Why Mormons don't get theological respect?

[Indy Coug]

This was started by someone over on Cougarboard.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=6185770

[CardiacCoug]

Here's the argument, I guess:

Starting with Smith, [Terryl Givens] said, the church’s message has been more about claiming compatibility with mainstream Christianity than proclaiming its distinct theology.

I guess it is a legitimate question to ask why missionaries don't teach that we can eventually become Gods and create our own worlds? Instead of running ads about how Mormons are regular people, why don't we run ads talking about the errors in the Bible? Why don't we read and publish the JST of the Bible if that is the real version?

I think most LDS people and LDS leaders want to be accepted by mainstream Christians, so we keep the distinctive beliefs off the radar. I wonder if just from a marketing/missionary standpoint it would be better to emphasize the differences rather than the similarities between Mormonism and other Christian religions.

After all, the Christian pastor or born-again Christian who can detail ten ways that Mormons aren't Christians isn't really our target audience. Why do we care what they think?

[Surfah]

Here's the argument, I guess:



I guess it is a legitimate question to ask why missionaries don't teach that we can eventually become Gods and create our own worlds? Instead of running ads about how Mormons are regular people, why don't we run ads talking about the errors in the Bible? Why don't we read and publish the JST of the Bible if that is the real version?

I think most LDS people and LDS leaders want to be accepted by mainstream Christians, so we keep the distinctive beliefs off the radar. I wonder if just from a marketing/missionary standpoint it would be better to emphasize the differences rather than the similarities between Mormonism and other Christian religions.

After all, the Christian pastor or born-again Christian who can detail ten ways that Mormons aren't Christians isn't really our target audience. Why do we care what they think?

I think missionaries do to some degree. At least I remember I did. We teach people that we can become like Him. Few grasp that concept though and what that means. But I recall a few astute investigators who immediately jumped on that. One guy told me that was blasphemous. I've shared this story before. I asked him what he thought of eternal progression then and he said that he can't imagine doing anything but being an angel praising and worshiping God. So I told him he could be my angel then. He's the same guy who said we're not children of God but rather children of wrath. So I made up my own version of I Am a Child of Wrath and sang it to him. He also talked about celestial sex and creating spirit bodies for spiritual offspring. He asked what I thought of that and I told him I am not sure if that is the exact mechanism, but it sounds good to me. He blew up. I told him to calm down and not worry about it because he'll be too busy praising me.

[jay santos]

Religions that get mainstream respect are religions that have been established thousands of years ago. That's probably the reason we don't get respect. Cozying up to Christianity is the best bet if respect is what you want. Not that respect should be the goal.

[Indy Coug]

I told him to calm down and not worry about it because he'll be too busy praising me.

[DapperDan]

Religions that get mainstream respect are religions that have been established thousands of years ago. That's probably the reason we don't get respect. Cozying up to Christianity is the best bet if respect is what you want. Not that respect should be the goal.

This is why Christianity co-opted Judaism in the first place. Give us a couple thousand years and things will start to look up for us too.

[Indy Coug]

Early Christianity co-opted a lot more than that.

[Solon]

Religions that get mainstream respect are religions that have been established thousands of years ago. That's probably the reason we don't get respect. Cozying up to Christianity is the best bet if respect is what you want. Not that respect should be the goal.

Mormons have spent the last couple of generations drumming on "intellectuals" and the systematic application of rationalism to theological questions. Mormons don't need learned commentaries, scriptural exegesis, rigorous seminaries (in the traditional sense of that word), etc. They teach "by the spirit", not by intellectual or academic or theological exposition.

in addition, Mormonism is largely a religion of the layman, with all the pros an cons that that entails.

IMO, the LDS church sorely needs a body of trained theologians to help Mormonism take its place among the great revealed religions of the world. While I think the BYU religion department has some top-notch minds, I don't think it's quite the right vehicle for this.

[Indy Coug]

IMO, the LDS church sorely needs a body of trained theologians to help Mormonism take its place among the great revealed religions of the world. While I think the BYU religion department has some top-notch minds, I don't think it's quite the right vehicle for this.

Can you explain this further? What role do you see trained LDS theologians serving?

[Green Lantern]

Mormons have spent the last couple of generations drumming on "intellectuals" and the systematic application of rationalism to theological questions. Mormons don't need learned commentaries, scriptural exegesis, rigorous seminaries (in the traditional sense of that word), etc. They teach "by the spirit", not by intellectual or academic or theological exposition.

And of course, when we do have people trying to produce the commentaries and exegeses of which you speak, they tend to be so divided between "orthodox" and "Sunstone crew" that there's no real discussion. In the general church populace mindset, one of those sides is marginalized as near heretical.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Individual Mormons can have coherent theologies, but Mormonism's theology (or doctrine, or teaching, or something) is mutable.

Many Christians find this mutability confusing and incoherent. Therefore, they also easily jump to the "Mormonism is a made up religion" position.

[Commando]

I think missionaries do to some degree. At least I remember I did. We teach people that we can become like Him. Few grasp that concept though and what that means. But I recall a few astute investigators who immediately jumped on that. One guy told me that was blasphemous. I've shared this story before. I asked him what he thought of eternal progression then and he said that he can't imagine doing anything but being an angel praising and worshiping God. So I told him he could be my angel then. He's the same guy who said we're not children of God but rather children of wrath. So I made up my own version of I Am a Child of Wrath and sang it to him. He also talked about celestial sex and creating spirit bodies for spiritual offspring. He asked what I thought of that and I told him I am not sure if that is the exact mechanism, but it sounds good to me. He blew up. I told him to calm down and not worry about it because he'll be too busy praising me.

ha ha! You're pretty much a badass in my book. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

[Commando]

Early Christianity co-opted a lot more than that.

Exactly. Why this doesn't get more attention drawn to it is beyond me.

[Solon]

Can you explain this further? What role do you see trained LDS theologians serving?

Just my opinion, but I think it would help sort out the various inconsistencies in LDS belief, as well as allow for new insights and understandings of the nature of the LDS God(s). I think it could produce some really cool stuff, while also undercutting some of the lamer apologetics that are out there. I don't see the body as apologists per se. I'd just like to see/read/hear what they come up with.

The highest levels of LDS leadership aren't scholars or theologians (for the most part). (NOTE: NOT INTENDED AS A CRITICISM!) They're busy executive-apostles who are running an enormous organization. They're too busy to tackle these issues. I think a body of LDS theologians could be instrumental in producing modern-day revelation, something people often claim is missing from today's church. I'm not saying they would write new sections of the D&C (but maybe?), but - assuming they're working under the auspices of almighty God with the approval of HIS representatives on earth - they could spark new questions, lines of inquiry, and spiritual-mystical-theological insights.

The Jews had Maimonides. The Catholics had Aquinas. The Muslims had al-Ghazali. It's time for a Mormon to step up.

Again, just my opinion.

[Indy Coug]

Just my opinion, but I think it would help sort out the various inconsistencies in LDS belief, as well as allow for new insights and understandings of the nature of the LDS God(s). I think it could produce some really cool stuff, while also undercutting some of the lamer apologetics that are out there. I don't see the body as apologists per se. I'd just like to see/read/hear what they come up with.

The highest levels of LDS leadership aren't scholars or theologians (for the most part). (NOTE: NOT INTENDED AS A CRITICISM!) They're busy executive-apostles who are running an enormous organization. They're too busy to tackle these issues. I think a body of LDS theologians could be instrumental in producing modern-day revelation, something people often claim is missing from today's church. I'm not saying they would write new sections of the D&C (but maybe?), but - assuming they're working under the auspices of almighty God with the approval of HIS representatives on earth - they could spark new questions, lines of inquiry, and spiritual-mystical-theological insights.

The Jews had Maimonides. The Catholics had Aquinas. The Muslims had al-Ghazali. It's time for a Mormon to step up.

Again, just my opinion.

Thanks for the response.