. Yes, Mormons do believe in more than one god but they only have faith in, and pray to, the one that matters.

And certainly Mormons do believe Mary was a virgin but only up until the time God impregnated here, and on the manner of that impregnation, they actually have no position and it's totally possible that God altered Mary's status as a virgin. That option is certainly on the table. Alternatively, God might have begotten Jesus in Mary's womb through a miracle of special creation, like the EVs seem to believe.

You can't expect a frontman like Scott to give the full explanation (because full disclosure would help the EV's case) so he just follows the mopologist's guideline of answering the question they should have asked. It works in the political-media sphere where he's operating.

[_Some Schmo]

While there is certainly anit-mormon bigotry around, I don't think it's fair to say that one shouldn't vote for a Mormon just because they're a Mormon. The politician can pay all the lip service he wants to separation of church and state, but that's one campaign promise I'd be very suspicious of (as I was with Romney). I mean, while he's saying that out of one side of his mouth, he's also droning on about the dangers of the nation losing its faith. Heaven forbid, we become the France of the 21st century!

So much for separation.

The only person I'd really trust to separate church from state is someone without a religion. I find non-religious types to be the most trustworthy anyway.

[_richardMdBorn]

You're describing a type of henotheism which was rejected in the Old Testament.

Since I don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I have no problem with the fact that Old Testament writers 'rejected' henotheism. Of course, how consistently it rejects it is arguable, and I am sure someone like Enuma Elish would know much better than I about it.

What do you say Enuma? Consistent rejection of henotheism in the Old Testament?

But the LDS include the Bible in the 4SW. Inerrancy is not the issue here. Of course, any biblical passages which contradict the LDS perspective must have been altered. And if the LDS perspective changes, well then the corruption of the Bible will change with the LDS change.

[_Trevor]

But the LDS include the Bible in the 4SW. Inerrancy is not the issue here. Of course, any biblical passages which contradict the LDS perspective must have been altered. And if the LDS perspective changes, well then the corruption of the Bible will change with the LDS change.

Ya know, I am going to make this easy for you. I don't care. I am not Mormon. I am not a Christian. I do not believe the Bible to be the word of God. I was inviting David Bokovoy to chime in. He did not come.

Cheers!