« The End of Sam Harris | Main | Mormon Symbols »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dave, in all sincerity, I have read Huston's book as well; and I do not believe he represents orthodox Christianity.

So the comparisons that you are asking really bog down for me.

Todd, the problem is that when most people say "orthodox Christianity" what they are really referring to is their own sectarian flavor of Protestantism. No one claims they or their denomination are outside the bounds of orthodoxy; everyone is happy to put a variety of other denominations or sects outside that boundary.

I think Smith is as well or better qualified to hold forth on nonsectarian Christianity as anyone. Do you have alternative candidates to suggest?

I see your frustration. But I think many would be frustrated with the broad, ecumenical brush of what defines "Christian". It has become so expansive and free-floating, that labels are hardly taken serious any more.

I know quite a number of nationally-known evangelicals that would not consider Huston orthodox. But just consider who is providing the endorsements on the cover of Huston's book.

My question is this, would LDS align themselves with Huston. I have some LDS friends that take literal interpretation of Scripture much more serious than Smith. Do they really want to end up like him?

There's the problem, you see: "I know quite a number of nationally-known evangelicals that would not consider Huston orthodox." What they really mean is they wouldn't consider Huston to be Evangelical. Their narrow-minded approach to the issue presupposes the Evangelical view of things to be "orthodox" (meaning literally "right opinions" or, more loosely, authentically Christian) and everyone else (especially Mormons) to be "unorthodox" (including, confusingly, Eastern Orthodox denominations).

But that's a feature of human nature, not just Evangelical nature. I imagine most LDS look at things the same way, although my impression is that LDS look at non-LDS with a good bit more empathy than Evangelicals look at non-Evangelical Christians. After all, LDS theology grants most non-LDS Christians (most non-LDS anything, really) a place in one of God's kingdoms of glory in the hereafter, whereas Evangelical theology denies salvation (I hesitate to use the word "hell" to describe their view of the non-salvation state) to anyone who hasn't complied with the Evangelical salvation formula.

Dave, I really appreciate your kindness with me on your blog.

But I want to be eternally where there is the fullness of God. How can anything else be glory?

For me, not to be able to experience the fulness of God is hell.

Thinking of heart issues for lds and even for those that call themselves evangelical Christians . . .

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad