I apologize, sincerely, to everyone else. I am not certain about a lot of things, but I am certain that I can’t keep trying to engage this type of discourse with Doug. It’s just too frustrating, and nobody benefits from it. Truly, I am sorry.

Let me help you out here. First, I don’t personally believe either the LDS faith or any other religion understands how God will judge us in the next life. As I’ve stated many times before, I believe all religions are man-made and that God just tolerates them. That includes many of their respective teachings and doctrines. As some else once said about you on this board, “you truly have a dizzying intellect”. That may be your greatest strength and your biggest weakness. I’m beginning to think that you and Ray are on some kind of mission here. This board started out as a place for middle-way thinking people to discuss problematic issues with doctrine and history. It would now appear that anyone with an opinion different then the “current LDS view” is attacked as I and many others have been. On several other discussion boards, mormon matters is considered a pro LDS blog. Gentlemen, just say the word and I’ll find another place to try and help those who don’t see the church the way you do understand that they’re not alone. I guess it’s true; there is in reality no room for a NOM in the church.

Ray, with your tone, I don’t think it’s at all productive to continue the discourse. You are no more interested in learning what I think about these issues and why I believe your assumptions are wrong then my bishop is. So, in the interest of civility, I’ll leave you to your delusions and bow out. Thanks for the ride, its been informative anyway…

You are right that many Christians reject us for rejecting the Trinity doctrine as an expalnation of the Bible’s teachings. In other words, you just confirmed exactly what I just said. You are agreeing with me: that they call us non-Christian because we believe differently than them and they believe the only people who are saved are those that believe certain core doctrines exactly the same as them and are thus part of their “religion”.

About them accepting each other’s baptisms, you could say “that’s more pluralistic that they accept each other’s baptisms” or you could say “they aren’t pluralistic at all because they only accept baptisms of people that believe the same as them and are thus really(by their own admission) the same religion as them” For that matter, you could just as easily say “Why are these denominations that all believe essentially the same religion to any outside onlooker so persnickity that they have to form mulitiple denominations?” Or we could admit that a baptism to a Mormon has little in common to a baptism for a non-Mormon. They are a single word that have completely different meanings. Thus we could also say “Other Christians accept or demonstrate their mutual beliefs via a group of acts that all use water and all called baptism. Mormons, who do not share their beliefs, do not accept theirs and vice versa.”

Pick your narrative. They all fit the facts, though not in equal measures. Though which we pick does say much about ourselves.

“As for the multiple levels of heaven, you’re assuming that our particular version of the next life has more merit then theirs.”

If by “theirs” you allow me to compare to Evangelicals, Yes, I most certainly believe that. Actually, I would have thought you did too. I find it hard to believe you don’t. Can you really with a straight face, Doug, tell me that you see predesinted hell forever and ever despite never having even heard the name Jesus (let’s say for a devote 14 year old Muslim) for the sake of showing God’s justice is equivalent or equal to the Mormon view of God and the afterlife? I categorically state that the Mormon view of God and the afterlife is superior in this rather common case. Please explain to me in what sense you feel these two views are of equal merrit? I’m scratching my head on this one because it just seems obvious that these aren’t of equal merrit.

“To be fair, they would be highly offended at your insistence that their assignment to the Telestial Kingdom means they were saved somehow.”

1. Since we are contextually talking about good people, they aren’t going to the Telestial Kingdom. The Telestial Kingdom’s purpose is to save people from hell. And YES a person in hell that gets to be saved in the Telestial Kingdom WILL NOT be offended at calling it salvation, I think.
2. The Terrestial kingdom IS the traditional heaven they seek with all their hearts. They will not lack a thing.
3. Most of them won’t go there after all. Most will go to the Celestial Kingdom, once they finally accept the existence of deification, which is so repugnant to them now. Those that never get over it won’t be forced to accept it. Thus the need for the Terrestrial Kingdom.

I have personally been told by several Evangelicals (including Craig Blomberg in his book) that he does not find his consignment to the Terrestrial Kingdom to be offensive.

I guess Mormonism really is more restrictive than other Christian religions. I guess I’m just too blind to see past the obvious answers and see the more complicated answer you obviously see. I’d like an explanation. Please, since I can’t see it.

Ray, I think you attend a different Mormon church then I do…

If you’re going to say that God only blesses .01% of the world’s population with these precious endowments, then we shouldn’t get offended when others take us to task.

But that’s not what we teach. That’s MUCH closer to what they teach.

“Your own analysis shows the flaw in this thinking.”

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. The rest of Christendom rejects us because we don’t believe in the Trinity, a doctrine they all have in common. As this creed sets forth the nature of the Godhead, I think they’re justified in saying we don’t worship the same God.

As for the multiple levels of heaven, you’re assuming that our particular version of the next life has more merit then theirs. I don’t believe either of us actually knows what judgment day is going to involve. To be fair, they would be highly offended at your insistence that their assignment to the Telestial Kingdom means they were saved somehow.

I still think my point is valid; the church is very dogmatic with its beliefs about priesthood, ordinances and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If you’re going to say that God only blesses .01% of the world’s population with these precious endowments, then we shouldn’t get offended when others take us to task.

Doug, this seems unfair to me. You are confusing “religion” (a set of beliefs) and “denomination.”

Your own analysis shows the flaw in this thinking. You said other Christians reject Mormons because they think we aren’t Christian. But the reality is that they think we aren’t Christian because we have different beliefs then them. Thus you are rather unfairly inflating their position compared to the Mormon one. The real truth is that they exclude all that believe differently then them (and send to hell forever no less), Mormons believe all (almost) are saved in the end. But somehow this fact was missed in your analysis all together.

The only thing I can say, Doug, is that this is a gross simplification of our actual doctrine. There is plenty of room for differing conclusions about the two claims in this quote – and I would argue that neither is correct as worded. Of course, I also would argue that too many members believe them as worded, so you have a point.

“By sending out vast armies of missionaries to Christian nations, we’re leading with our chin and therefore shouldn’t get offended when some of these good people take us to task on the soft points in our armor just as we do to theirs.”

Amen.

#29 – Great quote. I’ll be saving and using it in the future.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise of your thoughts on the matter, they do raise an interesting problem for the church. Bro. Given’s comments work both ways. I believe we all have friends and or family who are active, very happy with the church they attend, and live fulfilling lives. They could and do bear much the same type testimony about their particular religion and the blessing realized by living a life based on believing as opposed to one of doubt and skepticism. They have taken a page from Stephen Covey as well and want to “act” instead of being “acted” upon. They therefore don’t want to hear something negative about their faith, (like “your creeds are all an abomination”) but rather focus on the good that comes from being part of it.

Of course for the “one true church” this philosophy doesn’t work as members feel like they need to work with their friends and neighbors and give them the “voice of warning”. Indeed, the rejection of the one true church may damn them from ever entering the Celestial kingdom even if they later accept it in the next life. Therefore, according to everything I’ve always been taught, believing something that isn’t true isn’t going to save you. (Of course, I don’t believe any religious group has a corner on the market of truth, so being positive and recognizing the blessing of living a life based on good principles seem more in line with what God wants. But I digress…)

I think that’s why I and many like me engage on boards like this. It’s not about being swayed by better and better arguments, (sorry Ray) that smart people can put into words. It’s because the church stands up and proudly declares they have the complete truth and all other religions don’t have the power to save. By sending out vast armies of missionaries to Christian nations, we’re leading with our chin and therefore shouldn’t get offended when some of these good people take us to task on the soft points in our armor just as we do to theirs.

Now before everyone jumps up and down about how all religions believe they’re the correct one and all others are somehow lacking. You should realize that most Christian religions believe that even though they have the truth figured out, they still believe that all believing Christians will be saved in the end. We get attacked by them because they don’t believe we’re Christian, not because our principles differ from theirs, but because we don’t believe in the Christ they believe in. Most protestant religions will even accept the baptism of another faith and allow ministers who graduated from say a Methodist college, preach in a Lutheran church. Even the Catholic faith, who are just as bent on being the one true faith, don’t worry so much about Christian nations. They focus their missionary efforts on the“heathen” areas of the world.

My baseline stance has been and ever will be that I can construct a sound argument both for and against almost anything. (That’s the whole point of formal debate teams, btw – to force people to construct sound arguments for BOTH sides of an issue.) Therefore, it is up to me to weigh both the evidence AND the implications and construct whatever argument rings truest for me – whichever argument resonates with my own soul. I can’t palm that off on anyone else, and I can’t blame anyone else if I am unhappy with the result.

I can act (construct my own personal view) or be acted upon (allow someone else’s view to be mine). If I don’t do it myself, however, I will be tossed to and fro – since I probably will encounter an even more articulate argument than my current one – then a more articulate argument than that one – then a more articulate argument than that one – ad infinitum. Until I build my own, personal faith (or, more accurately, take responsibility for my own, personal faith), I am at the mercy of others – a puppet on strings that can change hands at a moment’s notice. I literally am not my own master.

I believe what I believe and see things the way I see things for one, simple reason: I have chosen and continue to choose to do so. I looked at the end result of all the options I could envision and chose the one that resonated the most with my own soul. I tweak the details constantly as I am exposed to others’ perspectives that enlighten my own, but the core foundation doesn’t change – since I built it carefully and consciously and intentionally. It belongs to me; it’s what I “know” for myself; it’s mine. I live spiritually where I choose to live, and I love my house.

I’m assuming he’s referring to his book “By the Hand of Mormon.” That’s been on my reading list for a while. Sounds like I need to make reading it a priority.

Andrew and Doug, it seems to me like you set this whole topic up for me to share this quote by Terryl Givens (from his PBS interviews for “The Mormons”):

My idea going into this study of the Book of Mormon, especially the section dealing with evidence for and against its historicity, was if the Book of Mormon is true, then it has to stand up to the most rigorous assaults and critiques that skeptics and nonbelievers can make. So I made every effort to honestly, fully investigate every criticism, every objection that’s ever been made to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. One has to suspend judgment in a number of cases, because it’s hard to say when the evidence will all be in, but at the present there are still a number of unresolved anachronisms and problems and ambiguities in the text.

But I felt satisfied that there was in every case a corresponding weight on the other side of the equation, which actually led me to, I think, some very important insights into the nature of faith and how faith works. I came to the conclusion, in large part through my study of the Book of Mormon, that for faith to operate, and for faith to have moral significance in our lives, then it has to at some level be a choice. It can’t be urged upon us by an irresistible, overwhelming body of evidence, or what merit is there in the espousing of faith? And it can’t be something that we embrace in spite of overwhelming logical rational evidence to the contrary, because I don’t believe that God expects us to hold in disregard that faculty of reason that he gave us.

But I do believe that the materials are always there of which one can fashion a life of belief or a life of denial. I believe that faith is a revelation of what we love, what we choose to embrace, and therefore I think [it] is the purest reflection of the values that we hold dear and the kind of universe that we aspire to be a part of. And so it comes ultimately as no surprise to me that the evidence will never be conclusive on one way or the other. I think that there’s a purpose behind the balance that one attains in the universe of belief. …

I agree that hearing everyone say “I know” can be unsettling. I always enjoy hearing a reason for saying “I know”. For example, a member of our stake explained why he knew, as he related, in some detail, a spiritual experience the Lord gave him.

I think knowing must alienate a lot of people in the church. 2/3 of the church is less active of the 13 million if they knew it was true why would they miss out on a big reward at the end of their life.

But they can know for more of a surety that living Christ’s principles are good and make them happy.

I think knowing and pretending to know can do more damage than good!

Also, just out of curiosity, how would you be able to determine it was “Ishmael’s grave” if you found it? Would it satisfy you if you found a grave outside NHM marked with Ishmael’s name? I’m guessing not, since it’s such a common name. That example demonstrates one of the most serious limitations about applying archaeology to prove or disprove the existence of a people is that you have to make certain speculations or assumptions about what you OUGHT to be able if find IF such-and-such were true. Of course, the problem is that those speculations and assumptions can be wrong, or it may be unclear what we ought to be able to expect to find. For example, I know I’m stumped when it comes to the question of what we OUGHT to be able to find to determine beyond question that we’d identified the grave of THE Ishmael from the BOM.