However, because I believe this doesn’t give me a right to bash what others believe or to try to prove them wrong.

I just wrote a post entitled “Bridging the Mormon/Evangelical Divide” that addresses some of the ideas you bring up here and more. I’d love to hear what you have to say about it.

http://www.graceforgrace.com

Just for the record, I hope that’s part of eternity – only that, as with all other things, we’ve perfected it by then. That’s a life I can look forward to living. *grin*

“It is no wonder those outside our church think we teach that, when some members can’t stop saying it.” LoL, maybe they can’t stop saying it because they can’t imagine a world without it. Really, when people have attacked me on this issue, I want to respond by saying, “yeah, and your point is? Isn’t sex a good thing?” Without it being “Doctrine” perhaps we should not be teaching it, but honestly, I don’t see what is offensive about the idea.

1) and Catholics and all others who rely in any way on spiritual manifestations – This isn’t a “Mormon” thing.

2) Matthew 16:18 doesn’t necessarily condemn it. That is one interpretation, but it’s not the only reasonable one.

3&4) Protestants don’t see a necessary positing of authority in mankind; they can posit that God is the authority, so what he says (His Word) is seen as having more intrinsic authority than what man claims. You and I disagree with that position, but it’s the only logical one that was and is available to Protestants – especially given their founders’ statements about knowing they did not have “invested authority” from God. Their authority was seen as the Word of God, meaning if you challenge that authority, you challenge the very foundation of their claim. Frankly, I believe the Book of Mormon is a MUCH more serious “attack” on Protestantism and was the biggest reason for the rejection of Joseph’s claims – not his claim to be a prophet. That claim would have made him nothing more than another Pope-wannabe, in their minds. They reject Catholicism; they revile Mormonism.

5) Correct.

6) This one is for JfQ to answer first.

7) Only the ones between the C’s and P’s qualify as wars in the sense that JfQ used. The Danite/Missourian battles didn’t rise nearly to the classification of “war”, but I have no problem classifying them in the same broad category of regrettable religious conflict that caused death.
Mormons claiming to be the Restoration of true Christianity, necessitated by Catholicism’s apostasy and Protestantism’s lack of priesthood authority does little if anything to unite Christians. I can’t disagree with that, but I would add that the only way to unite Christians without requiring some of them to give up their beliefs is non-doctrinally. I am fine with that. I would love to see all Christians, including Mormons, work side-by-side in true Christian charity to address the “temporal salvation” of mankind while admitting and allowing doctrinal differences.

“By their fruits ye shall know them.” “Not everyone that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord . . .” I can work with those whose specific ideas of salvation I don’t accept. That’s the unity I would like to see.

I know I have misinterpreted posts in my day, but I have never messed up like I have with your post. Thank you so much for clarifying. I am so glad I got a chance to re-read your former post in the light of your latest post. You have a lot to offer – thank you!!

My summary point is that I don’t think that “the problem of authority” as defined by the well-established Mormon position (like we see with LeGrand Richards) is a very useful perspective for historically, ecumenically or scripturally bridging the divisions within Christendom. (In other words as a Restored church I’m not persuaded that much was ’solved’ as much as a new modality, take it or leave it, was introduced to the world.) I think we Christians should find bridges to Mormonism, but I don’t think the “authority issue” is the most promising either to RCs or to Ps.

RL: Granted. How did Wesleyan determine the difference between the Spirit’s callings and indigestion? The same question applies to LDS members today.

Q: If any group shouldn’t be “denying the apple tree” (to paraphrase BY) — if such an argument even mattered more than hyperbolically — it is any of the branches of Christian Restorationism.

RL: The incident was not only unnecessary, but condemned according to Matt 16:18.

Q: Authoritarianism and authority are different matters entirely. As to the latter, there is valid New Testament scriptural and early Christian church historical basis for Protestant interpretation of calling and ecclesiology.

RL: I am not following……

Q: There is a unity of faith — at least since Vatican II — with Protestants and Catholics on matters of foundational Truth and where authority ultimately rests: in God.

RL: Authority has always rested in God – pre-Vatican II and Post Vatican II.

Q: Quibbles over manifestation of His authority — to the extent the Richards quote reflects and defines the LDS position — is not quite the way that RCs and Ps see their differences.

RL: C/P differences are well documented.

Q: There are ecclesiological and, especially, sacramental theology and liturgy differences among the denominations of Christendom, sure, that probably still shouldn’t divide the way they do.

RL: Explain…….

Q: And especially so considering the religious wars of the past.

RL: Between the Danites and the Missourians or the C and the Ps?

Q: However, defining or explaining Christendom’s intramural divisions through the LDS lens and world-view of “the problem of authority” and “Great Apostasy” isn’t very illuminating, historical nor useful line of argument toward addressing or healing Christendom’s divide(s).

RL: Huh?

Smith’s earliest claims to authority follow the Wesleyan argument and modality of being called out and authorised by the Spirit. If any group shouldn’t be “denying the apple tree” (to paraphrase BY) — if such an argument even mattered more than hyperbolically — it is any of the branches of Christian Restorationism. This aspect of LDS history is well documented in Quinn’s Hierarchy series. The LDS church’s more enduring claim to revealed and restored priesthood authority and governing hierarchy isn’t proved nor a historical restoration. (It is a new modality that is more antagonistic to RC than is Protestantism in my view). The “it’s either us or the Catholics” argument of LeGrand Richard’s Marvelous Work and a Wonder just isn’t an accurate trifurcation when it comes to Christian religious studies.

Authoritarianism and authority are different matters entirely. As to the latter, there is valid New Testament scriptural and early Christian church historical basis for Protestant interpretation of calling and ecclesiology. There is a unity of faith — at least since Vatican II — with Protestants and Catholics on matters of foundational Truth and where authority ultimately rests: in God. Quibbles over manifestation of His authority — to the extent the Richards quote reflects and defines the LDS position — is not quite the way that RCs and Ps see their differences. There are ecclesiological and, especially, sacramental theology and liturgy differences among the denominations of Christendom, sure, that probably still shouldn’t divide the way they do. And especially so considering the religious wars of the past. However, defining or explaining Christendom’s intramural divisions through the LDS lens and world-view of “the problem of authority” and “Great Apostasy” isn’t very illuminating, historical nor useful line of argument toward addressing or healing Christendom’s divide(s).

In a related rant, it always bugs me when Mormons say we teach that we will have sexual intercourse in the afterlife. NOTHING in our canon makes that claim. We simply teach that we will be able to create spirit children, as an integral part of becoming like God. We have NO IDEA whatsoever how that will happen – and NOTHING in our canon says that’s how we were created as spirit children or how Jesus was conceived. It is no wonder those outside our church think we teach that, when some members can’t stop saying it.

(Everyone else, don’t throw out the “after the manner of the flesh” phrase from the BofM. The actual verse – I Nephi 11:18 says, “Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.” That says NOTHING about the role of the Father in the process; the only thing that it says for certain is that Mary gave birth to Jesus in the same “manner of the flesh” as all mothers do. Everything else is speculation, even if it was the speculation of certain priesthood leaders. Such speculation is not obvious or even consistent with the text, since the verse says *explicitly* that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth.)

Sorry, can’t really respond now. (Weekends only for me) Would you mind if I emailed you? I really can’t respond again for this week. I think I can get away with email though. I promise to keep it short.

Given our current scientific knowledge of in vitro fertilization and other conception methods, it could have happened in a variety of ways that do not necessitate “human/Human” sexual intercourse.

I am in full acceptance of your admiration of the Catholic Church,

I appreciate your last post, very much, Admittedly, I am left confused about your understanding of the virgin birth of Christ and the fact that you belief of the nature of the Father is of flesh and bone?

How do you reconcile this idea?

I agree with those who have expressed an affinity with Catholicism. There is much to admire, and conversely we are often attacked equally vociferously by the same groups. Today McCain’s pastor is being excoriated (in the media anyway) for calling the Catholic church the whore of the earth. In my experience, most LDS have believed that either we or Catholicism have the truth because Protestants are the apple that denies the apple tree (to paraphrase BY). What I find interesting now is the trend away from authority entirely (a la the megachurches, and even the fundamentals of Protestantism which relies on “traditional” authority – which is code for no authority at all or “if I have a Bible, read it, and imitate what it says, I have authority to do so.”) Some of the critics of LDS and Catholicism share an anti-authoritarian bent that is in vogue in religion right now.

I’m not supposed to post during weekdays… but wanted to say things again for the exchange. I feel the same way about you too.

I know it didn’t really come across in our exchange, but I can’t begin to express my gratitude for the Catholic Church and all the good it does/has done. I’ve always felt a certain closeness to it despite the “alien” (I don’t mean this in a bad way) trappings that I’m not so familiar with.

Here are my beliefs, btw: (modified from yours intentionally)

I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father; was born of a virgin; lived, died, and rose again for the salvation of those who believe [have faith] and obey Christ; I believe Jesus is fully man and fully divine and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God.

Again, I think this is a classic case of seeing what we believe, ironically with the Mormons being the Bible literalists in this discussion.