How to talk to Evangelicals...

[theoriginalavatar]

Hello Everyone. God bless you! I have missed being here, but my emotions at the loss of my wife have kept me from visiting these hallowed halls. For those of you who do not know me, I am a faithful Latter-day Saint who resides in Sin City with my two beautiful children. I grew up Catholic and explored a great many religions and theological views before finding may way to the LDS church. I couldn't be happier to be here, but I am FAR from your typical, orthodox Mormon.

This year is an interesting one for LDS. With Mitt Romney in the political spotlight, we find our beliefs, once again, questioned and dissected. This, in my opinion, is a GOOD thing. We have nothing to hide!

Some of the greatest conversations we have is with our fellow brothers and sisters in the Evangelical community. Let me state this first and foremost. WE, AS LATTER-DAY SAINTS, DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVANGELICAL BELIEFS. Furthermore, EVANGELICALS DO NOT UNDERSTAND LDS DOCTRINE. Members of both sides, even well-meaning members, think they understand, when, in fact, they don't really.

There are so many misunderstandings and myths that have been perpetuated that it is exceedingly difficult to sort through the resultant pile of nonsense.

It has become a person goal for me to attempt to do just that.

I won't post everything I have to say in this first post, but I open up this thread to those who wish to discuss in a courteous and OPEN manner what, in fact, each party believes and does not believe.

Let me say this to begin (and I challenge anyone on either side to substantiate any disagreement they may have): 99 percent of what LDS and Evangelicals believe is EXACTLY THE SAME.

It is.

We spend so much time arguing with each other in a disgusting display of ignorance about what we are convinced the other side believes that we never have time to approach the important 1 percent difference that makes all the difference. Obviously, as a LDS, I am partial to LDS teachings. I believe that the 1 percent of which I spoke is the important 1 percent with regard to soteriological matters, but I love and respect people of all faiths. I mean that. So...let's begin an ernest discussion, shall we?

Edited January 23, 2012 by theoriginalavatar

[theoriginalavatar]

In the last general conference, Elder Ballard spoke on the importance of a name...in particular, the name of our Church. It was an excellent talk. Elder Ballard makes the case that we are, and are not, Christians in the classical sense.

As I listened to him speak - and later read his words in the Ensign - I couldn't help but consider the question: What is a name?

A name, ultimately, a word or a group of words. Before I get to the idea of our being a different brand of Christian (for a different brand of Christian, we certainly are), I’d like to explore for a moment the power of words in our lives. Consider the definition of Christian according to one dictionary (yes, I admit that I read dictionaries for fun) - the American Heritage Dictionary:

To be a Christian is to be “one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.” Furthermore, it is “one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Is there importance in a name?

We who follow the Living Christ claim to live by a remarkable tale, one in which we gather to remember and re-enact every Sunday, the story of the Last Supper, of the Son of God who gathered his friends around him and shared with them a meal, who gave them emblems of himself, his body and his blood. This is a story that should, above all, shape our lives and self-awareness.

So the challenge of being a follower of Christ is, for us, not just that of trying to be good. Goodness is evidenced in every group, culture, and creed in religiosity. There is no evidence to suggest that Christians are, on the whole, any better than anyone else, and Jesus Christ certainly did not call the saints but the sinners.

The challenge is rather to live by and through a story that some of our contemporaries – even our fellow Christians – may find very odd, and which offers a different vision of the world, of being human, and of our relationship with God and Jesus Christ as we understand them.

Have I said anything so far that disagrees with Evangelical teachings and their understanding of Deity?

Edited January 23, 2012 by theoriginalavatar

[Matthew0059]

I don't have much to add- but have you read "How Wide the Divide", co-authored by Drs. Robinson and Bloomberg? That's a good book that attempts to gulf the theological divide. I think there is another one that attempts a similar feat... I think PC would probably know more.

Good luck in your journey! God bless

[theoriginalavatar]

Ultimately, my point is THIS (and then I'll shut up, I promise...well, for now anyway):

The central act of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper was to speak a powerful and transformative phrase: “This is my body which is given for you.” He speaks a series of words.

I would say that one of the ways in which we must build a Latter-day Saint community within a diverse religious society, is to rise above that trap of possessive, exclusionary individualism to which we so often succumb. We do this by recovering a reverence for words and their potency to form and sustain community and theological (soteriological, exegetical) narrative.

This is SO very important, and, sadly, I see the opposite happening all the time.

We have to be honest. Now calm down!! I am not suggesting that we intend to be dishonest, but when we openly discuss theological matters with those who understand the terms in different ways than ourselves, we do harm. We need to understand what THEY mean when they apply meaning to THEIR terms. I do not believe it is the case that Latter-day Saints intentionally seek to deceive other Christians, but the responses we give often give this perception.

This has been discussed at other times by other scholars, but I think it is so very critical for us today. As Latter-day Saints, we need veritable transparency if we are to nurture a world-wide view of intellectual acceptance. We need to be, as one BYU scholar described it, “theologically bilingual.” That is to say that we must train ourselves to speak with others accurately and sensitively about their religious convictions as well as our own. We must understand them, and they must understand us in actuality and not undefined notions. Words are the tools we use to bring this to pass.

When we sit down with someone of another faith and we exchange ideas of what they believe and what we believe, we need to stop making assumptions that are based on antiquated understandings!

For example...I often hear LDS exclaim that ALL Evangelicals believe that, once a person is saved, they are always saved, irregardless of what they do and what sins they commit from that point forward. With only a few exceptions (conversations I've had with proponents of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism come to mind), this simply is not true. And yet, we laugh it off and dismiss fruitful discussions based on our false understanding. Many Evangelicals are equally guilty of doing this with regard to our beliefs.

We are human and we belong to each other because we can converse together. A society in disintegration is one in which there is contempt for words. Sometimes it seems we have forgotten that speaking – and speaking correctly – is a moral act, demanding the deepest responsibility. (I am not talking about grammar and syntax, although these, too, are important to crazy grammar geeks such as I am.)

We are often accused by others within the Christian community of not being Christian. In fact, this is the crux of Elder Ballard's talk. Their reasons for this accusation are as diverse as the various denominations to which they belong. Think back on the definition that I gave from the dictionary. According to that definition, do you think we are Christians?

Edited January 23, 2012 by theoriginalavatar

[theoriginalavatar]

Ok, I lied (sorry )...final words in 12...11...10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...

There are far too many times in conversations, when confronted by someone telling us that we, as Latter-day Saints, are not, in fact, Christians, our response is immediately one of defense. “We most certainly are!” we emphatically tell them. “It says Jesus Christ right in the name of our Church, so we must be Christians!”

True, our Church does bear his name, and for good reason. The Lord himself said that we should call ourselves by such. Prophets, both ancient and modern, have testified that they who follow Christ should do so under the banner of his holy name. And yet, I think that our quick dismissal of our detractors’ accusations does a disservice to ourselves as well as others.

If we are to have meaningful progression in the religious community at large, we must open our hearts and our minds to sincere and open dialogue. We must be a community of believers which dares to debate, to argue, to communicate in pursuit of the truth.

Do you agree?! Am I crazy? Are you calling my bishop?

So often among our members there is a fear of debate. I do not mean that sort of debate that leads to unhappy disagreement and contention! I mean that we should not be afraid to stand for what we believe, not as other Christians define it or what we’d like them to see us, but as things actually are in accordance with our accepted, cannonized doctrine. We should not be afraid to walk down that path of discourse and difficult struggle with one another in which we both seek mutual enlightenment. I speak of that passionate argument in which one fights with the other, in love, precisely because one hopes to learn from them.

We take the name of Christ upon us in the waters of baptism. We renew the effect of that baptism each week as we partake of the sacrament, signifying our willingness to take his name upon us and promising always to remember him.

We are Christians because we follow the life and teachings of Christ Jesus. We are saints because that is how God and his prophets refer to the Lord’s followers in ancient as well as modern times. It is also how we define our uniqueness. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior and the Redeemer of the world. He atoned for all, and he provided the only way whereby we may undue the chains of death. We follow Jesus Christ.

People often get caught up in words for the wrong reasons. It is our responsibility to truly be Christians, in words as well as deeds. We must look outside the comfort of our daily surroundings and take a selfless step into the darkness.

In God and his community of believers we find each other.

Edited January 23, 2012 by theoriginalavatar

[theoriginalavatar]

I don't have much to add- but have you read "How Wide the Divide", co-authored by Drs. Robinson and Bloomberg? That's a good book that attempts to gulf the theological divide. I think there is another one that attempts a similar feat... I think PC would probably know more.

Good luck in your journey! God bless

I have read it, and I love it, and I base much of this on their comments as well as the comments on their comments.

It is an older book, but I think it is particulary relevent today. People of other faiths are good people, and the great majority of their teachings is correct.

How can we ever hope to share the actual areas in which we differ unless we first come to terms with what it is we actually believe and what we believe that they believe?

Thank you for your comments!

[Guest]

According to that definition, do you think we are Christians?

Since you're doing a comparable between Evangelicals and Mormons, then it is very important to point out that the webster definition of Christian is not the reason why in the mainstream Evangelical's eyes we are not Christian. It is much simpler than that. We are not Christians because we do not subscribe to the Evangelical (and even the traditional) view of the nature of Jesus Christ rooted in the Trinity. Hence, to them, we are worshipping a "different" Jesus which throws us out of the Christian label into the heretics. Which is just fine with me. I believe I am Christian - anybody else don't have to believe I am.

Edited January 23, 2012 by anatess

[theoriginalavatar]

Since you're doing a comparable between Evangelicals and Mormons, then it is very important to point out that the webster definition of Christian is not the reason why in the mainstream Evangelical's eyes we are not Christian. It is much simpler than that. We are not Christians because we do not subscribe to the Evangelical (and even the traditional) view of the nature of Jesus Christ rooted in the Trinity. Hence, to them, we are worshipping a "different" Jesus which throws us out of the Christian label into the heretics. Which is just fine with me. I believe I am Christian - anybody else don't have to believe I am.

Thank you, anatess, I agree completely. We spend so much effort arguing with others that we are, in fact, Christian...according to orthodoxy. This simply isn't true. And that's ok!

Evangelical notions of the Trinity and other definitions are so often taken from extra-biblical sources. As are ours, I might add.

Joseph Smith can rightly be accused of "filling in the blanks" with regard to notions on which the Bible remains silent. He cannot, however, be accused of altering text. True, we often interprete various passages in the Bible differently, but it is well within our right to do so.

Some may argue that the JST is evidence of altering pre-existing text, but I have ideas about that as well if anyone wants to explore them.

[prisonchaplain]

I have read it, and I love it, and I base much of this on their comments as well as the comments on their comments.

It is an older book, but I think it is particulary relevent today. People of other faiths are good people, and the great majority of their teachings is correct.

How can we ever hope to share the actual areas in which we differ unless we first come to terms with what it is we actually believe and what we believe that they believe?

Thank you for your comments!

I'm working on the sequel, by Rev. Johnson and Dr. Robert Millet, Bridging the Divide. It is helpful, but builds on the first book--so I'd still suggest folk read the How Wide the Dividie one first.

What I love about the books is that the authors do what you are suggesting in this string--get to know each other, and each other's language. They build trust as they discuss both similarities and differences. Beautiful stuff, to be sure.

BTW, I'd suggest that the differences in LDS teaching vs. Evangelical are more significant than the 1% you put out. On the other hand, the day to day walk of faithful LDS and Evangelicals probably looks 99% the same.

[prisonchaplain]

Since you're doing a comparable between Evangelicals and Mormons, then it is very important to point out that the webster definition of Christian is not the reason why in the mainstream Evangelical's eyes we are not Christian. It is much simpler than that. We are not Christians because we do not subscribe to the Evangelical (and even the traditional) view of the nature of Jesus Christ rooted in the Trinity. Hence, to them, we are worshipping a "different" Jesus which throws us out of the Christian label into the heretics. Which is just fine with me. I believe I am Christian - anybody else don't have to believe I am.

Heresy is false teaching. Heretics are teachers of what is false. The nuance is that the error is serious. However, not all heresies are damnable, and not all heretics are damned. How wrong can we be and still be acceptable to God?

So, I can say, "Sorry friend, but this particular belief of yours is heresy." Yet, I can continue to journey with this friend, so long as a sense sincere hunger and seeking after the one true and living God.

[NeuroTypical]

We take our kids to a homeschool co-op run by our local evangelical megachurch people. Nice folks. We're only interested in them understanding us, insofar as it helps them not get all uptight at sitting next to mormons or teaching a mormon kid spanish or piano or whatever.

In the 4-5 years my wife has been going there, we've never initiated a single conversation on beliefs or faith or differences or God or any such thing. Yet my wife ends up in a ton of them, usually resulting in mutal respect and greater understanding. She won't participate in a conversation critical of anyone's faith or beliefs. She's only there to edumicatify our bunlings.

She's lost count how many times she's heard: "Are you sure you're Mormon?"

[prisonchaplain]

Loudmouth brings out a reality. Most people of serious faith practice are not interested in converting, nor in debating with others. They would like to be respected. If not, they want their young-ins protected. So...the type of deep, meaningful conversations that Blomberg & Robinson (How Wide the Divide) and Johson & Millet (Bridging the Divide) engage in are prototype models. Our day to day experiences are usually quick one-time affairs.

[theoriginalavatar]

I just love hearing when men and women on both sides of that divide are willing to have a conversation. I do not suggest that we seek them out, per se, but that we are willing to engage each other critically when needed and do so in a mutually enlightening way.

Too often, it seems, conversations begin and end thusly:

Evangelical: "You Mormons don't really understand the Bible!"

Mormon: "Yes we do!"

or

Mormon: "You Evangelicals think you can go and murder people once you've been saved and don't have to do anything good any more or repent!"

Evangelical: "That's not what we believe at all!"

Mormon: "Yes it is!"

Evangelical: "No it isn't!"

You get the point. Obviously, this is grossly oversimplified. I am always encouraged when I see and hear open dialogue such as that expressed by both books mentioned as well as on forums such as this.

Most of the "meat" we could be discussing is covered with a layer of mold that hides the truth beneath. We have to scrape it off so we can really get a taste of what's there.

We can travel the road of exegesis together, but we first must get past a lot of the homiletical stuff on both sides. There is plenty good to be discussed without wallowing around in the speculative commentary in which we so often find ourselves hopelessly stuck.

Thank you both for your comments.

Edited January 23, 2012 by theoriginalavatar