The Future Of Mormon-evangelical Relations

[prisonchaplain]

I came across a fascinating article about Mormon-Evangelical relations, with reference to a recent book co-authored by an LDS theologian and an evangelical. Just from the review, I noticed the book seemed to cover many of the issues that have come up in posts here. It would be useful to reference at the article before taking the poll.

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/morm_02.htm

To summarize, the article suggests that Mormonism may take any of the paths suggested in the poll (though the last option was not specifically proffered). Comparisons are made to what has happened with Seventh Day Adventists (who have become much more accepted an accepting vis a vis evangelicals), and with the Worldwide Church of God (Herbert W. Armstrong--which abandoned key distinctives, embraced mainstream evangelicalism, but also lost many members). Reference is also made to the Reorganized LDS Church.

Feel free to share thoughts, or to propose alternative scenarios.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 24 2005, 09:03 AM

To summarize, the article suggests that Mormonism may take any of the paths suggested in the poll (though the last option was not specifically proffered).  Comparisons are made to what has happened with Seventh Day Adventists (who have become much more accepted an accepting vis a vis evangelicals), and with the Worldwide Church of God (Herbert W. Armstrong--which abandoned key distinctives, embraced mainstream evangelicalism, but also lost many members).  Reference is also made to the Reorganized LDS Church.

Feel free to share thoughts, or to propose alternative scenarios.

With the poll picks I chose:

The two will gradually shed their folk myths about each other, engage in increasing dialogue, and eventually share at least a hesitant acceptance of each other (much as has happened with Seventh Day Adventists)

But I think the answer lies somewhere between what I picked and this one:

As LDS theologians engage evangelicals they will quickly shed their most controversial doctrines, and become a welcome and mainstream part of evangelicalism.

But I don't believe this one will happen for about 50 to 100 years from now.

M.

[pushka]

I voted Other...explanation: I just don't have a clue what will happen! :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 24 2005, 08:03 AM

I came across a fascinating article about Mormon-Evangelical relations, with reference to a recent book co-authored by an LDS theologian and an evangelical.  Just from the review, I noticed the book seemed to cover many of the issues that have come up in posts here.  It would be useful to reference at the article before taking the poll.

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/morm_02.htm

To summarize, the article suggests that Mormonism may take any of the paths suggested in the poll (though the last option was not specifically proffered).  Comparisons are made to what has happened with Seventh Day Adventists (who have become much more accepted an accepting vis a vis evangelicals), and with the Worldwide Church of God (Herbert W. Armstrong--which abandoned key distinctives, embraced mainstream evangelicalism, but also lost many members).  Reference is also made to the Reorganized LDS Church.

Feel free to share thoughts, or to propose alternative scenarios.

←

I think your poll is misleading.

What is this hostility you say that Mormons have towards evangelicals? How is it manifest. Where can it be seen?

Mormons, for example, resent anti-Mormonism or unfair attacks and criticism and most of that comes from the evangelical community but dissatisfaction is directed at those who attack us because they attack us, not because they are Evangelicals per se.

On the other hand, there are tons of books, videos, brochures, website attacking Mormonism. I may have mentioned it but I went to an Evangelical service recently and the preacher denounce Mormons (and JWs) from the pulpit. It is not a matter of Mormons being hostile as your answer #1 says.

The book that you reference is an excellent book. However, good luck finding it in an evangelical bookstore. I looked for is in a a handful of such stores. While anti-Mormon literature was stocked in abundance, that book (which failed to denigrate Mormons) was no where to be found. I ended up buying my copy in a LDS oriented bookstore in Utah.

There is ample evidence however that despite the best efforts of many in the LDS-critic community, that things are changing. Richard Mouw (President of Fuller Seminary) apologized for the dishonesty and sin that the evangelical community has heaped on Mormons. Mormons are an active participant/leader in many interfaith council though in locations where evangelicalism is still backward, particular where Southern Baptists rule, Mormons are not allowed to pray in their meetings. LDS scholarship, membership, and influence is playing an ever-increasing and prominent role in American religion and if the more radical wing of the evangelical community wants to interact responsibly in the larger religious community, they will be forced to mature in their faiths and stop denigrating other religious traditions.

About the Worldwide Church of God - I wouldn't say they lost membership because they went mainstream - that seems to have been an attempt to stave off more loss of membership. They fell apart at the seams because of infighting among leadership, failed predictions and Garner Ted Armstrong had the sexual morals of an alley cat in heat.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen@Nov 24 2005, 10:05 AM

As LDS theologians engage evangelicals they will quickly shed their most controversial doctrines, and become a welcome and mainstream part of evangelicalism.

But I don't believe this one will happen for about 50 to 100 years from now.

M.

←

It is just as likely that Evangelicalism will continue to accept LDS doctrines as their own. I don't know that anyone has actually looked at this but I think a case can be made that what once seemed unique LDS beliefs are adopted by orthodox Christianity.

What I do actually think will happen or is Mormons will start using terminology in a more mainstream way or that the mainstream will come to better understand LDS terminology and so what on the face of it, looks to be at variance, will be better seen as partial agreement rather than partial disagreement.

[prisonchaplain]

I think your poll is misleading.

What is this hostility you say that Mormons have towards evangelicals? How is it manifest. Where can it be seen.  ... Mormons, for example, resent anti-Mormonism or unfair attacks and criticism and most of that comes from the evangelical community but dissatisfaction is directed at those who attack us because they attack us, not because they are Evangelicals per se. ... It is not a matter of Mormons being hostile as your answer #1 says.

The gist of answer #1 is that there would be no improvement in relations, understanding, or cooperation between the two groups. Feel free to mentally edit my questions, and choose the one that most closely matches your views.

The book that you reference is an excellent book. However, good luck finding it in an evangelical bookstore. I looked for is in a a handful of such stores. While anti-Mormon literature was stocked in abundance, that book (which failed to denigrate Mormons) was no where to be found. I ended up buying my copy in a LDS oriented bookstore in Utah.

I tend to buy such books at half.com (ebay's fixed price site), or Amazon.com(usually used). Occasionally, when I want to order several new items, christianbooks.com is competitive. However, in this case amazon is cheaper.

[Snow]

Okay Prisonchaplain,

The gist of my post however was that Mormons do not go out of their way to denigrate and attack other religions. Many Evangelicals and Evangelical Institutions make it a point to lie about, attack, denigrate and seek to cause harm to the LDS Church. I mentioned that in another post and you ignored it - not like you're obligated to take my bait - but I do kinda want your opinion.

Do you accept what I am saying as accurate?

Why is that?

How do you feel about it?

How does that impact the divide?

What does the future hold?

[applecore]

IMO there will never be an acceptance by the evangelical community as long as those of us in the restoration movement embrace the Book of Mormon. Unfortunantly, in my church our leadership (not the majority) have put the BofM out to pasture. The reason for the existence of the church in the beginning has been trashed because there is no "proof".

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN TO YOU. We are suffering because of our lack of faith. How can God give us more if we don't accept what He's given us already. Just my thoughts We are different. We're not mainstream because we ARE different. We're supposed to be.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by applecore@Nov 25 2005, 06:45 AM

IMO there will never be an acceptance by the evangelical community as long as those of us in the restoration movement embrace the Book of Mormon. Unfortunantly, in my church our leadership (not the majority) have put the BofM out to pasture. The reason for the existence of the church in the beginning has been trashed because there is no "proof".

      PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN TO YOU. We are suffering because of our lack of faith. How can God give us more if we don't accept what He's given us already. Just my thoughts We are different. We're not mainstream because we ARE different. We're supposed to be.

Hey applecore,

Are you part of the restoration movement in the RLDS or are you of the more progressive CofC branch (in favour of Stephen Veazey as President)?

Just curious.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Snow,Nov 25 2005, 01:02 AM

Okay Prisonchaplain,

The gist of my post however was that Mormons do not go out of their way to denigrate and attack other religions. Many Evangelicals and Evangelical Institutions make it a point to lie about, attack, denigrate and seek to cause harm to the LDS Church. I mentioned that in another post and you ignored it - not like you're obligated to take my bait - but I do kinda want your opinion.

Do you accept what I am saying as accurate?

I have tried to address this matter in other strings. My answer to how and why evangelicals evangelize Mormons helps form my view of future relations. I doubt that most "missions to Mormons" intentionally lie about your church. The rest would be true for some. They would attack, denigrate and harm your organization.

Why is that?

They believe your organization is heterodox. They hope to convince members of your church to leave it, and join orthodox (small-o) Christianity.

How do you feel about it?

The Apostle Paul set a much better example in his discourse in Romans about "the unknown god." Those that would approach the LDS with words of correction, or messages of conversion, ought to do as all serious missionaries do: learn the language and culture; build 'bridges'--areas of commonality; make the case; and let the Holy Ghost work.

So, I feel disappointed. I understand some groups are more gracious, more intelligent, and that--on a smaller scale--there have been other evangelicals who have offered apologies, and tried to be a blessing rather than a thorn. Most of these are Utah-based, rather than "hit and run" groups.

Again, how do I feel? If they lie to you, ignore them. Dismiss them. If you're convinced they are dishonest, there is no grounds for dialogue. If you believe them honest, but misinformed, it is up to you whether you want to engage them or not. We should all rely on the Holy Ghost to direct us in such matters.

There is no monolithic evangelical organization that can reign in these groups you accuse of guerilla tactics (my words, not yours). My hope is that more evangelicals will choose to engage, rather than "confront" or "attack" or "come against" the LDS. If we're all human, and we're all discussing Christianity as we see it, then, at minimum, we're all God-seekers. That alone should be enough to keep us at the table of conversation.

How does that impact the divide?

I was going to do a separate post, giving my answer--but Snow, you've asked the right questions--so I'll do it here. Despite learning that some of the differences between evangelical and LDS theology I understood were exaggerations, and that many of the more fantastic 'folk myths' are based on partial quotations from non-Standard Works, there are some core differences that preclude any imminent "statements of understanding and mutual cooperation." Our understandings about the nature of God, of creation, of salvation, of authority, and of course, of the veracity and import of Joseph Smith's teachings and experiences are difficult to reconcile.

What does the future hold?

I'm voting "Other." I know, it's ironic, since I made the poll. My sense is that if the LDS Church has any desire to work closely with mainstream Christianity, it will fit better with more liberal, "mainline" groups, perhaps through the Council of Churches.

On the other hand, many of these churches are experiencing declining memberships, so, by going this route, the LDS Church may indeed surpass them.

[gwell]

Perhaps I am naive or just not aware but where I live anyways this is a non-issue....The different religions are fairly respectful towards each other....(Or at least I have never seen anthing to the contrary)

[applecore]

Hey applecore,

Are you part of the restoration movement in the RLDS or are you of the more progressive CofC branch (in favour of Stephen Veazey as President)?

Just curious.

M.

There are several clarifications I have to make to answer that correctly. I am CofC but that's just the new name for RLDS. There is a fundamental part of the church that doesn't accept the leadership of the church. They are the one's that typically use the designation RLDS. As for supporting Steve, I do in hopes that he will bring us back to a closer alignment with the restoration values.

Actually I was a part of the Buckner congregation that started the whole separation process. I was 1 of 3 that stayed with the church. The other 350 left. I try to apply the scriptures as I understand them. Which makes me a thorn in the side to the church and the "RLDS'. It drives my wife crazy. But I have to do what I feel is right or I'm not being honest with myself or God. Thanks for asking

[Snow]

Prisonchaplain,

Thanks for answering.

A few thoughts. It is possibly true that "most" of these ministries that denigrate Mormonism do not blatantly lie - I don't know - but I know that many of the ones that I run across are dishonest. I am think about Dr. Dee Jay Nelson, Dr. Walter Martin, Wayne Cowdrey, Howard Davis, Donaald Scales, Richard Baer, Dr. Richards FAles, Dr. Charles Crane and Dr. John L. Smith. Jerald and Sandra Turner, and Ed Decker and their organizations. (Note that most of this characters who use the “Dr.” title have bogus doctorate degrees) to name just some.

In a survery done a few years ago among clergy, the answer most given about what kind of source of LDS information do you reccomend to your congregations, the number one answer was The God Makers which is a very ugly and very deceitful attack on Mormonism. There is a video that many many church's show or have shown to their congregations. It makes me shake my head in wonder. It is beyond comprehension to think that an LDS church would ever show a movie that lies about and denigrates other churches yet other churches do it to us all the time.

I take some issue with you that the intent of other church's attacks on us is because we are heterodox and they want to convert us.

1. You don't attract flies with vinegar.

2. I (and this is my opinion) think that they do it because they are immature and insecure in their faiths and need to have an "other" to put down and so elevate themselves. The LDS Church had a lot of that in the early days, for the most part had matured out of in in the early 20th century but has completely grown out of it now (may not all us members) but insitutionally it is a thing of the past.

3. It's all so hypocritical anyway. Since all these or most all these critics of Mormonism pretty much believe that salvation come from faith in Christ and Mormons have faith in Christ, why are so upset? We meet the criteria they require but then they say - ur, uh, gee - well that's not good enough - if you're Mormon. The point is that they don't care that you already do what they say they want (come unto Christ), they really want an "other."

[prisonchaplain]

Snow says: A few thoughts. It is possibly true that "most" of these ministries that denigrate Mormonism do not blatantly lie - I don't know - but I know that many of the ones that I run across are dishonest. I am think about Dr. Dee Jay Nelson, Dr. Walter Martin, Wayne Cowdrey, Howard Davis, Donaald Scales, Richard Baer, Dr. Richards FAles, Dr. Charles Crane and Dr. John L. Smith. Jerald and Sandra Turner, and Ed Decker and their organizations. (Note that most of this characters who use the “Dr.” title have bogus doctorate degrees) to name just some.

I'll briefly comment on the ones I know about. Walter Martin's first well-known book was "The Maze of Mormonism." He also wrote "Kingdom of the Cults," which includes a chapter on Mormonism. There has been some controversy about his doctorate. It seems he may have earned one, but not from a school worth bragging about. I'll not argue the details of his offering. However, I did appreciate his focus on doctrinal issues--especially the Trinity and Deity of Christ. By way of information, Martin has passed away, and his successor, Hank Hannegraff, converted the Christian Research Institute into an organization with a narrow, Reform theology approach, that became notorious for attacking televangelists such as Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn. So, you may find this theologically humorous, but the evangelical movement now has to contend with "friendly fire" from Martin's descendent.

I've vaguely heard of the Turners and Ed Decker, but am not familiar with their approaches.

In a survery done a few years ago among clergy, the answer most given about what kind of source of LDS information do you reccomend to your congregations, the number one answer was The God Makers which is a very ugly and very deceitful attack on Mormonism. There is a video that many many church's show or have shown to their congregations. It makes me shake my head in wonder. It is beyond comprehension to think that an LDS church would ever show a movie that lies about and denigrates other churches yet other churches do it to us all the time.

The God Makers is probably the best known evangelical film on Mormonism. I've seen it, and the sequel. Ministers show it to their congregations as an effort to teach about those that come to their doors, and yes, to provide information that congregants might use to evangelize the Mormon acquaintances.

A point I have shared often here is that LDS theology offers most people the hope of eternal life in some type of heaven. The evangelism Mormons engage in, then, is motivated by a desire to help open the eyes of people to full truth, and greater revelation. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are motivated to snatch sinners from the fires of hell. The level of urgency is much greater. There are no levels of salvation. One is either "lost" or "saved." So, churches that engage in evangelism to Mormons believe they saving souls for eternity.

I take some issue with you that the intent of other church's attacks on us is because we are heterodox and they want to convert us.

1. You don't attract flies with vinegar.

You're not "feeling the love" from the Godmakers? No...probably not. A mark of immaturity--of adolescence--is the desire to confront lies with the truth, sinners with the fires of hell, to do battle, to wage war, to be right in the face of a world of wrong. Parents often quip, "I wish I was as smart as I thought I was when I was 17." So, rather than deduce that these would-be evangelists are simply out to destroy, motivated by hate...consider that they might be spiritually immature.

2. I (and this is my opinion) think that they do it because they are immature and insecure in their faiths and need to have an "other" to put down and so elevate themselves. The LDS Church had a lot of that in the early days, for the most part had matured out of in in the early 20th century but has completely grown out of it now (may not all us members) but insitutionally it is a thing of the past.

I'll buy the immature part. And, the insecurity may be a case of a little knowledge is dangerous. Some believers know enough to start a debate, but not to carry through. This is why our best evangelists are often new converts. They are feeling mightily blessed and forgiven, but still speak with the humility of the novice.

3. It's all so hypocritical anyway. Since all these or most all these critics of Mormonism pretty much believe that salvation come from faith in Christ and Mormons have faith in Christ, why are so upset? We meet the criteria they require but then they say - ur, uh, gee - well that's not good enough - if you're Mormon. The point is that they don't care that you already do what they say they want (come unto Christ), they really want an "other."

It's not a search for an enemy, per se. Satan is a big enough target. There is plenty of sinfulness to counter. Rather, no matter how delicately and accurately we slice the doctrinal pie, evangelicalism and Mormonism do have different answers on many core teachings. We have hashed these differences about here with decent clarity. The question for evangelicalism is, "Are Mormon teachings so different as to be heterodox?" If so, the system becomes false, and adherents become souls in need of saving.

And there you are, then, with a big theological target on your back. ... Yep, there you are somewhere...trying not to get hit.

[Ray]

I voted “Other” too, although #1 comes close to my view with a little modification:

The two will remain forever divided and <work against> each other.

Or in other words, there are only two churches on this Earth:

A. the “one” church with all available truth from Christ through all of His prophets

B. the whore of Babylon, with many illegitimate children and false teachings.

And while many churches may believe they are led by Christ, or that they are “all leading people unto Church, the fact that they are not “one” [in agreement] shows that they are not all His, because Christ is not the author of confusion.

Or in other words, the options are A and B. There is no C, and they do not all work together.

And btw, I define “church” as an association of people who work together toward a common goal, and while there are many churches who believe they are working toward the goal of leading all people to Christ, only the “one” true church will ever succeed.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 25 2005, 12:18 PM

...but I know that many of the ones that I run across are dishonest. I am think about... Jerald and Sandra Turner, and Ed Decker and their organizations...

I've vaguely heard of the Turners and Ed Decker, but am not familiar with their approaches.

The reason for the vagueness is because their real names are Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

Ed Decker has sensationalistic tactics, which I don't understand. But I do like the Tanners. Their intentions are in the right place, they just need to be a bit more objective in comparing a persons motives for choosing the LDS religion and someone who may choose a non-LDS mainstream Christian religion (like themselves).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerald_and_Sandra_Tanner

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen+Nov 25 2005, 02:21 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 25 2005, 12:18 PM

...but I know that many of the ones that I run across are dishonest. I am think about... Jerald and Sandra Turner, and Ed Decker and their organizations...

I've vaguely heard of the Turners and Ed Decker, but am not familiar with their approaches.

The reason for the vagueness is because their real names are Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

Ed Decker has sensationalistic tactics, which I don't understand. But I do like the Tanners. Their intentions are in the right place, they just need to be a bit more objective in comparing a persons motives for choosing the LDS religion and someone who may choose a non-LDS mainstream Christian religion (like themselves).

←

Yes - sorry, it's Tanner and Hooch.

I don't think that the Tanners are blatantly dishonest in the way that Walter Martin was or Ed Decker is. But I do think that they are intellectuall dishonest in their selective presentation and by holding the LDS Church to a far superior standard that to which they hold their own faith.

... but I have no idea what you mean by saying that their intentions are in the right place. They earn a professional living by denigrating and trying to cause harm to the LDS Church - hardly something to be proud of.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 25 2005, 05:37 PM

Yes - sorry, it's Tanner and Hooch.

Exactly!

But I do think that they are intellectuall dishonest in their selective presentation and by holding the LDS Church to a far superior standard that to which they hold their own faith.

I agree.

... but I have no idea what you mean by saying that their intentions are in the right place.

I believe for them they've found the LDS church to actually be this multi-dimensional entity that they never knew of growing up. And with that new information and different perspective on what the LDS church is for them, they with good intentions, share this information with others. I myself have read their information and found it informative and accurate. They do have their own agenda with how they interpret that information, (ie. the BofM is false, while the Bible is true) but that doesn't mean that everyone reading what they share will come (or has to come) to the same conclusion.

They earn a professional living by denigrating and trying to cause harm to the LDS Church - hardly something to be proud of.

I disagree. I feel that they are providing information to the public that would not normally be easy to come by any other way. And I'm thinking about when they first started in the early '60's and when I found them in the early '80's when the internet did not exist yet.

M.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Maureen+Nov 26 2005, 01:06 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 25 2005, 05:37 PM

Yes - sorry, it's Tanner and Hooch.

They earn a professional living by denigrating and trying to cause harm to the LDS Church - hardly something to be proud of.

I disagree. I feel that they are providing information to the public that would not normally be easy to come by any other way. And I'm thinking about when they first started in the early '60's and when I found them in the early '80's when the internet did not exist yet.

M.

←

I receive an occasional newsletter from the Tanners' organisation, which I find very interesting and informative, I have never paid them anything for my subscription, so they aren't making any profit from me...

[Uncomman]

I cast my vote for the following:

The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints will continue to grow rapidly, and eventually surpass non-LDS Christian church membership.

[Guest T'Pau]

I chose:

The two will gradually shed their folk myths about each other, engage in increasing dialogue, and eventually share at least a hesitant acceptance of each other (much as has happened with Seventh Day Adventists)

[Maureen]

Originally posted by pushka@Nov 26 2005, 03:23 AM

I receive an occasional newsletter from the Tanners' organisation, which I find very interesting and informative, I have never paid them anything for my subscription, so they aren't making any profit from me...

I received their news letter also for free for years until I cancelled, since I could read everything on their website. In the late '80's my husband and I visited their bookstore in SLC and bought some literature - about 4 items which cost me about $15.00 (American).

I have no idea how they have made a living from their bookstore since the literature they produced (xeroxed copies) was very cheap to purchase.

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen+Nov 28 2005, 09:18 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-pushka@Nov 26 2005, 03:23 AM

I receive an occasional newsletter from the Tanners' organisation, which I find very interesting and informative, I have never paid them anything for my subscription, so they aren't making any profit from me...

I received their news letter also for free for years until I cancelled, since I could read everything on their website. In the late '80's my husband and I visited their bookstore in SLC and bought some literature - about 4 items which cost me about $15.00 (American).

I have no idea how they have made a living from their bookstore since the literature they produced (xeroxed copies) was very cheap to purchase.

M.

←

Well they might not be financially astute about it but they have both made their professional, paid living off of denigrating and seeking to harm The Church of Jesus Christ.... not exactly something to be proud of.

[Aristotle]

I voted in the 50% range:

"The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints will continue to grow rapidly, and eventually surpass non-LDS Christian church membership."

As demonstrated, the Church has grown immensely, and I believe it will continually grow, as our missionaries are welcomed into new areas of the world.

[Amphiblitz]

Clearly the obvious choice would be a combination of all of the above, but to choose the "most correct answer", I would have to say option 4.