Video: What Mormon theology is really all about

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer]

[Quote=Monty]

Is that film accurate? You are getting LDS posters (among others) saying it’s not and non-LDS posters saying it is. Whom to believe? Let’s mosey on over to Stendahl’s Rules (Stendahl is the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm (at the time of that writing)). In bullet shorts:

When learning about a religion, ask the adherents of that religion, not their enemies, about the religion.
Don’t compare your best with their worst when learning about their religion.
Leave room for “Holy Envy.”
[/quote]
Why not limit this to religion? Let’s do that with all discussions we have, including politics. Stop the Bush bashing, let’s just ask Rove anytime we have any questions. Did Clinton do something bad or not? Forget about anyone else, just ask his press guys. Is North Korea insane or not? Don’t ask US policy experts, let’s go for their guys.

Actually, I like this idea. Never consider the merits of a discussion, let’s just sign up their yes men instead.
[/QUOTE]
While I realize that there is history, here, I would point out that you appear to be talking at cross purposes to Monty’s post.

Note that Stendahl’s rules explicitly refer to learning about a belief. Going to people who are hostile to the LDS to discover the teachings of the LDS is similar to going to Jack Chick or the Moody Bible Institute to discover the teachings of the RCC. You can find all sorts of statements in the Chick and Moody literature about Catholics “worshipping” Mary or other saints, re-writing Scripture, and really odd claims about the docrtrines concerning the Eucharist and other sacraments–none of which I have ever heard in a Catholic homily or lecture, read in a Catholic book, or had passed on to me by another Catholic.

Now, one may, indeed, challenge the historical record regarding how such doctrines have been proclaimed or followed in the real world. There is no question that some number of Catholics have, despite not because of Catholic doctrine, treated the saints as a minor pantheon, for example. However, if the matter under discussion is the actual teaching, then it would seem to make a lot more sense to go to the persons who actually believe than to people who have an axe to grind against the believers or the institution.

I’m pretty sure that you and Monty can fill up another page or so of your ongoing dispute regarding the LDS, focusing on the historical record and its interpretation, without you misinterpreting the guidelines laid out by Stendahl and posted by Monty regarding the doctrines.

[JThunder]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
While I realize that there is history, here, I would point out that you appear to be talking at cross purposes to Monty’s post.

Note that Stendahl’s rules explicitly refer to learning about a belief. Going to people who are hostile to the LDS to discover the teachings of the LDS is similar to going to Jack Chick or the Moody Bible Institute to discover the teachings of the RCC. You can find all sorts of statements in the Chick and Moody literature about Catholics “worshipping” Mary or other saints, re-writing Scripture, and really odd claims about the docrtrines concerning the Eucharist and other sacraments–none of which I have ever heard in a Catholic homily or lecture, read in a Catholic book, or had passed on to me by another Catholic.
[/QUOTE]

I realize that you’re addressing TokyoPlayer; however, I think that the objections I raised earlier still apply. One should not assume that the members of a church are automatically better informed than any given non-member, or that they have deeper insight into that particular church.

That’s just one of the objections that I have to Stendahl’s rules. If Stendahl had merely said that the members of a particular church can be a worthwhile resource, I would agree. His claim was much more restrictive, though; he said that one should approach the church faithful and not its enemies. I think that such a restriction is needlessly restrictive.

BTW, with respect to Catholics worshipping Mary… the opponents of Catholicism do not generally say that Roman Catholic teaches that one should worship Mary. Rather, the usual objection is that the adoration given unto Mary amounts to worship, regardless of one’s intent.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=JThunder]
One should not assume that the members of a church are automatically better informed than any given non-member, or that they have deeper insight into that particular church.
[/QUOTE]
It is absolutely true that any given individual inside or outside a church may know more or less about it than any other individual outside or inside that church. It still seems to be true that if one wishes to know what a church teaches, it makes more sense to view the teachings from the perspective of the church, itself, (on which one may still perform one’s own critical evaluation of its worth), rather than simply taking the word of enemies.

[QUOTE=JThunder]
BTW, with respect to Catholics worshipping Mary… the opponents of Catholicism do not generally say that Roman Catholic teaches that one should worship Mary. Rather, the usual objection is that the adoration given unto Mary amounts to worship, regardless of one’s intent.
[/QUOTE]
You have not read nearly enough anti-papist literature. “Usual objection”? From some positions, certainly. I have seen Mariolatry presented as a teaching of the church often enough to know that it is a fairly frequent attack. Whether those who claim that it is deliberate outnumber those who claim it is inadvertant but real, I could not say, but there are plenty of folks who hold the “deliberate” position.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
It is absolutely true that any given individual inside or outside a church may know more or less about it than any other individual outside or inside that church. It still seems to be true that if one wishes to know what a church teaches, it makes more sense to view the teachings from the perspective of the church, itself, (on which one may still perform one’s own critical evaluation of its worth), rather than simply taking the word of enemies.
[/QUOTE]
This may be a stupid idea, but - why not just ask both? It’s not like i’m just limited to getting one person/faith/groups’s viewpoint.

[tomndebb]

Stendahl’s approach deals with learning about the beliefs of a group. Certainly, as soon as one extends out from doctrine to history, it is open season for sources.

[TokyoBayer]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I’m pretty sure that you and Monty can fill up another page or so of your ongoing dispute regarding the LDS, focusing on the historical record and its interpretation, without you misinterpreting the guidelines laid out by Stendahl and posted by Monty regarding the doctrines.
[/QUOTE]
Or Monty could have posted these guidelines as a way of dodging the question of the accuracy of the doctrines. I’d be interested to hear what in the clip (which even I find to be really lame) is said to be inaccurate. After watching the clip again, I did find a couple of inaccuracies, including the claim that JS said he was a direct descendent of Jesus. I never heard that, but that’s not to say that some early leader claimed this as fact. Early leaders said the darndest things.

Let’s look at the Stendahl guidelines, and how FAIR, in their words, “The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice” discusses these rules.
From the source quoted by Monty

Rule 1: Ask Adherents, Not Enemies
This makes some sense, doesn’t it? If I truly want to understand Catholicism, I should use Catholic sources, not enemies of the Catholic religion. If I want to learn and understand more about the new Ford Mustang, I won’t go to Chevrolet to gather my data.

I’m with Revenant Threshold and JThunder. Why not both? If you were interested in a new Mustang, why not go to Chevrolet as well to hear a dissenting voice.

The legitimate objection is to only gathering information from a bias source, but really, wouldn’t that apply to only learning about a religion from only it adherents? People and organizations spin things and tell only parts of the story, either on purpose or not. It makes no sense to limit one’s investigation to one biased source, either for or against.

Rule 2: Don’t Compare Your Best with Their Worst
The violation of this rule, Dr. Peterson warns, leads to the necessity of double standards on the part of our critics. For example, as shown in Anti-Mormon Approaches to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon, by William Hamblin, the Book of Mormon critics “refuse to apply to the Book of Mormon the same kind of standards they would to the Bible, or apply standards to the Book of Mormon they wouldn’t apply to the Bible.”

We see this often when the critics take the “worst” of the Book of Mormon, which has a few thousand changes from the original manuscript, and hold it up against the “perfect and inerrant” Bible, which has between 150,000 and 250,000 changes in it from the oldest manuscripts available. Do you see the double standard caused by comparing their “best” to our “worst?”

The argument by FAIR for this rule would seem fair (any pun unintentional) but ignores the bar set by Joseph Smith himself, who called the Book of Mormon "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion. While one gets tired of those who quibble over the “the’s” being changed to “a’s,” critics of the church, myself included, cannot be faulted for pointing out serious doctrinal changes edited in the book as, for example, Smith’s beliefs in deity changed.

Rule 3: Leave Room for Holy Envy
Dr. Peterson accurately points out that many of our critics refuse to see anything good in the LDS faith; certainly nothing worth “Holy Envy.” There are many that will say it’s not really a church or really even a religion.

All fine and good, except Peterson then goes on to hijack this argument into a rant against people who forge documents against the church.

Is it really best to talk only to believing members?

In The Word of God : Essays on Mormon Scripture, reviewed here, others disagree.

Is a literalistic approach which includes a lack of knowledge of the circumstances and environment around which scripture was created the best way to read the Mormon and Christian scriptures? The obvious answer is “no”, but the authors of the essays in this book show how orthodox Mormons and orthodox Christians have done just that. I can remember in early morning seminary being taught to “liken the scriptures” unto my own life (w/o regard to context or why and how the scriptures came into being). Looking back on such an approach, I can see the harm it can produce. The essays vary in emphasis and subject matter, but they all emphasize the fact that a better understanding of the “Word of God” is necessary.

[JThunder]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
It is absolutely true that any given individual inside or outside a church may know more or less about it than any other individual outside or inside that church. It still seems to be true that if one wishes to know what a church teaches, it makes more sense to view the teachings from the perspective of the church, itself, (on which one may still perform one’s own critical evaluation of its worth), rather than simply taking the word of enemies.
[/QUOTE]

Which is why I don’t advocate “simply taking the word of enemies.” By the same token though, I don’t advocate simply taking the word of adherents, either! As I said earlier, that is one of my objections to Stendahl’s claim. Why should one only “ask the adherents of that religion, not their enemies, about the religion,” as Monty claims?

You have not read nearly enough anti-papist literature. “Usual objection”? From some positions, certainly. I have seen Mariolatry presented as a teaching of the church often enough to know that it is a fairly frequent attack. Whether those who claim that it is deliberate outnumber those who claim it is inadvertant but real, I could not say, but there are plenty of folks who hold the “deliberate” position.

I’ve read quite a bit of it, actually, being a former Catholic myself. Most of it does denounce Marian devotion as “worship”; however, I have not seen any of it claim that the Catholic Church tells people “You need to worship Mary!” Rather – again, as I said earlier – they maintain that practices of Marian devotion do amount to worship, regardless of one’s intent or the church’s official teaching.

[JThunder]

BTW, all this talk about “holy envy” is a colossal red herring. Suppose that you do find something to envy in the LDS church – or Islam, or Buddhism, or whatnot. How does this imply that their teachings are accurate, or even worth listening to? It doesn’t.

“Holy envy” is a cute catchphrase to throw around, but it has no bearing on the subject at hand.

[Monty]

[QUOTE=JThunder]
BTW, all this talk about “holy envy” is a colossal red herring. Suppose that you do find something to envy in the LDS church – or Islam, or Buddhism, or whatnot. How does this imply that their teachings are accurate, or even worth listening to? It doesn’t.

“Holy envy” is a cute catchphrase to throw around, but it has no bearing on the subject at hand.
[/QUOTE]

On the other hand, it’s a very good indication that the person attempting to learn what the belief examined is about is approaching it with an open mind.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=Monty]
On the other hand, it’s a very good indication that the person attempting to learn what the belief examined is about is approaching it with an open mind.
[/QUOTE]
No, it isn’t. All you can say from that is that they’re not approaching it with a totally closed mind against it. What you can say is that the person is either approaching it with an open mind or from the closed perspective that support it.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=wolf in second hand clothing]
I found this video while watching that video of the Guiness record for most t-shirts worn.
[/QUOTE]

I find myself unable to take this clip seriously, as it includes no subtitle reading, “This is what Mormons really believe.”

[Monty]

Revenant Threshold,

Huh?

[ralph124c]

Well, Mormonism is quite unique among religions, because the head of the church (“prophet, seer, and revelator”) claims a direct line to God. I do not think any other religion makes such a claim. Which leads to the question; if the head poohbah of the Mormon church issues a statement (say he was to repudiate a formerly accepted doctrine) that would leave true believers with a dilemma-was Joseph Smith REALLY a prophet?
Or, those jumbled up mishmash of writings (in “reformed Egyptian”) that the MC presents as Joe Smiths revelation: if the present head were to repudiate this stuff, what would happen? :eek:

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=Monty]
Revenant Threshold,

Huh?
[/QUOTE]
Mmm. Looking back on that, it was a pretty poorly put post. Sorry about that.

What I meant was; you were saying that if you find something to envy in a religion, that that indicates you’ve got an open mind towards it, as opposed to a closed mind. I was just saying that actually there’s a third option - that of being closed minded to anything* but * that religion. If I say that the Church of LDS has some points about it that I find to be good, it might be as you say because I have an open mind; it might be because i’m too closed-minded to see the good in other religions (or no religion), and so i’m unable to make comparisons.

[OneCentStamp]

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Or, those jumbled up mishmash of writings (in “reformed Egyptian”) that the MC presents as Joe Smiths revelation: if the present head were to repudiate this stuff, what would happen? :eek:
[/QUOTE]

IMO, the overwhelming majority of current Mormons would follow the present head of the Church.

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Mmm. Looking back on that, it was a pretty poorly put post. Sorry about that.

What I meant was; you were saying that if you find something to envy in a religion, that that indicates you’ve got an open mind towards it, as opposed to a closed mind. I was just saying that actually there’s a third option - that of being closed minded to anything* but * that religion. If I say that the Church of LDS has some points about it that I find to be good, it might be as you say because I have an open mind; it might be because i’m too closed-minded to see the good in other religions (or no religion), and so i’m unable to make comparisons.
[/QUOTE]

No, that’s neither what I was saying nor what that Lutheran dude was saying.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Monty]
[list=1][li]When learning about a religion, ask the adherents of that religion, not their enemies, about the religion.[/li][/QUOTE]

That would be a very unwise approach to studying the beliefs of, say, Scientologists or Moonies.

As for Mormons – if you have temples gentiles are not allowed to enter and ceremonies gentiles are not allowed to witness, can you be surprised if people suspect you might have an esoteric doctrine fundamentally different from what you’ll hear from those nice young cyclists in the short-sleeved shirts and neckties?

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=Monty]
No, that’s neither what I was saying nor what that Lutheran dude was saying.
[/QUOTE]
Ah ok, then i’m sorry I got it wrong. Could you explain what you (and he) were actually saying?

[TokyoBayer]

[QUOTE=OneCentStamp]
IMO, the overwhelming majority of current Mormons would follow the present head of the Church.
[/QUOTE]
I’d agree with that. The Mormon church has had some radical shifts in doctrine which haven’t resulted in great numbers of people leaving. This would be a huge change, but even greater than the acceptance of blacks’ right to the priesthood (male only, of course, as is with whites and other races) but the faithful tend to be that, faithful.

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Ah ok, then i’m sorry I got it wrong. Could you explain what you (and he) were actually saying?
[/QUOTE]

Sure. It seems to me that he was saying–and that’s what I was trying to say–that one should approach the object of study with the idea of “Hey, maybe they have something that would be cool; even if I don’t believe in it, maybe it’d still be a cool concept.”

@BrainGlutton

That would be a very unwise approach to studying the beliefs of, say, Scientologists or Moonies.

Well, the Scientologists charge you for the study of their religion, don’t they?

As for Mormons – if you have temples gentiles are not allowed to enter and ceremonies gentiles are not allowed to witness, can you be surprised if people suspect you might have an esoteric doctrine fundamentally different from what you’ll hear from those nice young cyclists in the short-sleeved shirts and neckties?

And yet nobody’s going around accusing the Roman Catholich Church of having those in their confessionals.