In what way is creation understood not as a change on the part of God when God is understood to be immutable? By immutable I mean the classical definition where God has never changed and never will change. Aquinas understands God to be immutable absolutely on the part of natural reason in the Summa Contra Gentiles. This appears to follow from the classical philosophical tradition. Yet some would claim that God creating has to amount to some change on his part, which hence would conflict. The question (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/99339/if-there-was-a-beginning-to-gods-creations-did-god-therefore-change) covers a a related but distinct concept. That question is if creation had a start, did God change? The classic answer to that is God is not subject to Time, which he created, but rather is eternal (eternity admitting not of progression but only sequence) so creation occurred exactly as God willed eternally. Note also that question does not assume the immutability of God; presumably answers could be offered that either justify based upon God being immutable or with God being changeable in some manner (especially since the question is "did God change" not "what is the evidence that God did/did not change") This question is rather assuming the immutability of God, in what way is creation not a change. That is, it assumes an attribute of God and assumes a particular result.

Jehovahs Witnesses teach that the majority of humans who ever lived will be resurrected and given a chance to choose to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah during the 1000 years judgment period. Are there exceptions for those in biblical times that were killed in events orchestrated by God? For example 185,000 Assyrians killed in a single night? The wicked who drowned in the flood? The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah? Will these be resurrected or are they considered permanently annihilated?

The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date (source ). The whole writing can be found here: Apostolic Tradition . Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized 'nude', which I assume means that only deaconesses were overseeing the baptism of woman. Am I reading this correctly, or not? >21 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition )

This question takes as an example the following news report of recent global events, linked to the Bible verses quoted below about the end of the end-times (not an exhaustive list, but all taken from the book of the Revelation, A.V.): "[The 11 countries hit by wildfires this summer including holiday hotspots, Greece, France and Spain](https://www.itv.com/news/2023-07-26/the-nine-countries-hit-by-wildfires-this-summer-including-top-holiday-hotspots) " > **Revelation 8:5-13** *(the 7th seal, with 3 woes to follow)* “And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast > it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and > lightnings, and an earthquake… the first angel sounded and there > followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the > earth: and the third part of the trees were burnt up, and all green > grass was burnt up. And the second angel sounded, and as it were a > great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third > part of the sea became blood; and the third part of the creatures > which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the > ships were destroyed. [Then it speaks of a third part of the rivers > and fountains of water becoming bitter, many people dying. Next…] And > the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, > and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as > the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third > part of it, and the night likewise.” > **Revelation 9:18-21** *(the 2nd woe)* “By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the > brimstone, which issued out of their mouths…” > **Revelation 16:8-9** *(part of the 7 last plagues - the 4th vial. The 7th vial includes great hailstones.)* “And the fourth angel poured out > his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with > fire. And men were scorched with great heat…” > **Revelation 6:12-17** *(which is at the very end, when Christ returns in wrath, so not yet)* "when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, > there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of > hair, and the moon became as blood…” *Please note that I am **not** looking for denominational interpretations of all those Bible texts.* I just give them as an example – there are many other texts that could be included. I just want to be pointed to **any links or articles any denominations may have come out with, indicating that they see a connection between global climate conditions (and the direction they seem to be going in) and such Bible texts**.

Nearly all doctrines of creation refer to the word "exist" or "existence" as if all readers knew its meaning. However, if the significance of creation (and the very nature of God) depends on the word "exist", should it really be taken for granted that the hearer or reader automatically knows what this term means? Factually, what does the word "exist" mean? If there are multiple assigned or possible meanings, what is an overview of Christian doctrines as to its meaning? Without resorting to any circular definition, what does it mean when applied to various claims about *creation*, *being*, and the nature and existence of God? For example, when a Christian says that God is "self-existing", what does that phrase mean (again, without any circular definition)? For example, I can refer to a dictionary that says "exist" means "to have actual being; to be real" (American Heritage 5th ed.). Then I look up "be" and Oxford languages says it simply means "exist". Clearly we are missing something. What does "exist" mean, when used in the context of creation or the nature of God? One reason why this question is not purely philosophical is that special pleading is often applied to God and the creation under various theories of theology. For example, many people assert that God "caused causality" or that it "makes no sense" to ask about how God came to be God. If that is so, and if it is a purely philosophical argument, then it wouldn't matter that the subject is God; the exact same logic should apply to any other being or article such as a shoe, but it doesn't. Therefore the special pleading regarding the existence of God and the nature of creation must be addressed within a theological framework or else reconciled on genuine and general philosophical and factual basis. These exceptions must be addressed; no self-respecting philosopher will accept absurdities or special pleading as obviously true. What is meant when Christians say that God caused things to exist through Creation, or that God is self-existing?

Faith stands as a crucial and foundational element in Christianity. Numerous facets of the Christian experience, embodied in empirically testable Biblical promises meant to be lived and experienced in this lifetime (on this side of the grave), hinge upon faith as an essential prerequisite. Consequently, addressing the challenge of **cultivating and strengthening one's faith** is of paramount importance. Below are passages stressing the pivotal role of faith: Mark 9:23-24 > **23** And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! **All things are possible for one who believes.**” **24** Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” Hebrews 11:6 >And **without faith it is impossible to please him**, for whoever would draw near to God **must believe** that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. James 1:5-8 >**5** If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. **6** **But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.** **7** **For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord;** **8** **he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways**. Mark 11:22-24 >**22** And Jesus answered them, “**Have faith in God**. **23** Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ **and does not doubt in his heart, but believes** that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. **24** Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, **believe** that you have received it, and it will be yours. Matthew 21:21-22 >**21** And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, **if you have faith and do not doubt**, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. **21** And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, **if you have faith**.” Matthew 13:58 >And he did not do many mighty works there, **because of their unbelief**. Mark 16:17-18 >**17** **And these signs will accompany those who believe**: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; **18** they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. Matthew 14:28-33 >**28** And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” **29** He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. **30** But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” **31** Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “**O you of little faith, why did you doubt?**” **32** And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. **33** And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” 1 Peter 1:6-9 >**6** In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, **7** so that **the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire**—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. **8** Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you **believe** in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, **9** obtaining **the outcome of your faith**, the salvation of your souls. Many Christians believe that [Christianity is testable](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679) , yet the ability to test Christianity is intricately linked to one's capacity to activate its faith-conditioned promises. Consequently, the inescapable question that surfaces is **how to attain a level of faith that meets the requirements for activating God's promises**. To encourage more nuanced and comprehensive responses to this question, I am specifically seeking answers that address the hurdles of attaining faith—particularly the kind capable of **activating God's promises**—for individuals who may not even believe in the existence of God (such as atheists or agnostics) as well as those with worldviews fundamentally at odds with Christianity (e.g., adherents of other religions). Therefore, it is crucial to recognize that the challenge here extends beyond constructing a purely intellectual case for Christianity to convince them of its epistemic possibility. Rather, the aim is to guide individuals toward a level of faith where Biblical promises can be tangibly experienced, not merely theoretically, but actually, in real life. How can this be done?

As the title says, what is "the universe", according to Christianity? The term does not occur in the Bible, making it impossible to address this question through hermeneutics alone. However, many arguments about creation assert that God created it, whatever "it" is. See here for an example. What is it, and what is in it, according to Christianity? If there are different concrete interpretations of what the universe is, what are those arguments or definitions? I am asking for an overview of viewpoints on this subject.

I read an answer here which explained the difference between the various branches of the Eastern Church. I was thinking as an extension, what is the difference between Eastern Christianity and Protestant Christianity, as both seem to reject the claims of supreme authority from the Catholic Church? https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/95/what-are-the-major-differences-between-eastern-and-western-orthodox-christianiti https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40715/why-arent-the-oriental-and-eastern-orthodox-churches-in-communion-with-each-oth?noredirect=1&lq=1

I'd like to start this question by citing the definition of *intellectual assent* provided by the article [*Is faith intellectual assent?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/intellectual-assent.html) : > **To give intellectual assent is to agree with something on a factual basis**. Faith involves intellectual assent, and intellectual assent is an important part of faith, but faith is much more than knowing facts. Faith does not mean that you suspend your intellect. Someone once defined faith as “believing what you know isn’t true.” Such a suspension of the intellect is not faith! Rather, faith is committing yourself to something that you believe to be true. In other words, intellectual assent represents an epistemic state characterized by agreement with specific factual propositions about reality. But instead of conceptualizing intellectual assent as a binary condition (agreeing versus disagreeing), a more nuanced perspective views it as a value within a spectrum, a percentage, or a continuous scale between 0 and 1. In addition, it is crucial to recognize that Christianity encompasses a collection of multiple propositions, necessitating an even more nuanced approach that acknowledges individuals may allocate varying degrees of intellectual assent to each proposition. For instance, a Latter-day Saint may strongly assent to a distinct set of propositions, differing significantly from the propositions to which a Reformed Calvinist might offer stronger intellectual assent. Or take, for example, propositions like *The Earth is roughly 6000 years old,* which might garner robust intellectual assent from a Young-Earth Creationist but receive less agreement from someone adhering to the mainstream scientific consensus on the age of the Earth. The challenges associated with intellectual assent might perhaps be simplified by narrowing down the set of factual propositions that need to be believed to a fundamental core, akin to C. S. Lewis's [*Mere Christianity*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity) . However, even within this simplified framework, the extent of intellectual assent to Christianity's core tenets would still exhibit a spectrum, contingent upon the individual's assessment of the available evidence. For instance, the evaluation of historical evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus, arguably the most pivotal proposition in Christianity, requires careful consideration. A highly recommended resource for this examination is [The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History](https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-Apologetics-Polemics-History/dp/0567697568) by Dale Allison. As one of the reviewers aptly expressed: > “This is a book of massive erudition around the resurrection, the real events that may well lie behind it, and how to read its popular New Testament residues and cross-cultural parallels. Allison engages the full power and depth of contemporary biblical criticism to show that the scriptural accounts are relatively thin but nevertheless intriguing documents for the responsible historian and can reasonably be read faithfully or skeptically. The originality, even genius, of the book lies in how he then turns to other independent literatures to “think in parallels,” playing, for example, well-documented Marian apparitions and angelic, bereavement, and near-death contacts off the early New Testament accounts or the Buddhist rainbow body off the empty tomb, always with a double refusal to fall into either easy debunking reduction or naïve literalist belief. **The result is a shocking book that troubles one's certainty, whatever that certainty happens to be, and advances a profound humility before one of the most important mysteries of the history of religions**. It turns out that the questions of “what really happened” or, more basic still, “what a body is” are much more complicated than is normally thought or believed.” ―*Jeffrey J. Kripal, Associate Dean of the School of Humanities and J. Newton Rayzor Professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought, Rice University, USA* But moving beyond mere intellectual assent, with all its associated epistemological challenges, there is also the concept of the "new birth" or the "born-again experience." Unlike a purely intellectual exercise, this transformative phenomenon is considered supernatural, an event that believers are expected to undergo at some point in their lives. It appears to me that the extent to which one intellectually assents to certain propositions can be addressed intellectually through the practical study of evidence, arguments, and counter-arguments. However, triggering a supernatural experience, such as the "born-again" encounter, is not something for which I can discern an obvious method, if a method even exists at all. Given these considerations, my question for Evangelical Protestants is as follows: How do Evangelical Protestants understand the relationship between intellectual assent to core beliefs and the experience of being "born-again"? Specifically, is there consensus within your faith tradition on whether a high degree of intellectual assent is a prerequisite for undergoing a "born-again" experience, and if so, are there established guidelines regarding the process leading to this experience?

Which denominations would teach, either directly or indirectly, that the ten commandments are a reflection of God's character? And how would such a claim be asserted?

Revelation 22:5 New International Version > There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a **lamp** or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever. Revelation 21:23 New International Version > The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its **lamp**. How can one reconcile the description in Revelation 22:5, stating that God illuminates the celestial city, with the description in Revelation 21:23, where it is said that the Lamb (referring to Jesus Christ) is the lamp of the city? Both passages attribute the source of light to different entities (God and the Lamb), and how are these representations reconciled within Christian theology?

**Are there any Early Church Fathers or Doctors of the Church or Catholic Saints who believed the world would possibly end by a comet hitting the earth or coming in close contact with it?** The other day, I heard about NASA’s attempt to deflect a comet that might be on a collision course with the bright blue planet we live on. If this comet hits us, it could possibly alter the way we live on earth. I doubt the asteroid will hit the earth, but my unwelcoming question stands. > NASA predicts that the massive asteroid will pass by Earth on December 11, just a month and a few days from now. The asteroid has been classified as 4660 Nereus, and NASA does consider it very hazardous. The organization says that the asteroid is almost three times the size of a football pitch — roughly the size of the Eiffel tower. > > While it could be hazardous if it hits the Earth, NASA says the asteroid will fly by the planet at a distance of roughly 3.9 million kilometers. That distance is ten times greater than the area between the Earth and the moon, so it shouldn’t cause any issues on our planet. In the past, scientists have considered missions to the asteroid, but have never gone through with them. > > Eleanor F. Helin originally discovered 4660 Nereus in 1982. Nereus is just one of several asteroids included in the Apollo group. All of the asteroids in this group are known for passing close to the Earth as it orbits the sun. > > The asteroid orbits the sun every 664 days. However, scientists predict that it won’t come close to the Earth again until March of 2031. After that, it’s expected to come close again in 2050, though its closest approach isn’t predicted to arrive until February of 2060, roughly forty years down the line. As is the case with next month’s pass, however, neither of those passes are expected to be close enough to pose any risk of impact. - NASA is tracking a 1,000-foot-tall asteroid that’s headed towards Earth In case no Early Church Father or Doctor of the Church can be found to hold this possibility, are there any historical canonized saints of the Catholic Church who have predicted such a possibility?

Several times in recent weeks the suggestion has been made on the site that all of the teachings and scriptures unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are dependent on one source - Joseph Smith - and that had he not existed (or not made the choices he did), none of these teachings, principles, or scriptures would exist. The claim that these teachings come from a single individual is given as a reason to challenge their authenticity. This suggestion is regularly met with corrective comments - it would be helpful to have a post on the site to reference which addresses the matter specifically. How do Latter-day Saints respond to this claim?

Is faith a skill that can be developed and made stronger through effort, following a method? If such a method exists, can it be tested, and by any human being? In other words, if the most skeptical atheist takes on the challenge of applying this method thoroughly and meticulously, would he or she reap the fruit of faith eventually over time? Or is faith rather a gift, a supernatural gift, given by God only to a privileged subset, and therefore not attainable via effort? Or is faith both a gift and a skill, requiring some sort of synergystic cooperation between the will of the person and the grace of God? What is an overview of perspectives on the nature of faith, what causes it, how it can be attained, how it can be made stronger, the extent to which any person on the planet (including the most skeptical atheist) can acquire it by exercising their own free will by following a particular method? Note: this is a follow-up to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99616/61679

If saving faith in Christ is considered a gift from God rather than an attainable skill through personal effort (as discussed in *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99625/61679*) , then what prevents God from bestowing this gift universally? Why doesn't everyone on the planet just wake up the next morning with the God-given faith that Jesus is their personal savior? Are there unstated conditions preventing God from doing this? On the other hand, if God does offer the gift of saving faith to everyone, then why does it appear to be case that not everyone receives it? Why is it the case then that so many people around the world fail to proclaim to have saving faith in Christ (including adherents of other religions, atheists, agnostics, etc.)? Why would anyone in their right mind refuse such a powerful, life-changing divine gift? I'm seeking an overview of perspectives on this matter.

We often say or sing that Jesus is currently enthroned in heaven or seated on His throne in heaven. However, does Jesus instead teach that He won't sit on His throne before the Second Coming (Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Luke 1:32)? Furthermore, don't the Scriptures teach that at present, rather than being on the throne, Jesus is "seated at **the right hand of the throne** of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb. 8:1, NKJV, emphasis mine; cf. 12:2)? It seems as if He isn't seated on the throne even now but is rather seated *next to* the throne. Am I missing something? It does seem familiar to me that a verse exists describing Jesus as presently on a throne, but I can't recall where in the Bible, if anywhere, such is said. Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus is on His throne now, or is that only a future event? **Note:** I am not looking for "Jesus is outside time anyway" answers, as this type of response distracts from the real issue. Regardless of whether Jesus may perform some acts outside of time, there are clearly events He's done within time, such as coming to the earth. Likewise, Christ's being seated at God's right hand also appears to be an event in time, for example, taking place after His ascension.

I recently read about the doctrine of eternal families in the LDS Church. As I understand it, the LDS church teaches that men on this planet have the potential to become gods themselves, who then have their own planets upon which people may become gods also. I am mathematically inclined, so I began thinking of this from that perspective. Currently, the LDS Church has a membership of around 15 million people worldwide. If we, however, only assume that one million men attain godhood from God's spiritual progeny on this planet and that this is the only planet on which His progeny attains godhood, then we would have a generational ratio of 1:1,000,000 or 1:10^6. If that ratio were to hold for each man that becomes a god in each subsequent generation, the numbers become quite large very quickly, even assuming linear growth rather than exponential. I understand that LDS teaching holds the our God was once a man on another planet, so at the very least, people on this planet are the third "generation". If our God is one of a million others who also became gods on their planet, then the total number of gods and planets, if this really is the third generation, would now be 10^6 X 10^6, or 10^12 (one trillion). If this is the 4th generation, then there would be 10^12 or one quintillion gods and planets. Ten celestial generations would produce 10^60 gods and planets, and 20 would produce 10^120 gods and planets. Science estimates that there are only between 10^78 - 10^82 atoms in the observable universe. So, my question is whether or not the LDS Church speaks to this reality and whether it holds to a multi-universe or infinite universe theory in order to account for the mathematical realities or if there is some other explanation. *I have never read anything about this question on any other sites. The mathematical realities just occurred to me as I was thinking about this.*

I want to ask why would God create such concept as attractiveness if He does not look at someone’s looks? 1 Samuel 16:7 ”for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” Study after study shows that there is objective beauty which is symmetry and anything that has symmetry is considered pretty or more prettier than anything else. Also there are genes that are better and stronger and people with such genes tend to look pretty (symmetrical), think more positive, be very healthy and accomplish a lot of things. Weaker genes give the opposite and someone with such genes struggles. It seems like before the Fall people were very symmetrical and had stronger genes but after the Fall the degradation happened. Also Solomon’s song is clear that people are designed to be attracted also to looks. I just feel somewhat down because if God does not care about looks then why did He bother to do objective attraction like symmetry, better genes etc. I always thought that all the features that we have that are considered unattractive were just made that way by us because after the Fall we choose what is pretty and what is not and if we did not Fall we would not care. But studies show something completely different and we are creatures attracted to symmetry which gives pretty features and in turn good genes because symmetry comes from them. Children are the best example, they tend to go to prettier symmetrical things, animals and people. What do you think? Clarifying, I know that God does not look at our looks when it comes to salvation but still, He created people to find themselves attractive and He shows beauty in symmetry and proportions.

I came across an essay published in BYU Studies journal 54.1 (2015) ["Toward a Mormon Systematic Theology - Essay on *Wrestling the Angel* by Terryl L. Givens"](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/toward-mormon-systematic-theology-essay-wrestling-angel-terryl-l-givens-0) . I was *surprisingly pleased* by signs of cross fertilization in theological constructions between LDS and mainstream Christianity. Stephen H. Webb, the author, was a Roman Catholic who also wrote a 2015 book [Catholic and Mormon: A Theological Conversation](https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Mormon-Conversation-Stephen-Webb-ebook/dp/B0102TBHC8) , also [reviewed in the same journal](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/catholic-and-mormon-theological-conversation-0) . The key points that jumped for me is "**open canon**", and aversion to writing systematic theology and to creeds (which by contrast, a well defined practice for many mainstream Christian denominations). While in the mainstream denominations theology keeps being redefined in every philosophical age (to respond to new worldviews), and currently mainstream denominations are undergoing *yet* another redefinition by revisiting what the church fathers said, *the sources of the theology have remained relatively constant, which include creeds and **closed canon***. Yes, in Catholicism there is the living Magisterium, and there is the living Holy Spirit, but both living voices cannot contradict the voice of the original authors of the closed canon. So there is **stability which grounds flexibility**; flexibility obtained by new research into Ancient Near Eastern background, new hermeneutics (which incorporate the now in vogue narrative criticism, for example), new research into the church fathers period, new appropriation of medieval theology, etc. My question is: "**If an LDS theologian wishes to write a systematic theology in the established genre of the mainstream denominations, what sources of authority one needs to consult?**" Of course the Bible and the Book of Mormon is high in the list. But what about LDS Church leaders / councils / prophets? Will there be new revelations that need to be taken into account? What are the ranking of authority compared to the Bible & the Book of Mormon? Can there be a prophet in the future? How about Reason and Philosophy, how are they ranked in terms of authority compared to [three-legged-stool teaching in Anglicanism](https://episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/authority-sources-anglicanism) for example? (BTW, the answer to this sub-question maybe found in a 2010 book [Faith, Philosophy, Scripture](https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/33/) by BYU philosophy professor [James E. Faulconer](https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/james-e-faulconer)) . Quotes from the review (***emphasis** mine*): > Nevertheless, for all its orderliness, Givens actually denies that his book is a work of systematic theology, calling it instead a “study of the foundations of Mormon thought and practice” (ix). I take such denials as a nod to nervousness in the Mormon community about attempts by individuals without a prophetic vocation to bring order to the capacious house of Joseph’s many ideas. That is understandable, but **I look forward to the day when Mormon theologians** (and yes, while Givens is a professor of religion and literature, he is most assuredly a Mormon and a theologian) **do not feel the need to use their church’s “open canon” to claim that “Mormon doctrine is by definition impossible to fix”** (x). Every Christian tradition that is open to the Holy Spirit is living and evolving and thus difficult to pin down. Even the most biblically focused Christian traditions tend to operate with a “canon within a canon” whose boundaries are hard to fix, and magisterial church traditions supplement the closed canon with the openness of creeds and councils. Mormons are in pretty much the same position as every other Christian tradition with regard to systematic theology; which is to say, there are lots of sources of authority to be juggled and few certainties to be found, but much delightful work to sustain the life of any curious mind. Brigham Young called theology a “celestial science” (6), and I couldn’t agree more. When Givens emphasizes how Mormon theology must be provisional and incomplete, he is describing theology as such; on this point, Mormons, I regret to say, are not all that special. > > I think Givens’s book will go a long way toward calming Mormon theological worries that system building can assume creedal dimensions. Despite his occasional rhetoric to the contrary, his systematic ambitions are clear; yet his aim, appropriately, is doctrinal complexity, not creedal simplicity. Givens is convinced that Mormon foundations have to be put in the context of both continuities with and departures from ancient and contemporary Christian traditions. **While systematic theology for churches that are more certain of their location within the broader stream of the faith can afford to be formal and abstract, the intelligibility of Mormon doctrine cannot be elaborated outside a comparative methodology grounded in a historical narrative about the development of church doctrine.** Mormonism’s claim to represent the fullness of Christian faith requires nothing less. > > **Givens points out that the Latter-day Saints do not have a counterpart to Catholicism’s Catechism and that the 1842 Articles of Faith “contain relatively few of Mormonism’s key beliefs”** (6). Yet it is my experience that the Saints have done a better job than any other Christian church in instructing their members in the doctrinal basics of their faith. When it comes to theology, Mormons protest too much. The theological practices of the Saints are much more systematic than their rhetorical apologies for being unsystematic would suggest. What the Saints say about theology needs to be brought into closer alignment with what they actually accomplish through education, publishing, and conferencing venues, which is quite impressive indeed. > > As demonstrated by his very fine analysis of Mormon views of apostasy, Givens keeps the fullness of the restored gospel front and center. “In Smith’s scheme of restoration, any pruning of accretions is meant to clear the way for the tree’s trunk to reattain the fullness of its original foliage” (19). Such flowery language is a testament to the decades Givens has spent immersed in the literature of the romantics, and indeed the overall aim of Givens’s project is to situate Mormon thought in the ancient past of the church, with all of its exotic richness, **rather than in the Protestant Reformation’s narrower explication of the three solae (scripture, grace, and faith). In Givens’s hands, Joseph comes across as a lot closer to Origen than Calvin—and Joseph also comes across as a more theologically explicit variant of Wordsworth, Blake, and Coleridge.**

My understanding is that early Christians were generally pacifists. Today (at least in the U.S.) Christian pacifists are a bit hard to come by. Many quote [Romans 13:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1-3&version=NIV) to support Christian involvement in war: > **1** Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. **2** Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. **3** For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. In light of this verse, and other Biblical or historical evidence, *what is the case to be made for Christian pacifism?*