1. I have noticed that bloggernacle has upped the scale for LDS apologetics in 2008.
Do any of the LDS general authorities, especially the apostles, produce leading posts on doctrinal revelation? Or what about LDS apostles seriously and soberly engaging with traditional Christian pastors in America? If they don’t, why not?
The FAIR blog will be added to the HI4LDS side menu. I look forward to seeing how they will be fair in representing historical evangelicalism when they discuss both the bad and best for evangelicalism intersecting in 2008.
2. I see a variety of new LDS blog entries on Book of Mormon data. As I regularly post my questions from my reading of the Book of Mormon, please direct me to the blog entries that you might think would be pertinent.
3. And in Idaho Falls, we will be weekly updating the Berean Baptist Church wordpress site with short posts and snippets of events and biblical messages. For the curious ones, notice the feed, Always the Word, at the bottom of the sidebar. (Dart, it was Chris Leavell who set up this feed at HI4LDS. He is computer literate. I am the dummy.)
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
“If they don’t, why not?”
They have more important things to do (like preach the Gospel) than engage in often inane and pointless arguments with people already convinced they’re sheep-stealing Satanic dupes (as I believe most EV pastors think they are.) Not to put too-fine a point on it…
Nitsav, so they are to lead in the articulation of the fundamentals of the Gospel?
Excellent. I want to know where I can get an authoritative, full, orthodox, doctrinal presentation from beginning to end, by a modern LDS apostle that cuts through all the LDS speculation on the Gospel.
Any thoughts here? Which leads me to another question in my curiosity: Would the fundamentals of the LDS Gospel be given to any change?
Oh, and who do you think would be one of the main expositors of the LDS Gospel for your Church, today?
Ok, three questions in a quick rush. I will be quiet now. Nitsav, I feel strongly that the Lord has called me to preach the Gospel and to build our local church family on the Gospel.
There is no more important matter.
Todd, there has historically not been a systemmatic theology in Mormonism, which is what you seem to be asking an apostle to give you in 2008. As such, I don’t think that you will be gratified in this desire. Bruce McKonkie tried to do it but Mormon Doctrine was problematic and was never supported by the Church.
A systemmatic or encyclopedic theology might be natural in a religion that is not led by living Apostles but does not seem necessary or natural in a religion led and directed by revelation. We have the scriptures and the guidance of living Apostles. In this sense, we are very similar to the New Testament church, which likewise had no creeds or systemmatized, philosophized theology but rather relied on guidance directly from Peter, James, and John, and also from Paul.
John f., I can understand your words. I hear them.
But I can also detect the multitudes upon multitudes of different interpretations of the one, true Gospel.
Are the LDS apostles clearly laying out to their people what Peter, James, and John, and also Paul actually wrote in the biblical scriptures about the Gospel? Who leads who with clarity on the Gospel? The continual projections of scholars as they take cues from the various “biblical scholars” floating around in America seems to hold bigger sway for giving any particular details on the Gospel.
For me, the apostolic succession is closely tied to how accurate one strives in upholding the biblical apostle’s doctrine.
Both biblical prophets and apostles had plenty of strong doctrinal statements. We ought to give our strength to studying these and making them clear to America caught up in a quagmire of all kinds of philosophies about the Gospel. The Gospel is the true philosophy of where we came from, what is our purpose, and where we are going?
No part of the Gospel in its entirety must be kept hidden or exclusive from people.
“For me, the apostolic succession is closely tied to how accurate one strives in upholding the biblical apostle’s doctrine.”
Why should that be the case?
Why is accurate belief in all particulars necessary for a religion?
Isn’t orthodoxy just another excuse for being close-minded to a universe of possibilities? Or even against additional words from God?
Seth, think of the book of Acts . . . the mighty moving of the Spirit of God through the New Testament Church.
And what was one of the vital ingredients of Church life?
They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine.
Some charge the church for being obnoxious in doing this. Even arrogant. Or as you might infer, “close-minded.”
So we have all this creative innovation and speculation of doctrine in America (which I think is very prideful).
But . . .
Jesus glorified His Father by giving His Father’s doctrine (John 7). The Holy Spirit carried along the apostles and other authors for the further fleshing out of Christ’s doctrine. The N.T. church clung to the apostle’s doctrine.
Seth, check out today how passionately and thoroughly any LDS teacher/leader or evangelical teacher/leader adheres to the covering of apostle’s doctrine in the message.
How does a teacher/preacher most glorify God in the substantial content when delivering a message?
And I am all for additional words from God; I think this will really surface again around the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But with all the anti-christs abounding, we should never, ever bypass the careful scrutiny as revealed in Acts 17:11.
Be a Berean, Seth.
Sadly, most just yawn when I say this.
Earnestly thinking of heart issues . . .
I don’t yawn Todd. But I just can’t see myself ever being a Berean. I simply do not believe the sola scriptura position. It runs contrary to the pattern of God’s dealings with us in the past, and it just isn’t supported by the historical record. And the myriad of readings of the Bible… I very much feel as Joseph Smith did:
“for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom that I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”
Yes, it does seem like this will be the year of the Book of Mormon blog — that’s what the course of study is in adult LDS Sunday School this year and that seems to be a popular theme for newer LDS blogs.
“Nitsav, so they are to lead in the articulation of the fundamentals of the Gospel?”
Their primary calling, in my understanding, is to provide an apostolic witness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I’ll second John F., and add that neither Peter nor Paul ever produced a systematic theology… unless you think they did, in which case, why isn’t it helpfully included in the Bible? 😉
As for my problem with the Bereans, that might merit a blogpost.
I post fairly regularly about the Book of Mormon on my blog. Recently I posted on the creation theme found in Mosiah 2 ( http://strongreasons.blogspot.com/2008/01/creation-theme-in-mosiah-2.html). I have also posted on Book of Mormon internal textual evidences I think the critics often ignore (http://strongreasons.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-evidence-for-book-of-mormon.html).
Your comments and ideas are welcome.
The systematic theology stems from the biblical theology by the apostles. But I am still trying to figure out what is the LDS biblical theology.
Is there such a thing where modern LDS apostles are all in agreement on?
I don’t understand why LDS apostles are so reticent in articulating a strong, robust LDS biblical theology.
And if the LDS Church sees deficiencies in this area where exegetical skills are lacking, why is there not preparation made.
I just don’t see any real, sustained, genuine passion by LDS apostles here in the corridor for anything written by the apostles Peter and Paul.
I will stay tuned with your blog, Andrew.
Todd,
I think your assessment is at least in part true. It seemed that Joseph Smith quoted and referred to Peter and Paul more than most of the modern apostles combined.