Monday, August 3, 2009

Mormon guests

I've been getting a lot of hits lately from members and X-members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which is cool and I'm excited this blog has been far far too focused on problems in reformed Christianity. I'm in so much in a rut that even with Catholics I ended up with wannabe reformed Catholics.

So please help. Give me some non Reformed topics. I see the traffic. Introduce yourselves, let me know what you all want to discuss. Kolab, gambling, history of Mormon doctrine. I'm game.

I love that in the very core 13 Articles of Faith I find:
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men;

Just fantastic stuff morally. If only those sorts of statements were in mainstream creeds Christian history wouldn't be nearly so shameful.

And theologically:
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

OK ball is in your court. If you are non Mormon and want to engage in conversation or better yet ask questions in a respectful and neutral spot I'd be happy to host that.


Jack Meyers said...

I'm not a Mormon, CD-Host, but I am sleeping with one, and I am enjoying your blog thoroughly. ;)

Thanks much for your posts on the ESV. You gave me a lot to think about. I've pretty much decided to break up with the ESV and will post about it on my blog eventually. (Future blog post title: "Dear ESV: It's not me, it's you")

CD-Host said...

Hi Bridget welcome! I'm glad you are putting down the ESV, but it seems like you are getting liberated from complementarianism in all its forms which is great.

As far as Mormonism I know you are active in a Mormon / Evangelical discussion group. What is the most frequent stumbling block or issue?

Jack Meyers said...

CD-Host ~ it seems like you are getting liberated from complementarianism in all its forms which is great

Yes and no. My initial liberation from complementarianism came when I was 17 and I found Glen Miller's Women in the Heart of God series. I also pretty much threw out complementarianism as soon as I discovered Judges 4.

It's only recently that I've realized that many egalitarian churches are quietly operating almost exactly the same as complementarian churches, and countering that is what I'm focused on now.

I do technically attend a hard complementarian church at the moment, but the reasons for that are complicated and that ends when I move to Chicago in less than two weeks.

As for Mormons, the biggest stumbling block in Mormon-evangelical interfaith conversations is people who talk past each other because they have an agenda. It's more common for evangelicals to be guilty of this---i.e. let's ignore what the Mormon is saying and redirect the conversation back to a discussion of Joseph Smith's teenage brides---but some Mormons do it, too. It always leads to frustrating and pointless exchanges.

CD-Host said...

Bridget --

I agree with you completely on this problem of egalitarian in name only. If you have a congregation that is say:
70% firmly egalitarian but not willing / interested in pushing for a female pastor
10% complementarian
15% egalitarian but "uncomfortable" with a woman in that role (traditionalist about church)
5% feminist

It is very unlikely that a woman is going to get the pastor. There will be women on the short list but the 1/4 nay votes means she never quite gets to be the lead candidate. It is awfully destructive.

As a point of interest, IMHO this problem for evangelicals came directly from the modernist-fundamentalist battles of the 20s:

Its worth commenting why the conservatives lost in 1926 when they hadn't in the 1890s during a similar attempt at liberalization. The reason was the denomination was starting to split on gender lines. Woman were in very large numbers starting to support enhanced roles for woman and woman's ordination, theological liberalism was in favor of this position while theological conservatism was opposed. So, while nothing remotely approaching a majority of the PCUSA members supported higher criticism of scripture, a substantial minority if not a majority of the membership were willing to follow the liberals out the door if the denomination had split. And without the liberal counter balance the denomination would have gotten more conservative and pushed out moderates; so the moderates sided the conservatives. And while no one knew this in 1926, the membership would continue to get more liberal for the next 60 years. Quite simply had this gone the other way, the PCUSA would be a fraction the size it is today. (from Gresham Machen (Invalid Excommunication part 4)).