Comments on: First Things Articles http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/ Truth Will Prevail Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:12:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Raymond Takashi Swenson http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-275756 Raymond Takashi Swenson Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:38:34 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-275756 Incidentally, The November issue of First Things printed a letter I wrote concerning several items in the June/July issue. Specifically, I pointed out that three separate articles demonstrated that beliefs that Mormons are often criticized for by many Christians as being distinct from their beliefs and therefore evidence that Mormons are not Christian are beliefs that are also found in the early Church, including physical resurrection on a transformed earth, strong belief that the Old Testament prophets spoke of Christ, and salvation consisting of theosis or deification. The fact that Mormons believe these things makes us more in line with the beliefs of early Christians and therefore MORE Christian. If you go to the First things web page, in addition to a copy of the articles by Porter and McDermott, there are audio recordings of phone interviews conducted by a First Things editor with both authors. Each is about half an hour long, and well worth listening to. I wrote to the editor to clarify a misunderstanding he and McDermott shared about Mormon belief on when Jesus became a God. They referred to a heretical belief that Jesus was born as a man who was selected by God for transformation based on his merits. I pointed out that the LDS belief that Christ is Jehovah and the Creator as well as Savior of innumerable worlds places his acquisition of the status of God prior to the Creation. Since Catholics and orthodox Protestants believe in creation ex nihilo, that there was no time prior to the Creation, the assumption by Christ of the status of God as Jehovah predates time as they think of it, and is therefore indistinguishable from being eternal as they define eternity. The critique of many non-Mormons about Mormon theology involves them jumping around between their definitions of things and ours. Incidentally, The November issue of First Things printed a letter I wrote concerning several items in the June/July issue. Specifically, I pointed out that three separate articles demonstrated that beliefs that Mormons are often criticized for by many Christians as being distinct from their beliefs and therefore evidence that Mormons are not Christian are beliefs that are also found in the early Church, including physical resurrection on a transformed earth, strong belief that the Old Testament prophets spoke of Christ, and salvation consisting of theosis or deification. The fact that Mormons believe these things makes us more in line with the beliefs of early Christians and therefore MORE Christian.

If you go to the First things web page, in addition to a copy of the articles by Porter and McDermott, there are audio recordings of phone interviews conducted by a First Things editor with both authors. Each is about half an hour long, and well worth listening to. I wrote to the editor to clarify a misunderstanding he and McDermott shared about Mormon belief on when Jesus became a God. They referred to a heretical belief that Jesus was born as a man who was selected by God for transformation based on his merits. I pointed out that the LDS belief that Christ is Jehovah and the Creator as well as Savior of innumerable worlds places his acquisition of the status of God prior to the Creation. Since Catholics and orthodox Protestants believe in creation ex nihilo, that there was no time prior to the Creation, the assumption by Christ of the status of God as Jehovah predates time as they think of it, and is therefore indistinguishable from being eternal as they define eternity. The critique of many non-Mormons about Mormon theology involves them jumping around between their definitions of things and ours.

]]> By: john f. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-274757 john f. Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:36:43 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-274757 "McDermott\’s acknowledgment at the end that belief in the Trinity is not actually essential to salvation raises the question why it should be a basis of ostracism of a church that he admits leads at least some of its members to saving faith in Christ." Raymond, I really liked that. Thanks for highlighting it -- great cross examination. “McDermott\’s acknowledgment at the end that belief in the Trinity is not actually essential to salvation raises the question why it should be a basis of ostracism of a church that he admits leads at least some of its members to saving faith in Christ.”

Raymond, I really liked that. Thanks for highlighting it — great cross examination.

]]> By: john f. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-274756 john f. Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:35:12 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-274756 "Of course the greatest problem with the creedal Trinity is that it was not taught by Jesus or the apostles as a prerequisite for salvation." Bingo. You have hit the nail on the head, Raymond. “Of course the greatest problem with the creedal Trinity is that it was not taught by Jesus or the apostles as a prerequisite for salvation.”

Bingo. You have hit the nail on the head, Raymond.

]]> By: Raymond Takashi Swenson http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-274753 Raymond Takashi Swenson Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:57:55 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-274753 I was disappointed that McDermott did not give as much emphasis in this article to acknowledging the high Christology of the Book of Mormon as he does in Claiming Christ. And frankly his pretention of speaking for little-o \"orthodox Christianity\" on the precise definition of the Trinity glosses over the fact that the Orthodox Churches parted company with the Church of Rome over their belief that Christ is not equal to the Father. Then there is the doctrine of Theosis that they retain but was lost in the Roman/Protestant branching, and bridges much of the gap that R/Ps want to keep between God and mankind. Even some R/Ps have a Social Trinity view that on every other day is pretty indistinguishable from the LDS. I think his theory of JS evolving from one view to the other ignores the First Vision. His claim that a Father with a physical body is too limited to be God ignores the obvious fact that Jesus has such a body yet as he claims is also fully God. Of course the greatest problem with the creedal Trinity is that it was not taught by Jesus or the apostles as a prerequisite for salvation. McDermott\'s acknowledgment at the end that belief in the Trinity is not actually essential to salvation raises the question why it should be a basis of ostracism of a church that he admits leads at least some of its members to saving faith in Christ. On 2 Ne 25:23, it is hardly ever read in its entirety. Nephi is describing how he makes a great effort to teach his children and b rethren that it is NOT effort that saves, but Christ\'s grace. He is being ironic to emphasize grace. Like Paul he talks about his trials in teaching what Alma called \"the simpleness of the way\" to look in faith to Christ, represented by the Liahona. The verse is a bookend to his other most quoted verse at 1 Ne 3:7, that he obeys God because God\'s help--his grace--comes when we obey Him. Obedient acts are where we receive God\'s grace. Obeying commandments makes our works \"graceful\". Nephi\'s example is not obey first then merit grace, it is find God\'s grace in exercising faith through obedience. As Benjamin taught, we are blessed for every obedience beyond our deserving. We do not create a debt of God to us, but merely show we are ready for more grace. I was disappointed that McDermott did not give as much emphasis in this article to acknowledging the high Christology of the Book of Mormon as he does in Claiming Christ. And frankly his pretention of speaking for little-o \”orthodox Christianity\” on the precise definition of the Trinity glosses over the fact that the Orthodox Churches parted company with the Church of Rome over their belief that Christ is not equal to the Father. Then there is the doctrine of Theosis that they retain but was lost in the Roman/Protestant branching, and bridges much of the gap that R/Ps want to keep between God and mankind. Even some R/Ps have a Social Trinity view that on every other day is pretty indistinguishable from the LDS. I think his theory of JS evolving from one view to the other ignores the First Vision. His claim that a Father with a physical body is too limited to be God ignores the obvious fact that Jesus has such a body yet as he claims is also fully God. Of course the greatest problem with the creedal Trinity is that it was not taught by Jesus or the apostles as a prerequisite for salvation. McDermott\’s acknowledgment at the end that belief in the Trinity is not actually essential to salvation raises the question why it should be a basis of ostracism of a church that he admits leads at least some of its members to saving faith in Christ.

On 2 Ne 25:23, it is hardly ever read in its entirety. Nephi is describing how he makes a great effort to teach his children and b rethren that it is NOT effort that saves, but Christ\’s grace. He is being ironic to emphasize grace. Like Paul he talks about his trials in teaching what Alma called \”the simpleness of the way\” to look in faith to Christ, represented by the Liahona. The verse is a bookend to his other most quoted verse at 1 Ne 3:7, that he obeys God because God\’s help–his grace–comes when we obey Him. Obedient acts are where we receive God\’s grace. Obeying commandments makes our works \”graceful\”. Nephi\’s example is not obey first then merit grace, it is find God\’s grace in exercising faith through obedience. As Benjamin taught, we are blessed for every obedience beyond our deserving. We do not create a debt of God to us, but merely show we are ready for more grace.

]]> By: NOYDMB http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-274749 NOYDMB Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:35:44 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-274749 Kudos to Nitsav, Julie, and Seth R. Especially for the review of CC. What i would like (which means something I should write) is a critique of the Evangelical mindset. "Why they think it is OK to add concepts (like 'merely') while describing God. In Essence, the absurd arguments. Does he really expect any thinking member of the church to fall for it?" Which brings me to my latest reading. I fully recommend "The Scandall of the Evangelical Mind" and "Misquoting Jesus". We cannot give up on the Evangelicals any more than we can give up on Muslims or inactives. We must constantly proclaim Jesus' good news. Kudos to Nitsav, Julie, and Seth R. Especially for the review of CC.
What i would like (which means something I should write) is a critique of the Evangelical mindset.
“Why they think it is OK to add concepts (like ‘merely’) while describing God. In Essence, the absurd arguments. Does he really expect any thinking member of the church to fall for it?”
Which brings me to my latest reading. I fully recommend “The Scandall of the Evangelical Mind” and “Misquoting Jesus”.
We cannot give up on the Evangelicals any more than we can give up on Muslims or inactives. We must constantly proclaim Jesus’ good news.

]]> By: aquinas http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-274748 aquinas Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:18:38 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-274748 I appreciate all the reactions so far to McDermott's article. It confirms many of the reactions I've had as well. I've posted <a href="http://summatheologica.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/mcdermott-porter-explaining-what-mormons-believe/" rel="nofollow">my review and critique of the First Things article</a>. I appreciate all the reactions so far to McDermott’s article. It confirms many of the reactions I’ve had as well. I’ve posted my review and critique of the First Things article.

]]> By: Craig H. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-274744 Craig H. Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:26:03 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-274744 Í don't think anyone should give up at all. In the 17th century, 150 years after the Reformation began, most Protestants still called the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon and other unflattering terms, and most Catholics thought little better of those heretics the Protestants, even if they were friendly in places. Now there are all sorts of interfaith dialogues, communions, and so on. The process of Mormons interacting with other faiths has hardly begun. Í don’t think anyone should give up at all. In the 17th century, 150 years after the Reformation began, most Protestants still called the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon and other unflattering terms, and most Catholics thought little better of those heretics the Protestants, even if they were friendly in places. Now there are all sorts of interfaith dialogues, communions, and so on. The process of Mormons interacting with other faiths has hardly begun.

]]> By: Seth R. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-274741 Seth R. Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:40:15 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-274741 I don't know Mike. Increasingly, I'm starting to think we should give up on them as a "bad job" and focus instead on outreach to other religions. I don’t know Mike.

Increasingly, I’m starting to think we should give up on them as a “bad job” and focus instead on outreach to other religions.

]]> By: MikeInWeHo http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-274740 MikeInWeHo Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:31:08 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-274740 re: 30 True enough, but perhaps I should have said 'Sometimes I wonder if most LDS grasp how radical their understanding of God really is from the perspective of other Christians on earth today....' The question that puzzles me is this: Why do so many LDS seem to feel such a need for acceptance by the Evangelicals anyway? re: 30 True enough, but perhaps I should have said ‘Sometimes I wonder if most LDS grasp how radical their understanding of God really is from the perspective of other Christians on earth today….’

The question that puzzles me is this: Why do so many LDS seem to feel such a need for acceptance by the Evangelicals anyway?

]]> By: john f. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/09/first-things-articles/#comment-274739 john f. Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:17:34 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4777#comment-274739 Strange how McDermott's Palestinian Jesus is fixated on the Levant and ignores America as if visiting America somehow means ignoring the rest of the world. By the way, Mormons also believe in the "Palestinian Jesus", i.e. that Jesus was born, lived, and gave up his life in what is present day Israel (and Egypt during his childhood). Do Evangelicals know this? Mormons believe that after his Resurrection he visited the people who believed in him in the Western Hemisphere. Why this is so impossible in the eyes of creedal Christians is beyond me. Is their Jesus not powerful enough to visit other continents after his Resurrection? Strange how McDermott’s Palestinian Jesus is fixated on the Levant and ignores America as if visiting America somehow means ignoring the rest of the world.

By the way, Mormons also believe in the “Palestinian Jesus”, i.e. that Jesus was born, lived, and gave up his life in what is present day Israel (and Egypt during his childhood). Do Evangelicals know this? Mormons believe that after his Resurrection he visited the people who believed in him in the Western Hemisphere. Why this is so impossible in the eyes of creedal Christians is beyond me. Is their Jesus not powerful enough to visit other continents after his Resurrection?

]]>