Blogotional
John: As someone with a feel for this subject - 
- I can add these thoughts.
Recognizing that "we" Mormons and "you" Evangelicals (and most creedal Christians) will always reject most, if not all, of Mormonism's heterodox doctrines, I can tell you that our approach to those doctrines is really quite benign. What I was taught as a young missionary, and what I have always believed, is that in teaching our beliefs we must remember what Paul taught about giving people milk before we give them meat. (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12). If investigators of our message cannot bear meat yet, we give them milk. Once they are ready for the weightier doctrines, they can accept or reject them; and more than a few do. The idea that we reel people in and then they can't leave after they hear the heavier (and to creedals, heretical) doctrines relies in the cultish view of Mormonism. I really believe that anyone who spends any time at all around Mormons knows that there is no mind control going on. The very idea is actually kind of laughable, but for the most part I don't find it very amusing at all.
Anyway, just some ideas from your co-blogger in another venue.
Lowell
As a convert to the LDS church (42 years now), it amazes me when I hear things such as, we are told to lie and give just a limited, restricted version of our doctrine until the person is in the fold. So therefore we are liars.
As I said, 42 years and I haven't heard that one from our leaders
either.
Sue, you make a good point. I have never shied away from responding to any question about our church, nor have I ever been taught or urged to do so. What I have done is try to explain the basic doctrines as a foundation to understanding the more complex ones. I think that simply makes sense. Besides, in the end it all comes down to spiritual confirmation for us. That's foreign to most other faiths, but fundamental to us.
I was a mathematics major in college and a teaching assistant for a calculus course. I also served two years in Japan as an LDS missionary. In Japan, about 1% of the people are Christians (about 10% of those are Mormons), so there is vast ignorance about Christ. For example: The form of a cross happens to be the Chinese character used for the number 10, so that when a Japanese person sees a cross on a Christian church, he thinks it refers to the "Ten Commandments" (the movie was shown in Japan and rereleased when I was a missionary in 1969). So just telling Japanese people about Christ requires starting with very simple points. This is not lying about Jesus, but making him comprehensible.
In teaching calculus, it is not "lying" to start people with analytic geometry and functions. These are true in and of themselves, and are foundational to understanding the more complex stuff that builds on it.
There is no point in talking about the more unusual aspects of the LDS Church doctrines until a person understands who Joseph Smith was and the basic reasons he is believed by Mormons to have had prophetic authority. The Book of Mormon has all sorts of sophisticated information in it that attests to its authenticity as reflecting its origin in 600 BC Jerusalem, but a person doesn't appreciate any of that if he has not read the book and considered its message reaffirming the reality of the Biblical narrative, including Christ's resurrection and His position as Jehovah both before his birth and after his resurrection. The most important thing is for people to make a decision for themselves whether they accept the Book of Mormon as a true record or not, and thus that Smith's mission was authentically given by God. If they decide in the negative, they are wasting their time with other details of LDS teachings and belief. And frankly, the missionaries have better things to do with their time than just satisfy idle curiosity, when there are people who really want to ponder the basic question of authenticity.
I understand that many Christians feel that they should avoid asking God for specific information such as "Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired?" They believe that believing the Bible is simply a matter of rationality and logic based on evidence. To me personally, that seems to de-emphasize faith. After all, the logic of the Bible fails to persuade a lot of otherwise rational people. As was the case with Cornelius the centurion, I think the Holy Spirit has a lot more to do with conversion to Christianity than many Christians are willing to admit. I certainly do not remember there being an admission test of Bible knowledge being administered when Billy Graham called people to come forward and embrace Christ as their Savior. Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Ghost would remind them of things he had taught. I think it also tells us when something we hear is pointing us in the direction of God and Christ.
For
Sue, you make a good point. I have never shied away from responding to any question about our church, nor have I ever been taught or urged to do so.
I wouldn't say people are lying. I do think there is a difference in terms of accesssibility though.
Lowell, if I asked you about the temple ceremonies, which are pretty crucial in the LDS as I understand it - would you answer and explain what happens? As I see there is a differenc ein terms of what is accessible and what can be discussed. I don;t hav eany restrictions on what I can talk about with regard to my faith or what my church does or believes.
Catez, here's a post from the blog John and I co-author that addresses your question about the temple:
http://www.article6blog.com/2007...mormon-secrets/
Read the whole post, but especially the latter part.
Thanks.
Lowell
Lowell,
I had trouble downloading your link but did read it. I wasn't really interested in politics actually.
It doesn;t answer my question. I do know what happens in temples - but not from those whioare in the LDS. Some ex-Mormons have been open about it. My point is that there is a difference in accessibility, and you do have restrictions on what you can talk about. Thus it isn't possible for An LDS memeber to be completely open about LDS belief and practice. That's just a fact.
And I don't agree with what you linked in t'rms of saying that the temple ceremonies are similar to Protestant practice. That's a huge stretch and really not accurate at all.
The thing for me is that I simply raised the issue of the difference in accessibility. You've referred me to a piece of political apologetics that doesn't address that . And that is the difference - I don't have any restrictions on what I can talk about in regard to my faith or what my church does or believes. So whether one likes it or not there is a big difference in terms of accessibility and being able to talk anbout crucial aspects of one's beliefs and practices. That is a logical observation with regard to the facts.
I understand, Catez. I was not referring you to the political discussion, but to the LDS perspective on the sacredness to us of the temple ceremonies.
I am a little puzzled by your comment that I said temple ceremonies are "similar to Protestant practice." If I conveyed to you that idea, I apologize. There's nothing Protestant about the temples, or in Mormonism for that matter. We believe in restored Christianity. not schismatic sectarianism. That's not intended to be an argument, just an attempt at clarity. It is a fact.
The point of this discussion is not accessiblity, although I understand that is important to you. My church does not conceal crucial doctrines from people until they have been lured into the fold, as some critics suggest. If an investigator wants to know exactly what happens in our temples before joining the Church, he/she is free not to accept the faith and to refuse baptism. Even at the point when a member of the Church becomes worthy to enter one of our temples and participate in the ordinances there, free will and choice are emphasized throughout. Some people reject the temple ceremonies and never go back. Religion is like that; people choose what they wish to believe, and anyone with real experience among the Mormons knows that is true of us as well.
Thanks for your ideas; they keep me on my toes.
Lowell
Hi Lowell,
Thanks for your reply. Accessibility is very much the point of this discussion, because the lack of accessibility is I think what leads to possible accusations of untruths being told.
The point of this post was not sectarianism however - and you have just taken the opportunity to try and take a potshot with that. The fact that different expressions of aspects of Christianity exist doesn't preclude the fact that we Protestants agree on much more than we differ on - i.e. orthodoxy. Neither does it change the fact that we are open about what we believe and do. As for the point about similarity with Protestantism - thankyou for clarifying that. The post you linked to infers it. However that post also makes a correct connection in mentioning Freemasonry, which has provided basis for the temple ceremonies.
The LDS does conceal crucial doctrines, that is a factual observation - because you are restricted in what you can tell people. As I understand it a person needs to be a Mormon in good standing with the LDS for about a year before even entering a temple, so there is a difference here. Yes, they may not go back after visiting - and there are those who don't. This only highlights that they have to wait a year before being able to discover one of your most crucial practices because you have a restriction on what you can speak of. Your temple practices are not a minor aspect of what you believe.
If an investigator wants to know exactly what happens in our temples before joining the Church, he/she is free not to accept the faith and to refuse baptism.
Lowell this could read as if to say that a person will be told what the the temple ceremonies involve. But my understanding, and what you do seem to keep dancing around 
, is that they are NOT told. In other words, if an investigator wants to know exactly what happens in your temples they won't be told. If they aren't satisifed with not being told they reject it - but that is then not accepting a crucial and central aspect of Mormonism, and yet they can't be told what it involves. This is a factual difference between Mormonism and Christianity - while it's true that it takes time to discover aspects of a faith, it's also true that our beliefs and practices are accessible and a person can expect to ask and receive answers on anything we believe and practice. The LDS does not have this openness.
We don't have secret oaths, hand signs, and passwords we must say, or a special name some-one in the church gives us, and which we must keep secret. Ex-LDS members have posted these things online, but the LDS itself restricts discussion of them. The point here is that there is a difference between discovering things that are accessible over a period of time, which does occur in Christian churches, and not being able to find out about crucial things because of church imposed restrictions, which does occur with the LDS. That difference is a fact.
Sorry, forgot to close the italics for the quote. Here we are:
If an investigator wants to know exactly what happens in our temples before joining the Church, he/she is free not to accept the faith and to refuse baptism.
Lowell this could read as if to say that a person will be told what the the temple ceremonies involve. But my understanding, and what you do seem to keep dancing around , is that they are NOT told. In other words, if an investigator wants to know exactly what happens in your temples they won't be told. If they aren't satisifed with not being told they reject it - but that is then not accepting a crucial and central aspect of Mormonism, and yet they can't be told what it involves. This is a factual difference between Mormonism and Christianity - while it's true that it takes time to discover aspects of a faith, it's also true that our beliefs and practices are accessible and a person can expect to ask and receive answers on anything we believe and practice. The LDS does not have this openness.
We don't have secret oaths, hand signs, and passwords we must say, or a special name some-one in the church gives us, and which we must keep secret. Ex-LDS members have posted these things online, but the LDS itself restricts discussion of them. The point here is that there is a difference between discovering things that are accessible over a period of time, which does occur in Christian churches, and not being able to find out about crucial things because of church imposed restrictions, which does occur with the LDS. That difference is a fact.
Catez, I have said about everything that can be said by a faithful believing member of my church about the temples. What goes on there is most sacred to us, and I hope you will respect that. Repeating on the internet what former Mormons or enemies of the Church have said about that sacred subject is not the kind of respect we hope we will get. I ask you to refrain from doing that in the future.
I didn't mean to take a potshot and apologize for coming across that way.
Best,
Lowell
Hi Lowell,
We seem to have strayed from the original point. The original point was that John was talking about not saying people are lying if they aren't lying. My point was thqat I wouldn't say people are lying, and to look at what I think can be misunderstood in terms of that - which is that there is a difference in terms of accessibility. I responded to your comment also because I think it related to that - that there are restrictions. My original question to you was rhetorical, which was evident from the following sentences and my follow up comment.
I would add that I am not under any restrictions regarding discussing spiritual matters - and I do not consider my general comments untoward at all. If I think it is germane to a discussion to make general mention of certain things - such as secret signs, passwords or the like, then I will. I think that is central to discussing the differences. I wasn't specific with regard to the details although I could have been - but no, Lowell, I'm not under any restriction and I did not make any statement that was derogatory. I simply stated facts.
Repeating on the internet what former Mormons or enemies of the Church have said about that sacred subject is not the kind of respect we hope we will get.
I think you are being too heavy here, and inaccurate. You have been very quick to call people enemies of the Mormon church without knowing who they are. And I see no problem with former Mormons talkng about their experiences - again, I have not said anything derogatory at all on things which I do not consider sacred. But this in a nutshell highlights what the point is Lowell - you have restrictions on what you can talk about - and if some-one is very general and just touches on a few things you want to restrict them also. I would say that I expect a certain level of respect too - in that I expect that stating facts without being derogatory is something I can do without this unnecessary over-reaction. You want it both ways Lowell - inferring that you receive unfair criticism but also being critical of Christians at the same time, e.g. the unnnecessary and off topic schismatic bit. You may receive some unfair criticism - so do Christians. In fact I think we receive a lot of criticism because what we believe and practice is so out there in the open.
Getting back to this:
I have never shied away from responding to any question about our church, nor have I ever been taught or urged to do so.
Factually - well yes you do shy away, and have been taught to do so. I'm not being derogatory here but this is a fact Lowell - and it has happened here on this comment thread. I think you may not have seen it that way but that is certainly what happens and the experience people have - which goes to my original point . The point I make is that I would say that there are restrictions (for Mormons) and that there is an inaccessibility on crucial Mormon beliefs. I find your response to th
that somewhat over-defensive, and emotive sounding. No offense intended but I am not under LDS restrictions, and in a discussion in which evangelical Christians are by inference and implication painted as the ones at fault I think looking at the differences in openness and accessibility is relevant. I'd ask you to respect that.
Fair enough, Catez. I know you are under no restrictions. It was simply a request. You can do with it what you wish.
A question for you: If you, as a Christian, make a promise to God not to use profanity, are you thereafter "under restriction?" We LDS believe we have promised God not to discuss the temple ceremonies outside the temples, even among ourselves. I don't think that's a restriction imposed on me by anyone other than myself. Many former Mormons no longer feel themselves bound by that promise to God, apparently.
All that said, I do understand that reduced access to some Mormon practices does cause some to wonder what we have to hide. We just live with that. As I say, however, access is "reduced," not forclosed. As you've noted, apparently much information about the temple ceremonies is accessible on the Web. (I don't know, I've never checked.) That most of us Mormons won't talk about that information doesn't mean it's unavailable, apparently. Can you see the distinction I am making between "secret" and "sacred?"
Lowell,
Profanity is a matter of conscience - although if one were to use it all the time and not show some growth in the fruit of the spirit then I think a fellow Christian would give some advice. But the point is that this is not secret. In fact you are able to mention it because it is open. I also think you misunderstand Christianity if you think it is about "making promises". That's a whole other topic, but briefly there is a distinction here that you have missed - regarding confession, repentance, forgiveness, and the empowerment of the Spirit in sanctification. This is not the same as secret oaths, signs, passwords etc.
When I say restriction I am using it in the context of what we are discussiing - whether or not doctrines and what information on what occurs in practice are accessible to those enquiring. You are, I think, hedging somewhat by saying you think it is a restriction imposed by yourself. Yes, you are binding yourself to it - but the secrecy is an LDS held position - and it creates inaccessibility. The difference is quite evident - you are free to ask me about profanity, but I can't ask you diretly about temple ceremonies. Well I can, but you can't answer. I don't see why you have difficulty just admitting that, and admitting that some of your most crucial beliefs and practices are not accessible.
That most of us Mormons won't talk about that information doesn't mean it's unavailable, apparently.
Now you are shifting the goal posts Lowell. You and I both know that the the availabilty of that material is from those not under LDS restrictions. You can't imply openness when it isn't there, i.e. on one hand you refer to "enemies" and on the other seem to want to use non-LDS people's disclosures to shore up your argument. But yes, photographs of temple ceremonies and transcripts of what occurs - both the old and the revised ceremonies, are online. But no - that doesn't indicate openness on the part of the LDS - the LDS won't make that info available. In fact those who are open about their experiences are referred to as "enemies" or "anti-Mormon". That isn't consistent with being accessible on matters considered very crucial in the LDS.
Can you see the distinction I am making between "secret" and "sacred?"
Lowell what I see is that you want to say it's sacred and not admit it's secret. Factually it's both in Mormonism - sacred and secret. For me it's neither - it's not sacred and I don't feel any obligation to secrecy either. Yes, I think I understand your position, but I also think you might consider that inaccessibility and a lack of openness of crucial doctrine and practice is an issue. It's particularly relevant for Christians when those doctrines and practrices are incompatible with Christian belief and practice, and Christians are at the same time being criticised by those who hold them.
Catez, I think you and I have created a classic blogospheric comment thread that ends up in a discussion about something fairly far afield from the original post.
To sum up:
1. I apologize for making the remark about schismatic sectarianism. I really meant it as descriptive, but it was careless and insensitive of me to use those terms, regardless of how I feel about their accuracy. Sorry!
2. The temple ceremonies of my faith (about which you seem to know a great deal, which is presumably the result of a fair amount of study on your part) are sacred to me and my co-religionists. We won't discuss them outside the temples, and so no, they are not freely accessible to persons not holding a current LDS temple recommend. That can certainly be interpreted as "secret." You and anyone else who is curious about Mormonism are free to reject our message if you find that inaccessibility crucial.
3. You clearly have strong disagreements with Mormon practice and doctrine. All I can say about that is, you have a lot of company! I do not pretend that a little discussion on my friend John's blog is going to resolve those disagreements, which are matters of faith and conscience. But I have enjoyed the discussion. Blessings to you!
Lowell
Lowell,
Thanks for that.
I think you and I have created a classic blogospheric comment thread that ends up in a discussion about something fairly far afield from the original post.
No, for the most part we've been very in line with issues raised in the original post - concerning veracity or the perceived lack of it.
You clearly have strong disagreements with Mormon practice and doctrine.
I disagree - but I don;t see the need for a qualification, i.e. "strong disagreements" - as opposed to what - "weak disagreements". I would say I can provide a robust response. Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity - my disagreement with Mormonism is like my disagrement with other religions - they are not compatible. I am referring to belief and practice when I say that.
I do not pretend that a little discussion on my friend John's blog is going to resolve those disagreements, which are matters of faith and conscience.
Well I don't think we were aiming to resolve all points of difference. I agree that would be beyond the scope of John's combox. But the issue regarding openness and accessibility I think we made some headway on. I would say these are matters of faith, conscience and being consistent. Good discussion, thanks.
You and anyone else who is curious about Mormonism are free to reject our message if you find that inaccessibility crucial.
Oops, meant to include this above -Lowell, just to end off - the point is that what takes place in the temple is a crucial part of Mormonism - it isn't peripheral or secondary. So people can't know what your message is in regard to some very crucial aspects - and yes, I think that would be a reason for not accepting it. We've covered the rest on that already - but accesibility is crucial when it concerns crucial doctrine and practice. And I think people can possibly perceive that screcy as a lack of veracity. I see it as a restriction. Thanks for the discussion.
Catez wrote, "Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity . . . "
Surely you knew, when your wrote them: "them's fighting words!" In one phrase you put down the name and very reason for existence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That's much more belligerent than Lowell letting slip the fact of "schism" within the community of creedal Christians.
At article6blog.com, John freely refers to himself as a "creedal Christian," while graciously allowing Lowell to call himself a "non-creedal" Christian if he so chooses.
Christ has warned us that he will judge us in the same way we judge others. He alone will judge who is Christian and who is not. You have no business usurping his role in the matter.
Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com
At article6blog.com, John freely refers to himself as a "creedal Christian," while graciously allowing Lowell to call himself a "non-creedal" Christian if he so chooses.
What John "graciously allows" as an individual is not binding on me. John does not represent me, and as far as I know does not claim to speak for all Christians. Christianity has a history. I've always distinguished between Mormonism and Christianity, and was simply stating a fact. Not fighting words at all - Lowell and I were not debating the term. I will continue to make the distinction desptie your attemopt to turn it into something it isn't. I was making a point about compatibilty in belief and church practice. What I do know is that the LDS has not always used the term Christian to speak otfitself, and that this is a move in recent years which occurred after a PR consultant advised it. However the LDS is also quite clear that it does not fall within orthodox Christianty. And orthodoxy is the boundary in regard to collective use of the term. As for who gets to say who is a Christian - which is a piece of rhetoric being bandied about hese days - first distinguish between a church claiming the term rather than an individual. Then consider orthodoxy and history. I would not go about claiming the term Latter Day Saint - it does not belong to my church or me either historically or theologically. I could use it and redefine it, but that would not be accurate.
P.S. I'm don't call myself a "creedal Christian" as a descriptor. I find the term limited.
I just realised I should clarify something I said about my friend John. It should read that John does not represent me in his personal agreement with some-one over the definitions used on another blog. i.e. If for the puroposes of that blog, some particualr defining terms are used, that is for the purposes of that other blog. That is not representing me, and I dont take it as John attemtping to bind me to it. It is an agreement he has with Lowell for the other blog.
And.. if you look at the discussion we've had you'll see that Lowell has referred to Mormonism, and Mormon practice and doctrine. I referred to Christian belief and practice, and Christianity. You've tried to make that into somethingt that wasn't occurring, i.e. a fight over terminology. I do distinguish between the two, and you'll find the overwhelming majority of Christians do also. As for "schisms" - you can't have it both ways. If you want to claim a more general name than Mormonism then you become a group within a large group yourself - a "schism" by your definition. If you retain your LDS distinction then you are a group outside of the different denominations. But you can't be both. And for those of us within Christianity, we agree on much more than we disagree on - our orthodoxy covers major and central common beliefs which the LDS does not hold to. Some of the differences are in regard to the temple practices - and the purpose and meaning attached to them. These are incompatibe with Christianty. If you want to prove otherwise then you would need to discuss those beliefs and pratices and explain why you think they are not inconsistent with Christianity. I think we are straying from the original post and discussion on veractity now. Thanks.
This is becoming the comment thread that simply won't die.
Lol - well not really Lowell. That is being a bit over-dramatic. I don't see this as any different to may other blog discussions in terms of length - shorter than a lot. No need to stifle discussion - going off topic near the end though.
This is John's blog of course. Not yours or mine.
Now about the lack of openness about temple practices in the LDS which can lead to possible claims of a lack of veracity...
OK, I've let this go on long enough. Since, as all admit this is MY blog these shall be the last comments here.
1) Yes, for the conspiratorialy minded, secrecy does creeate an opening through which claims of lying can be made,, but the problem is with the accuser, not the secretive. Everyone has secrets. Some people, for example, never speak about their personal lives on the Internet. A person that wanted to damage such an individual could insert all sorts of nonsense into that, but a person of grace will assume the secretive one has reasons for their choices.
The bottom line is to insert lying into secretive is a prejudicial and bigoted thing to do. Yes, it happens, but that does not make it right.
2) To claim the term "Christian" solely for a specific doctrinal understanding of Christ strikes me as a bit narrow minded. Christ was a historical figure - everything else is OUR understanding of Him, and there are many different such understandings, most wrong and only mine is right
Nonetheless, any fight about the term cannot be a fight about Christ Himself because none of us knew Him, and since the term is etimologically about Him, I am willing to use it with qualifiers which more accurately reflect the fact that it is an understanding of Him that we differ over and not His historical reality.
Comments Closed
Commenting by HaloScan
