Elder Bruce D. Porter and evangelical post online essays about Mormon Christianity

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Glenn
    Sept. 18, 2008 10:43 a.m.

    I enjoyed both essays very much and I hope many Mormons and non Mormons read both essays. It is good to see where the other is coming from. I would have liked to hear more of verse in John when Jesus said, "Other sheep I have...which I must visit." The Book of Mormon has never hurt anyone, and the more Christians read it, they will see we are pretty orthodox. With the passing of time the human race begins to learn more and more and with each passing day, the Book of Mormon wins over more hearts. The Bible is under attack, as is main stream Christianity, and someday we will see the Book of Mormon as a Saviour to the Bible and to old fashion values (which never hurt anyone either.) Neither the Bible nor Book of Mormon have power or capability to baptize an individual in water so without authority and belief in baptism neither of these books can get us squarely into heaven.

  • My,My
    Sept. 18, 2008 12:09 a.m.

    After all, Martin Luther was merely pointing out "differing" opinions of Christian doctrine; and while the Catholics branded him a heretic, it is doubtful that any modern thinking person of faith would question Luther's right to the honorific of "Christian".

    If one dissenter(and there are many thousands of others) may disagree and maintain recognition, why not Mormons?

  • My, My
    Sept. 17, 2008 11:49 p.m.

    It would be helpful to know if one of the statements was written in response to the other, or if the authors were given a position and asked to individually support it.

    That said, I don't think Professor McDermott was "attacking" doctrine, he was merely stating an opposing point of view to the position offered by Elder Porter. I think that McDermott raises well thought and valid questions concerning the Mormon understanding of Christ, but a carefull rereading of Porter shows that he answers those questions satisfactorally.

    My point of contention with McDermott would be to remind him that while "The Encyclopedia of Mormonism" is a useful reference, it is NOT necesarily "official" church doctrine. Though I found no objectionable statements among those quoted from the "Encyclopedia", McDermott's argument would be strengthened were he to limit his sources to canonical LDS scripture.

    The argument over Mormon "Christianity" seems not to be do we believe in Christ, but rather WHAT we believe Christ to be. That said, defining "Christianity" becomes far more complex than Mormons VS Everyone else; for all denominations have variant definitions of who the Savior was and what he did, else all creeds would have remained in unity.

  • To: RDGiff
    Sept. 17, 2008 9:27 p.m.

    I enjoyed your comments.

    It is sad that some like to "define" what others believe. It's kind of a "he said he/she said" type
    thing. Some religious groups spend time doing
    this in Sunday School lesson time rather that learning about more the Lord from the Bible.
    There's always the element of "trashing" the other guy(s).

    This type of behavior is kind of like what the
    politicians do to get votes in the weeks just
    before election day.`

  • To: DRGiff
    Sept. 17, 2008 8:30 p.m.

    I enjoyed your words. It IS annoying and tiresome
    when others say what another believes.

    In some religious groups doing this actually constitutes a Sunday School lesson. How sad when valuable time that could be used to learn MORE about the Lord from the Bible is spent tearing down the "perceived competition".

    Sounds like the tactics of politicians trying to get votes in the weeks before an election.

  • DRGiff
    Sept. 17, 2008 7:31 p.m.

    Does anyone else notice that while Elder Porter spends his time discussing what the LDS believe, the other writer spends his time discussing what he thinks the LDS believe, instead of what he believes. Why must detractors of our faith always attack. If you are right, fine, then be comfortable in your standing. The only reason to attack anyone else's beliefs are if they threaten yours. I for one, will stand with one who is completely comfortable in his beliefs, enough so that he does not have to demean himself and stoop to trying to put words and beliefs into another's mouth. I'm sure there will be lots of hate and vile following this post...that is unfortunate. I know who I you?