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.
Cont...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
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.
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 doingthis 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 thepoliticians do to get votes in the weeks just before
I enjoyed your words. It IS annoying and tiresomewhen 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.
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 am...do you?