Boylan hits a new low

[Kishkumen]

He writes as if he has discovered the truth that Mormonism all fits together and the evidence supports it.

But he can't put all these fragments into a cohesive whole. Because as you said, there is no obviously right version of Christianity. One man's truth is another man's falsehood. There is no objective way to weight all of the evidence in support of one objectively correct interpretation. It's all ultimately subjective, and should be understood likewise.

Yes, so people who live in glass houses . . . At the same time, if other Christians dump on Mormons for not being their definition of Christian, it is kinda difficult just to take that one lying down. It could get a person's dander up. As much as I love our resident Christians, and I really do--respecting their religion increasingly as time goes by--I am often left to wonder why it is that Mormons need to become more Protestant or orthodox, in the general sense of the term, to be properly Christian.

Who is to say that the creeds are right? If they are not, then why don't other theologies work just as well? Is the Book of Mormon "wrong" because it is not part of the old Biblical canon? Were the proto-orthodox Christians of the second or fourth centuries AD the people that God chose to tell everyone else what Christianity should be? Was Paul?

I'm just not convinced. Honestly, I don't like Paul all that much. Why should I care so much about what he thinks?

[Gadianton]

While I agree that Christianity isn't all that, and in particular, Christianity defining themselves as right by trademarking the word "Christian", the problem with the Mopologists is they are such bad sports about everything. The corporate church isn't much better.

Mormonism's beliefs in salvation by works, and even more, its belief in tiered kingdoms of glory makes a whole lot more sense to me than binary saved/damned and salvation by election or grace. So why not own it? Why put so much effort into saying, "nuh uh! We also believe in grace, you guys are just bigots!" Why change the name of the church to "The Church of Jesus Christ" and insist media admit the Church is true by virtue of trademarking? Why not admit Joseph Smith is almost as important as Jesus -- I mean, who cares, if he is, he is -- just own instead of crying about it all the time. Why should I care if somebody born 2000 years ago is more important than someone born in my own time? If I were born back then, it would be the same heresy -- no way can a contemporary person be as important as father Abraham!

If the Mopologists would quit being a bunch of victims and cry-babies, maybe the could come up with something that would garner respect. I don't know, but maybe.

[drumdude]

While I agree that Christianity isn't all that, and in particular, Christianity defining themselves as right by trademarking the word "Christian", the problem with the Mopologists is they are such bad sports about everything. The corporate church isn't much better.

Mormonism's beliefs in salvation by works, and even more, its belief in tiered kingdoms of glory makes a whole lot more sense to me than binary saved/damned and salvation by election or grace. So why not own it? Why put so much effort into saying, "nuh uh! We also believe in grace, you guys are just bigots!" Why change the name of the church to "The Church of Jesus Christ" and insist media admit the Church is true by virtue of trademarking? Why not admit Joseph Smith is almost as important as Jesus -- I mean, who cares, if he is, he is -- just own instead of crying about it all the time. Why should I care if somebody born 2000 years ago is more important than someone born in my own time? If I were born back then, it would be the same heresy -- no way can a contemporary person be as important as father Abraham!

If the Mopologists would quit being a bunch of victims and cry-babies, maybe the could come up with something that would garner respect. I don't know, but maybe.

Mormonism has always had a “fly by the seat of our pants” approach to theology.

[MsJack]

On the one hand, I agree that the Early Church Fathers don't prove Mormonism true. On the other hand, I think Joseph Smith deliberately re-incorporated some ideas from the ECFs, and I don't see why that should be a bad thing. To say that the ECFs don't prove Mormonism true represents a partial understanding and yet another tool to marginalize or "tame" Mormonism.

Was Joseph Smith known to have studied the ECFs? I'm genuinely curious. I didn't think he knew Latin or Greek, and I can't imagine there were many translations of the ECFs into English in the 1800s.

For the record, I don't bring up the ECFs because I think their disagreement with Mormonism disproves Mormonism. There has long been a trend in Mormon apologetics (largely originated by Hugh Nibley) of rather crudely farming the words of the ECFs for agreement with Mormonism, then citing this purported agreement as proof that Mormonism "restored" truths lost to the wider Christian world. Agreement with Mormonism is proof "the church is true;" disagreement is proof of apostasy (usually blamed on things like Greek philosophy or monastic zeal). The problem here is that often the agreement is superficial. ECF deification vs. Mormon exaltation is a good example of this.

The reality is that Mormons interpret certain biblical verses in ways that no one or almost no one in church history ever did. That does not mean they are wrong (for comparison, New Testament writers seem to have interpreted certain Old Testament verses in ways no one else did). It just means their interpretations do not originate with the texts themselves. And that can be significant in a lot of contexts.

[Kishkumen]

There were undoubtedly English language texts in which Smith encountered ECF teachings.

[Kishkumen]

While I agree that Christianity isn't all that, and in particular, Christianity defining themselves as right by trademarking the word "Christian", the problem with the Mopologists is they are such bad sports about everything. The corporate church isn't much better.

Mormonism's beliefs in salvation by works, and even more, its belief in tiered kingdoms of glory makes a whole lot more sense to me than binary saved/damned and salvation by election or grace. So why not own it? Why put so much effort into saying, "nuh uh! We also believe in grace, you guys are just bigots!" Why change the name of the church to "The Church of Jesus Christ" and insist media admit the Church is true by virtue of trademarking? Why not admit Joseph Smith is almost as important as Jesus -- I mean, who cares, if he is, he is -- just own instead of crying about it all the time. Why should I care if somebody born 2000 years ago is more important than someone born in my own time? If I were born back then, it would be the same heresy -- no way can a contemporary person be as important as father Abraham!

If the Mopologists would quit being a bunch of victims and cry-babies, maybe the could come up with something that would garner respect. I don't know, but maybe.

We are in almost perfect agreement here.

[Kishkumen]

For the record, I don't bring up the ECFs because I think their disagreement with Mormonism disproves Mormonism.

Yeah, I was not exactly sure where you are coming from, so I did not address you directly. Thank you for making this very clear.

There has long been a trend in Mormon apologetics (largely originated by Hugh Nibley) of rather crudely farming the words of the ECFs for agreement with Mormonism, then citing this purported agreement as proof that Mormonism "restored" truths lost to the wider Christian world. Agreement with Mormonism is proof "the church is true;" disagreement is proof of apostasy (usually blamed on things like Greek philosophy or monastic zeal). The problem here is that often the agreement is superficial. ECF deification vs. Mormon exaltation is a good example of this.

My understanding of this apologetic move is that the ECFs show that before them there were doctrines of an LDS kind, which are imperfectly preserved in the ECFs. I don’t think this is true, by the way. So, if the agreement is superficial, then the problem is apostasy in action.

The reality is that Mormons interpret certain biblical verses in ways that no one or almost no one in church history ever did. That does not mean they are wrong (for comparison, New Testament writers seem to have interpreted certain Old Testament verses in ways no one else did). It just means their interpretations do not originate with the texts themselves. And that can be significant in a lot of contexts.

Yeah, the death of the apostles is a convenient black box/memory hole. You hit the nail on the head with the New Testament readings of the Old Testament. So, my bottom line here is that you and many others share a preferred approach to Christianity with a venerable historic tradition, going back 500 years. Orthodoxy and Catholicism go back quite a bit further. Mormonism is a rereading of the Western tradition by a brilliant but idiosyncratic autodidact. It is almost 200 years old. I don’t see the Jesus movement in any of it, but that doesn’t bother me. Different approaches for different kinds of people.

[Tapir Rodeo]

There were undoubtedly English language texts in which Smith encountered ECF teachings.

Is there any evidence Smith interacted with the ECFs?

[Kishkumen]

Is there any evidence Smith interacted with the ECFs?

Like time travel or epiphanies?

[MsJack]

Like time travel or epiphanies?

Like, did he ever quote or refer to any ECFs in his writings?

If his ideas were similar to some patristic ideas, that in itself isn't proof that he ever picked up an English translation of Augustine or Athanasius or Origen.

While the Protestant tradition itself goes back ~500 years, Luther, Calvin et al. read the church fathers with great interest and often interacted with patristic interpreters. They did not see themselves as starting a new church, but of rescuing the extant church from what had become papal corruption. They tried to incorporate patristic interpretations and theology in their teachings.

I hadn't heard of Joseph Smith interacting with the church fathers---I was under the impression most of his theological innovations were his own, or were reactions to / re-workings of 19th century Christianity and Freemasonry.

I apologize if I've misunderstood anything you've said here, Kish. I of course share most of your reservations with how Christians interact with and dismiss Mormonism.