How'd I end up here?

A few weeks ago, I started getting emails of potentially interesting threads at the Baptist Board. I left a comment that someone probably subscribed me as a joke--because I'm a devout Mormon; but never heard back. I kept getting emails of threads that I thought were interesting and so I joined the board. unfortunately, all the messages I found interesting are in threads I can't comment on--not being a Baptist. It's probably a mistake to leave a message this evening since I'm leaving town for my mother-in-law's funeral and don't know if I'll have internet access till Sunday evening--nevertheless, here goes:

I wonder why I started getting emails from the site? --some have given me pause.

I love the Bible and have a particular interest in the Septuagint. I'm a grandfather and until last year was bishop of a Mormon congregation (LDS pastors serve for 3 to 6 years generally.) I teach LDS theology part time. I try to be informed about different perspectives of Christianity and just realized I don't think I've read anything by anyone who was a Baptist theologian. Any body have any recommendations?

All the best,

Al

 

Thanks! I'll check into it. I think most Protestant writings I'm familiar with are Presbyterian--Calvinist: Sproul, White, MacArthur. I've read Catholic theology extensively, and had not given much thought to "Baptist" as being distinct from normative Protestants.

Al

 

It would be hard to put my finger on what I think would be the main differences--perhaps definition of terms would be a good beginning. We have a significantly different paradigm of the nature of God, man, scripture, salvation, and pretty much every other term I can think of; and real communication depends on speaking the same language. When we understand terms very differently it's almost impossible to sort out the various perspectives.

Al

 

I hope it isn't suicidal to disagree with the administrator; but these lists showing alleged contrasts are hardly helpful or accurate. Were I to teach the statements above as "Mormon" theology, I'd be relieved of my teaching responsibilities. When I was bishop, if someone in my congregation sought to teach them, he would have been corrected for teaching heresy. Although not entirely mistaken, they're kind of like the statement in Genesis, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."--it's false, and true, and leaves a mistaken perception.

Al

 

I always thought that those "Reformed Baptists"--followers of Alexander Campbell were precursors to the "Church of Christ" and not actually Baptists. Am I mistaken?

Ala

 

That's the part that you got right--but you didn't get this from any LDS sources: "A Mormon boy from another planet who worked His way up to godhood. But not really God. Just a little god. Not even worthy of being prayed to." As I noted above, there's truth mixed with error--enough error to qualify as heresy among Mormons.

Al

 

Interesting information. Thank you for sharing it with me.

Al

 

Why do I feel like I'm being set up? Could you perhaps dial down the accusations a little? No, we never did teach that God is a former person. We believe that He, along with His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are persons--not former persons. While there are extra-canonical statements about God having become God, they are extra-canonical. We do have a perspective about what constitutes actual, doctrinal teachings; and they are limited to our canon--much like many Christians who believe in sola scriptura.

There is no place in our canon that conjectures a time when any member of the Godhead was not God. Anything to the contrary is in the realm of speculative theology. I'm aware of the statements such as "As man is God once was, and as God is man may become," but those can be interpreted as referring to Christ--that He once was a Man (born of the virgin Mary about 1 BC) and that we may become like him (Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.) From our canon, (which includes the Bible) God was God "in the beginning." You can push that back as far as you'd like, and He is still God--both the Father and the Son.

The statement on this subject that I objected to was your claim that Christ was "[n]ot even worthy of being prayed to." It's true that we do not ordinarily pray to Jesus; but that has nothing to do with His worthiness. We do not pray to Jesus because He commanded, "This is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven..." (NIV)

Parenthetically, we do have instances in scripture where people appropriately prayed to Jesus: Stephen at his martyrdom, and in the Book of Mormon where a vast multitude prayed to Jesus while Jesus was standing before them praying to the Father. He is quoted as saying, "Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them.

Your insertion of the word "now" when you asked, "So you now believe Jesus is God..." is unwarranted and adds unnecessary qualifiers. We do believe that Jesus is God; but not that He is co-equal with the Father because he said, "... my Father is greater than I." I realize from your perspective that was qualified by His mortality; but from our perspective He was God both before, during and after His incarnation. He didn't cease being God the Son at any time. We have always believed that Jesus is God as evidenced from the Book of Mormon passages that He (Jesus) is the God of Israel and the creator of all things from the beginning.

Al

 

Thanks for your comment Jerome. I have always been fascinated by Rigdon's background and Campbell's theology.

AA