Re: Are Mormons really honest about explaining what they believe?

rasqual wrote:

> > So you are backing off on your claim that "we all know."

> Not at all. Where do you draw that inference?

You strongly implied that the comment was not to be taken seriously.

"For you to actually embrace it seriously is far more of a prize in
this box of cracker jack than I could have anticipated."

Based on that, I took it that you did not want to defend that
particular statement.

> > Obviously we don't all know such things.

> Sure we do.

Oh really?   At least the above gave me a good laugh.  It seems a bit
over the top for you to tell everybody else what we know, especially
when you are so wrong.

> Can you identify anything that profoundly separates
> orthodoxy from Mormonism -- other than the allegation of a restoration
> itself -- in the BoM, that doesn't pale in comparison with the
> theological innovations foisted by LdS who court adventure with the
> ideas recounted in the PoGP and the DoC?

Wow!  That last couple of lines must hold some sort of record for the
most loaded words in the shortest space!

As a matter of fact, the BoM has lots of things that separate us from
most other Christians, starting with its very existance since many
hold it as given that there can be no scripture beyond the Bible
(which is itself a belief beyond the Bible since the Bible says no
such thing).

However the BoM also has lots of other good information, some new and
some clarifying what the Bible says:

It is very clear in the BoM that Jesus would save us *from* our sins
but not *in* them (Hel 5:10).   The Bible does say from our sins (Mat
1:21) but lacks the clarifying phrase that says he would not save us
in our sins, allowing for some to fall prey to Antinomianism.

The BoM is very clear that baptism is necessary for those accountable
(cf 2 Nep 31:4-10), about the manner in which baptism must be
performed (3 Nep 11:21-28) and the coventantal nature of baptism
(Mosaiah 18:8-10) and that little children are redeemed by Christ and
need not be baptized (Moroni 8)

The BoM states very clearly that we cannot come to Christ unless we
are willing to follow him, living the commandments is necessary to
take advantage of his atonement.

The BoM clearly distinguishes physical from spiritual death (cf 2 Nep
9).  It also states that without a physical resurrection we would be
in bondage to Satan after death (same chapter).

Need I go on?

Of course your whole premise seems founded on what you call "LdS who
court adventure."  That would place them out of the mainstream of
Mormonism so what they say can hardly be considered representative.

> The BoM has created a far greater rift between Mormonism and
> archaeology (or history) than between Mormonism and orthodoxy. If we
> wish to find the springs of theological alienation, we have to look
> elsewhere.

> > And rather than provide evidence that Mormons have different
> > fundamentals than other Christians, you simply repeat the accusation
> > so I still hold that we agree on the fundamentals of the position of
> > Christ with the atonement etc.

> That's like saying that two people jumping up in the air are doing the
> same thing, even if one is jumping off a bridge and the other is doing
> jumping jacks in his house. They're both doing fundamentally the same
> thing, but the systems within which they're operating imply grossly
> different realities and ****tend totally different outcomes.

Again you are imputing things to most LDS which you get from the
fringes.  Pick and chose your evidence and you can reach a lot of
strange conclusions (and you do!)


> Mormonism likes to imagine that there's agreement on the fundamentals,

There is, as I stated we all accept the atonement of Jesus which is
about as fundamental as it gets.


> but her refusal to recognize the baptisms of other churches belies
> such a conceit.

You mean like Paul refused to recognize the baptism of certain people
in Ephesus?  (Acts 19:1-5).  Just maybe we aren't the only ones who
refuse to accept invalid baptisms.

....

> You can SAY we agree. Yes. We're jumping up and down.

Well, *you* do seem to be jumping up and down.  :-)

> > And since you've yet to provide a single reference to LDS "distain for
> > Paul" I assume that is also a dead issue and we can discuss real
> > issues rather than unsup****ted accusations.

> It'll have to be a dead issue for you -- evidence of such contempt
> surfaces whenever Smith's innovations trump Paul's clear teaching. LdS
> prefer to "explain away" Paul because Smith must ever and always be
> taken literally. It's a ****bboleth of TBM.

You continue to insist that understanding his teachings differently
than you constitutes contempt for him.  Do I have contempt for
Einstein if I think his theory of relativity means one thing and
someone else thinks it means something else?  (And no, not every
statement from Joseph Smith must be taken literally.  For example, the
statement that Lucifer was in the bosom of the Father (D&C 75:25) is
probably figurative.

Frankly the charge you make above would place you in the position of
final arbiter of Paul's meaning, is that what you are claiming?