[ErikJohnson]

No worries, Connie. I’m really not “frustrated.” And I apologize to anyone I may have given that impression. I am disappointed we don’t seem to have any LDS on the board who have made some study of Protestant doctrine and are prepared to discuss it vis-à-vis my question. The whole point of this board, for me, is to address subjects and lingering questions that could not be answered back in the day, and which still interest me. My hope is that via the internet, I could cast a wider net and get perspectives that were unattainable previously.

That said, your link to Richard O. Cowan’s article, “Reformed Protestantism” was quite interesting. He gives a very good overview of John Calvin and draws a number of useful distinctions between Calvin’s theology and the doctrines of the LDS Church. Methinks Daniel Peterson, along with some of his defenders on that other thread, could learn a thing or two from Cowan.

What struck me most about Cowan’s article was how he effectively ceded the Bible to Calvin. With one solitary exception, every time he drew a distinction between LDS beliefs and Reformed Protestant beliefs—he cited the books of Joseph Smith (i.e., The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price). And the one exception was his own misunderstanding. John 3:3-5 does not mention baptism, nor would it make any sense in the context therein. Cowan made an erroneous inference.

I wonder if this article was a career limiting move for Cowan. Certainly his name is not know by the average LDS. I suspect he’s the sort of guy I’d enjoy having a drink with.

--Erik