What are your NON-NEGOTIABLES?

[prisonchaplain]

"It's more important what you do with your faith than what the content of it is." This, and similar thoughts--it's your fruit that counts--are common place enough. And certainly, I'd agree that a person can be 100% right in their beliefs, and yet a miserable failure at follow through.

So, let us say that, in the spirit of cooperation, we wanted to create an LDS-evangelical cooperative fellowship. Not so much a new church or denomination, but rather a parachurch organization, not officially, but encouraged by both sides' officials.

Every good group needs a statement of accepted truths. So, what particular teachings would you demand be included before you could join such a group? Some examples often cited by evangelicals might be the Trinity (a non-starter, obviously), or reliance on the Bible as God's message to humanity. Are there any doctrines you would insist be included. Are there particular ones that would keep you from joining?

As a start, I'd demand that the Bible be asteemed as a Scripture common to us, one that is taken as primarily literal, and as a worthy representation of God's message to us. I would reject the organization if it dwelled to heavily and the past failures of either side to engage in civil dialogue. A brief recognition might be appropriate, but such a focus would surely result finger-pointing, and likely run counter to the very purpose of such a group.

[skippy740]

May I make a different suggestion?

Forget the "truths".

I would encourage a "code of conduct" and a "fruits statement". How would we act with each other? How would we serve the community? How should we be known?

If we're looking for common ground core beliefs, then I think I'd be looking for:

1. The spirit of bible teachings of how we should live (too many times, the Bible is used to tell others how they're "wrong", etc.)

2. A mission of personal spiritual development through serving others.

3. A unique way of studying core, fundamental, Christ-like principles and how each of us can apply them.

Basically, my core teaching would be "How you live is more important than what you think you believe".

But that's just me.

[martybess]

Since faith in God constitutes the foundation of religious belief and practise, and as a knowledge of the attributes and character of Deity is essential to an intelligent exercise of faith in Him, this subject claims first place. We would all believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. These three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man, (the Bible). God and Jesus Christ have glorified bodies and the Holy Ghost is a spirit at this point and time. We would believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. We would believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. We would believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance, third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Sorry I could help myself, I guess we wouldn't get anywhere with this list as a start. LOL

Probably my number one demand would be God is my father, he knows and loves me. I wonder if almost all denominations would agree with that one.... hmmmmm? How about we are all brothers and sisters, cant we just get along?

Edited June 13, 2010 by martybess

[Moksha]

I could see LDS and Evangelicals having a theoretically common mission of helping the poor and downtrodden. Pursuing a practical goal along this line would not only constitute good fruit, but would give greater Heavenward bound propulsion than just talking theology.

[prisonchaplain]

May I make a different suggestion?

Forget the "truths".

I would encourage a "code of conduct" and a "fruits statement". How would we act with each other? How would we serve the community? How should we be known?

If we're looking for common ground core beliefs, then I think I'd be looking for:

1. The spirit of bible teachings of how we should live (too many times, the Bible is used to tell others how they're "wrong", etc.)

2. A mission of personal spiritual development through serving others.

3. A unique way of studying core, fundamental, Christ-like principles and how each of us can apply them.

Basically, my core teaching would be "How you live is more important than what you think you believe".

But that's just me.

I agree that it's important to underline (highlight) the importance of LIVING truth. Nevertheless, my counter is that we surely must have some truths we agree upon, some core philosphies that unite us.

[prisonchaplain]

I could see LDS and Evangelicals having a theoretically common mission of helping the poor and downtrodden. Pursuing a practical goal along this line would not only constitute good fruit, but would give greater Heavenward bound propulsion than just talking theology.

But, would we at least be able to agree about offering sustenance in the name of Jesus? Otherwise, we might just as well all go sign up to help out at UNICEF (not an unworthy venture, btw).

[prisonchaplain]

Probably my number one demand would be God is my father, he knows and loves me. I wonder if almost all denominations would agree with that one.... hmmmmm? How about we are all brothers and sisters, cant we just get along?

The very idea of cooperative fellowship between two movements of such distinct doctrine is a non-starter for many. By the time would-be participants arrive at the discussion, I would think your proposal would find solid support.

[Guest mormonmusic]

If I'm reading the question right, you're asking what would be our "must haves" if we were to form a para-Church like this.

Regrettably, I don't see a "must have" approach working. There is too much divergence of opinion on foundational issues that I don't think either group could give up.

For this to work, we may well have to to identify those aspects of our religion that we have in common, and focus only on those. The areas in which we are not in agreement are too divergent and controversial.

So, instantly, the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price would be "out". Eternal progression would be "out". Just about anything that makes us unique as a Church would probably be "out'. Authority as LDS people define it would be out.

We would be left with principles of positive interpersonal interaction and interaction with God. The Sermon on the Mount epitomizes the kind of truths I'm talking about -- along with those that focus on the individual's relationship with God, and not the organization that purports to facilitate it. I think we would all agree that the atonement would be central to the belief of this paraChurch, and we would steer clear of any definition of the exact form of God and Jesus. We would refer to them as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. There would be no ordinances, as this introduces the controversial concept of authority. Service to mankind would be a key component, with a focus on relationships.

Edited June 13, 2010 by mormonmusic

[prisonchaplain]

If I'm reading the question right, you're asking what would be our "must haves" if we were to form a para-Church like this.

Regrettably, I don't see a "must have" approach working. There is too much divergence of opinion on foundational issues that I don't think either group could give up.

"Parachurch organization" means a group that works along side the churches, not a replacement for them. I suppose the More Good Foundation would be a good example. Standing Together is another (evangelical group seeking positive, loving dialogue with LDS). FAIR, and to some extent BYU are two other examples.

So, this organization would not need full agreement on doctrine. But, since the group has religious undertones, some agreement would seem to be helpful. Otherwise, like I suggested in another post, everyone could just join the UNICEF.

For this to work, we may well have to to identify those aspects of our religion that we have in common, and focus only on those. The areas in which we are not in agreement are too divergent and controversial.

So, instantly, the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price would be "out". Eternal progression would be "out". Just about anything that makes us unique as a Church would probably be "out'. Authority as LDS people define it would be out.

Much of what you list would not make a statement of common beliefs. On the other hand, perhaps it would be a necessity for any that join to recognize that you do have spiritual authority? You might not insist on recognition of your EXCLUSIVE authority, but would you expect that when it was your turn to offer a prayer, the non-LDS would respect that you were indeed communicating with God?

We would be left with principles of positive interpersonal interaction and interaction with God. The Sermon on the Mount epitomizes the kind of truths I'm talking about -- along with those that focus on the individual's relationship with God, and not the organization that purports to facilitate it. I think we would all agree that the atonement would be central to the belief of this paraChurch, and we would steer clear of any definition of the exact form of God and Jesus. We would refer to them as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. There would be no ordinances, as this introduces the controversial concept of authority. Service to mankind would be a key component, with a focus on relationships.

Some good thinking here.

[Guest mormonmusic]

"Much of what you list would not make a statement of common beliefs. On the other hand, perhaps it would be a necessity for any that join to recognize that you do have spiritual authority? You might not insist on recognition of your EXCLUSIVE authority, but would you expect that when it was your turn to offer a prayer, the non-LDS would respect that you were indeed communicating with God?

The first list I gave would be topics that would NOT be included in a statement of common beliefs. That was what I meant.

However, your idea of softer versions of some of our beliefs is interesting. I would add that one must acknowledge that truth may be found in the Bible, but that true life principles may also exist in other publications, or perhaps the writings of mere mortals. This would allow me to quote scripture from other books such as the Book of Mormon that have to do with interpersonal relationships or improving spirituality.

Although these particular statements wouldn't necessarily admit the following truths (next paragraph) as formal statements of beliefs, there would be an open-mindedness that allows their presentation and discussion on their own merits, avoiding any discussion about their origins or roots.

For example, one might be able to discuss the role of faith, patience, and being cheerful in the midst of trials as one way of encouraging divine intervention as found in Mosiah Chapter 24 of the BoM.

There would be acceptance and open-mindedness to discuss the 6-ways of inviting the Spirit into a meeeting, as introduced by a general authority of the LDS Church. There would also be discussion of principles shared by prolific authors in the Evangelical faith as they relate to interpersonal relationships and getting closer to God.

For me to be fully engaged in such an organization, I'd have to be able to share general life truths that come from LDS and Non-LDS sources.

[prisonchaplain]

Music, you capture my line of thinking well. Those discussions are easy and not so meaningful if there is no recognized core of truth between the parties. However, when we all agree on some matters, and then codify an openess and respect for one another's perspectives, and even sources of inspiration...that could be powerful. Many might view it as dangerous also.

[Justice]

Mine would be that the first vision of Joseph Smith was a real event, and everything we learn from it would have to be truth... including that the Father and Son are different beings with tangible bodies of flesh and bones.

However, if you take that to be true, then this group you propose would have to believe in continuing revelation, and that revelation would have to lead you to a reorganization of Christ's Church... being the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

So, from my perspective, and being totally honest here, whatever new organization made would be but an appendage to the Church and have the goal or mission of bringing all to Christ, just as taught in the Book of Mormon.

Sorry, PC, but truth is truth, and I see no reason to turn away from it. Each member of this new organization would have to dermine for themselves if the Book of Mormon is a true book of scripture and if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Mine would be that the first vision of Joseph Smith was a real event, and everything we learn from it would have to be truth... including that the Father and Son are different beings with tangible bodies of flesh and bones.

However, if you take that to be true, then this group you propose would have to believe in continuing revelation, and that revelation would have to lead you to a reorganization of Christ's Church... being the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

So, from my perspective, and being totally honest here, whatever new organization made would be but an appendage to the Church and have the goal or mission of bringing all to Christ, just as taught in the Book of Mormon.

Sorry, PC, but truth is truth, and I see no reason to turn away from it. Each member of this new organization would have to dermine for themselves if the Book of Mormon is a true book of scripture and if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

I can't see a group of Evangelicals agreeing to be part of such an organization if they have to acknowledge the reality of the First vision. While I think bringing souls to Christ is a worthy goal, I think there would be temptation on both sides to steer truth seekers to their own brand of Christianity.

So, I think Justice would be better off staying in the LDS church and furthering his goals there.

I do think a statement of purpose would be in order, however. I'm not clear on the purpose of the organization, although I find the openess and sharing and simply "getting along" on the subject of religion as a positive step toward promoting harmony within the Christian faith. I also think a worthy purpose would be to learn perspective-taking and empathy for other religions, without necesarily surrendering one's own values.

And sadly, it would have to be non-negotiable that I am a Christian in this organization. If I have to submit to traditional Christianity's view that I'm not a Christian, unfortunately, I'm "out". The definition of what makes a person a Christian would have to be much broader if I'm going to buy into the organization at all. The statement I'm not a Christian is too offensive to me.

There would also have to be some process or requirement that all members of this organization would have to be assessed for their motives in joining. If they are disguised anti-Mormons, or Mormons simply trying to proselyte Evangelicals, they wouldn't be sanctioned. And there would be education about the cultural norms of the organization for new members to maintain the spirit of open-ness and tolerance for others.

[Justice]

I can't see a group of Evangelicals agreeing to be part of such an organization if they have to acknowledge the reality of the First vision. While I think bringing souls to Christ is a worthy goal, I think there would be temptation on both sides to steer truth seekers to their own brand of Christianity.

If not for the first vision and Book of Mormon we wouldn't be a religion, and therefore would have no reason to be different than them to begin with.

I understand the need for tact and stealth if there were a mutual organization formed, but to not teach our founding beliefs and principles would seem like betrayal. How can we lead people to Christ and at the same time steer away from the first vision or the Book of Mormon? What would we lead them to?

Without them we would be no better off than anyone else. They are the visible foundation for what separates us.

I, too, can't see them (Evangelicals) being a part of an organization like I described unless they gave it serious thought and prayer. But, that's all this organization could ask, it could not require them to believe it. That would be akin to the organizations that say Mormons aren't Christian.

The differences require us to be different. We could have good motives and be cordial at first, but eventually ALL good Latter-Day Saints would, out of necessity, bring up the things most dear to them. Those would be how the first vision and Book of Mormon bring them nearer to Jesus Christ.

[Traveler]

First principle – this is also of #1 importance to me. I agree with Moksha on this one. The first and most important principle in my mind will be to combine our efforts to extend help and charity to those in need. It is my personal opinion that doctrine and other stuff should be secondary. If we are not in the way of being of service to others I see no point in creating an organization to pat each other on the back and tell each other how righteous and great we are. We can do that to ourselves without the help of anyone else.

Second principle – a quest for truth. We should agree to embrace any and all truth regardless of what personal, religious or social cost is associated with it. If math is true we should endorse and teach mathematics or anything else we find to be true. It is written in the “law” that we prove all things and hold fast to that which is true. If someone is not willing to endorse truth they should not expect that any honest person seeking truth to support their cause.

Third principle – a rejection of that which is false. This is the obvious companion of principle #2 and is in essence the final sentence of that principle. If someone is willing to hold to anything false then I cannot fully endorse their efforts. Even if something in the scriptures is known to be false then in honesty we must recognize that which is false. Not as an opinion but as an element of truth.

I understand that individuals of any organization can act contrary to the principles of an organization. There can be thoughts and opinions contrary to the goals – but if the structure of an organization strays from the three defining principles I have listed – I am done – I am out of there and I am gone and no longer a part or associated with it. And I believe G-d and I are together on this one. I do not believe his spirit to dwell in unholy places.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

But, would we at least be able to agree about offering sustenance in the name of Jesus? Otherwise, we might just as well all go sign up to help out at UNICEF (not an unworthy venture, btw).

I think a prayer of blessing for the new shingles that ecumenical volunteers put on a roof, so that it may keep the residence warm and moisture free, would be in order for such a project.

:)

[Moksha]

Wish there was a biblical passage that said you should bridge the gap between all people. The world would be a better place for it, if such an explicit scripture existed. Instead, it is implied and not everybody takes the hint. We should.

Initiating a project even on a small scale takes leadership. My guess in the Reverend Chaplain has such leadership and it would be great if his congregation and a nearby Seattle ward were to meet, talk and give it a try. It would also be helpful if some go-getter with know how could assist in such a request from the LDS side. Whatever can be done to foster greater compassion and better understanding between people has religious merit. Actions that can help people as the result represent demonstrable good fruit.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Personally, I'm not seeing the point of the organization other than to create better will between LDS people and Evangelicals.

[martybess]

Are there not already organizations that do just what PC is suggesting? I have a sister in-law in Alabama who is in such a group. All denominations with one common purpose, "help those in need." Community gardens, classes for the illiterate, cleaning up the neighborhood, etc. Or is this organization just to come to some sort of common ground in beliefs between LDS and Evangelicals?

[urloony]

Mine would be that the first vision of Joseph Smith was a real event, and everything we learn from it would have to be truth... including that the Father and Son are different beings with tangible bodies of flesh and bones.

I think the direction Chaplain is going is more along the lines of beliefs we have in common, rather than unique doctrines. EV's are no more likely going to accept the first vision than we are their perspective on the Trinity.

That being said, there are several we both hold to.

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior.

2. Marriage is ordained by God and is between a man and a woman.

3. The Bible is the word of God.

4. We can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

5. The Holy Spirit can guide and direct us.

6. Prayer is made to directly to God through Jesus Christ and no other intermediary is necessary, aka Patron Saints or priests.

7. Salvation comes by grace to those who choose to follow Jesus Christ.

8. Men can choose how to follow Jesus Christ according to their personal religious dictates.

9. Christ will return to earth to reign and rule as King at His second coming.

10. God can and does reveal his will to men through personal revelation.

Edited June 14, 2010 by urloony

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps it would be helpful to suggest that such an organization should promote Christian behavior in all members, non-confrontational truth-seeking for all, and respectful interaction. Since targeted groups would be LDS and Evangelical, a goal would be mutual understanding and respect, but without forcing compromise or any type of half-hearted endorsement.

[zippy_do46]

"

So, let us say that, in the spirit of cooperation, we wanted to create an LDS-evangelical cooperative fellowship. Not so much a new church or denomination, but rather a parachurch organization, not officially, but encouraged by both sides' officials.

Why would we need such a organization to cooperate in situation where we are helping our fellow man?

I know I am missing something?

The way I see it, if I am working beside a man or woman helping I would not stop and ask this man or woman what they believe. We are both there because we feel the need to do our Heavenly Father's work? Why would we need rules to do this?

I feel these rules would just show the diffrence instead of promoting united efforts. I hope that makes sense.

Edited June 14, 2010 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

Zippy, if the goal was simply to cooperate with physically blessing others, then, as I said previously, we could all join UNICEF. It would be a worthy effort. This organization would intend to build fellowship and understanding amongst our groups, perhaps partially through such projects.

BTW, the purpose of speculating about such an organization is not because I'm planning to start one. Rather, this is more a way of fleshing out how we view our relationships with each other. What are our concerns, our fears, our conditions? Are we worried about compromising our own beliefs? Do we want to avoid being labeled a non-Christian yet again? Do we want to insist that Joseph Smith's visions were of God? Do we want to avoid all theological discussion, and just put our hands to feeding our hungry neighbors? All of these reflections speak to our relationship with one another. I find this string very healthy and helpful.

[NeuroTypical]

This may be sort of a tangent, but I've interacted with evangelicals in the following ways:

* Local Mega-church would not allow me to apply for a job with them, because I could not sign their 'statement of beliefs'. The statement consisted of 8 or 9 things I agreed with, and two I did not (infallible final bible, official belief in trinity)

* Homeschool co-op run by Nazarene church: Sort of set up by believers for believers, but their policy was to allow any "christian" to participate. You had to sign something agreeing that your kids would probably be taught certain viewpoints. System involved every parent participating in some way, parent had to sign a statement of belief if their volunteer work involved teaching. Same beef as above - agreed with 8 or 9 things, but disagreed with biblical infalibility/finality, and official trinitarian belief. So my wife did office work and other such things. Very positive experience - one or two interesting moments as someone found out we were LDS.

* Homeschool co-op run by "High-country Christian Home Educators". Met in a mega-church, issued a statement of beliefs very similar to my first two examples. Required no agreement to this statement from anyone, required everyone to sign something stating "If I teach, I won't teach anything contrary to that statement. If my kids are being taught, they'll most likely be exposed to stuff out of the statement of beliefs." Very positive experience, continuing for it's 4th sememster soon. My wife has buddied up with the organization's only Hacidic Jew, and a few other 'wildcards', and everyone gets along with everyone else.

LM

[prisonchaplain]

Loudmouth, I enjoyed that very much. Personally, I've probably gained my most in depth experience on this site. Interfaith gatherings are tense affairs. I'm torn between being proud of my own tradition, and wanting to extol the virtues of our distinctives, while at the same time wanting to learn and be respectful of others, and yet again, not wanting to compromise my faith, or give in to a vacuous ecumenism that profers respect for all, but commitment to none. IMHO, the Apostle Paul probably offers one of the best models for this type of work. He took time to learn about others beliefs and practices, but when the time came to present the Gospel, he did not hesitate, and spoke with passion and conviction.