.

[_Jersey Girl]

Nothing is hidden in our system, not even the things that do make us uncomfortable (such as Bible difficulties).

I know a few Mormons who would say that's because you don't have anything sacred. They might not be that blunt, but that's what they would be thinking. (I wouldn't agree with them...)

Well harm... :-)

That's because Christians are instructed to **share** what is sacred to them and not withhold it from anyone.

[_huckelberry]

For Bridget and her disagreement with my comment about BY and match box of doctrines.

I appreciate the validy of the things you commented about. However a different substance was in view from BY. You see Mormons just have more things to have doctrines about. There is doctrine about your life before this world, where did God come from, How you are born spritually, what covenents you must make for priesthood power, relationship of priesthood power to becoming divine. how many wives you need How Adam and his wives came to this world etc etc etc. Brigham Young was big on that sort of stuff and thought he knew even more than the church now teaches. But still every Mormon you will ever meet thinks they know multiple times the important religious facts than any Protestant dreams of. In fact Mormons think it is the limits on Protestant understanding which makes Protestants do all that endless circular research upon research. Mormon belief is that a prophet makes Calvins many volumned commentary on the Bible unnecessary.

I am not against the learning but I might prefer the matchbox. I have read a stack of theology books, I find everthing I need theologically in Romans.

[_Jersey Girl]

We have meat, it's out on the table, and we're eating it.

^
^
^
^
^
^
Love this!

[_MsJack]

Nightlion ~ I'm really confused on what it is you're getting at.

How is it that evangelicals can resort to such obvious distortions and lies as the Godmakers? There is so much scholarly work out there. Why resort to sensationalism? It seems that the reason is this is the level of intelligence that most evangelicals operate on, using emotion for jugement. No offense, just an observation.

Ezias ~ No offense taken.

Were you paying attention to the last couple of national elections? I can recall some pretty specific examples of people on both sides of the fence spreading some outrageous distortions and lies. Even worse, I saw people whom I had always considered reasonable buying into them and perpetuating them. The reasons people spread distortions and lies when faced with an opposing viewpoint are complex, and I don't pretend to understand the phenomenon; there's just something about heated disagreement with a competing ideology that spurs people into behaving very poorly.

Sadly, often the way religions operate isn't all that different from the way political parties operate. I guess that my point is, this isn't just an evangelical failing; it's a human one. It's sad because as many have pointed out, the distortion and lies were never necessary. The truth about LDS history and doctrine---presented in its proper context---can be alarming enough.

I began studying Mormonism when I was 16 (1998), and I soon became deeply troubled by the way evangelicals were treating Mormons. I almost wound up joining the LDS church over it. In the end, I decided to stick around and do my part to reform the way evangelicals approach Mormonism.

It is okay for you to be troubled by these things, but I would just plead with you to not judge us based on the Ed Decker crowd. There are people who are working towards change, and one of the strengths of evangelical Christianity is that it accepts reform from the ground up. Always has.

huckelberry ~ I think it sort of depends on our definition of "doctrine." If we're talking about essentials of the faith, then yes, Mormonism has more of them. Like you though, I'm not sure if that's a good thing.

If we're talking about different thought systems and ideas within each tradition, then I think evangelical Christianity dwarfs Mormonism as far as volume is concerned.

[_msnobody]

Truth Dancer stated (this is a partial quote), "My impression or understanding from reading the New Testament was that truth would be available to even the "least" and that the "change of heart" or the transformation of soul was unrelated to understanding theology, grasping the deep doctrines, or being the chosen or elite."

I would tend to agree with much of what you have said here. I do think you have to have a basic understanding of who you are spiritually, some basic understanding of what Jesus has done for you and how that relates to you and an acknowlegement and acceptance of those things. I wasn't even a teenager when He changed my heart, so I couldn't of had a great understanding of theology. Miss Nobody->Theo who?

I am reminded of a poster from ZLMB who one night read Proverbs 2:3-5 and the Lord sparked that life/heart-changing event in her life. She prayed in her floor that night. Verse 5 says ...you will find the knowledge of God. I know the knowledge of God that night didn't include being a learned theologian and If I recall correctly, I think she told the Lord that she didn't understand the Trinity, but in a most basic sense that she trusted Him.

I think a person better grasps the depth and gravity of a doctrine (better yet, a characteristic or attribute of God), as they grow in their relationship with Christ, but until we are with Him, I don’t think we can totally grasp it to its fullest extent. Really, Scripture says so.

I would also say that God choses those He saves or has mercy upon as Scripture states this. I would not equate being chosen with being elite.

I think many people view the doctrine of election, the doctrine of God's sovereignty as being something horrible and selfish, but it is really quite the opposite.

[_huckelberry]

Bridget, I appreciate your point about richness of different thought and reflection. After all Misnobody may be happy with her reprobation but others have expressed all sorts of dismay over such ideas. Mormons of course have been brought up to believe divine reprobation is an apostate doctrine reflecting the darkness across the face of Christiandom. It takes a serious paradim shift to see that centuries long irresolvable argument to be a positive richness instead of a liablity. At some point I did cross that transition point. I see it as richness even if part of that very richness is an awareness of the stuff humans do not know and have very little likely hood of knowing. (such as the exact interrelatioships between human choices and Gods choice)

[_msnobody]

Bridget, I appreciate your point about richness of different thought and reflection. After all Misnobody may be happy with her reprobation but others have expressed all sorts of dismay over such ideas. Mormons of course have been brought up to believe divine reprobation is an apostate doctrine reflecting the darkness across the face of Christiandom. It takes a serious paradim shift to see that centuries long irresolvable argument to be a positive richness instead of a liablity. At some point I did cross that transition point. I see it as richness even if part of that very richness is an awareness of the stuff humans do not know and have very little likely hood of knowing. (such as the exact interrelatioships between human choices and Gods choice)

I'm not sure I would word it as being happy with my reprobation, although I can see the point you're trying to make. I learned somewhat just how dark my heart really is contrasted with a holy sin-free God. With regard to the time I was studying Rom. ch. 9 it literally felt like God had shown me almost too much of who He is, almost more that I could bear. There was an overwhelming urge to fall prostrate before him. I think I resisted this urging or prompting and literally had to get up and run out of the place to be alone.

[_Nightlion]

Nightlion ~ I'm really confused on what it is you're getting at.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt. At least you have not minimized me out of sight. I am surprised. I am both articulate and intelligent, with a irresistible flair for the poetic. I know that you are, sans poetics, the same. That was a test. Did it throw you?

I apologize for my condescension. But I am slightly put off when people say they are confused. Either they have a real mental block and cannot read what I write or they overwrite what they read with too much prejudice.

Regardless, I made the following points expanded upon here:

1. Mormons have sacrificed depth of doctrine by denying the gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost choosing rather to be more reliant upon THE PROPHET and thereby play the game that gets them ahead, which is suck up to your file leaders.
A. An LDS community taught to come unto Christ and to be born of him would be wrought upon and cleansed by the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost and thereby stand indepedent with Christ and God and have little need for a prophet, each being taught of God, and by God taken to their several depths of understanding respective to their diligence and devotion to divine tutelage.
B. The fawning over your file leaders has been established since the 1856 Mormon Reformation as the APPROVED means for manifesting righteousness. This practice has become an art form of pure hypocrisy ever since. This effectively cuts off Mormons from both Christ and God, as if nobody can know anything save they are able to quote a higher brother on it. This hypocrisy denies the Holy Ghost which giveth utterance.

2. Mormons will persecute and disallow any depths of understanding which in fact does occur by the gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost. Rather than consider the possible validation that the Church is true and indeed does possess such proofs of God, the LDS resist and despise such manifestations as repugnant to the standard order that insists everything lovely, of good report or praiseworthy, with regard to doctrinal depths, must originate from those in authority.
A. Fantastically, the Church will purge all discovered depths of doctrine proffered unto them that they might galvanize authority all the more as the pond of LDS validity evaporates all around them.
B. In my own case it was proven that the Church is so well honed in its administration that there is no opportunity to suggest a discovery that deepens understanding. It is accounted rebellion and seeking authority and will be punished rather than investigated. The Stake will insulate the General Authorities who are the only possible arbiters of doctrine.
There is no peer review. As proven on web boards the mindset is to not discuss or in any wise validate any discovery or fundamental doctrine not presently in vogue.

This arrogance proves both faithlessness and gross hypocrisy as only those of a guppy mind can navigate the LDS shallows. To continue the analogy; the chubby fish full of knowledge flop out of the pond first to wither and haplessly stink to high heaven as they curse the pond's founder rather than place all the blame where it rightly belongs, on the pond's present management. They only had to allow the rolling waters in.

As far as Christian depths are concerned, my comment made the point that they study the ever learning that has been going on since the time of Christ which is unable to come to a knowledge of the truth. They are a dead vine as well.

I would be pleased to consider any depths of understanding brought forth among the Christian community of late. I again apologize for my condescension. I would love for you to show me a recent discovery of Christian depths.

[_consiglieri]

That's a sad cop-out on our part.

I agree that frequently Mormons use the "milk before meat" excuse as a cop out of sorts.

On the other hand, I believe there is a substantial body of literature indicating that early Christianity, like many other religions, contained both an exoteric as well as an esoteric component to its teachings.

The exoteric teachings were those made available to the uninitiated, but only to those who signed up with the religion and passed some degree of "initiation" were the esoteric teachings revealed.

Over time, the content of the esoteric teachings were lost (or possibly branded as heretical), and all that was left were the exoteric teachings.

So long has this been the case that it is typical for modern Christian religions to adamantly deny that there was ever anything relating to the faith Christ established that was kept from public view; everything is right there in the Bible, and there is nothing more.

The rub is that, though the esoteric teachings may have been lost, references to their existence permeate the New Testament; from Christ telling his disciples that the "true" meaning of the parable of the sower would be made known to them, but not to the outsiders; to his advising not to cast pearls before swine; to Paul's reference to "milk before meat"; as well as Paul's many references to a "mystery."

Most modern Christian religions must interpret these statements within the context of their belief system, and hence are required to say that it refers only to a "deeper understanding" of what is already there on the surface.

I see it as trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_MCB]

Over time, the content of the esoteric teachings were lost (or possibly branded as heretical), and all that was left were the exoteric teachings.

? They have been found. They do not significantly resemble Mormonism. And some went out Way too far. Much like Mormonism.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html