Well, there isn't much to say about me. I'm just a regular person that is a regular member of the Church. Nothing fancy or amazing has ever happened to me... well, unless you count my marriage to my beautiful wife. THAT was pretty amazing. Oh, and the birth of my kids. THAT was pretty fancy.
Feel free to contact me at nielson@lightreborn.com if you have questions or want to talk. But it's probably a good idea to put "Mormon Matters" in the subject line or you might not make it through my spam filter. Author Profile: Bruce Nielson
Well, there isn't much to say about me. I'm just a regular person that is a regular member of the Church. Nothing fancy or amazing has ever happened to me... well, unless you count my marriage to my beautiful wife. THAT was pretty amazing. Oh, and the birth of my kids. THAT was pretty fancy.
Feel free to contact me at nielson@lightreborn.com if you have questions or want to talk. But it's probably a good idea to put "Mormon Matters" in the subject line or you might not make it through my spam filter. Author Archive for Bruce Nielson
aka Why Our Personal Beliefs Really Do Matter and Matter A Lot
aka Why We All Believe This Even if We Claim We Don’t
Overheard on the Bloggernacle, or in the office, or just about everywhere:
All religions contain overlapping ideas and in this overlap exists the real voice of God.
14 Comments
The Match
Prepare for the ultimate philosophical smack down between a David and a Goliath! In one corner we have our champ Craig L. Blomberg who I have been told is one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world. Simply put, he’s brilliant.
Our contender is my former missionary companion who was never anything but a junior companion.
Craig Blomberg comes out of his corner swinging, in How Wide the Divide? His upper-cut is the logical impossibility of the Mormon concept of becoming divine and having more than one Omnipotent “being.” He says,
Even simple logic should suggest that it is contradictory to have more than one omnipotent being; otherwise, for example, not only would God be able to judge me but I would be able to judge God. Both of us could theoretically destroy each other, and then there would be no eternally existing God. (How Wide the Divide? p. 212)
I’m intrigued by those on the bloggernacle that see The Book of Mormon as fiction but inspired by God. It’s common to hear someone that holds that belief say that it doesn’t really matter if The Book of Mormon is historical or not. Continue reading…
John Nilsson just mentioned this in his post, but I wanted to start a separate thread for this news. Also, John Dehlin suggested to our panel that it would be a good idea to try to keep up with current events.
So first of all, let me say that I don’t have a very strong opinion about this case and don’t claim to understand it. As I explained to the guy I car pool with, I suspect the FLDS is breaking laws but I also suspect that there is little chance of a fair trial for the FLDS, so we may never know if things were handled properly or not. Apparently I was wrong.
In my last post I wrote about how we are all forced to take a thought and translate it into words and that this is a sloppy and imperfect process. To make matters worse, the person that has to take those words and decode them back into a thought will fail to do so correctly in many cases because they’ll get stuck on the words used, either because they don’t realize words have many meanings or because they have incentive to misunderstand.
In this post, I want to apply what we’ve discussed to a real life situation: Bruce R. McConkie’s talk on worshipping Jesus.
Case Study 2: Do Mormons Worship Jesus?
The word-offense in question comes from Bruce R. McConkie’s now famous (infamous?) talk entitled “Our Relationship with the Lord” where McConkie states that Mormons do not worship Jesus. Continue reading…
I deeply apologize for having three posts nearly in a row, but while doing research for my “Offenders for a Word” series, I came across this incredible quote from the Federalist Papers but couldn’t realistically include it in my posting. So I wanted to post it separately because it’s so good. Continue reading…
I love words - I love to read, write, talk - but I think words leave out almost everything. That [is] frustrat[ing]… feeling that what we can share with other people is so much more limited than what we actually experience… (link)– Jaron Lanier
Oh, Lord, deliver us in due time from the little, narrow prison, almost as it were, total darkness of paper, pen, and ink; - and a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language. — Joseph Smith (History of the Church 1:299)
I’ve thought a lot about the confines of language in the last several years. Having a thought and expressing that thought such that another person understands it perfectly are two very different things. Continue reading…
Only months into my mission we stopped to meet a man that had grown up Mormon but had left the Church and was now attending a Method Church with his wife and family. He was very interested in his forgotten Mormon heritage and enjoyed having us stop by to talk religion. Continue reading…
I came up with the following parable to explain to a Born Again Christian friend why I felt his belief that our actions plays no role in salvation at all was setting up a false dichotomy between influence and merit. It floated like a lead balloon, of course. He didn’t even bother to comment back to me. I later reused it with a carpool of Mormons that all seemed to enjoy it quite a bit more. In case you are wondering, yes, it’s a true story too. (Note: because I’m getting questions about this, I’ll add this - this is not a parable about the atonement nor is the judge here meant to represent Christ. This parable, as with all parables, is limited in scope with the point it makes.) Continue reading…
Many of you may have heard about a man named Joseph Smith that recently claimed to have found some plates of gold, shown to him by an angel no less, and then to have translated those plates “by the gift and power of God” into The Book of Mormon. This Book of Mormon purports to be a story about an ancient people living millennia ago.
We at the New York Ages decided to do a review of this book with such an interesting back story. But we were disappointed to find the interesting stuff stops at the back story. We’d have at least expected a book that purports to be about an ancient people to not borrow so liberally from the front pages of your local newspaper. Continue reading…
Mention the word “Trinity” to a group of Mormons and the response you’ll get probably will be “I don’t believe that false doctrine of Satan!” [1] Mormons often even feel more kinship with religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also reject the Trinity doctrine, than we do with orthodox Christians on this topic. But do we Mormons even understand what the doctrine of Trinity really is? Continue reading…
April 1986: President Benson presides over his first General Conference. Did anyone listening to his humble little talk, called “Cleaning the Inner Vessel,” realize that it would send ripples through the Church and start a massive change in Church policy and doctrine? Continue reading…
Consider the following lists of attributes of God: Continue reading…
There seems to be a lot of head scratching over the converted Lamanites suddenly taking the name “Anti-Nephi-Lehies” in The Book of Mormon. (Alma 23:17) To our modern ears it sounds like the Lamanites decided that they were against all that the Nephites stood for. It’s like some new convert coming to love The Book of Mormon so she decides to name her son “Anti-Mormon.” Continue reading…
I am not an Obama supporter and this article is not politically motivated. It is actually a commentary on how the media often creates a controversy rather than reporting an existing controversy. This issue has been weighing on my mind since the Danzig case and the Salt Lake Tribune’s quick retraction of the headline. The Samantha Power story seemed like an apt example.
‘Hillary Clinton’s a monster’: Obama aide blurts out attack in Scotsman interview
Once upon a time there was a young man that grew up in a wonderful Mormon family. Though he had no regrets about growing up Mormon, he had to admit he was different in one way from his family and others; he was innately an intellectual. Now by this, I do not mean he had a better intellect that others, far from it. By this I only mean he was less spiritually intuitive and often found himself trying to use his intellect on things even if there weren’t enough facts to draw any realistic conclusions.
One day, after many years of finding this that and the other that he wasn’t sure he liked in his religion’s history, he came across an article on FAIR that made a real impact on him. It was called “‘Believest thou…?’: Faith, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Psychology of Religious Experience” by Wendy Ulrich, Ph.D Continue reading…
Several posts ago, I wrote about the morality of other Christians referring to Mormons as non-Christian without explaining their non-standard use of the word “Christian.” Far from claiming that they should call us “Christians” I suggested how they could morally call us “non-Christians” without misrepresenting our beliefs.
That article was actually a heavily modified letter I had written to an Evangelical in defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses, not Mormons. In retrospect it was a mistake for me to change it to be a defense of Mormons because it brought the subject matter too close to home and, I suspect, caused people to miss my point. This new article is also a letter to a Protestant friend in defense of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This time I’m going to learn from my mistakes and just leave it as a defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It should be obvious how this topic relates to Mormonism. Continue reading…
Let’s perform a thought experiment. Pretend like there is no Mormon Church at all. But one day Jesus Christ returns and the Millennium beings. Christians around the world rejoice! They were right all along about Jesus being the Son of God. But after Jesus has been here for a while, word gets out; it turns out that many of the doctrines of all Christian religions weren’t true after all. For example, substance theology turned out to not be true. Instead Jesus and the Father are separate people that share a common will. Their oneness is complete, but so is their physical separateness. The Trinity is a social Trinity. It is true that there is only one God made up of three persons, but in another sense, but only a lesser sense, it might be appropriate to say there are three Gods.
Then word comes again: there isn’t just a single heaven or hell as tradition held. There are actually three kingdoms or glories that people can attain to. And against the traditional beliefs of most Christians, it turns out that all good hearted people of all religions go to the second heaven which is called the Terrestrial Kingdom. Even an ethical atheist can go to that heaven if he accepts Christ now. The Atonement of Christ saves all good people of all religions. The Terrestrial Kingdom is everything Christians have hoped and dreamed for; they live with Christ forever as angels and servants of God!
Many weep over their lost children and loved ones that chosen a life of unrepentant sin and have been thrust to hell. But Jesus announces a new doctrine: those in hell can accept Him there, repent, and change. Though it may take a while, perhaps 1000 years, all but a few in hell will be eventually redeemed by the Grace of Christ and will go to the lowest of the heavens: the Telestial Kingdom. The hell experience itself is a work of justice, as all believed, but also a work of great love and mercy. The hell experience allows people to repent, change, accept Christ, and have joy. Hell itself is Eternal, but a person’s stay there doesn’t have to be! God’s love does not stop at the bounds of hell! Continue reading…
One stumbling block to communication between Mormons and other types of Christians is our use of the word “church” — sometimes at least — as a synonym for “religion.” The word “church,” as used in the New Testament, meant an assembly or congregation. (Presumably the entire body of believers in Jesus in the case of the New Testament.) Modernly the word “church” has also come to mean the building that congregation meets in, as well as the specific denomination that congregation is aligned with. By comparison, the word “religion” usually refers to a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe. Even an atheist is a religion in this sense. Mormons somtimes use “church” and “religion” more or less interchangeably because of our belief in a restoration of a set of beliefs simultaneously with a restoration of authority.
As a Baptist once told me: “It’s the utmost of arrogance that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons think they are the only true Church! As a Baptist I don’t believe we’re the only true Church!”
I’ve heard many Mormons opine that such a statement can’t be true. Do they really think there are several different sets of religious beliefs that get one to heaven? Continue reading…
The following article, despite appearances, is not about whether or not Jesus existed. I accept that He did exist as an article of faith. This article is actually about a certain flawed way of thinking that we all sometimes fall into. As such, I admit up front that I know next to nothing about the historicity of Jesus. If you think you’re going to learn a lot about this subject by reading my post, you’re wrong. All that I know on this subject I got off Wikipedia from this article. Go read it yourself and draw your own conclusions. Maybe someday I’ll get serious about the historicity of Jesus and actually make a real attempt to study it. But in the mean time, bear in mind that this article has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed. And how does this relate to Mormonism? I believe it will apply across the whole Mormon spectrum.
Not long ago I came across someone on the internet on Yahoo Answers asking for evidence that Jesus even existed. Several decent answers were posted pointing to the non-Biblical sources that refer to, or seem to refer to, Jesus. These are: Continue reading…
I came across the following story while reading The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints by Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton. It deeply saddened me and I felt the need to share it with someone. My wife became the unwilling person I shared it with. Part way through the story, she asked me to stop because it horrified her so deeply. But I told her that I needed to finish telling the story because it was a reminder to me that the 19th century world was alien to a 21st century middle class American living comfortably in my nice neighborhood. My Mormon ancestors dealt with horrors and difficult moral choices that I hope to never face. Continue reading…
In my last post I discussed one possible view of the Book of Mormon as a basic doctrinal text and thus a foundation for Mormon doctrine. Having covered this topic in a Gospel Principles class, I then noted to the class that the Doctrine and Covenants was the “advanced doctrine” book. Consider the following paritial list:
Doctrines of Exaltation (i.e. highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom)
1. Need for temples (D&C 109; Kirtland Temple Dedication; See also D&C 84)
2. Washing and Anointing (D&C 88:139; D&C 124:37,39)
3. Temple endowment (D&C 105:12)
4. Celestial marriage (D&C 131:1-4)
5. Exaltation is progressive/progression (D&C 131:4)
6. Exaltation is Godhood (D&C 76:58; D&C 132:20)
7. Exaltation as “Eternal Lives” or continuation of seed (D&C 132:20-24)
8. Salvation of the dead (D&C 128; See also D&C 137)
9. Two types of priesthood (Aaronic and Melchizedek) (D&C 107:1)
10. Calling and election made sure (D&C 132 may cover this; D&C 131:5 is more direct)
11. Priesthood keys restored (D&C 110) Continue reading…
A few months ago I decided to try an experiment as part of my Sunday School lesson in Gospel Principles. This was a fairly advanced Gospel Principles group that had no new converts at the time. I came into class and issued the following challenge to the class.
Challenge: You need to write a book that will introduce the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world in very plain and straight forward teachings. It must not be ambiguous like the Bible. You must accomplish all of the following:
- It must teach everything you need to know to enter the Celestial kingdom. It will not teach about Exaltation. That’s the advanced book coming later.
- It must clarify every doctrine that has been confused or debated over the ages.
- You may - indeed should - quote from the Bible. Make sure you included all the most significant passages that would be “required reading” for those interested in receiving salvation.
- It should show that the coming of Christ was long predicted and was the plan from the foundation of the world.
Evangelical Christians have been very vocal over the last century in denouncing Mormons as a “non-Christian” religion. Even the more moderate Catholic and Protestant sects have followed suit. Should I care if my Christian neighbors call me a non-Christian despite my belief in Jesus as Son of God, God the Son, and Savior of the world?
With the Mitt Romney’s presidential run I’ve seen much written on the subject of Mormons being “non-Christians.” While some reporting is better than others, the general consensus of the media seems to be that “Christians” don’t consider Mormons to be Christians, but Mormons want to be called Christians desperately and feel hurt or left out because their “neighbors” won’t call them “Christians” too. As of yet, I’ve never seen a single media article on the subject ask the most obvious questions of all:
- How do you define “Christian?”
- Is your definition of “Christian” the dictionary definition or a non-standard one?
- What is it about Mormon teachings that falls outside of your definition of “Christian?”
My wife says I have a naturally skeptical personality, sometimes to the point of pessimism. I have probably passed up being a millionaire many times by refusing to take serious any network marketing scheme. And come to think of it, I’ve probably let many a conspiracy run amok due to my refusal to believe in conspiracies unless there is, ahem, some sort of evidence worth mentioning.
So maybe this is why I can relate to C.S. Lewis’ character, Puddleglum. Puddleglum is a wet blanket who is skeptical of just about everything. He’s as much a joy to read as he is joyless. Continue reading…
