Do you feel positive, neutral or negative about Evangelicals?

[Guest MormonGator]

I think the biggest pet peeve for many of us is the blatant hypocrisy that we see constantly from some of the more visible members of the evangelical community, people who will ridicule a transgender woman one day and fiercely defend a child molester the next. 

  Dude, I'm with you in part. I despise the people who bash transgenders/gays while defending other Christians who sin. 

However all of us, including you and I-are hypocrites to some degree. It's sometimes better to admit there are high standards and have trouble reaching them than throwing your hands up and going for the lowest standard of behavior. 

[prisonchaplain]

I think the biggest pet peeve for many of us is the blatant hypocrisy that we see constantly from some of the more visible members of the evangelical community, people who will ridicule a transgender woman one day and fiercely defend a child molester the next. As an LDS apostate, it's very hard for me to reconcile the words and actions of far-right Christians (including some LDS) with the things I learned as a child about Christ-like love. And sadly, many Christians that I've encountered are very far from being "Christ-like". You seem to be one of the notable exceptions. I've met others, people who may not understand my worldview, but are willing to make an honest effort to attempt to rather than brush me off as just another hell-bound infidel. They seem to be rare though.

 

I'm not so sure there was a chorus of evangelicals defending the molestation committed by one of the Dugans.  On the other hand, the gleeful stoning that some liberal commentators engaged into was truly unseemly.  This act, which admittedly was both disgusting and poorly dealt with, turned into a condemnation of all home-schooling, of any religion that values male leadership in the home, and really, indirectly, of conservative religion generally.

 

In reaction to this unfair commentator, some Christians did say that they still supported and loved the Dugans.  This came across as exonerating the act, and excusing the poor way it was dealt with.  Yet, far more Evangelical leaders have said that no, this was a disgusting situation, and it should not just be brushed aside.

 

Churches have come a long way in the last 30 years, in learning to protect children, and in reporting allegations of abuse and molestation. 

 

It makes me sick that every story like this, when done by a Christian, makes the news, and is lifted up as typical behavior.  Maybe we are learning how minorities feel when every crime is reported as committed by a NAME-THE-RACE assailant. 

[Guest Godless]

I'm not so sure there was a chorus of evangelicals defending the molestation committed by one of the Dugans.  On the other hand, the gleeful stoning that some liberal commentators engaged into was truly unseemly.  This act, which admittedly was both disgusting and poorly dealt with, turned into a condemnation of all home-schooling, of any religion that values male leadership in the home, and really, indirectly, of conservative religion generally.

 

In reaction to this unfair commentator, some Christians did say that they still supported and loved the Dugans.  This came across as exonerating the act, and excusing the poor way it was dealt with.  Yet, far more Evangelical leaders have said that no, this was a disgusting situation, and it should not just be brushed aside.

 

Churches have come a long way in the last 30 years, in learning to protect children, and in reporting allegations of abuse and molestation. 

 

It makes me sick that every story like this, when done by a Christian, makes the news, and is lifted up as typical behavior.  Maybe we are learning how minorities feel when every crime is reported as committed by a NAME-THE-RACE assailant. 

 

I agree that some of the liberal backlash was very obviously agenda-driven, and that's not right. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that their Quiverfull brand of Christianity, particularly it's view of women, isn't at least partially to blame for Josh's actions. I recently stumbled across a blog post from a Quiverfull author who basically said (no, not basically, literally) that for a wife to withhold sex from her husband is to sin against God. Ideas like that are what make my religious tolerance wear very thin. I realize that a majority of Christians don't subscribe to those beliefs. I just wish that the Christian majority would get as outraged as I am about these things rather than ignoring it at best, or at worst trying to defend it because they're fellow Christians, even if they don't necessarily agree with them.

[Blackmarch]

I just read a Christianity Today article highlighting Canada's relationship with its evangelicals--including how evangelicals feel about LBGT issues and abortion.  Overall, I'm guessing we track similarly to LDS.  We don't approve of abortion or same-sex marriage, though many of us "accept" them (tolerate?). 

 

Given those social issue agreements, and our general cultural similarities (we're out of step with mainstream culture), I found the attitudes of other religions towards Evangelicals a bit surprising.

 

Here's the quote:  A composite score calculated by subtracting “negative” views from “positive” views gave an interesting picture of how evangelicals are viewed by people of other faiths.

 

Roman Catholics have the most favorable view of evangelicals in Canada with a score of +34.

 

Evangelicals like themselves a lot, amassing a score of +69.

 

The groups that are the least enthusiastic about evangelicals are atheists with a score of -50, followed closely by Muslims at -41 and Mormons at -37.

 

Yikes.  I'm guessing we've not done a good job of loving our neighbors.  Do you think LDS would fair better with atheists and Muslims?  Evangelicals?

I take it on a case by case basis.

[prisonchaplain]

I agree that some of the liberal backlash was very obviously agenda-driven, and that's not right. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that their Quiverfull brand of Christianity, particularly it's view of women, isn't at least partially to blame for Josh's actions. I recently stumbled across a blog post from a Quiverfull author who basically said (no, not basically, literally) that for a wife to withhold sex from her husband is to sin against God. Ideas like that are what make my religious tolerance wear very thin. I realize that a majority of Christians don't subscribe to those beliefs. I just wish that the Christian majority would get as outraged as I am about these things rather than ignoring it at best, or at worst trying to defend it because they're fellow Christians, even if they don't necessarily agree with them.

 

I'll start by recalling a course I took in theology schooled entitled Healthy Families.  The gist of the course was that instead of looking at the various dysfunctions families experience, healthy families would be studied, to find commonalities.  One key finding was that husband and wife agreed on how their family should operate.  It mattered not whether the family was egalitarian, or held to a patriarchal viewpoint--so long as both were fully committed to the model.  These families tended to be healthy.

 

It's just too easy, because it seems like such an obvious narrative (for progressives) to say that when women stay home, have lots of babies, and allow the men to rule over them, that they will end up being the victims of spousal rape.  The context of the bolded part of what you stumbled upon is that there is scripture indicating we should not withhold ourselves from one another.  How that should play out is that I my first inclination should be to please my wife, and her me.  The scripture is not mean to encourage force, or even "guilt-tripping."  It means I put her first, and she me.

 

Again, progressives get ahold of this, and immediately see the potential for abuse.  Quite frankly, you could take any counsel about how couples should go about their married lives, and put a skeptical, sinister interpretation on it.

 

One more statistic that may help here:  The person most likely to abuse spouse and children is the male who says he is conservative Christian BUT does not attend church regularly.  The guy who goes to church weekly is well below the national average in abusiveness. 

[Traveler]

I believe that unsubstantiated scientific theories (like biogenesis) should be left out of primary and secondary education. Just stick to the basics, which would include evolution as it's a vital part of our understanding of archeology, anthropology, and modern medicine. If students decide to pursue science on a higher level, then they'll surely be exposed to other theories at that point. I see no reason to confuse 12 year-olds with fringe science and conflicting theories.

 

Just wondering - do you consider the theory that all men are created equal and therefore should be treated equally a substantiated scientific theory?

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I'm not Godless, but am guessing he'll say that your theory is not scientific, and should not be taught in science class.  :-)

[NightSG]

Honestly, there are only 2 churches I have negative feelings toward: Baptists and Nazarenes. That's because, where I live at least, those are the two groups that are openly hostile toward Mormons.

 

 

That's interesting in a regional context; the Baptists certainly have the numerical advantage here at around 40% of the population according to one site, with Methodists at just under 7% and LDS at 1.39%, (Catholic and Pentecostal between 2 and 3% each) and yet the largest Baptist and Methodist churches in town are some of the most generally helpful and accepting of LDS.  Not sure about the Nazarenes, since I doubt there are enough of them in the county to form an opinion.

(I do have to question how thorough that site's survey is, though, since it shows 0.00% Jewish, and the four local Jews I know of would amount to .02-.03%  It also shows Lutherans at 0.68%, yet their building is bigger than ours and their parking lot overflowing into the grass every Sunday while I've never had trouble finding a space at my ward.  Then again, I don't think we've ever actually had a full third of our on-the-books members in the building at one time, so maybe we should be asking the Lutherans how they keep attendance up.)

[Traveler]

Traveler, I'm not Godless, but am guessing he'll say that your theory is not scientific, and should not be taught in science class.  :-)

Or a principle of any valid human relations in any core elementary public education curriculum?

[prisonchaplain]

Or a principle of any valid human relations in any core elementary public education curriculum?

 

Now I'll put on my prisonchaplain's cap and say it should be taught in social studies.  Students should know that belief in God was broadly accepted by well over 90% of Americans through the early 2000s, and certainly by our founding fathers.  Otherwise, many of our founding documents would be off limits to students.  Then again, in today's hyper-sensitive environment, I can imagine some co-ed complaining to a professor (yes, at university level) that the Constitution was "triggering," because it mentions God, and she was abused in church, as a kid.  :::sigh:::

[Guest Godless]

Or a principle of any valid human relations in any core elementary public education curriculum?

In this area I believe, like you I'm sure, that we need not hold back. There's a great deal to be learned from the way humans have interacted with each other throughout the course of history, and I don't believe that any of it should be left out. Bear in mind that we're discussing ideas and philosophies here, not scientific principles. That's a very important distinction in my mind.

[Traveler]

In this area I believe, like you I'm sure, that we need not hold back. There's a great deal to be learned from the way humans have interacted with each other throughout the course of history, and I don't believe that any of it should be left out. Bear in mind that we're discussing ideas and philosophies here, not scientific principles. That's a very important distinction in my mind.

 

Actually I believe communities should control the curriculum of schools - in particular parents and those that pay the taxes that support local schools.  And as you have experienced in my posts - I am a very big fan of inclusion and not exclusion.  Because of my scientific and engineering background I also believe in rigorous training in rhetorical logic and analyzing empirical data as core necessity of elementary education.

 

For life in general and specifically in the use of rhetorical logic - I believe if you ever make a rule you must abide by the full extent of that rule - if you ever make even a single exception that exception becomes the rule by which you live.  Otherwise I do not believe you understand objectivity and rhetorical logic.  I am not a fan of using rhetorical logic when it suits you and ignoring such logic when it does not suit your particular prejudice or pet peeve.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Traveler

[rameumptom]

I take evangelicals on an individualized basis. Some take Mormons as Christians, while others think we are devils incarnate and seeking to carry mankind down to hell with us.  Some befriend us, while some evangelical churches have their semi-annual training on cults (Godmakers, etc) that specialize on what Mormons "believe" (with a twist).

 

I know some evangelical churches that do the same to Muslims and other groups, so I can understand why various groups are cautious about them.

 

Of course, PC has demonstrated that evangelicals can befriend Mormons and accept them as Christians, though quirky ones.

[prisonchaplain]

Who's a Christian and who isn't depends on context.  For example, I would probably not be able to officiate a wedding between a committed LDS person and a committed A/G one.  I'd definitely be able to vote for an LDS political candidate.  Doctrinally, we share great agreements and great disagreements.  The latter ones, though seemingly nuanced, touch on matters such as the very definition of God.  As for quirkiness, that's probably my issue, as much as anybody's. 

[Vort]

I believe that unsubstantiated scientific theories (like biogenesis) should be left out of primary and secondary education.

 

But biogenesis is not a theory; it is a logical necessity. Questions of biogenesis must necessarily arise in any discussion of evolution, or indeed of genetic reproduction or even of the finite age of the universe.

 

I have been forced to acknowledge that I'm some what of a minority among Latter-day Saints, an odd duck who accepts organic evolution without any cognitive dissonance. I'm actually in agreement with many of the arguments made by those who want to see real science taught in our schools instead of pseudoscientific Creationism ideas. But the implicit smirking at and loathing of religion, especially Christianity, by people such as Bill Nye and the unabashedly hypocritical Neil deGrasse Tyson, make me pretty much dead set against them furthering their agenda.

 

I homeschool my kids, so what is taught in the public schools is more of secondary than of primary interest to me. My children know my viewpoints and, hopefully, understand at least the rudiments of fundamental scientific principles of physics, chemistry, and biology, including evolution. But if I had to make a choice, I would much rather they be exposed to the eye-rolling claims of the Young Earth Creationists than the smirking, lying mockery of the Neil deGrasse Tysons.

[NightSG]

For example, I would probably not be able to officiate a wedding between a committed LDS person and a committed A/G one.

 

Yeah; we don't like to use rattlesnakes in the ceremony.  

[rameumptom]

With Vort, I am also a strong believer in evolution and an old earth.  The Bible does not require a young earth, nor does it require that there be no evolution. It only requires that there was an Adam and Eve. Even then, it does not require that the are the DNA ancestors of all mankind, just the spiritual/cultural ancestors of all people, just as Lehi is the cultural ancestor of all modern Indians in the Americas.

 

Both Mormons and Evangelicals (along with all Christians) tend to add layers of requirements onto the religion that do not need to be there. Nowhere in the Bible or LDS scripture does it require us to believe that God is a Trinity or a Godhead. These are additions we add. The scriptures only require us to believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - without defining what those persons are necessarily like. Yes, the D&C tells us about physical bodies, but we still do not know what that means entirely.  Our minds cannot comprehend what a glorified physical or spiritual body really is like.  So our brains fill in details, whether they are correct or not.  While knowledge is important, I truly do not think God cares one way or the other if we know he is 3 persons in one God, or 3 persons in one Godhead.  Regardless of which one is more correct, our understanding still falls very short of what/who God is.

 

As mentioned in a talk in General Conference, a person was angry with another person who did something terribly wrong and so complained to the Lord.  The Spirit whispered to the complainer: "From where I stand, you two look pretty much the same."  From where God stands, Trinity and Godhead are both lacking in a fullness of understanding and knowing God.