Is there more that binds LDS & Evangelicals than divides?

[prisonchaplain]

Some here are familiar with Richard Mouw, evangelical scholar, and past president of Fuller Seminary. He is probably the most LDS-friendly evangelical leader there is. As an example, he's the one who recently apologized for evangelical lies about the LDS faith.

Yet, there is another saying. "Those who respect all devote to none." In a recent address Mouw says that if evangelicals and LDS would just focus on what binds us--primarily our belief in the redemptive work of Christ--then the doctrines that divide us (Trinity, meaning of 'salvation,' etc.) would gradually become the discussion of rare academic events.

Is he brushing important differences under the rug, or is Mouw on to something? Are our disagreements mostly semantic and unimportant? Is it mere incivility that keeps us from working together more? Or, does it do a disservice to both faiths to ignore our substantial theological differences?

Evangelical leader says commonality with Mormons deeper than differences | Deseret News

[applepansy]

I agree with him. I believe disciples of Christ don't put each other down or focus on differences. Christ commanded us to love one another as we love Him. It is only through our demonstrations of love and charity (the true love of Christ) that we truly follow Him.

I think some of what keeps us from working together is fear. I would hope that we could discuss our theological differences without getting defensive or offensive.

[Guest]

We shouldn't be brushing our theological differences under the rug. At the same time, we should not allow these differences to prevent us from fulfilling the greatest commandment by ACTIVELY loving others as we love ourselves.

[Durzan]

We need to acknowledge our differences respectfully, and then go right on to emphasise our similarities. We have more in common with the other Christian Sects than most other religions, and we all value the same core beliefs. (in theory anyway...)

The fact is that, Christians as a whole cannot afford to be arguing among themselves at this time. The world is slowly turning away from religion, and now is the time when we who believe and have faith in Christ's divinity need to unite and begin to respectfully support one another.

If we unite and stand as a beacon to the world, then all we Christians (including Mormons) as a whole will better off for it.

[prisonchaplain]

So, as a way of fleshing out the conversation, is there an argument to be made for being very cautious about seeming to fellowship with false or erroneous teachers/ings?

I found the following from Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Baptist-oriented school (the section targets no particular religion or denomination):

Christians, therefore, separate from false teachers and their teaching for the following reasons:

• To maintain the doctrinal integrity of the church (I Timothy 2:6).
• To protect the sheep from error which inhibits spiritual growth (Acts 20:28; II Peter 2:1-2).

[Praetorian_Brow]

Yes.

I spoke with my Islamic co-workers many times on this topic. Religion, regardless of sect or accepted differences has far more in common than not.

I learned recently that the only real difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis, was that they disagree on who succeeded Mohammad as the prophet, yet they kill each other over it. Catholics and Protestants did the same thing.

Funny how the people proclaiming falsehoods, tend to focus on other peoples believes, rather than their own core ones.

[Durzan]

...but is attacking each other both physically and verbally really worth it? Particularly with Christians, who are supposed to be following the teachings of Christ anyway?

In theory, We can be respectful of each other's differences and acknowledge the similarities, by being christlike to each other.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Durzan

[prisonchaplain]

Isn't it an act of love to try to show someone the error of their ways?

That can sound tongue in cheek, but ultimately, shouldn't we hope those in error to find truth?

Edited November 19, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[Durzan]

Isn't it an act of love to try to show someone the error of their ways?

That can sound tongue in cheek, but ultimately, shouldn't we hope those in error to find truth?

I certainly am not ENTIRELY wrong...

Showing someone the error of their ways is all kind and good, but it depends on HOW it is done.

If we point it out to them immediately, then they will only be drawn further away from the gospel, and we lose any possiblities of exploring what similarities we have.

...better to emphasize what they are doing right FIRST and acknowledge the differences respectfully as we form a friendship with them.

Jesus himself led by example. As such, I think in this case it is better to lead by example than to point out what someone is doing wrong.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Durzan

[prisonchaplain]

I certainly am not ENTIRELY wrong...

I love this! "No matter how wrong you think I am, something about me has gotta be right...God don't make no junk."

Showing someone the error of their ways is all kind and good, but it depends on HOW it is done.

If we point it out to them immediately, then they will only be drawn further away from the gospel, and we lose any possiblities of exploring what similarities we have.

...better to emphasize what they are doing right FIRST and acknowledge the differences respectfully as we form a friendship with them.

Jesus himself led by example. As such, I think in this case it is better to lead by example than to point out what someone is doing wrong.

What you are suggesting is known as "sandwiching." Say something nice. Get to the heart of your "constructive criticism," then end on a positive note.

However, if Jesus is the example, then when is it okay for us to turn over the money tables and chase the vendors out of the temple?

[Durzan]

I love this! "No matter how wrong you think I am, something about me has gotta be right...God don't make no junk."

What you are suggesting is known as "sandwiching." Say something nice. Get to the heart of your "constructive criticism," then end on a positive note.

However, if Jesus is the example, then when is it okay for us to turn over the money tables and chase the vendors out of the temple?

In all things, moderation there must be.

[Drpepper]

While Mormons, Christians, Seventh day, JW's, catholics etc, etc spend most of their efforts refuting each others doctrinal differences. Satan at large goes on with his work decaying the very fabric of society, attacking marriage and the family. Imagine what would happen if we all put our differences aside and actually combined to fight the real enemy.

[Durzan]

While Mormons, Christians, Seventh day, JW's, catholics etc, etc spend most of their efforts refuting each others doctrinal differences. Satan at large goes on with his work decaying the very fabric of society, attacking marriage and the family. Imagine what would happen if we all put our differences aside and actually combined to fight the real enemy.

Exactly!

[NightSG]

Isn't it an act of love to try to show someone the error of their ways?

We've spent how many centuries "loving" each other to death over doctrinal differences?

1 Peter 5:2-3.

Serve, and be an example. Those who are open to teaching will learn more of value from that example than from words they aren't yet ready to hear, and when they are ready to hear, your words will have real meaning to them.

In other words, you're following Aristotle's three means of persuasion. Logos and pathos - appeals to logic and emotion - are established as needed in the actual persuasive speech or writing, but you have to live what you're teaching, and be seen doing so in order to establish ethos - the appeal to your own character - to the extent that it simply doesn't need any reinforcement in your audience's mind by the time you get around to teaching.

[justinc]

This is quite a difficult subject to tackle considering that both Latter-day Saints and Christians have both declared each other as false teachers in one sense or another. Christians typically say that LDS are not Christian and by implication "unsaved". LDS on the other hand emphasize that they are the only way implying that all other denominations are from Satan.

While these are the obvious result of doctrinal differences they need not be taken personally. I can recognize that the average Rabbi might think that Jesus was actually a false prophet - but that does not mean that I have a problem with the Rabbi (neither the other way round).

Personally I don't think anyone has a monopoly over the title "Christian". To define what a Christian is you would need to know what exactly the person who first coined the term actually meant by it. And since we do not have access to his or her thoughts we must define it as best as we can - but such defining is always going to be subjective or biased depending on who is doing the defining. While the Latter-day Saint affirms he is a Christian - someone of another denomination is going to say he is not a Christian. Then you find others like Jehovah's Witnesses who rarely use the term of themselves because - and I think we can all agree - it's a loaded title. We can't forget Muslims who recognize Jesus as a prophet but don't call themselves Christians - again probably because it's a loaded term (and let's face it - they don't want to be associated with anything to do with a trinity - as though all Christians are trinitarians). Thus the title Christian as far as I see it - should only refer to a person "relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings" (Oxford Online Dictionary). And since we are both (Latter-day Saints and other Christians) professing a faith in the Christian tradition (albeit by somewhat different means) then I think we should all fall under one title - Christian. Latter-day Saints who disagree with Latter-day Saints are still Latter-day Saints. Baptists who disagree with Baptists are still Baptists. In the same (larger) sense Christians who disagree with Christians are still Christian.

Next the question becomes "are all Christians going to be saved?" or "are all Christians going to the Celestial Kingdom?" to which all Christians of all denominations (including LDS) must respond - "I cannot judge my brother - this is left to the judgement of God". Also, the obvious scripture comes to mind "Not everyone who say's to [Jesus], 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 7:21). I very much doubt all "Christians" will inherit the earth - but I am not willing to exclude Latter-day Saints - if God wills that a Latter-day Saint is justified at the last day - who am I to disagree with my maker (and vice versa).

Having said all of this I do think that we should try to correct each other when we are wrong - but this is to be done in the spirit of loving our neighbor. Comparing ourselves to Jesus overturning tables at the temple is probably not appropriate considering he is the Messiah and was doing the will of the Father (whom certainly brings judgement through people on earth when he wants - just read the Hebrew scriptures!), as disciples however weare commanded to be meek etc. I do believe that we should correct our neighbor but also recognize that our religion is tied up with our emotion - so we should be careful with our approach. I also think that we will be held accountable for failing to search for the truth - my opinion anyway.

William Lane Craig points out the difference between arguing and quarreling - arguing is merely upholding a position with logic and reasoning whereas quarreling is arguing in a negative or aggressive manner. We need to learn to dialogue with each other without quarreling. The majority of Latter-day Saints need to learn that not everyone with questions is an anti-Mormon - Christians of other denominations need to recognize that saying someone is not a Christian, is just semantic wordplay that's not going to get anyone anywhere.

Thoughts? Disagreements?

[Dravin]

Is he brushing important differences under the rug, or is Mouw on to something? Are our disagreements mostly semantic and unimportant? Is it mere incivility that keeps us from working together more?

It depends on the context. For example, if we're talking about working together to provide aid after a natural disaster I'd say our disagreements are unimportant. If you can't stand handing out hygiene kits with a Mormon, or say joining together under the same moral cause I suggest it is incivility rather than doctrine that is the cause. If we're talking about joining missionary programs then certainly the differences are highly significant and something that reasonably would keep us from joining together in such an endeavor due to doctrinal differences.

As far as doctrinal debates becoming academic, it would be nice if once individuals have discussed the issue and irreconcilable differences are established that focus would go towards what we share. Consider yourself PC, you most certainly do no shirk away from what you believe to be true and are not ashamed about it but you do not pick at those differences on this board like they are an open wound. I wouldn't go so far as to say such discussion should only be academic, but I think they can be much more civil then they often are (on both sides) when they do occur, and there could be more respect for people who simply aren't interested in further discussing the issue (which is basic courtesy). You can stand firm in what you believe without shrieking, "Different Jesus!" whenever I get within 50 feet of you (generic you) just as I can avoid shrieking, "Abominable creed!" in the same circumstance.

[prisonchaplain]

To put my thoughts simply: Doctrine is important.

I do not disagree with the hesitation, the caution, the calls to civility, the "action before words" counsel, etc. At the end of the day, though, doctrine is the elephant in room.

We know how to behave. We engage in good works. We're nice. We give generously. Goodness, we fast, we pray, you engage in temple work, I 'pray in the Spirit.' We're good at doing and being good. Likewise with most serious religious folks, inside and outside of the broad Christian realm.

Where we differ is in what we believe is true. And yes, even there, we agree on much. IMHO, it is a great act of love, intelligence, and maturity to be able to engage people we care about concerning irreconcilable differences of faith belief.

Perhaps part of our difficulty is that so many people have done such a bad job of this. Wells have been poisoned. I fear a culture that is rising up today though. It is lawless. Doctrine doesn't matter to it. Belief is irrelevant. It's all about heart, feeling, and 'what works.' Scriptures say much about societies that are lawless (idealess?)

BTW...this is a great place to say that our site does a rather good job of carrying the very conversations that I find so lacking in general society today.

[Traveler]

Some here are familiar with Richard Mouw, evangelical scholar, and past president of Fuller Seminary. He is probably the most LDS-friendly evangelical leader there is. As an example, he's the one who recently apologized for evangelical lies about the LDS faith.

Yet, there is another saying. "Those who respect all devote to none." In a recent address Mouw says that if evangelicals and LDS would just focus on what binds us--primarily our belief in the redemptive work of Christ--then the doctrines that divide us (Trinity, meaning of 'salvation,' etc.) would gradually become the discussion of rare academic events.

Is he brushing important differences under the rug, or is Mouw on to something? Are our disagreements mostly semantic and unimportant? Is it mere incivility that keeps us from working together more? Or, does it do a disservice to both faiths to ignore our substantial theological differences?

Evangelical leader says commonality with Mormons deeper than differences | Deseret News

There is an ancient Native American concept that there are two wolves that live within us all - as individuals. One wolf is wild and ready for war and will find any excuse to fight even to the death. The other wolf is tame and domestic and will find reason to make peace and unity and work with others as a friend - finding excuse to befriend. The wolf that takes control of each individual is the wolf we each feed.

The wolf we as individuals feed determine what kind of Christian we are. And those that gather wolfs of war will establish a church in like manner and those that gather wolfs that befriend will likewise establish a church of such a manner.

It is interesting to me that Jesus warned of wolves that by nature intend to create problems and divisions rather than bring solutions and unity. (see Matt 7:15-20).

The Traveler

[Leah]

"This is quite a difficult subject to tackle considering that both Latter-day Saints and Christians have both declared each other as false teachers in one sense or another. Christians typically say that LDS are not Christian and by implication "unsaved". LDS on the other hand emphasize that they are the only way implying that all other denominations are from Satan."

1) Latter Day Saints ARE Christians.

2) LDS do NOT in any way impy that "all other denominations are from Satan". You should already know that, if you have done the amount of studying the church that you claim to have done. You should also know by this time that LDS church firmly teaches that we are not the only religion that contains truth.

Do you really not know that or does it just serve your purposes more to make these claims? Either way, they are wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

Using the wolves analogy, the scriptures tell us that in eternity the lion and lamb will lie down next to each other. They will experience shalom--a true and transparent peace. Could it be that the height of friendship is not for the lamb and lion to say to one another, "Let's forget our differences, and look at how much we are alike." Rather, that they would say: You are lion. I am lamb. Let us walk together as we are.

Friends sometimes rib each other about their differences. Sometimes they have frank discussions. Occasionally they get upset with each other. However, when danger comes, they will lay down their lives for one another.

My guess is that "timid friends," who avoid ruffling feathers, never challenge one another, are always polite--these folks might be useful at your weddings, but won't be able to offer much heart-comfort at the funerals you hold.

[justinc]

LDS do NOT in any way impy that "all other denominations are from Satan". You should already know that, if you have done the amount of studying the church that you claim to have done. You should also know by this time that LDS church firmly teaches that we are not the only religion that contains truth.

Sorry Leah, if I am in error. Though my point was only that Latter-day Saints and other Christians have not enjoyed a very good history:

“What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world.” - Joseph Smith (President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Section Five 1842-1843, page 270, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith

“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense... Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century” - John Taylor (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167

“The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:171

“With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:199

“Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" - Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 255

"all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” - History 1:19

"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10).

Edited November 19, 2013 by justinc

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps justinc's citations above (post #21) are a good case in point. I've seen most of these in bits and pieces. Through discussions of doctrine, I've learned that, while those quotes sound awful, at the end of the day most LDS expect that most Christians will receive a heavenly reward.

BTW, most Jewish scholars believe the same. They reject Jesus, but believe that our morality, and our worship, however flawed, of the God of Abraham, will bode well for us on judgment day. Yet, the Talmud declares our Jesus to be a false prophet.

Likewise, many Christians, while remaining deeply concerned about LDS doctrine, are willing to leave the ultimate destiny of people's souls to God's judgment.

How do we know these things if we do not engage? If we remain polite and non-offensive, but harbor our judgments in the recesses of our minds, we will remain nicely, but profoundly separated and ignorant of one another.

[Traveler]

Using the wolves analogy, the scriptures tell us that in eternity the lion and lamb will lie down next to each other. They will experience shalom--a true and transparent peace. Could it be that the height of friendship is not for the lamb and lion to say to one another, "Let's forget our differences, and look at how much we are alike." Rather, that they would say: You are lion. I am lamb. Let us walk together as we are.

Friends sometimes rib each other about their differences. Sometimes they have frank discussions. Occasionally they get upset with each other. However, when danger comes, they will lay down their lives for one another.

My guess is that "timid friends," who avoid ruffling feathers, never challenge one another, are always polite--these folks might be useful at your weddings, but won't be able to offer much heart-comfort at the funerals you hold.

I think this is why you and I get along. I believe it is part of listening. As a scientist and engineer involved in peer reviews - the last thing I need for my approach to things is someone to go along - I need someone to look critically into every detail for any possible flaw. If you have not noticed that is how I try to help you. Not because I disagree but because, if I see any flaw I believe that we are both better off to discuss it. Often the mitigation is more important than the original concept.

I know you have opened my eyes to many things and on several points I have altered my opinion to a much better resolution. Then at the same time I do not think anyone needs an accuser. It is interesting that one of the titles of Jesus is advocate. I believe an advocate not only argues for someone but offers important advice and council. Whereas an accuser is not about building up but tearing down and destroying. I believe this is why Jesus used the analogy of wolves with thorns and thistles.

Then at the same time - we have discussed our differences. Those point that seem to have no resolution - yet I do not think you hate me for it and you should know I do not hate you in any way because of our differences. My dad taught me that the best friends are those that know well the differences but find a way to like you anyway. From experience I believe that makes the best marriages.

One last point - there are many doctrines that concern me - that I am unable to reconcile. I find this in science as well as religion - but I believe one can only learn by moving forward - with knowledge when knowledge is available and with faith when knowledge is not available.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

How do we know these things if we do not engage? If we remain polite and non-offensive, but harbor our judgments in the recesses of our minds, we will remain nicely, but profoundly separated and ignorant of one another.

Why is engaging and being polite and inoffensive mutually exclusive?

[prisonchaplain]

Why is engaging and being polite and inoffensive mutually exclusive?

Because we've become a thin-skinned, self-indulgent, intellectually weak culture. Dare to say, "I'm not so sure that's right," and far too many immediately don the mantle of victimhood, and declare loudly that you are against them.

Or, they may seethe within, an simply say, "Who are you to judge?" "Nobody's perfect." etc.

I don't think I'm old, but I grew when debate was considered a sport, and opposing ideas were weighed in the court of public opinion, based on who could put forward the best case. Republicans and Democrats watched the same news stations, read the same papers, and where Ronald Reagan and Tip O'neill would fight like crazy during the day and enjoy a meal together at night.

Today, you watch "the other side's" sources, read their writings, or worse yet, socialize with them, and you are immediately suspect. Political campaigns often result in boycotts, and even anonymous death threats.

Why is mere disagreement automatically impolite in today's culture? All I can say is that it's not my fault. I hate this reality. However, this is where I perceive that we find ourselves.

Edited November 19, 2013 by prisonchaplain