Concepts that we struggle to discuss because of other religions

[MrShorty]

In the recent issue of BYU Magazine is an article by Sheri Dew about grace (http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=3379 ). It is an interesting article, but one of the little things that she mentions really stood out to me was this:

Her e-mail led me to ask another friend what she wished she understood about grace. “To tell you the truth,” she said, “TV evangelists have wrecked that word for me. I almost feel disloyal to the restored gospel even talking about grace. I mean, do we believe in grace?”

 

I'm not particularly interested in a discussion about grace, per se, but about how some of the animosity that exists between LDS and other religions prevents us from grasping and discussing truth. Looking back, I can see how I had some difficulty, like this woman, in accepting and understanding the LDS concept of grace, because I was afraid it sounded too "Protestant" to be truth. I sometimes see this in discussions around the Trinity/nature of God.

 

I have even seen it go the other way. I recall a blog entry on an Evangelical blog discussing the concept of repentance. One pastor added a comment to the blog describing himself as a Christian pastor in Utah and accused the blog writer of sounding too much like those "Mormons" that he lives among.

 

I think my desired discussion point is -- what are the concepts that you see us as LDS having trouble discussing out of fear of sounding too "Protestant" or too "Catholic" or otherwise too "ecumenical"? How do we really learn to look past our animosity towards others and our very reall theological differences to discuss the truths that we may share in common?

[PolarVortex]

Interesting question.  Certainly the Trinity is right up there at or near the top of the list.  The biggest one I can think of is "salvation," which coincidentally I just mentioned on another thread.  The LDS Church, from my experience, tends to emphasize "the path to exaltation through obedience to Gospel principles and ordinances" with a multiple-level heaven and a sparsely populated outer darkness.  I have not heard a lot of talk about "salvation by faith in a personal savior" or "eternal flames of hell," which I've heard a lot in other denominations.  

 

I've also encountered Mormons who seem uncomfortable with the concept of spending eternity sitting around and glorifying God, which is deeply woven into the fabric of my Protestant upbringing.  I've even heard an LDS bishop mock this concept.  The Mormon idea of heaven is much more focused on growth, progression, and a busy work schedule.

 

As for the animosity part, much of it comes from misunderstandings and stereotypes.  I would start there...

[Vort]

I'm sorry to hear that a bishop would mock the ideas of another religion. That particular idea shouldn't be mocked, if for no other reason than it's LDS doctrine, as well. (Maybe not the "sitting around" part, but I doubt that's really the theological underpinning of the beliefs of other religions, either.)

 

Different times call for different emphases. I sometimes get irritated at the inordinate emphasis people give to certain ideas or doctrines. I have to remind myself of two things:

1. They are not at the same level of spiritual progression as I am. They may be behind (or ahead!) of me, and thus have a different view as to what is important. If I hope for people to be patient with me as I try to find my way spiritually, I should do no less for others.
2. Different audiences require different ways of teaching.

For an example of this latter point, consider the situation facing the apostle Paul: Many of his fellow Jews believed that their sacrifices and observations of religious rites alone actually cleansed them and made them fit to be in God's presence, while most of the Gentiles grew up believing a similar idea, that their rites and acts of worship to this or that god secured that god's favor.

 

To both groups, Paul had to preach in stark words that their petty, groveling works availed them absolutely nothing. If the Jews thought that they could earn their way to heaven by keeping the law of Moses, they had no idea what they were talking about, and had no good concept of what the law of Moses actually was. Same with the Gentiles. These groups needed to understand salvation by grace, by the will and kindness and sacrifice of God. They needed to learn that they were made holy by the Holy Spirit, not by keeping their step count low on Saturday.

 

But today, we are faced with a much different dynamic. Most Christians outside of Catholicism (and many within) have been raised with the idea of divine grace. They already understand and accept the concept. But in many such cases, they have perverted "grace" to mean something it never meant. In effect, they have taken the opposite extreme from the Jews and Gentiles of Paul's day: They (some of them) say that grace is everything, that salvation comes through God's will despite anything you may do. This is a clear perversion of the doctrine of grace, of course, and many non-LDS Christians readily acknowledge this. Nevertheless, this false doctrine is used as a club to bash "Mormonism" by claiming that we disbelieve the doctrine of grace.

 

Obviously, we don't reject the doctrine of grace. We simply reject the false doctrines of grace in favor of the true doctrine. So we emphasize "works", because it is through doing that we become, and what we are determines our standing before God. So while we teach the very same doctrine that Paul taught, our emphasis is different, because our audience has different presuppositions that must be addressed.

[mdfxdb]

I find that in these discussions about "grace" I almost always turn the discussion to faith.  Many other Christians do not fully understand what faith is, and what it means to have faith, to demonstrate faith.  This discussion of faith leads to a greater understanding of the doctrine of grace.  

[prisonchaplain]

The crucial part of this lies in the words "other religion."  Is, for example, LDS Christianity a different religion than Evangelical Christianity?  Our Catholic priest would say that my Christianity is NOT another religion.  I believe I would still be considered a "separated brother."  Yet, many would indeed say that Evangelicalism is distinct enough from LDS spirituality, that the two are different religions.  If so, there's bound to be struggles in understanding--especially since both the Evangelical and the LDS perceive themselves to practice Christianity.

Edited December 16, 2014 by prisonchaplain

[Jane_Doe]

The crucial part of this lies in the words "other religion."  Is, for example, LDS Christianity a different religion than Evangelical Christianity?  Our Catholic priest would not say that my Christianity is NOT another religion.  I believe I would still be considered a "separated brother."  Yet, many would indeed say that Evangelicalism is distinct enough from LDS spirituality, that the two are different religions.  If so, there's bound to be struggles in understanding--especially since both the Evangelical and Christian perceive themselves to practice Christianity.

 

 

I'm with PC on this one.  Rather than saying explaining things to "other religions", I find it's more helpful to think of them just being individual people, because there is such a spectrum of beliefs.

[Palerider]

This is my opinion and it doesn't mean I am right or wrong...my biggest issue with members of our faith are .....I don't think we study enough to find out what we believe or why we believe it. I have always felt like if we know the doctrines it might help us understand or be comfortable talking about them. I don't mean talking in a contentious way.

It does seem like there are a number of members who stray away from talking about grace because you never heard much spoke about it years ago. Grace is a beautiful doctrine. When I say study....do we read each day ?? Do we read the lessons before attending on Sunday ??

[MrShorty]

The crucial part of this lies in the words "other religion."  Is, for example, LDS Christianity a different religion than Evangelical Christianity?  Our Catholic priest would say that my Christianity is NOT another religion.  I believe I would still be considered a "separated brother."  Yet, many would indeed say that Evangelicalism is distinct enough from LDS spirituality, that the two are different religions.  If so, there's bound to be struggles in understanding--especially since both the Evangelical and the LDS perceive themselves to practice Christianity.

 

You may be right, this might be a crucial part of the discussion.

 

One interesting concept I have recently come across is what seems to be termed "Mormon exceptionalism." It seems to be a belief that we need to be careful about adopting some of the concepts of our Christian colleagues for fear of losing what makes Mormonism unique and different. This crowd seems to specifically want to avoid too much influx of Catholic or Protestant terminology for fear that we will become "just another Evangelical group".

 

Personally, I prefer to simply try to understand "truth". If I discover truth in something taught to me by an Evangelical, or a Catholic, or whatever his/her specific persuasion, then I want to try to embrace it. Sometimes that means trying to reconcile the specific terminology of my friend with the terminology that I am more used to (having grown up LDS). But there are some concepts that I find myself as a lifelong LDS adapting some of the phraseology of other Christians because it seems to do a better job of expressing the truth that I am learning.

[PolarVortex]

I'm sorry to hear that a bishop would mock the ideas of another religion. That particular idea shouldn't be mocked, if for no other reason than it's LDS doctrine, as well. (Maybe not the "sitting around" part, but I doubt that's really the theological underpinning of the beliefs of other religions, either.)

 

You are very kind to make that comment, thanks.  In fairness to the bishop, he didn't do it publicly.  I was in a private meeting wtih him and my girlfriend, who was at the tipping point of dissolving our relationship because I wouldn't convert.  (I did convert about ten years after that, but I never heard from the girlfriend again.)  The bishop spent two hours with us and couldn't close the deal with me, and I think he was more exhausted than anything else.  Nevertheless, he clearly viewed the non-LDS parts of Christendom as a giant unfinished painting, and he was genuinely bewildered by some Protestant doctrines and policies, if I dare phrase it that way.  Other than that one outburst, he was a lovely gentleman.

[The Folk Prophet]

Nothing prevents us from discussing truth. We just use different words. The word "grace" is doesn't fully describe what we know to be truth, because of the usage it's had in other sects. But the concept -- the Atonement of Christ -- is fully alive as a subject and easily discussed in the LDS world.

[bytebear]

What troubles me are religious topics that never get discussed in other Christian faiths because of Mormonism.  Polygamy in the Bible, baptism for the dead, degrees of glory, all eschewed to the extreme because they might just give Mormonism some credibility.  And historical precidence seems to be trumped by current dogma, which also troubles me.

[bytebear]

As for understanding the other side, I found the book How Wide the Divide to be very insightful in the notions of grace and other various evangelical/traditional beliefs.

[Jane_Doe]

 

 

Personally, I prefer to simply try to understand "truth". If I discover truth in something taught to me by an Evangelical, or a Catholic, or whatever his/her specific persuasion, then I want to try to embrace it. Sometimes that means trying to reconcile the specific terminology of my friend with the terminology that I am more used to (having grown up LDS). But there are some concepts that I find myself as a lifelong LDS adapting some of the phraseology of other Christians because it seems to do a better job of expressing the truth that I am learning.

 

When I'm talking to a person, I consciously try to use the same dictionary they do.  Therefore, when I chatting with my Evangelical in-laws Young Women's becomes "youth group", sacrament becomes "communion", and sacrament meeting becomes "worship service".  

 

That's not to say the concepts are identical (truthfully they vary even from Evangelical church to Evangelical church), but I feel that communication of the big picture goes smoother without defining every little word.  

 

If it becomes important to define the difference in terminology (like between a Mormon Sacrament Meeting vs an Evangelical worship service), then we can talk about it then.  I don't hide from the fine differences, but it's not always the time to talk about them.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Jane_Doe

[Latter Days Guy]

The crucial part of this lies in the words "other religion."  Is, for example, LDS Christianity a different religion than Evangelical Christianity?  Our Catholic priest would say that my Christianity is NOT another religion.  I believe I would still be considered a "separated brother."  Yet, many would indeed say that Evangelicalism is distinct enough from LDS spirituality, that the two are different religions.  If so, there's bound to be struggles in understanding--especially since both the Evangelical and the LDS perceive themselves to practice Christianity.

 

When I read the title of the thread I though it was about other religions, i.e. Hindu's, Muslims, Sikhs etc. and not other denominations like Roman Catholics, Baptists, Assemblies of God etc. I believe when people label other Christians as being another religion adds to the view that we as LDS are not Christian but another religion all together.

[MrShorty]

Nothing prevents us from discussing truth. We just use different words. The word "grace" is doesn't fully describe what we know to be truth, because of the usage it's had in other sects. But the concept -- the Atonement of Christ -- is fully alive as a subject and easily discussed in the LDS world.

 

Can I press you on this? I agree that there should be nothing that prevents us from discussing truth. What do you make of Sis. Dew's anecdote that someone would feel it is difficult to discuss a topic because another religion/denomination has "ruined" that topic? I can't remember exactly when the switch flipped in me, but there was a point where I came to understand that, just because this group understands/misunderstands something this way and that group preaches this concept under that name should not prevent me from understanding and discussing and grappling with my own understanding of those same topics.

[The Folk Prophet]

Can I press you on this? I agree that there should be nothing that prevents us from discussing truth. What do you make of Sis. Dew's anecdote that someone would feel it is difficult to discuss a topic because another religion/denomination has "ruined" that topic? I can't remember exactly when the switch flipped in me, but there was a point where I came to understand that, just because this group understands/misunderstands something this way and that group preaches this concept under that name should not prevent me from understanding and discussing and grappling with my own understanding of those same topics.

 

Hmm. Well... Not only do I not think it's a problem to discuss topics that have supposedly been "ruined" by another religion, I think that it can be a great way to build on common understanding, etc...

 

You simply say, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

[Seminarysnoozer]

In the recent issue of BYU Magazine is an article by Sheri Dew about grace (http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=3379 ). It is an interesting article, but one of the little things that she mentions really stood out to me was this:

 

 

I'm not particularly interested in a discussion about grace, per se, but about how some of the animosity that exists between LDS and other religions prevents us from grasping and discussing truth. Looking back, I can see how I had some difficulty, like this woman, in accepting and understanding the LDS concept of grace, because I was afraid it sounded too "Protestant" to be truth. I sometimes see this in discussions around the Trinity/nature of God.

 

I have even seen it go the other way. I recall a blog entry on an Evangelical blog discussing the concept of repentance. One pastor added a comment to the blog describing himself as a Christian pastor in Utah and accused the blog writer of sounding too much like those "Mormons" that he lives among.

 

I think my desired discussion point is -- what are the concepts that you see us as LDS having trouble discussing out of fear of sounding too "Protestant" or too "Catholic" or otherwise too "ecumenical"? How do we really learn to look past our animosity towards others and our very reall theological differences to discuss the truths that we may share in common?

How one looks past animosity is by not having animosity in the first place.

 

I, honestly, don't know of any LDS that has animosity towards another religion.  I have heard of such a thing but this is not part of our gospel.  We do not believe in the spirit of contention.  Others might but we don't.  So I think the best way to "look past our animosity towards others" is to not have animosity in the first place.

 

According to Merriam-Webster; Animosity = "ill will or resentment tending toward active hostility :  an antagonistic attitude"

 

3 Nephi 11: "29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

 30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."

[prisonchaplain]

LDS spirituality does not play a large role in what gets discussed in most Christian churches.  Liturgical churches have a religious calendar that dictates curriculum, and Evangelical pastors are expected to study in perpetuity, and to discern what God wants them to speak about each week.  Concerning the issues you raise:

 

Polygamy is described as an Old Testament practice that God permitted, but that was never ideal (Gen 2:24).  Further, it was mostly for those wealthy enough to afford multiple wives, or was a provision to care for widows.  By the New Testament era the practice appeared to have waned.

 

Baptism for the dead has but one obscure reference in one of Paul's letters.  It was used to illustrate a larger point, and was never described.  So, we can only figure it was a local practice that did not become important in the church.

 

Degrees of glory is something we probably just call rewards in heaven, stars in our crowns, etc.  The most applicable example is the Parable of the Talents.  Clearly, those who are most faithful will receive the most responsiblity and influence in the kingdom to come.

 

To give you an example of why these teachings do not get more play in our churches, a chaplain I know said that his Pentecostal son did not want to go to our denomination's seminary, because he wanted to study the doctrines of speaking in tongues and Holy Ghost baptism "objectively."  So, he went to a renowned Evangelical seminary that welcomed students from several denominations.  What he found out was that they just were not concerned about studying about speaking in tongues or about the baptism in the Holy Ghost.  They did not the deny doctrines necessarily, but just did not find them to be of primary importance.

 

 

What troubles me are religious topics that never get discussed in other Christian faiths because of Mormonism.  Polygamy in the Bible, baptism for the dead, degrees of glory, all eschewed to the extreme because they might just give Mormonism some credibility.  And historical precidence seems to be trumped by current dogma, which also troubles me.

Edited December 17, 2014 by prisonchaplain

[Vort]

LDS spirituality does not play a large role in what gets discussed in most Christian churches.

 

PC wins the "Understatement of the Week" award.

[prisonchaplain]

When I read the title of the thread I though it was about other religions, i.e. Hindu's, Muslims, Sikhs etc. and not other denominations like Roman Catholics, Baptists, Assemblies of God etc. I believe when people label other Christians as being another religion adds to the view that we as LDS are not Christian but another religion all together.

 

And that's why these conversations become struggles.  Most traditional Christians and most LDS agree that signficant doctrine divides us.  That divide is much wider than that which separates the Pentecostals from Catholics (yet our worship services present as extremely different).  So, some have suggested it would be more helpful to think of LDS as a different religion (whether it be considered as Christian or not).  Perhaps the poster who mentioned those who promote "Mormon exceptionalism" might suggest that those folk even agree.  So...kudos on catching the touchiness of the struggle. 

[omegaseamaster75]

What troubles me are religious topics that never get discussed in other Christian faiths because of Mormonism.  Polygamy in the Bible, baptism for the dead, degrees of glory, all eschewed to the extreme because they might just give Mormonism some credibility.  And historical precidence seems to be trumped by current dogma, which also troubles me.

These items are not discussed because as PC points out there are only very small annotations in the new and old testaments that discuss the subjects. Our circle (LDS) has expanded on those ideas and our understanding through modern revelation make those passages pertinent to our religion and topics of study for us (LDS).

 

Individually those passages do not give "Mormonism" credibility because our interpretation is different from other christian denominations.

 

I would rather jog in rush hour traffic than engage with an Evangelical about baptisms for the dead, or the three degrees of glory. 

 

Without the acceptance of modern prophets and relevant revelation the conversation would be pointless.

[Vort]

"Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:2)

 

Unless you believe in a God who steps backward in time to punish you for evil actions you haven't yet committed, this question makes no sense unless you grant a conscious premortal existence of some sort, wherein the man might have sinned. I have yet to hear a Christian who disbelieves in premotal life explain this verse in any satisfactory manner.

[PolarVortex]

John 9:2 is a great question, but in John 9:3 Jesus immediately states rather clearly that neither this man nor his parents sinned, and that his blindness happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.  Most non-LDS Christians I know would interpret this to mean that many random unfortunate things are going to happen to innocent people in a fallen world, but that the works of God are always present and can start to lead us out of our fallen state.

 

Besides, how do we know that this verse was translated correctly?  I've never understood this thing about believing the BIble insofar as it is translated correctly.  Unless we have a way of distinguishing the correctly translated parts of the Bible from the incorrectly translated parts, the whole thing has to be accepted tentatively until further revelation clarifies things. 

[prisonchaplain]

Vort, you give a perfect example of the point of our last few posts--that traditional Christians do not think in LDS terms.  We have no concept of premortal existence, and so whatever explanation we have for what the disciples meant is not going to include that idea.  Our answers are not defensive, or meant as a counter to the LDS teaching, because it's just nowhere on our radar screen.

 

It is a common belief throughout the world, in many cultures and religions, that sickness/disease/handicap are the result of sin, or karma.  Could the disciples have been wondering if the blind man was being punished for sins he would commit?  Could it be that they refer to his inherent sin nature (the one we all have--Romans 3:23)?  The Pharisees believed he was "born into sin," (see verse 34 of John 9).  Being traditionalists, we just look at the passage and see that it wasn't sin at all, it was so God could be glorified.  We continue to believe that disabilities are often a way that God can glorify himself in us.  The question you pose seems to us a curious cultural question, rather than one that would lead to the establishment of foundational doctrine.

[Laniston]

Not only do differing doctrines seem to create gulfs but vocabulary differences.  The word "creation", for example, means different things to an LDS person with a view of a pre-mortal existence and a "mainstream" Christian with no view of a pre-mortal existence.  Words like; salvation, creation, grace, works, faith, priesthood, etc. make understanding difficult.  Certain subjects appear very strange to me when I read about other non-LDS Christian theologies because I default to my peculiarly LDS definitions of the words I read.  If the same is true of non-LDS Christians learning about LDS theology (and I have experienced this problem) then the odd gulf vocabulary disparity creates can lead to confusion, frustration, and antagonism (sadly).

 

LDS theology makes perfect sense to me, but the first time I tried to understand how the pre-mortal life might seem to someone with a trinitarian view of God, coupled with a belief that our existence and creation only begins with our birth on this planet, it became very clear that I had completely missed some critical barriers to understanding.