Comments for Times & Seasons

Comment on Reassessing the theological side of the Compromise by James Olsen

James Olsen — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:32:33 +0000

Michael: I’m sympathetic to most of what you say. And as far as I’m concerned, you’re more than welcome to attend Catholic celebrations with your friends and family (happy – er, meaningful – Ash Wednesday to you).

As a general note, let me remind everyone of the context both of Givens’ list and my questions above: interfaith dialogue and defining Mormon theology in public perception. What are the starting points of that dialogue? What do we hope that the “general” public understanding of Mormon theology will be? I agree with others here who note that this requires us to give a more nuanced articulation of our beliefs than mere Christian overlap.

Comment on BMGD #9: 2 Nephi 11-25 by Mark B.

Mark B. — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:38:50 +0000

I agree with Sam, too. One problem with the current approach is that they do this every year (or every fourth year)–there’s never any guidance in the teachers’ manual that would help the teacher actually teach something about what Isaiah. And they always seem to point out Nephi’s statements about how much he loved Isaiah, how his words could be understood if one had the spirit of prophecy (and knew the manner of prophesying among the Jews), about how Isaiah saw the Redeemer and prophesied all things concerning the House of Israel–and then the lesson proceeds to ignore almost everything in those 13 chapters.

Comment on Reassessing the theological side of the Compromise by Suleiman

Suleiman — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:16:16 +0000

Joseph Smith deplored creeds. Probably because first, words never fully convey the truth; and second, creeds politicize the search for truth. I think it would be fruitless to write them now.

Comment on Reassessing the theological side of the Compromise by Michael

Michael — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:15:27 +0000

I always find it interesting when life-long members of the Church distill down the Restored Gospel into its most simple parts and urge everyone to be satisfied concentrating on just those things. It seems to be a very arrogant and selfish approach which serves only those already in the community of Saints.

However, for those of us who are converts, this approach serves no purpose whatsoever. A convert joins the Church in baptism because the Restored Gospel provides unique, interesting, and truthful claims to the most difficult questions in life. It offers a framework and a paradigm which places men and women within the context of a much larger and universal work. It gives assurance of the pre-mortal existence, the purpose of mortality and the justness of God in ways that cannot be found in other faith traditions.

Many converts give up their familial support systems, the good traditions of their fathers, and the comfort of their upbringing to become Latter-day Saints. It is a significant sacrifice to join a community that has strange and peculiar social customs, lackluster worship services and a political slant which is unofficially emphasized through cultural pressure. If someone did not have the unique theology and additional scripture, the attraction would be nil.

So why do we seek to take that away and reduce our emphasis down to the basis tenets of all Christianity? If that is really the path that we are going, I might as well go back to the richness of Catholicism which emphasizes the same things as Lucy mentions in her post. At least I will be able to partake of the Eucharist again and join my extended family during celebrations.

The compromise does not work. It never has and never will. It is an illusion. Either we take pride in the Restored Gospel in all its uniqueness or we just merge with the Methodists.

Comment on BMGD #9: 2 Nephi 11-25 by Tim J

Tim J — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:09:08 +0000

Agree with everything you said, Sam.

Comment on BMGD #9: 2 Nephi 11-25 by Sam Brunson

Sam Brunson — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:11:14 +0000

Tim J,
That’s probably absolutely true. But it would be cool if they (a) devoted more than one year to a book of scripture, or (b) explicitly said, We’re not going to hit the whole BoM, and instead picked a few areas to spend real time on.

Of course, that would presumably mean that we’d need more than one manual, and we wouldn’t just repeat the same thing every four years. But one can dream.

And again, Julie, thanks! I’m using your questions and commentaries as I read my scriptures this year, and they’re immensely helpful.

Comment on Reassessing the theological side of the Compromise by Lucy

Lucy — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:44:09 +0000

to politics

Comment on Reassessing the theological side of the Compromise by Lucy

Lucy — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:43:32 +0000

Scratch the whole list.
God is our literal Father in Heaven, not just a sympathetic entity. We are children of God. Heavenly Father has a plan for our happiness. Jesus Christ is the most important part of this plan. He is the Only Begotten Son of God and the Savior of the world. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and we are led today by a living prophet, President Thomas S. Monson. The Holy Ghost testifies that these things are true.
Faith is highly relevant to a politics.

Comment on BMGD #9: 2 Nephi 11-25 by Tim J

Tim J — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:16:58 +0000

I think the main reason we skim the Book of Mormon Isaiah chapters is because they are covered a bit more in depth during the OT year which 5 straight weeks in Isaiah–which still isn’t enough but I would hate to be the guy that decides how to divvy up the BOM into 48 sections giving appropriate attention to the deserving sections.

Comment on BMGD #9: 2 Nephi 11-25 by Ben S.

Ben S. — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:54:54 +0000

Excellent stuff (though I haven’t been able to do more than skim.) You’ll have a Book of Mormon commentary finished at the end of the year, if you can maintain it that long.