Posted on 07/28/2009 10:54:56 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
By Aaron Shafovaloff
Christians who attempt to engage in meaningful dialog with their Mormon friends are often frustrated by the way teachings and beliefs can be obfuscated and downplayed. When a question is posed by a Christian they are many times told that a particular teaching “is not official.” Behind this are the assumptions that that the religion of Mormonism is immune to any fatal criticism if it involves anything outside the scope of officiality, and that evangelical engagement should be limited to that which is binding upon Mormon members.
One problem with this is that the Mormon Church has no binding and official position on what con-stitutes a binding and official position. Mormon leaders and thinkers have proposed a variety of approaches to defining what constitutes official doctrine, not one being settled upon. Multiple things must be taken into account. First, and most important, Mormons have been taught that they enjoy a continual stream of prophetic counsel and revelation, and that their leaders will never lead them astray. They have also been taught that “The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” 1980). A sense has been fostered that the living leadership is for members a more direct line to God than ancient scripture. But Mormonism also attempts to esteem its scriptures and ensure some stability. When leaders have gone especially awry, subsequent generations of leaders have downplayed prior teachings by appealing to the boundaries of scriptures (that the previous leaders failed to stay within). In short, Mormonism teeters between maximalism and minimalism.
In my study I have so far identified three general Mormon approaches to the standard of officiality:
sola scriptura – The Standard Works are the final and alone binding source of authority. If it is not in scripture, or if it is not inferred by scripture, it is not doctrinal and it is not binding.
prima scriptura – Scripture is the highest, most final binding source of authority, but it is not the only source of that which is binding and doctrinal. Other sources, such as current church leadership (considered lesser because they are compared with scripture and discarded if in contradiction with scripture) are also binding.
prima ecclesia – Modern church leadership is the highest, most final binding source of authority and doctrine, and may override other sources of authority and doctrine, like scripture, if there is contradiction. This is rarely done by direct repudiation and instead is done by re-interpreting, making obsolete, or questioning the preservation of a particular text. When addressing the question of whether living leaders trump scripture, or vice versa, BYU professor Robert Millet admits with refreshing honesty:
“I think most Latter-day Saints would be prone to answer this by pointing out the value and significance of living oracles, or continuing revelation, or ongoing divine direction through modern apostles and prophets, and thus to conclude that living prophets take precedence over canonized scripture” (Claiming Christ, p.31).
Should We Stop Addressing Old Teachings and Non-Official Beliefs?
Rather than endorsing this mainstream approach, Millet goes on in the book to promote an approach much like prima scriptura.
There are nuances and ambiguities to the above three models, but you get the basic idea. My contention is that Mormonism oscillates between varying models to keep alive the theme of the “continuing revelation” as well as enforce some regulatory sanity.
BYU professors who promote the need for modern prophets to understand ancient prophets often violate their own stated principles in their interpretation of the watershed passage 2 Nephi 25:23 (“…for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do”). They obstinately reject the usage and interpretation from general conference and modern church publications, preferring instead their own personal interpretations. Minimalists like Millet say that we need modern leaders to understand ancient scripture, but seem to only selectively apply the principle.
Here are some issues Christians need to take into consideration:
1. We care about what the Mormon mainstream people and individual persons actually believe. When they believe something the institution doesn't strictly, officially bless (according to some particular model of doctrine and authority), it still matters with regard to the spiritual condition of their individual heart.
2. The institution, regardless of the lack of formal approval, still ought to bear responsibility for acquiescing to unrepudiated longstanding beliefs that were initiated or at least fostered by Mormon leadership or by the implications of the traditional Mormon worldview.
3. Regardless of whether a particular Mormon individual agrees or doesn't agree with important teachings that have been recently been promoted from institutional Mormon channels of influence, that Mormon's spiritual heart condition is also related to his or her willingness to be a part of such an institution that tolerates and/or teaches such things.
4. Regardless of how old a particular Mormon teaching is, it can still have bearing on whether a person today should choose to become or remain Mormon. There are plenty of old teachings that have been abandoned by Mormonism that still call into question the reliability and integrity of the historic succession of alleged prophets and apostles. Remember, it only takes one false prophecy or one public heresy about the nature of God—especially one not repented over—to make a prophet false.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
Thin-skinned (emotional, whiney or mercurial temper) posters are the disruptors on open threads.
Ping
Who is folks gonna believe?
Us - the Most Conservative Folks on the Planet?
Or a bunch of disgruntled old grouches?
--MormonDude(That Restornu has REALLY shown us how to do it!)
Why does jello, nail and a wall come to mind?
Dang!
That'll toss out all of our bastardized MASONIC rituals we call SACRED!
--MormonDupe(I believe EVERYTHING Joseph Smith ever said!)
Where is the guy with the Captain Obvious picture...
Perhaps those frustrated Christians would be less frustrated if they really did engage in "meaningful dialog" with their Mormon friends rather than merely attacking Mormonism.
I find that kindness, mutual respect, and Christian charity greatly improve my conversations with friends and acquaintances, Mormons and non-Mormons alike.
Just a thought.
Amen! I am always amazed at the negative energy expended by this crowd.
Wow, and you learned all that in the two weeks you've been here. It seems you've taken a page out of the old Mormonism handbook - attack the messenger.
Welcome anyway N00b
three posts, all mormon/romney themed. Oh well, nothing new here, move along.
What would you describe as meaningful dialog? Two young men knocking on strangers' doors, all prepared to proclaim by rote the sales pitch learned at the MTC?
I have seen discussions with you that were civil in tone, but when they reach the stalemate of posting information about mormonism that is simply ignored or discounted because it doesn't fit the template or becomes uncomfortabe even when it is well-sourced, the discussion ends.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, "meaningful dialogue" to a mormon is when the mormon point of view is completely accepted as truth. Just as "fair toleration" on FR to a mormon is allowing the undisputed posting of mormon belief and proselytizing articles, not to mention dialogue that consists of continual whining and name-calling of those who dispute that "dialogue".
Just a thought.
Just curious, do you consider your last post to me (#12) to be “civil in tone”?
Your post, that I was responding to stated this:
"Perhaps those frustrated Christians would be less frustrated if they really did engage in "meaningful dialog" with their Mormon friends rather than merely attacking Mormonism."
I guess it was a "civil" way to call Christians "frustrated" and accuse us of not "engaging in meaningful dialog" and "attacking mormonism".
What, if anything, in your post describes mormon attitude and actions in a "meaningful dialogue"???
I can never understand how the mormon church can send out thousands and thousands of missionaries and couple missionaries to proselytize and try to win believers away from beliefs and then how mormon members can expect that no one will question or dispute THEIR beliefs! It's the same mind set that sees mormon proselytyzing articles posted every day on FR and then your being offended when they are disputed!
It's mind-boggling!
So, Yeah, my post was as civil in tone as yours.
BTW, if you have missed the "meaningful dialogue" of your fellow mormons on This Thread
you should read it, especially the posts to Jim Robinson.
Was GF calling you names? Was she questioning your heritage? Come on, get real. You know, you can specifically address passages from the posted article for discussion and attempt to prove them to be 'uncivil' should you wish. Knock your self out! But if you are too thin skinned and believe GF was not being 'civil' in that post, then perhaps you should browse other areas of FR.
Perfect...
Hum...
Should a "welcome back" be in order here?
You know that...
Brigham Young taught that it would arise out of the Church of Jesus Christ, thus producing the government of the Kingdom of God. He also explained the difference between the “Church” and the “Kingdom of God” or the Council of Fifty:
I will say to you with regard to the kingdom of God on the earth – Here is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized with its rules, regulations and degrees, with the quorums of the holy Priesthood, from the First Presidency to the teachers and deacons; here we are, an organization.... This is what we are in the habit of calling the kingdom of God. But there are further organizations. The Prophet gave a full and complete organization to this kingdom the Spring before he was killed. This kingdom is the kingdom that Daniel spoke of, which was to be set up in the last days; it is the kingdom that is not to be given to another people; it is the kingdom that is to be held by the servants of God, to rule the nations of the earth...
Ah, brilliantly deduced. The Mormons wind up playing a "shell game" in their dialogs. This author unveils its three shells:
sola scriptura – The Standard Works are the final and alone binding source of authority. If it is not in scripture, or if it is not inferred by scripture, it is not doctrinal and it is not binding.
This is the primary apologetic tactic used by Mormon defenders. It's like, "Nope, not official. Out of bounds." The problem? Usually, the grassroots Mormon himself doesn't even believe this to be the boundary zone.
prima scriptura – Scripture is the highest, most final binding source of authority, but it is not the only source of that which is binding and doctrinal. Other sources, such as current church leadership (considered lesser because they are compared with scripture and discarded if in contradiction with scripture) are also binding.
Mormon apologists usually fall into this baseline. They "play defense" with sola Mormon scriptura -- applying that as the standard upon their dialog mates -- all the while going beyond it themselves! [Can you say "double standard?"]
prima ecclesia – Modern church leadership is the highest, most final binding source of authority and doctrine, and may override other sources of authority and doctrine, like scripture, if there is contradiction
This is the Ezra Taft Benson posture of the Mormon church. When a "prophet" speaks, the speaking has been done. Living "prophets" trump dead ones. Most Mormons are not self-defined or open Bensonites. But keep in mind that Benson was simply the most public face of this expression; surprisingly it's probably the fallback closet default position of at least temple Mormons (vs. cafeteria and jack Mormons).
Why is that? Well, the reality is, prime ecclesia is the position that official HQ in SLC has subtlely and not-so-subtlely drilled into the heads of its members. It's the posture that swallows the temple Mormon's conscience alive. Ya gotta remember that at heart, official General Authority Mormondomites aren't apologists playing defense ("sola scriptora" approach).
I recall the mid to late 1990s into the early 2000s when Mormons, like the rest of us, were beginning to go online in great numbers. There was often a lot of tentative statements, and qualifiers, that they themselves weren't official HQ. That's an example of the church's highly imposed voice of orthodox conscience drilled into membership.
Lds HQ knows this third position is the position of power, total control, and keeps history profs @ BYU wondering about their future continued employment if they stick to sticky history subjects as any kind of a reality presentation. (Cough, cough, oh, I meant "faith-building" presentation)
My advice for Lds? Examine your conscience. Was it overtaken by siege by the church, or is that truly the Holy Spirit? Are you going to continue to informally buy into the prima ecclesia model, even though your own gut (apart of the church-imposed conscience) doesn't "live there?"
So, Mormons want a civil dialogue. I've opened up a "frank front" of discussion here. Any takers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.