The Measure of our Christian Conversion: How We Treat Others

At this time of extreme contention and lack of civility, particularly in our political and religious discourse, I find the following quote enlightening and the final paragraph important to consider:

It seems interesting that the first principles the Lord Jesus Christ chose to teach His newly called Apostles were those that center around the way we treat each other. And then, what did He emphasize during the brief period He spent with the Nephites on this continent? Basically the same message. Could this be because the way we treat each other is the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ?  

During an informal fireside address held with a group of adult Latter-day Saints, the leader directing the discussion invited participation by asking the question: “How can you tell if someone is converted to Jesus Christ?” For forty-five minutes those in attendance made numerous suggestions in response to this question, and the leader carefully wrote down each answer on a large blackboard. All of the comments were thoughtful and appropriate. But after a time, this great teacher erased everything he had written. Then, acknowledging that all of the comments had been worthwhile and appreciated, he taught a vital principle: “The best and most clear indicator that we are progressing spiritually and coming unto Christ is the way we treat other people.”  

Would you consider this idea for a moment—that the way we treat the members of our families, our friends, those with whom we work each day is as important as are some of the more noticeable gospel principles we sometimes emphasize.  

- Marvin J. Ashton (The Tongue Can Be a Sharp Sword) 

Honoring the Faith(s) of Our Non-Mormon Ancestors

Pres. Uchtdorf gave a talk in the April 2008 General Conference called "Faith of Our Father". In it he said:

When my own family contemplates the phrase “faith of our fathers,” often it is the Lutheran faith that comes to mind. For generations our ancestors belonged to that denomination. In fact, my son recently discovered that one of our family lines connects back to Martin Luther himself.

We honor and respect sincere souls from all religions, no matter where or when they lived, who have loved God, even without having the fulness of the gospel. We lift our voices in gratitude for their selflessness and courage. We embrace them as brothers and sisters, children of our Heavenly Father.

We believe that it is a fundamental human right to worship “Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

and

As the restored Church of Jesus Christ blossoms throughout the globe—now with more than 13 million members—“the faith of our fathers” has an expanded meaning. For some, it could refer to their family’s heritage in one of the hundreds of Christian faiths; for others, it could refer to Middle-Eastern, Asian, or African faiths and traditions.

I know the rest of that talk was a pretty standard interpretation of the Restored Gospel, but I really love the quotes above. Notice how Pres. Uchtdorf said "faiths and traditions" - not just "religions". We really should honor "sincere souls from all religions" - and I would add, "sincere souls who profess no religion".

Holding On and Letting Go: Mormonism Is Unique, but Not As Unique As Many People Think

I have heard a lot of Mormons bemoan what they see as the abandonment of some unique aspects of Mormon theology and history that they believe and cherish.  I share that general concern that we not lose our uniqueness and become just another Protestant denomination, but I disagree that we have abandoned our uniqueness in an attempt to become more mainstream.  I believe we have abandoned some of the unique aspects of our historical interpretations of doctrine that I have come to see as "the incorrect traditions of our own fathers".

To frame this around missionary work and the message that is presented currently to people who are investigating the LDS Church, let me mention a few areas of improvement I see now compared to when I served a mission:

Improvement #1) My daughter served a mission in Germany just last year – and she taught most of the things most people mention loving so much. She didn’t teaching a new, watered down version of Mormonism, different than I taught almost 30 years ago. She taught the same concepts and principles – but she could dig in and tailor what she said to each person in a way I couldn't when I served.

Improvement #2) I don’t want our “folklore” taught by the missionaries, and it isn't being taught. I don’t want much of our current culture taught by the missionaries, and it isn't supposed to be taught. I want them to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, including the unique aspects of Mormon theology – and they are. I have no quibble whatsoever with the missionary discussions that are in Preach My Gospel – and I absolutely am a bit envious that my kids get to teach in a very different way than I had to when I served and said the same memorized words, in the same order, to every. single. person. I. taught. My daughter gets to rely on the Holy Ghost to help her teach individuals about the Gospel and the Restoration in different ways, not teach the exact same lessons to widely diverse people.

Improvement #3) I want all of the unique gems of our theology to be taught in ways that make as much sense as possible to those who are listening – and, often, that can be done better by using Biblical passages they already say they accept than to focus exclusively on the Book of Mormon. Our relationship to our Heavenly Parents is a perfect example. It is rich in the Bible and, essentially, non-existent in the Book of Mormon. Teaching it from the Bible through passages Christians supposedly already accept (even if they don’t understand them) isn’t sacrificing our teachings in any way. In fact, I see it as strengthening and emphasizing those teachings much more than I used to be able to do.

Improvement #4) There is a lot of stuff from our past that I and many people who read here don’t want taught. We’ve moved on from much of it, and we celebrate and thank God for that. Being unique and being similar (and, in some cases, exactly alike) are not mutually exclusive – and I believe it’s worth letting go of some “uniqueness” if, in fact, I believe that those unique things are not eternal and, in some cases, even are damaging and not of God. I don’t mind at all much of what we have jettisoned in my lifetime, even as I share the concern that we not jettison what I see as the wonderful aspects of our peculiarity.

That’s not an easy balance to strike, and it never will be accepted unanimously by our membership, since we all see things slightly (and even radically) differently - but I really like the fact that I see the Church leadership making an honest effort to strike that balance of both holding on and letting go.

LDS Church History is a Microcosm of Judeo-Christian History

For quite a while I have viewed the history of the Church as a modern reenactment of "The Restoration of All Things" - meaning that I have seen something akin to an evolutionary process as the Church has progressed that models religious history.

A sort of spiritual explosion (Big Bang) started it all - taking chaos and starting to organize it into a habitable formation; an Old Testament-like isolation and "kingdom building" (the establishment of a new "people") followed; next came a long integration into "the world"; finally, a New Testament-like shift in emphasis to principles over form occurred as the composition of "the chosen people" morphed to include "others".

I see the Church as being in the early but not beginning stages of that New Testament shift and expansion.

The LDS Church Was a Cult but Isn't Now, Just Like Every Other Major Religion

The most historically-based definition of "cult" is a movement where a charismatic leader draws followers away from "the established religion(s)" of the time. In other words, those who lose members define what is a cult, based often on the amount of success of the charismatic founder. Thus, Jesus was seen as a cultist who was drawing away followers from the synagogues - and, even worse, gaining the attention of the Romans who didn't appreciate rabble-rousing, apocalyptic, Messianic preachers who might lead a political revolt.

Mormonism absolutely started as a cult by the first, traditional, broad definition; pretty much every successful religion and denomination started as a cult, based on the standard definition. Even the word "culture" gives a nod to that simple fact.  Frankly, we collectively overuse the term "cult" so much in our modern society that many people have lost the ability to distinguish between the definition above and the more sinister definition that includes explicit mind-control, brainwashing and coercion.

Having said all of that, it is possible for individuals within any organization to lean toward the more sinister definition of culthood.  Thus, my favorite introspective response ever to the question of whether the LDS Church is a cult is:

"Lord, is it I?"

I Want to Be a Mormon Christian, Not a Christian Mormon

If you look closely at multiple General Conference talks and statements over the years, I think it's obvious that the top leadership of the Church believes there is a difference between church membership and Christian discipleship. In fact, at least twice in my memory during General Conference, it was said in crystal clear terms that activity in church doesn't guarantee Christian discipleship. The issue is that many talks appear to illustrate a belief that it's hard for most people to live a Christ-centered life without also having a church-centered life - and, frankly, they probably are correct in most cases.

Christianity and church affiliation are so intertwined now, as much outside the LDS Church as inside it, that it's really hard for people of pretty much any denomination (or even "non-denominational" congregations) to separate the two - and, given the communal nature of the New Testament focus, I'm not sure the two actually can be separated properly. In a very practical way, it really is difficult to divorce being a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth from being part of a religious community - a group "following", if you will. In Jesus' ministry, it wasn't a formal "church", per se - but people absolutely left family and friends to follow him around as he preached. They formed a religious community, even if they didn't build and gather in meetinghouses of their own.


Furthermore, as I have said in other posts here, the Mormon conception of the next life is not focused on individual salvation but rather communal exaltation. 

The difficulty here, in my opinion, is not that we need to separate the two affiliations totally and make it Christian discipleship vs. church membership; rather, we need to balance the two and prioritize them so that we live Christ-centered lives within the LDS Church - not that we live church-centered lives that include Christ.

In other words, we should be Mormon Christians - not Christian Mormons.

Playing the Jesus Card

Just so it's in print, I try to be VERY careful about using the "Jesus card" in discussions of just about anything (meaning I try to avoid saying, "Well, Jesus obviously would do _________" or, "Jesus obviously wouldn't agree with that," or something similar to that message) - but especially when discussing how the LDS Church is organized and run currently.  I avoid it for many reasons, not the least of which is that his ministry was WAY different than the running of a church organization.

Think about that seriously for a minute, and I think you'll see what I mean.  Jesus never led a church; he was essentially an itinerant preacher who gained a following but established nothing organizationally during his ministry.  He left that to his disciples to do after his death, and we have nothing recorded about his directives to them concerning that subsequent effort after his post-resurrection return - except the command to go, teach and baptize. 

The Jesus card squelches discussion pretty quickly - and if we start using the Jesus card, we really aren't doing anything different than Protestants, Catholics, ex-Mormons or anyone else who uses it to squelch discussions with us concerning our Mormon beliefs.

Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church

I found the article linked below, and I thought some of you who read my blog might be interested in reading it. I only am including here the main reasons the article lists for young adults leaving their churches. Feel free to read the article and excerpt other things for discussion - or simply to discuss any or all of the reasons below.

"Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church"

Reason #1 – Churches seem overprotective.

Reason #2 – Teens’ and twenty-somethings’ experience of Christianity is shallow.

Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.

Reason #4 – Young Christians’ church experiences related to sexuality are often simplistic, judgmental.

Reason #5 – They wrestle with the exclusive nature of Christianity.

Reason #6 – The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.

Knowledge of Some Things Does Not Eliminate the Need for Faith in Others

I believe that there is an element of faith within Mormonism that is completely absent from most of the rest of Christianity - the idea that we literally have the potential to become like God.  It's one thing to believe in God - and even to have "faith" in God; it's quite another thing to have faith in what I believe the Bible actually teaches about our relationship to God, the Father, and God, the Son. 

The capstone condemnation in JSH 1:19 is that people can have a form of godliness but deny the power of God - and I believe the element of faith that can be missing even in the very presence of God is not that God exists but that God can and will take us from our imperfect, ungodly state and change us into His perfect, godly state.  According to most of the rest of Christianity, that is Mormonism's central heresy - while I believe its lack is the central abomination of their theologies, since it eliminates the Biblical concept that requires the deepest, most empowering faith. 

To apply that to the after-life, I look at the pre-mortal life and see, perhaps, that aspect of faith as the great divider of those who accepted the Father's plan and those who didn't.  Perhaps the 1/3 said, in essence, "We are scared to take the chance you outline in mortality, since we can't believe it will work out as you say it will. We will accept Lucifer's plan, since he has an obvious guarantee - even if it means we will return in the exact same condition as we leave."  Perhaps the 2/3 said, "We don't understand what we can't see, but we believe, nonetheless." 

I know this is reading our theology into a parable that might not have been meant to convey this message, but it's interesting to look at the parable of the talents in that light.  Two (of three) servants took what was presented to them and acted in confidence, while the other one (of three) was too scared of what he couldn't conceive to act as he was required to act.  Two had "active faith" - but all three knew the Master and what kind of man he was.  That applied to when they were away from the Master's presence, but it could apply just as easily to tasks given in his presence.

In that regard, knowledge of one thing (the Master's existence AND his demands of them) didn't eliminate the need for faith in other things - especially in the fundamental nature and potential result of their relationship with the Master.

The Most Fundamental Reason Mormons Are Christian: Sets and Sub-Sets

Someone once asked the following question in a group discussion in which I was involved: 

"If Christians aren't Mormons, why is it OK for Mormons to want to be called Christians?"

My response was: 

Let me re-phrase your question in terms of another set and sub-set - one that has direct and obvious historical precedent:

"If humans aren't African-American, why is it OK for African-Americans to want to be called humans?" 

This is a simple question of sets and sub-sets.  It's not any more complicated than that.

If it's OK for people to disagree about some doctrines (and Protestants of different denominations have disagreed VIOLENTLY over lots of "foundational" doctrines over the centuries) and still be considered Christians - and if the only immutable concept which everyone within Protestantism must confess in order to be considered Christian is that Jesus is the Christ and Savior and Redeemer (which, in a nutshell, is the standard for Protestants who disagree vehemently about lots of other things) - and if, in fact, Mormons actually do confess this required concept (which, in fact, they do) - then the only way to exclude them from being Christian is to change the rules explicitly for them - to hold them to a different standard and definition than that to which others are held.

That's hypocrisy, pure and simple - since, just as African-Americans are humans no matter how others might have excluded them in the past from that category, Mormons are Christian no matter how others still exclude them from that category.  It's a simple concept made complex by people who simply are unwilling to let go of the incorrect biases and prejudices of the past, just like White Supremists who still won't admit that African-Americans really are fully human.

My Faith Growth During College - Ironically in Religion Classes That Were Decidedly Not Mormon

I was in college when I had my strongest experiences forming an individual relationship with the Church and forging much of what is my own testimony. I served a mission and had some great experiences, but it was at college that I learned the most about my own perspective - my own personal faith.

I took a number of classes at the Harvard Divinity School, and I was deeply impressed by a few things:

1) "Fundamentals of Christian Theology" just didn't resonate with me - AT ALL. The class was taught by a renowned Catholic theologian, and he did a wonderful job teaching the "fundamentals" of mainstream Christianity (and was an excellent teacher). I loved him and his class, but the actual "fundamentals" themselves did absolutely nothing for me. There were so many "Seriously?!" moments, and it really crystalized in my own mind the difference between what I had come to understand and love as "pure Mormonism" and what these brilliant, dedicated, faithful Christians (whom I respected, admired and loved) believed and taught. It was a real Zen slap for me, if I can mix metaphors.

2) I took a class called "Jesus and the Moral Life" from Harvey Cox - the author of "The Secular City" and one of the icons of liberation theology. In that class, I read a couple of books that had a profound effect on me (particularly "Jesus, before Christianity" by Albert Nolan) - ironically, by re-enforcing the distinction I saw between the Gospel, the Church and church culture.

3) I had a couple of Master's level seminars that were small group discussions, with lots of one-on-one interaction with faculty and Doctoral candidates, that were real eye-openers - introductions to not only "mainstream Christianity" but also lots of movements within "fringe Christianity" (like gay theology and feminist theology). Again, ironically, I had a vision of how the core of these fringe theologies actually could fit into pure Mormonism that was amazing.

It was the "meta-level vision", if you will, that was strengthened in these classes and gave me "outside confirmation" of my own testimony.

Sunday School Lesson: Moroni 1-7

Since we had the new curriculum training last week, I combined two lessons today and taught Moroni 1-7.

1) We started by looking at the time line note at the bottom of the first page of Moroni. We talked about why it says 400AD-421AD and how that relates to why Moroni is one of my favorite characters in the Book of Mormon.

2) We read quickly through the headings of Chapters 1-6 and talked about how meetings still are supposed to be conducted by the influence of the Holy Ghost (that even though we use a standard format, those who conduct are supposed to have the ability and authority to alter that format when impressed to do so).

3) We spent the rest of the time on Moroni 7:1-19, verse by verse. The main points I made were:

a) verses 5-11 -- Those who do good things for bad reasons "have their reward" and, thus, are not rewarded additionally by God. To use an obvious example, if someone makes friends with someone else in order to rob that person, they will have the reward of the extra money - but it won't change them into a better person and make them closer to becoming like God.

b) verses 12-17 -- We listed things the students thought are good ways to judge if something is good or bad. There were some good suggestions, including if we would do something in front of our grandmothers or Jesus.

I mentioned that there are some things I would do in front of one of my grandmothers but not in front of the other one, so, while that might be a good general starting point, we have to be careful about defining what we should do based on others being able to see us. We then talked for about 5 minutes about how much I am concerned about the idea of doing only what we would do if Jesus was with us - not because I think it's a bad standard, but because I think we tend to focus so much on our perception of Jesus, the God, that we ignore all the evidence about Jesus, the man, and end up thinking we can't do lots of things that I believe would be perfectly fine to do.

I asked if they could think of anything we probably wouldn't do with Jesus now, given our culture, that we probably would do with him back in his time and culture. "Drink wine" was the first response (which answer impressed me, since the girl who gave it was clear that it would have been just fine to drink wine with Jesus back in the day), so we talked about the fact that he was criticized for drinking wine, unlike John, the Baptist. I mentioned that I hope he would enjoy my sense of humor, even the parts of it that I don't share with very many people in church - that I could have a really good laugh with him and just be silly at times.

We then listed the things that are mentioned in chapter 7 (invites and entices to do good, love God, serve him, persuades to believe in Christ -- and their opposites) and discussed how those things are independent of who can see us as we act.

c) Before moving on to the next verses, given the time constraints, I mentioned again the need to not pull verses out of context and in isolation and, thus, miss the "big picture" concept being taught throughout an entire chapter. I stressed that the rest of the chapter to which we wouldn't get deals with charity and how critical it is to obtain. I wrote "charity" above the two lists (good and bad) and then moved to the next verses.

d) verses 18-19 -- I stressed that the focus of these two verses is NOT on avoiding embracing the bad; rather, the focus is on avoiding rejecting the good. That is fascinating and extremely important, in my opinion.

We talked about how I don't agree with lots of things that are taught in other denominations, but that, if I was to hazard a guess about how much of what is taught in any random church is "good" vs. "bad" on any given Sunday, I would put the ratio at no lower than 90% good and 10% bad - and, in most cases, higher than that. I told them that I try really hard to allow charity to influence how I make that determination.

In practical terms, that means I see the "good list" reasons as "either/or" statements (that as long as something does at least one of the things on the list, I accept it as good and of God), while I see the "bad list" reasons generally as "and" statements (that bad things have to do more than one thing on the list or be focused exclusively on one of them). I used the example of Islam teaching lots of good things, even though it can be classified as "denying Christ" if we choose to look at it that way, as well as the example of an evangelical, anti-Mormon rant on the radio that also includes lots of teachings that really do invite and entice to do good, love God and serve him. Just because I don't like some of what is said or the actual people saying it, that doesn't mean I can reject everything that is said. Charity dictates to me that I listen for what I can learn from everything and not obsess so much over the disagreement(s) that I miss the chance to be taught and edified. I told them there is an important difference between hearing something and automatically thinking, "That's bad, so I won't listen to anything being said," and, "What good can I take from this, even if I don't agree with most of it."

4) I also stressed that I want them to let me know what they want to learn next year within the new curriculum - that absolutely no topic is off limits within the categories we will be discussing. I mentioned as an example the month that will be dedicated to Family and Marriage - telling them that there are lots of potential topics we can discuss that month and that absolutely none of them are off limits. I told them that they are old enough that we can talk about anything, no matter how controversial, awkward, difficult, etc. they think it might be.

Mormonism's God Really Isn't the God of Mainstream, Protestant Christianity

Frankly, I see more similarities in the "big picture" theology of Mormonism to Buddhism than to most of Christianity - and I really can understand why other Christians say we aren't Christian. When I use the standard LDS Church vocabulary, I call it a restoration of ALL things - not just all things Christian.

(Just as quick examples: There is a strong strain of reincarnation [multiple life stages of growth and development culminating in oneness with the divine] in our theology - even though it is not the classic Buddhist version. There is a strong sense of focus on finding and creating ancestral ties - even though it is not the classic Shinto, Buddhist or Catholic version. It's much more of a combination - a melding of theologies, if you will. There are MANY examples of this within Mormonism.)

How does that affect my view of Jesus?

It really doesn't affect the core of how I view him and his mission, but it does expand his role for me.

Whether I view his life and death as having a literal saving component or as being purely symbolic (and by "purely" I mean "fully" not "merely"), I see "Jesus" as a universal Savior and his life and death as a universal model. (much like the name "Elias" means simply one who is sent to represent, leading to someone being "an Elias" - and much like "Adam" being a universal designator of "man" and "Eve" being "mother" - and much like we speak of individuals being "Saviors on Mount Zion") In this view, the terms Savior, Redeemer, Creator, Judge - and even God - become conditions and roles rather than unique titles for only one Being - with Jesus becoming the one who is the Exemplar of all these conditions and roles to bring us toward Godhood, not just God. He is the Model of one who became man to become God again - and, in so doing, bridged the previously unbridgeable chasm that lay between GOD and his children. He "marked the path and led the way" not just to God, but to Godhood. He is not just God, but rather he also is me - and you and all.

To me, pure Mormonism isn't about Christianity; rather, it's about Christ and Father as emulative goals for all. It's not about a chosen people; it's about humanity being chosen. It's not about us OR God; it's about a real, binding relationship between us AND God, our Father (and, beautifully, Mother). It's not about individual salvation; it's about inter-connected unity and exaltation.

I know that gets lost often in the clash between theology ("Mormonism") and organization ("LDS Church"), but this post is about Mormonism, not the LDS Church - and the transcendent nature of Mormonism largely keeps me aligned "faithfully" to the LDS Church. It's what makes that "duck" a unique and singular "swan" for me, to a large degree - or, more precisely, it's the venue in which we are taught that we ducks actually are created to become swans and that the same is true of all around us.

Finally, Christianity, as it is conceived and presented and believed by many, many Christians, isn't truly a universal theology. (It is for some, most notably many Catholics, but it is not for many, most notably the vast majority of Protestants.) It's a world-wide religion, but it's not a universal theology - nor even universal for this world. It doesn't posit that even the majority will be saved, much less that all will be saved and an unknown number exalted. (a larger number, in my opinion, than even most Mormons believe) Mormonism really is a world-wide religion with a universal theology - and it posits Jesus as the great mediator / savior / redeemer of all creation (even in "other worlds"). Again, whether or not that is taken literally or figuratively / symbolically, it is a transcendent concept that is fundamentally different than the view of Jesus within the rest of Christianity.

Jesus really is different in Mormonism than in Christianity - primarily because he isn't limited to being a "Christian" Savior / Redeemer / God within Mormonism.

Mormon Theology: God's Paternal Love

[NOTE: This post is about theology, not about people. It is about what religions and denominations teach in their official creeds, not about what members believe and practice at the individual level.]

Ultimately, one of the reasons I love Mormon theology so much is that it is such a loving theology - FAR more loving than any other Christian denomination of which I am aware. (I don't count Unitarian Universalists, frankly, because, as much as I admire them, I see them as a non-denominational church with a denominational name only.) By a "loving theology", I mean:

1) God does what He does out of what I call "true parental love" - not some condescending "love" that is more like a master has for his pets. I mean that literally. Think of the ultimate end in mainstream Christian theology, and it's incredibly self-serving of God. I want to say this carefully, but it boils down essentially to:

"Adore me. Tell me how much you love me. Praise me. **Give me the glory.** After all, I deserve it; I'm God, and you aren't."

In Calvinism, it can be taken to the extreme that yields:

"Dance for me - all of you. DO your best to please me, and, at the end, I'll let you know which of you I have already chosen to bless and which of you danced your darnedest just so I could take pleasure in your dancing - before I roasted you forever in that fiery lake over there."

In Mormon theology, however, God's entire "work and glory" is to do all he can to make sure his children grow to become like him. His "glory" is the same "glory" I receive when my kids grow up to be good people - the pride and joy and accomplishment I feel when I know that my actions have helped produce something beautiful and good and uplifting and enlightening and wonderful and OF ME. That's true parental love and true grace (at-one-ment) - and it simply doesn't exist in most Christian theology.

Most Christians Would Reject Jesus as Christ if He Lived Now

Personally, I think we are missing the years before Jesus' ministry in the Bible to keep us from using them to deny his divinity. I think, generally, the divorce of his mortality from his divinity has done more to attack how Jesus really was (divine AND mortal) than perhaps anything else, and since Christianity generally already has denied his mortality in all practical ways, a record of his early years would complete the process by being used to deny his divinity.

I believe if we saw his entire life, most people would see him as just another guy - exactly as the people did in his own country who saw him growing up and couldn't accept him as the Messiah. I believe the only "perfect" (whole, complete, fully developed) picture of him includes a God as actual man, but admitting the "man" would destroy the conception of "God" held throughout "mainstream" Christianity.

People nit-pick prophets.  Can you imagine how we would nit-pick someone who claimed to be the Savior and Redeemer of mankind if we were able to see his childhood, adolescence and all other pre-ministry aspects of his life? I firmly believe most Christians would reject Jesus if he lived now the life I believe he lived then, since their conception of the Savior and Redeemer of the world doesn't match the man I believe he was - and, to be fair, I think that's true of more than a few LDS members, as well, in some ways. 

I Want My Effort to Become Christ-Like to Mean Something Real

If I am going to pursue "becoming like God", I want it to mean something vital and empowering.

I want to believe it is a "real" goal, not just a platitude. I'm not 100% certain of much when it comes to the afterlife, but I at least want to believe I really am an actual child capable of becoming like my actual father.

I don't like the warped perfectionism I see in many people (including too many LDS members), but I will take it as the flip side of the wonderful emphasis on godliness that is embedded so openly in Mormon theology. I want to be striving for exaltation, not be complacent in salvation. I know that seems to be an over-simplification, but I think it's a pretty fair summary of the difference between the actual theologies of Mormonism and other Christian sects.

Seeing the Beauty in Other Religions and Denominations

I am "amazed" on a regular basis by other religions and movements - in a good and enlightening way. I think there is awesome value in them, and there is MUCH we as a church can learn from others.

I would love to see more passionate singing, more praise-centered talks, more diversity of activities for the youth, more focus on local, practical service for those not of our faith, etc. I am inspired by the Muslim dedication to prayer; I love the symbolism of Catholic mass; the meditation and focus on internal calm of Buddhism enthralls me; Confucius was an incredible prophet, imo; etc.

Comparative Religion was my favorite subject in college, specifically because I want to learn from others' perspectives. I even listened to the evangelical radio shows when I traveled in rural OH, since there almost always was something I could learn from the sermons - even those that included things that are diametrically opposed to some of the core principals that are taught in the LDS Church.

I believe Moroni's description of what comes from God as whatever inspires to do good and come to Christ includes much that can be found in other religions and denominations - especially when "coming to Christ" is understood as "becoming like Christ, even if there is no conscious understanding and acceptance of Christ". Given that belief, I love to study others and their religions and try to learn and grow from them.

I Want to Worship a God Become Man

"Idealized heroes are unsatisfying because in the process of idealizing them, we take away everything that makes them real and makes us able to relate to them."

One of my pet peeves within Christianity is what has been done to Jesus, the man, in order to emphasize Jesus, the Christ. In most modern Christian constructs, the mortal has been completely lost in the God. My wife laughs at my reaction to "little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes" (Away in a Manger"), but it epitomizes this neutering of the man that I sense in most depictions of him.

I read the Gospels and see a very complicated person. A God made man who had to grow from grace to grace - who (according to our modern understanding of accountability) could have been a rambunctious, difficult, headstrong toddler and/or young child without ever sinning but gets painted as a docile angel - who has had all humanity air-brushed away to create what some see as an ideal.

I want to worship a God become man, not a God become earthbound angel.

Mormon Reincarnation and Universalism

I am a universalist in the Biblical sense of "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22) I don't see how any believing Christian can address that verse (or the entire chapter of 1 Cor. 15, actually) without being "universalist" in that way - since "all who die in Adam" means "all who ever have lived". In Mormon terms, that means I believe all who ever have lived (minus very few Sons of Perdition, who are the exception that proves the rule) will be "saved" and receive a degree of glory.

I also am universalist in that I believe exaltation is "available" for all - and I am "more universalist" than many other Mormons in that I believe we will be shocked in the end at the percentages that make up the various kingdoms. Frankly, I don't preach reincarnation, since it's not part of the Christian paradigm, but I see a "reincarnative process" in our theology that is missing completely from the rest of Christianity - that informs how we are universalist at heart.

At the very least, we teach of 5-6 distinct states of being - and one more if I am allowed to define creatively.

1) Intelligence (no idea, really, what that means);

2) pre-mortal spirit (no idea, really, what that means other than "created" by exalted parents - or what process was used in that creation);

3) Mortal human (a combination of "immortal" spirit and mortal body);

4) post-mortal spirit (a pre-mortal spirit with more memories); [*grin*]

5) post-resurrection being (which might or might not be "separated" [sorry for the pun] from);

6) post-judgment, "glorified" being (assigned to a kingdom overseen by a God [Father, Son or Holy Ghost].

7) The 7th stage would be Heavenly Parent.

It is noteworthy that the first SIX stages are universal in our theology. The only one that is not universalist in every way is #7 - Heavenly Parent. It also is instructive to note that those who accuse Mormons of being arrogant exclusionists almost "universally" are less universalist than we are. That is one of the most ironic aspects of religious debate I can imagine - and it influences my frustration with conversations with others about temple ordinances. Those discussions generally are couched in terms of the exclusionary arrogance such ordinances illuminate, when, in fact, they are the practical core of our universalism.

The Power of Jesus as Brother

I think perhaps the greatest abomination of the apostasy was the distortion of the duality of Jesus' nature - the denial that He was fully God but also fully human. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent," (John 17:3) goes way beyond knowing about Him, but it also does include knowing about Him.

My wife's favorite part of the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 4, specifically because it gives us a glimpse into the self-critical nature of a prophet that we rarely see. It makes Nephi more than a caricature; it makes him fully human. One of the things that makes Isaiah's description of the future Lord so compelling is that it shows His trials and pains and suffering; it makes Him more fully human. "Knowing" Jesus in this sense - allowing Him to be fully human in ALL ways except the actual commission of sin - opens up the possibility of such a deeper, more personal connection than knowing Him "only as God" ever can.

That's perhaps the biggest irony of the Restoration - that it emphasizes the way to have the deepest, most personal relationship with Jesus imaginable (ironically, outside of actual marriage) - that of "brother". Ideally, we know our siblings' faults and weaknesses but love them anyway. By removing all weaknesses and natural tendencies and temptations and spiritual growth, we literally create a chasm we can't cross - a creature we can't approximate - a Savior we can't truly know. Other religions preach the need for a personal relationship with deity, but they erase the principles that allow such a relationship actually to exist. There really is a chasm between their God and them, but it's a chasm of their own digging.