Do you really think that the Church has been de-emphasizing its theological differences in order to get along with evangelicals? What have we done, really, besides increase the font for Jesus’s name on our name tags? I’m being facetious (who, me?), but I guess I haven’t really noticed in what way we have been toning down the deep doctrine.

I guess there are the public interviews with the Prophet, but I’m not sure those amount to doctrinal retractions or anything…. and as for not knowing where we’re going theologically, what’s new about that? Our church has been a crazy ride since day one! 10 years ago – 1994 – could anyone have foreseen the paths the Church would have taken, say, in Africa, or mass-production of temples, or the public persona of Pres. Hinckley, etc.? That uncertainty is what makes the church so great.

I’m still thinking of another pamphlet.

(1) You can have SEX in heaven!!!

…

Aaron B

I went to a Baptist Easter pageant this weekend. Great show but what a weak message. Be good so you can live with him again? Why didn’t He just let me live with him in the clouds in the first place? What’s the point of all this evil and sadness, if he had any real power he’d stop it.
I say we LET OUR FREAK FLAG FLY!
We’re not protestants, we’re Gods in Embryo!!!!

(1) There’s no doubt that a major approach of missionary work is to stress our common Christianity with other sects. I suspect that given where the bulk of our converts are, statistically speaking, it makes sense to focus there.

(2) Having said that, I have often felt as you do. I find the more unique, quixotic LDS doctrines to be most interesting, useful, and certainly under-advertised part of the Mormon package. Robinson’s _How Wide the Divide_, much as I liked it, exemplifies in some ways the tendency to bend over backwards a little too much to convince the non-Mormon Christians that we’re really just like them (almost).

(3) There’s the larger issue, though, of whether much of the renewed focus on “Born-Again Christian-friendly” Mormonism is actually a product of the slow but sure jettisoning of various funky LDS beliefs. It is so in vogue nowadays to “not know” anything about God once being a man, etc., that it isn’t clear to me where we’re going theologically, or where we’ll be in, say, 10 years.

I think there is some evolution going on. Is it an intentional movement to please evangelicals? Well, that’s probably putting it way too strong. I think if you look at the resurgence of “grace” talk in LDS thought and discourse, the popularity of Stephen Robinson’s various books, and everybody’s (including Hinkley’s) downplaying of our “God was once a man” talk, there’s definitely movement taking place.

What does it all mean? Are we “toning down the deep doctrine” (as you put it)? Or are we reconsidering whether some of our “deep doctrines” are really “doctrines” at all? To the extent the evolution I’m seeing is real, does it represent a “change in theology,” or merely a “change in emphasis”? Is LDS rapprochement with others in the Christian world a conscious strategy to make friends and score converts, or is it just an effect of our inevitable theological maturity (and regret that 19th Century Mormonism was so freewheeling)?

I don’t know. Some of these questions are interesting to me. Others are much ado about nothing, in my opinion.

Aaron B

P.S. No, I don’t see Hinkley’s television comments as “doctrinal retractions,” per se. I think it is interesting, however, to ask what they might mean…

Caffeine, Tannic Acid, and You: Crazy justifications for the Word of Wisdom