A new -- or is it old? -- manual for Mormons (OPEN)

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | December 31, 2009 | Peggy Fletcher Stack

[greyfoxx39]

A new -- or is it old? -- manual for Mormons

After a decade of going back to Brigham, back to Joseph and back to Wilford, Mormons are going back to basics.

Starting Sunday, adult Latter-day Saints will shelve their study of past Mormon prophets and return to fundamentals of their faith as spelled out in a 30-year-old book called Gospel Principles .

Twice a month, Mormon men in their priesthood meetings and women in their Relief Society sessions will consider a different chapter in the book, originally published in 1978, which discusses everything from the nature of God and Christ's atoning sacrifice to the need for baptism and temple rituals.

Until now, the book largely has been used as a primer for new converts to the 13.5 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

-SNIP-

One intriguing change, Witten says, is that all references to late apostle Bruce R. McConkie's quasi-authoritative book, Mormon Doctrine , have been excised.

"Quotes were updated to reference materials that are more accessible to members of the LDS Church worldwide," church spokeswoman Kim Farah explains. "For example, the series, Teachings of Presidents of the Church , is referenced because it is available in 28 languages, while Mormon Doctrine is only available in a few."

-SNIP-

"While the prophets we've studied have been great, there are several more I'd like to hear from."

On top of that, Evans doesn't see the revised Gospel Principles manual as "a cure for the problem of boredom, but maybe no manual can cure that."

[ejonesie22]

Antiquities theft Alan?

Nice try...

And this is Jesus coming to visit (or is that eat?) the members of this civilization, right?

It is because we have far more than two brain cells that Non Mormons who have studied the LDS know it is all fantasy, and LDS "Archeology" is nothing more than grasping at straws, hanging itself on every Native American culture it can...

[ejonesie22]

Of course the question would be why a man under the protection of the Governor who surrender voluntarily, who thought his own “army” would was coming to protect him as well, would need a gun smuggled in.

And why the LDS paint his death as that of a martyr and a lamb lead to slaughter exactly as Christ was.

Of course I am sure Jesus taking out several Roman Centurions on the way to the cross was simply left out of the Bible.

I have no issue buying the idea Smith was murdered, but he wasn't innocent and was no lamb.

[reaganaut]

The young Mormon missionaries that come to front door in these latter days assure me that they believe exactly as I tell them that I (an elderly conservative Lutheran Christian) believe regarding the person, the divinity and the mission of Jesus Christ.

- - - - - -
Well they are either lying to you or, more likely, they are using the same words but have different meanings/understandings.

[Godzilla]

The young Mormon missionaries that come to front door in these latter days assure me that they believe exactly as I tell them that I (an elderly conservative Lutheran Christian) believe regarding the person, the divinity and the mission of Jesus Christ.

I think I get his point. IF they believe EXACTLY as me - then they are wasting their time trying to COVERT me. A 180 back into their face.

[NoRedTape]

"I understand you don’t like Mormons. I’m not too fond of the 19th century version of the faith myself, which is very different in practice from today’s."
--Oh, but I like the mormon folks I've met very much. Been to Salt Lake City many times. Have a childhood friend there who is a wonderful gal. I do not dislike mormons, even in the slightest. I simply abhor their cult and continously wonder how they can believe in one word the fake profit Joe Smith and Bring'em ever said. I have great disdain & disgust of their cult & their bogus philosophies, is all.

" There is plenty to criticize in early Mormonism without spreading lies."
--Guess it depends whose history appears to the senses of reality.

"Joe surrendered voluntarily, returning to IL on guarantee of safety by its governor to stand trial. "
--Goodie for him. He was arrested for ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper. If he hadn't shown-up as ordered, the law would've just gone and fetched him. That's how it works with criminals.He was ordered to show-up at Carthage Jail.

"He surrendered despite his being in control of an organized armed force of at least 2000 men. Pistols were smuggled in by friends for the prisoners’ defense."
--Yes. And I'm not sure if that was a felony then, but it certainly is now. Joe should still be charged with that, posthumously.

"The militia unit charged by the governor with his protection were in cahoots with the mob, 200 armed men with their faces disguised.The mob started the shooting by firing through the door of the room in which the prisoners were being held.Hyrum was shot several times and killed. Joe shot and wounded several of the mob, then in desperation climbed out a window, was shot in the process, then was shot numerous times at close range while he lay helpless on the ground. One of the murderers attempted to decapitate him.This was not “shot while attempting to escape” except in the most sarcastic sense of the term as is applied to captors who murder their prisoners."

--Well who knows about that crowd. A mixture of Joe supporters and anti-Joes. When the crowd were fired upon, Joe and his drunken buddies had some bullets aimed back at them. And 'ol Joe was more than just a common criminal and con man, lots of folks in that crowd were married to women that Joe hit on. That ain't cool; and that ain't right.. Joe was lucky that he was shot while escaping from the second story window or else I betcha those angry husbands would've dealt with him very harshly. Joe got out of that situation with punk luck.

No "martyr"; no prophet; just a con man who pulled his last criminal act. Shot while attempting to escape from the Carthage Jail.

Tsk Tsk.....

[reaganaut]

Prophets” ain’t what they used to be....

- - - - — - -

Neither is the “profit”

[reaganaut]

lol.

[reaganaut]

Thanks.

[Godzilla]

One intriguing change, Witten says, is that all references to late apostle Bruce R. McConkie’s quasi-authoritative book, Mormon Doctrine , have been excised.

What did they use? A statue of Moroni? a Jupiter talisman? since they couldn't find a cross if their life depended upon it.

[reaganaut]

they couldn't find a cross if their life depended upon it.

IT DOES.

[Colofornian]

From the article: Starting Sunday, adult Latter-day Saints will shelve their study of past Mormon prophets and return to fundamentals of their faith as spelled out in a 30-year-old book called Gospel Principles.

Here's a few "choice" quotes from "Gospel Principles":

"After suffering in full for their sins they will be allowed to inherit the lowest degree of glory which is the telestial kingdom. The hell in the spirit world will not continue forever." (Gospel Principles, p. 280)

Here, Mormonism redefines Jesus' words as hell being eternal. The message they convey to all: Live as you want; don't relate to God or to Christ; don't trust in Christ; don't exercise faith in Christ; and you still get a "degree of glory" in the afterlife.

Lds not only assume they can arrange eternal relationships with God and Jesus Christ post-death, but they can do marital match-making for the deceased: "In the temple, we can perform ALL the ordinances necessary for the exaltation of those who have died. This includes temple marriage." (Official Lds teaching pub -- Gospel Principles, p. 248) [Yeah, all: Think of The Addams family performing ghoulish eternal wedding rituals for the dead]

[P-Marlowe]

It looks like the LDS church has decided to number McConkie among the False Apostles that Jesus warned us about.

Of course all their Apostles are False Apostles, but some are more false than others.

[Elsie]

Choose the Cross; and you won't be left. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)

Perhaps the reason MORMONs are so Conservative...

[Elsie]

Of course all their Apostles are False Apostles, but some are more false than others.

 

And, after they die, it's REALLY downhill from there!

 

---

---

 

From the mouth of a late Prophet of MORMONism:

 

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

Ezra Taft Benson               (Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

[urroner]

DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!!!!
Dem Marmens be heer about sumware!!!  Clos dem dors an portect dem womenfolk!!!

So, all you anti-marmens, do dem Marmens do anything good?

I am so pleased that you are all so promoting the example that Christlike attitude and love that is mentioned in the Bible.  Which of the Beatitudes are you people being an example of by your desperate grasping at straws?

Watch me cut and paste as many of you are so wont to do.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?

Too many evangelicals accept and propagate certain myths about Mormon scholarship. It is a myth that there are few, if any, traditional Mormon scholars with training in fields pertinent to evangelical-Mormon debates. It is a myth that when Mormons receive training in historiography, biblical languages, theology, and philosophy they invariably abandon traditional Latter-day Saints (LDS) beliefs in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophethood of Joseph Smith. It is a myth that liberal Mormons have so shaken the foundations of LDS belief that Mormonism is crumbling apart. It is a myth that neoorthodox Mormons have influenced the theology of their church to such a degree that it will soon abandon traditional emphases and follow a path similar to the RLDS (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) or the World-Wide Church of God.2 These are myths based upon ignorance and selective reading. Evangelicals who wish to be responsible must abandon them.

In response to these myths, we assert five conclusions concerning Mormon scholarship. First, there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages."3 Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neoorthodox, liberal, and cultural. The largest and most influential of the four categories is traditional Mormon scholars. The Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.

Second, Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

Third, currently there are (as far as we are aware) no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.4 A survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism reveals that none interacts with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

Fourth, at the academic level evangelicals are needlessly losing the debate with the Mormons. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.5 Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues.

Finally, most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers, and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.

<snip>

The evangelical world needs to wake up and respond to contemporary Mormon scholarship. If not, we will needlessy lose the battle without ever knowing it. Our suggestions are as follows: First, evangelicals need to overcome inaccurate presuppositions about Mormonism. Second, evangelical counter-cultists need to refer to qualified persons LDS scholarship that is beyond their ability to rebut. Third, evangelical academicians need to make Mormonism, or some aspects of it, an area of professional interest. Fourth, evangelical publishers need to cease publishing works that are uninformed, misleading, or otherwise inadequate. Fifth, scholars in the evangelical community ought to collaborate in several books addressing the issues raised in this paper. Related to this, professional journals should encourage articles on these same topics. Finally, might we suggest that evangelical scholarly societies form study groups to assess the claims made by LDS scholars. Members of the Evangelical Theological Society have made a move in this direction with the recent formation of the Society for the Study of Alternative Religions (SSAR). The fact is that the growth of Mormonism is outpacing even the highest predictions of professional sociologists of religion, and is on its way, within eighty years, to becoming the first world-religion since Islam in the seventh century.llo With such growth, the needs expressed in this paper will become ever more pressing as the twenty-first century approaches.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you anti-marmens want to lost the battle you're so desperately fighting and you are doing a excellent job of doing so, please continue to keep on keeping on doing what you are doing now, the same thing you have been doing since practically forever.  And it's been me that has been accused of being closed-minded and infantile.

[greyfoxx39]

It looks like the LDS church has decided to number McConkie among the False Apostles that Jesus warned us about.

Mormon leaders busily scrubbing the mormon church's history...soon it will be "white and delightsome". Quite Clintonian.

"In the 1970s Latter-day Saint scholars began to recognize the benefits of collecting and making available to the public documents related to the Prophet Joseph Smith’s life and works."

The Joseph Smith Papers-"The study of these historical sources, particularly in their earliest forms, provides students of Joseph Smith with an enriched understanding of the Prophet’s life and the development of the restored Church."

Historical documents in control of and edited by the Mormon Church.

[Godzilla]

If you anti-marmens want to lost the battle you're so desperately fighting and you are doing a excellent job of doing so, please continue to keep on keeping on doing what you are doing now, the same thing you have been doing since practically forever. And it's been me that has been accused of being closed-minded and infantile.

This much mormon touted 'paper' is not widely regarded in Christianity. Facts are facts and mormonism continues to be in the red regarding their 'facts'. All you can do is appeal to this article, which is over 10 years old - wake up and drink some coffee ur, in the years since the internet has exploded and lds inc. has been hemorrhaging members right and left. How advanced is lds scholarship?

1. bom archaeology - currently four 'theories' circulating out there, all totally absent of physical data. Not a single peer reviewed paper associating any W. Hemi. site to bom. Smithsonian and Nat'l Geo. Societies still hold to the fact that the bom is fiction and does not reflect history in the new world. The First Presidency remains silent on this issue

2. POGP/BoA - After Nibley showed that the papyrus was the one used for the translation of the BoA, lds "scholars" (some proven to be frauds in this arena), now try to unwind the overwhelming evidence. These new scholars are even going as far to try to jettison POGP from mormon doctrine.The First Presidency remains silent on this issue

3. First Vision - after decades of being buried, lds archives 'uncover' additional and contradictory first vision accounts - by smith himself.

4. DNA - global science showing amerindians do not have jewish DNA signatures, but east asian/mongolian DNA bases. Even lds related geneticists confirm this. Mormon "scholarship" response is to make the bom 'lands' smaller and smaller in opposition to bom descriptions and First Presidency statements - to excuse the absence.

Now these are just a few. Textural criticism and studies of Christianity continue to refute lds attempts to twist passages or ms to their own definitions. Citing an obsolete paper is pretty lame in 2010.

[urroner]

Just because somebody says that a paper is obsolete doesn’t make it so. As soon as that paper was released, the anti-Mormon (AM) crowd attacked it and said that the authors of it weren’t even Christian.

What makes the paper obsolete? The problems that it talked about have not even been addressed by your crowd. Just because you dismiss it out of hand doesn’t make it irrelevant. I talked with Mosser about three years ago and he said that what he and Paul Owen said in the paper was just as pertinent at that time as when they wrote it. Why should I believe you over him? Did something happen within the last three years?

I also love it that most AMs have discovered the old tactic of not asking just one or two questions at a time so they can be addressed, but to throw out a whole bunch of crap, hoping something will stick on the wall.

I’m amazed that your post only brought up four questions, since most AMs try to bring up at least 10. That is evidence that discussion isn’t even wanted. I see liberals do that all the time. They throw up a thousand questions at the same time and when all those questions don’t get answered immediately, then it becomes evidence that the other side is trying to hide something. It’s not that, it’s just that the liberals don’t want to discuss anything, they just want to dictate what we should believe and do.

Global warmers do the same thing. Yep, the debate is over and they’re on the right side and all those who oppose them are self-deluded liars and just plain evil people.

I can understand that attitude from liberals and those global-warmer types, but not from people who say that Christ is the center of their lives.

[greyfoxx39]

The "Real" Paul Owen

05/09/2005 - James White

(James R. White is the author of the popular The King James Only Controversy, The Roman Catholic Controversy, and Grieving: God's Path Back to Peace. He is the director of ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics ministry, and scholar-in-residence at Grand Canyon University. He holds an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary. He and his wife have two children and live in Arizona.)

   "I have mentioned the fact that the person Paul Owen is in writing an article, for example, is not the person he is in "regular life" when interacting, especially, with those he considers non-scholars. The posting of the previous two articles, which I intended to be the end as far as my time currently allows, has led Owen to correct his first article's rather odd misspelling of Millet's name. I know my own original post was lacking some apostrophes and a few spaces between words, but that was due to the random activity created by inserting from html saved by Microsoft Word into my blog software, so I can blame Bill Gates! Quite a different thing than smugly sitting there talking about how familiar you are with all these LDS scholars and then misspelling Millet's name consistently throughout your article. But beyond this, we have also been given an opportunity to see the "real" Owen in the comments he left, anonymously, sort of, on Dustin Curlee's blog regarding this same issue. As I simply do not have time to go into depth, I must be brief. Note the patented and trademarked attitude of Paul Owen when speaking to his "lessers":

In your rush to judgment on Eerdmans--which will only serve to give certain internet personalities more controversies to jibber jabber about--you have spoken inaccurately on many levels.

   Hi, I'm Mr. Certain Internet Personality, but you can call me "Dot" for short.

By speaking in such a manner, you simply reveal your own bad motives, and the fact that many professing Christians in the apologetics community simply like to fight about things, usually from a posture of profound ignorance.

   I have really come to the conclusion that Paul Owen believes anyone who disagrees with him about these issues is just "profoundly ignorant" and if everyone was just as smart as he is, all would be well and everyone would agree...with him. His dislike of the "apologetics community" has been self-evident for years now, and as far as I can tell, he has not left a single bridge standing to it, either.

4. Like others who are presently shooting their mouths off on the internet, you do not appear to have a very good grasp of Mormon theology:

   Speaks for itself.

1) Mormons do not call the Son a "mere creature." They believe he is God the eternal creator.

   Eternal in the Mormon sense, and then only as one who is "sent" by his Father, Elohim, an exalted man, to "organize" pre-existing matter in the company of Michael the Archangel! And that is part of the LDS Temple ceremonies! "Eternal" does not mean, in Mormonism, what it means in Christianity (a fact Owen well knows). The Son is "God" only derivatively, and "God" is more a position than anything else, a position of exaltation, once again, utterly different than Christianity. And Christ "created" nothing: He organized pre-existing matter, and was sent to do so by Elohim and accompanied in his task by Michael (contra Isa. 44:24). Owen knows this. This is simply deceptive on his part. One truly begins to wonder about a "former Mormon" who gains a position in a non-LDS school who then begins to spread falsehoods about what Mormonism actually teaches so as to aid their attempted mainstreaming within evangelicalism.

2) The fact that Mormons view Jesus as the Spirit-brother of Lucifer is rather insignificant, when understood within the broader Mormon ontology. For Mormons, all personal beings have the same kind of nature, though not the same powers, nor status. Lucifer is the same kind of being as we are in LDS theology, though more powerful. So for the LDS, it is no more blasphemous to call Jesus the brother of Lucifer than it is for the author of Hebrews to call Jesus our brother (2:11-14).

   Which goes to prove exactly what: that Mormonism is not Christianity! Since it is blasphemous, to the extreme, to identify Jesus as the spirit brother of His own creation in the true faith, but it is "rather insignificant" in Mormonism, common sense tells you what? Fill in the blank.

Is it blasphemous to say that Jesus has a human nature? Of course not. Then, if Lucifer were to have the same kind of nature as us (as in LDS theology), then it would not be blasphemous to say that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.

   Once again, this sounds like the kind of argument we have dealt with from LDS apologists for years. Yes, Jesus had a human nature, as a result of the incarnation. But the blasphemy of the Mormon position is not that Jesus is the spirit-brother of Lucifer because of the incarnation to begin with! The blasphemy is that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer ontologically from the time of his pre-mortal birth to an exalted man from another planet! Once again, given that Owen is, by his own repeated assertion, a credentialed scholar of the highest rank, he knows this, and hence has not the slightest excuse for this horrific form of false argumentation and deceptive teaching.

Critics of the LDS simply bring this up for the "shock value," with no intention of accurately representing the Mormon view. Their view may well be wrong, but it is not absurd, nor is it blasphemous, given their ontology.

   Ah, gotta get the shot in at the "critics of Mormonism." Isn't it comforting to know that Montreat College is free of critics of Mormonism?

3) Contrary to the assumptions underlying your unqualified criticisms of LDS views on God and deification, the teachings of the King Follett sermon are not official Mormon doctrine.

   I addressed this in Is the Mormon My Brother? rather fully.  http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Brother-Discerning-Differences-Christianity/dp/0764220470  The fact is that if you were to do a survey of the non-inspired writings of the LDS leaders from, say 1880 to 1980 (make it an even century) and you were to simply collate the citations of Joseph Smith's words outside of the BoM and D&C, the King Follet Discourse would be the single most cited teaching of Joseph Smith, period. There really is no question about this. Once again, Owen fulfills the role of "non-LDS neo-orthodox Mormon apologist" by repeating the neo-orthodox party line.

Sorry that some critics of the Mormon Church can't seem to get that through their skulls. There is a difference between widely held beliefs and official teachings of the Church.

   Yeah, none of us are as bright as Paul, but despite that, I managed to present an entire chapter on how to determine the levels of authority in LDS pronouncements. The fact is Owen knows there are different views in Mormonism and he also well knows he is presenting only the view of the BYU scholarship and not the view of past LDS prophets (he considers them irrelevant anyway). But, if you disagree with him, well, it's due to your lower IQ.

The LDS do not have any official doctrinal understanding of deification which demands consent. Official doctrines are found only in the LDS Scriptures, and in official position statements of the First Presidency (not in the Journal of Discourses, Joseph Smith's sermons, Sunday School materials, or anything else of that nature).

   Again, those familiar with LDS writings know this is one view, a modern view, a view pretty much unknown from the pulpit of the General Conference throughout the first 150 years of the LDS Church, one that is highly arguable, one that leaves one wondering just what "latter-day revelation" is all about, etc. and etc., but, we are assured, it is the only way to understand Mormonism because, of course, Paul Owen says so. Simply amazing.

Many Mormons reject the idea that there was ever a time before God "became" divine, and they are well within the doctrinal parameters of the Church in doing so.

   I.e., Owen is now claiming that you can reject Joseph Smith's own teaching that God has not eternally been God and remain a good, believing Mormon. Could a person openly teach that from the pulpit in General Conference today? I do not believe so. In twenty years? Maybe. We don't know. But the fact of the matter is, it has been the core of the teaching of Mormonism since 1844. Nothing in Mormonism, including all the temple ordinances, etc., makes any sense without it. Note what Owen is doing. "Hey, it is possible, if you keep your head low, that you might be able to be a little bit less heretical and polytheistic than is the norm in Mormonism. Isn't that great! Let's publish more of this from Eerdmans!"

In conclusion, I am sorry that you (along with other lightning rod internet personalities) have chosen to issue a knee jerk reaction to the publication of Dr. Millet's book.

   Just call me Sparky. Sparky Dot.

I'm sorry that you are incapable of seeing the value of exposing Christians to a broader spectrum of theological vision within the Mormon religion than many are presently familiar with.

   Yes indeed, all Christians need to be exposed to neo-orthodox Mormonism, and why didn't Baker or Zondervan get on this before Eerdmans? Will Owen lead the charge to have neo-orthodox Islam or maybe some new form of Hinduism on the shelves of Christian bookstores next? Evidently I'm just one of those "incapable" of seeing the value of this.

And I am sorry that you choose to continue down the path of reactionary, emotional and inaccurate responses to the LDS, and to cling hysterically to straw men, rather than take the time to understand the LDS in their own terms, and constructively talk (and yes, "witness") to them on the basis of accurate information, rather than the caricatures and pathetic oversimplifications which fill the shelves of the "cults" sections of our Christian bookstores.

   Honestly, if you did not know that this did not usher forth from the halls of BYU itself, would you think this was anything other than a comment in a FARMS publication rather than the words of a "Presbyterian scholar"? No wonder Owen has been the favorite "scholar" of Mormonism for years. When he's on your side, why not? His broad-brushing the entirety of the apologetics community while failing to distinguish between the good and the bad is indicative of an agenda that is now coming to full light.
   Now, Owen did not sign his comment, but everyone knew who it was who was commenting, and Owen himself, in his second set of comments, said "I forgot to sign my name at the end of the post." So, there really isn't any question as to who we are addressing here.

Christians are often very closed-minded in the sense that they have already made up their minds what Mormons believe, without actually listening to them.

   Quite true. I invite anyone to read Is the Mormon My Brother? and see who has been listening. What needs to be understood here is that Owen is again speaking a partial truth: no one has argued that Millet's views, and Robinson's views, should not be addressed (I sure have addressed them, as have all others who are serious about speaking the truth); the point is that 1) they are not the leaders of Mormonism, and there are still plenty of Mormons who believe orthodox Mormonism, and 2) none of this is even slightly relevant to having Eerdmans publish a book that is already, for all intents and purposes, in print from Deseret Book. It is not like the Mormons lack the technology to print their own material.

but accepting the fact that actual Mormon beliefs often do not correspond to the simplistic straw men which are built up and torn down by Evangelical "apologists."

   And yet another bridge goes up in smoke.

I am merely pointing out that in doing so, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance of the subject matter to those of us who specialize in the field of Mormon studies. Get over it.

   Try saying that in a real snooty British accent and it helps remove the edge, it really does.

Mormons strive to worship the God of the Bible, and intend to worship the biblical Jesus. Unfortunately, their religious worship is hindered by some very serious theological errors which at the present time place the LDS Church outside the pale of acceptable Christian orthodoxy. The problem is not that they worship the wrong God, or the wrong Jesus, but that they do not worship God "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). The Mormons, like the Samaritans of old, worship "what [they] do not know" (4:22). Like the Jews, they have a zeal for God (obviously, the true God), but not in accordance with knowledge (Rom. 10:2).

   This viewpoint needs to be understood. Let's move Mormonism aside for a moment. Let's apply this to a clearly biblical example. Let's use the neo-gnostic docetists about whom John wrote. You see, they claimed to follow Jesus. They claimed to worship God. They had even known the apostles and had been saved under their ministry! They had been leaders in the church, but you see, the church "apostatized" and now they were holding for the "true" beliefs that the now apostate church had abandoned. But, they were striving to worship the God of the Bible, and they intend to worship the biblical Jesus. It is just "unfortunate" that their religious worship is "hindered" by some very serious (but not damning---they can still be regenerate) theological errors which at the present time place them outside the pale of acceptable Christian orthodoxy, but, we need to really encourage them to keep making steps to go the right direction, so that maybe, in a few generations, they will slip across that line and become "acceptable" if not fully Reformational. Don't get us wrong, they are not worshipping the wrong God---as long as you are sincere, you must be worshipping the true God, since, of course, you say you are, and honesty is all there is to it. And though they deny the incarnation of Christ, they still have the right Jesus, because they say they do, see?" And so on and so forth. Owen says Mormons have a zeal for the true God: again, remember, he has pretty well dismissed Mormon orthodoxy as irrelevant, and defines Mormonism solely on the basis of the newly emerging BYU neo-orthodoxy, but that still involves the denial of monotheism, true eternality, and continues to include D&C 130:22 which states God has a physical body of flesh and bones.
   Owen closes with:

Sorry that it is so difficult for you to accept a bit of nuance and extend a measure of Christian charity to our Mormon friends in discussing these issues. I will leave it up to God to judge who has offered a better witness of God's grace to the Mormon people.

   Is it truly showing love for the LDS people to so completely compromise the Christian faith as to make its very foundations mere points of "discussion"? Is it truly loving to throw the apostolic example out the window and in essence say, "OK, all major Christian denominations since the inception of Mormonism have, in fact, been wrong to deny to the Mormons the fellowship that I offer to them. They can, in fact, be heirs of grace without abandoning their views, and you can worship an exalted man who lives in a body of flesh and bones on a planet that circles a star named Kolob and that is acceptable Christian worship---just not as orthodox as we would like, and still outside the 'pale,' but only in a formal sense, and not itself a hindrance to eternal life"? Is that showing them love? I say it is not. I say it is showing gross disrespect to God's truth, to God's people, to Christ's Church, and to the Mormon people who need a clarion call to repent of their idolatry and turn to the true and the living God, the true Jesus Christ, and the gospel of grace that alone can save."

The "Real" Paul Owen

For more on the White/Owen discussion, click here.

[greyfoxx39]

Inquiring minds want to know....Is urroner actually Paul Owen?

They sound amazingly alike.