Evangelicals v. Mormons

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes I do believe there has been a shift from restoration-focus to Christ-centered-focus. Some of this has come from the top. "I worry that there are sacrament meetings where the Savior is never talked about." (paraphrased). "Another testament of Christ". Change in the logo. GBH's media interviews that focus on commonalities instead of the restoration.

Whether this is a subtle shift or a moderately major shift, it is hard to say. Time will tell. But I think it is safe to say that the language used in sacrament meetings about Joseph Smith is not the same in substance or quantity today.

I am not alone in these observations. "Friend" agrees also, and he's not nearly the so-called liberal I am.

I personally worry about this shift. I worry that the line that separates us from the rest of Christianity has faded, if only slightly.

SU, your take is way more extreme than Mike's. And Mike is far in the minority in this view, IMHO.

I do agree there is a shift in the emphasis and focus on Jesus Christ.

I don't believe there is a deemphasis on JS/restoration. With all the anniversaries over the last ten years of the restoration of the church, and pioneers, and priesthood restoration, and JS birthday, JS has been a prominent focus--as much as ever, IMHO.

Now when you emphasize something or increase your attention on something, I suppose it's only natural that something else gets less of your attention. I wouldn't consider that deemphasizing to me.

Deemphasizing to me is GBH talking about whether God was once like man and we will be like God "we don't know much about it and we don't talk about it a lot". That's clear and obvious deemphasis. Deemphasis is prosecuting the hell out of polygamy.

From Elder Ucctdorf last month on what a testimony is

--God lives. He is our loving Father in Heaven, and we are His children.
--Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and the Savior of the world.
--Joseph Smith is the prophet of God through whom the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in the latter days.
--The Book of Mormon is the word of God.
--President Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the prophets, seers, and revelators in our day.

I hate when people use one data point to prove or disprove a trend, but I see this as one of hundreds of data points to show that JS is not being deemphasized whatsoever.

Also, I strongly disagree with you Mike on the trend to focus on Christ being bad. I see it as the church evolving/repenting/getting closer to God's will. I think we were hung up on how we were different so much that it caused us focus on the wrong things.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes I do believe there has been a shift from restoration-focus to Christ-centered-focus. Some of this has come from the top. "I worry that there are sacrament meetings where the Savior is never talked about." (paraphrased). "Another testament of Christ". Change in the logo. GBH's media interviews that focus on commonalities instead of the restoration.

Whether this is a subtle shift or a moderately major shift, it is hard to say. Time will tell. But I think it is safe to say that the language used in sacrament meetings about Joseph Smith is not the same in substance or quantity today.

I am not alone in these observations. "Friend" agrees also, and he's not nearly the so-called liberal I am.

I personally worry about this shift. I worry that the line that separates us from the rest of Christianity has faded, if only slightly.

I have to agree with Santos here. If there has been a subtle shift to Christ, what is the problem? Why is this a bad thing?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Also, I strongly disagree with you Mike on the trend to focus on Christ being bad. I see it as the church evolving/repenting/getting closer to God's will. I think we were hung up on how we were different so much that it caused us focus on the wrong things.

I agree in principle that focusing on Christ is good. But we have a message. And that message is the restoration of Christ's church. And the way people will believe that is the case, is if they believe that the true gospel was restored via JS. Hence, if we lose that focus, we lose our reason for being. The raison d'etre of the church.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I have to agree with Santos here. If there has been a subtle shift to Christ, what is the problem? Why is this a bad thing?

Nobody says it's a bad thing. I'm neutral on this, leaning toward it being a good thing to the extent I still have a dog in this hunt (Mormons talk about why people like myself can't leave them alone, but I notice they are ever vigilent in seeking to enslave the souls of my children). Mostly I think the phenomenon is interesting. Mormonism seems perhaps endlessly plastic, able to reinvent itself. This shift is certainly a strategy designed to lift Mormonism to the next level in size and profile. We'll see if it works. As we see wtih the mainline Protestant religions, too much assimilation by a sect can lead to self-destruction too. These are tricky times for faith based creeds and philosphies.

I do know this. Go to the primary Mormon instrument for missionary work and there's no question where the emphasis lies. What's on the main floor of the Temple Square visitor's center? An impressive model of Jerusalem in the days of Christ, murals of Old and New Testament scenes, etc. Climb the circular ramp and you arrive at an atrium and a huge statue of Christ. Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon figures, etc. are tucked away in the basement. You find nary a sign of Jeseph Smith, etc. in that newish Alber Speerish looking building across the street (I can't recall what it's called). A couple of years ago I picked up a copy of a recently published book by President Hinckly and there wasn't a single reference to Lamanites or Nephites in the index.

By the way, in response to Archea, "radical" is not my characterization of Mike's view of traditional Mormon lore about its origins. Nor is it really my characterization (there's a sense in which that's the way I see it). I was interpreting what the author of the article meant, and I think she was characterizing Mormon doctrine through the eyes of the Evangelicals she was highlighting in her article. I do think that most Christians outside Mormonism would regard the concept of Mormonism being the one and only true "restored gospel," and angels delivering such restored gospel to Joseph Smith through golden plates Joseph would translate with magic devices, laying on of hands by resurrected Peter James & John, etc., as radical.

[MikeWaters]

One other point. Perhaps members have erred in their neglect of Christ. So one can argue for in-house emphasis of Christ's place in our worship.

But taking that position to the public is an iffy proposition, if it means that we are not proclaiming that which sets us apart.

I know I am sketchy ground when I say this, but I wish in our Larry King interviews we were more bold in our characterizations of our church. But that is just my personality. There may be good reasons to take this watered-down ecumenical approach.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I agree in principle that focusing on Christ is good. But we have a message. And that message is the restoration of Christ's church. And the way people will believe that is the case, is if they believe that the true gospel was restored via JS. Hence, if we lose that focus, we lose our reason for being. The raison d'etre of the church.

If we lose our distinctiveness, we lose our mark in the marketplace of religion. Christ is at the core, but the periphery is not irrelevant.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If we lose our distinctiveness, we lose our mark in the marketplace of religion. Christ is at the core, but the periphery is not irrelevant.

Okay, some poeple find the new focus worrisome.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Okay, some poeple find the new focus worrisome.

I hope we're never boxed in with the Evangelicals. Ethically, we pronounce similar positions. Values appear similar but that's where we end. We do not view the world, faith or most other spiritual things similarly. Hopefully, we can embrace science better, philosophy more wholly and seek out all new advancements, as we define them.

Intellectually, we have our own niche, but hopefully we adopt some of the intellectual rigors of Catholicism and Judaism.

Financially, I like our more modern approach.

Christ should be at our core of daily living. Not Trinitarian. That philosophy never will make any sense to me. I'd rather be completely agnostic, leaning on atheism, than Trinitarian. The complete separation is logical and completing.

If you're Mercedes or Bentley, you don't decide to act like a company selling Hyundaes.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Lisa.Kinzer

Ouch! You might, if you're trying to appeal to the people currently driving Hyundai or Kia.

May not be a very good long-term strategy though, once the Kia-drivers realize they can't afford the Bentley.

I think I botched that metaphor, but you get what I mean.


In the commercials that air out here (the ones where you call in for a free Book of Mormon), it is clear the message is intended to be as Christian-friendly and unoffensive as possible.

I understand the approach, but not certain it will work. Diluting distinctiveness doesn't guarantee market share.

Everbody wants a MB or Porsche. Few people aspire to a Kia, but drive one as a compromise. (Note the Korean cars are actually quite functional and reliable, just no panache).

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I hope we're never boxed in with the Evangelicals. Ethically, we pronounce similar positions. Values appear similar but that's where we end. We do not view the world, faith or most other spiritual things similarly. Hopefully, we can embrace science better, philosophy more wholly and seek out all new advancements, as we define them.

Intellectually, we have our own niche, but hopefully we adopt some of the intellectual rigors of Catholicism and Judaism.

Financially, I like our more modern approach.

Christ should be at our core of daily living. Not Trinitarian. That philosophy never will make any sense to me. I'd rather be completely agnostic, leaning on atheism, than Trinitarian. The complete separation is logical and completing.

If you're Mercedes or Bentley, you don't decide to act like a company selling Hyundaes.

When you go on these philosophical tangents I really wonder what the heck you're saying. If you made more grammar mistakes it would be a grapevine knock off. If you threw in words no one understands you'd be ripping of SIEQ. But really what are you trying to say??

The issue is a subtle shift to emphasize Christ.