Bridging the Gap

[Guest]

I've really been meaning to read How Wide the Divide.  But alas, I haven't gotten it on my schedule.  How can I when I have such incredibly weighty works to tackle, such as Alcatraz vs. the Evil Librarians?

But since we're on this forum, I was wondering if there was something we could do here, among this small group to help bridge the gap.  My idea was to point out some commonalities between Mormons and non-Mormons.  We know of all the common similarities.  But the tendency is to consider the differences in the similarities.  So, I propose we try the converse of that.  Can we point the similarities where we normally see differences?

Example:

Being saved -- PC and I had an exchange a while back about this.  He referenced his sermon I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved (I hope I got that wording right).  This got me to thinking.  We apparently have very different ideas of what it means to be saved.  Recently, I had cause to ponder the phrase "after ye have received a hope in Christ".  It is my belief that the LDS concept of having a hope in Christ is what many evangelicals mean when they say "I've been saved".  Or "I'm a believer" is becoming more common.  So, this concept that we normally think of as different simply had a different label.  Yes, I know evangelicals come in different stripes.  This is not the same for the "once saved always saved" crowd.  But for many, it is very similar.

[anatess2]

I found that differences between Mormons and other Christian denominations all stem from teachings that were restored, e.g. Godhead, Pre-Mortal Existence, Eternal Families, Post-Mortal life... basically when you're looking at the Primary drawing of the Plan of Happiness it's all the circles before Mortal Existence and all the circles after Spirit World.

So, let's take "being saved" for example.  The rest of Christendom have the Spirit World as the final destination - Paradise or Prison.  So, if you think about it, we are actually the same in the belief that FAITH in Christ (accepting Christ as our Savior - proof of which is righteous living) is the only requirement for Paradise.  Anything we do beyond that - marriage, temple ordinances, etc. are extra stuff.

So, I find, that in order to bridge the gap in understanding, we, as Mormons, have to see the gospel from the prism of "which teachings were restored in the latter-days?" and bear that in mind, whereas the non-Mormons have to see the gospel from the prism of "how does it affect my understanding of the gospel if these restored teachings are true".

Make sense?

[prisonchaplain]

I recently had a Christian ask me what the deal was with Muslims and Jews. It reminded me of a conversation I had with an imam once. He asked why we (Evangelicals) seemed to favor Jews over Muslims, since Muslims consider Christ a true prophet, and Jews say he was false (based on the Talmud)? My answer came down to the reality that once the sonship and deity of Christ are denied, the other nuances do not matter much.

Anatess2 is spot on, in suggesting that it is the LDS prophetic revelations the contain the major gaps in our faiths. The insight is helpful to an extent. It certainly points to wear our common beliefs will lie--from the point of creation to the point of the 2nd coming.  I would add that our holiness codes are quite similar--especially concerning sexual mores, substance abuse, modesty, etc.

[Jane_Doe]

I actually made a list of big topics diverging LDS beliefs from generic Christianity--

Metaphysics of who God is.   But the Love of God and roles of creator, Christ the Savior, etc are pretty in common.  

Metaphysics of who we are.  But the need of God's Love, saving, repentance, etc are pretty in common.

Continuing revelation / open cannon.  But the sacredness of the Bible is pretty in common.  

Eternal families.  

 

I had thought about putting "ordinances" or "priesthood" on the list, and it would be so if this was comparing vs generic Evangelical beliefs, but less so when with Catholics (though who is a priest, the nature of priesthood, and the ordinances do greatly differ).  Similarly, considering the wide variety of "how is a person saved" beliefs in mainstream Christendom, I wasn't wanting to put that on the list... but also because when more deeply examined, I find these beliefs are much less different than what they appear on the surface.    

 

[tesuji]

I'm not sure

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I found that differences between Mormons and other Christian denominations all stem from teachings that were restored

This is a good start, but I'm wondering if there are other things too? I guess they would be areas where we interpret the Bible differently - but I guess those interpretations would have all some from modern prophets too.

Can anyone things of differences between Mormons and other Christian denominations from teachings that were NOT restored?

[Jane_Doe]

43 minutes ago, tesuji said:

I'm not sure

This is a good start, but I'm wondering if there are other things too? I guess they would be areas where we interpret the Bible differently - but I guess those interpretations would have all some from modern prophets too.

Can anyone things of differences between Mormons and other Christian denominations from teachings that were NOT restored?

Plenty.  For example, one can make the argument of the necessity of baptism without latter revelations, and many denominations do.

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, tesuji said:

I'm not sure

This is a good start, but I'm wondering if there are other things too? I guess they would be areas where we interpret the Bible differently - but I guess those interpretations would have all some from modern prophets too.

Can anyone things of differences between Mormons and other Christian denominations from teachings that were NOT restored?

Yes there are.  But those differences are not necessarily Mormons vs non-Mormons.  For example, the necessity of baptism Jane Doe mentioned above is not necessarily a Mormon vs. Non-Mormon argument but rather a Catholic vs Protestant argument.  Basically, the differences have been argued well before the gospel was restored.

Edited July 29, 2016 by anatess2

[AnthonyB2]

Some of the differences between LDS and Mainstream Christians, can be found in other "restorationist" churches which were begun in a similiar timeframes....

Eg:

Prophets leadng the church -SDA's with Ellen White

Believers baptism required for remission of sins -DoC/CoC

 

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, AnthonyB2 said:

Some of the differences between LDS and Mainstream Christians, can be found in other "restorationist" churches which were begun in a similiar timeframes....

Eg:

Prophets leadng the church -SDA's with Ellen White

Believers baptism required for remission of sins -DoC/CoC

 

Hi @AnthonyB2 and welcome to the forum!

It's important to note that while SDA view Ellen White as a prophetess, what is meant by that title is very different than the LDS view.  For example, she is not considered a peer of Peter and Paul, and there is no Apostles or continuing scripture.

A believer's baptism is not unique to restorationist churches but is found in many Protestant churches going to back to the reformation with like the Anabaptists.  

[AnthonyB2]

Jane_Doe,

 

Thanks for the Welcome.

Not believers baptism but believers baptism for the remission of sins, is distinctly restorationist.  My understanding of anabaptist theology is not huge (so i am happy to be corrected) but I have always took it that they are more sign/seal  of your faith, rather then baptism being part of covenant creation. Lutherans (and in theroy Anglicans) do connect baptism to salvation but baptise infants normally.

Edited July 12, 2017 by AnthonyB2

[prisonchaplain]

11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

It's important to note that while SDA view Ellen White as a prophetess, what is meant by that title is very different than the LDS view.  For example, she is not considered a peer of Peter and Paul, and there is no Apostles or continuing scripture.

 

Jane_Doe is right, but I'd argue that the difference may be less in reality. Ellen White may not be a peer of the Apostles, but she is held in great esteem. Her writings may not be scripture, but they remain highly important reading. Likewise, for Jehovah's Witnesses. The writings of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society may not be new scripture, and its Governing Body may not be modern prophets, but the publications are the subject of weekly studies and promotion, and, as "the faithful and wise servant," the Governing Body sure seems to fulfill a prophet role. 

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

Jane_Doe is right, but I'd argue that the difference may be less in reality. Ellen White may not be a peer of the Apostles, but she is held in great esteem. Her writings may not be scripture, but they remain highly important reading. Likewise, for Jehovah's Witnesses. The writings of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society may not be new scripture, and its Governing Body may not be modern prophets, but the publications are the subject of weekly studies and promotion, and, as "the faithful and wise servant," the Governing Body sure seems to fulfill a prophet role. 

If we're just talking about holding non-Biblical individuals in high esteem, then Catholicism and Orthodox fit the same description with the saints.  Likewise Protestants hold their founders/writing in high esteem and are important to read (Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc).  That's not just a Restorationist thing.  

[prisonchaplain]

@Jane_Doe, we're quickly moving into nuances. Most Lutherans (other than clergy) don't study much of Luther's writings. Likewise with Calvinists.  Most Catholics don't study the writings of the saints. So, while I agree that nearly all Christian movements honor their founders, Restorationist groups tend to do so with greater vigor.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Jane_Doe, we're quickly moving into nuances. Most Lutherans (other than clergy) don't study much of Luther's writings. Likewise with Calvinists.  Most Catholics don't study the writings of the saints. So, while I agree that nearly all Christian movements honor their founders, Restorationist groups tend to do so with greater vigor.

I disagree with you here, but will not belabor the point.

[prisonchaplain]

I really thought I'd added enough qualifiers to get the agreement. :::Note to a certain POTUS: I want my $ back, The Art of the Deal didn't work!  :::

(It's all good @Jane_Doe, this is more about different observations and perspectives than true disagreement, imho).

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I disagree with you here, but will not belabor the point.

34 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I really thought I'd added enough qualifiers to get the agreement. :::Note to a certain POTUS: I want my $ back, The Art of the Deal didn't work!  :::

(It's all good @Jane_Doe, this is more about different observations and perspectives than true disagreement, imho).

I think that this is pretty much where this thread was meant to go.  I didn't really hope to get complete agreement.  My desire was to discuss the points where we're close and "agree to disagree".  The feeling being that, yes, we have slight disagreements.  And we will not necessarily come together in our doctrine or preaching.  But it doesn't need to be a dividing wedge during our daily encounters.

[prisonchaplain]

Bridging the gap may look something like this:  I bring the LDS volunteer to the Program Room, so he can conduct his service. He says, "Hey chaplain, so what's next on your plate?" I respond, "You know us government employees. I'm going to my office to break the WoW."     

He actually laughed.    GAP BRIDGED!

[AnthonyB2]

Apostasy and Restoration

Keeping up the theme of beliefs I think LDS share in some sense share with churches founded in the US around the same the period in history that are often termed restorationist

LDS -Apostasy included complete loss of priesthood power and required direct intervention by God to restore the truth

SDA -Apostasy included moving to Sunday worship, required prophetic ministry to restore the truth

CoC -Apostasy included Constatinian church state enmeshment with the move to infant baptism, milder restoration required by removing all non NT traditions and beliefs from the church.

 

[prisonchaplain]

Keep in mind too that the Pentecostal movement, birthed in the 1905 Azusa Street revival, which now claims roughly 600 million adherents (including Charismatics), contended that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (as described in 1 Corinthians 12 & 14) had been allowed to go dormant (mild apostasy?), as had the ministries of divine healing and deliverance (casting out demons and demonic influence).  They would argue that they have seen a restoration of these practices, though probably with a small case-r. 

[AnthonyB2]

Thanks PC, you're right

There also some Pentecostal groups (eg Apostolic) and some pre-Pentecostal groups (eg Catholic Apostolic), who have (from their perspective) restored the role of Apostles to the church.

[warnerfranklin]

What a great topic of discussion!  

"You can do a lot more good by having a kind word to say about your own faith than you can by having a disparaging one to say about someone else's"  Joseph Smith

As Christians, and I used to be VERY guilty of this, we spend too much time arguing over items that are tantamount of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".  What members of my ward did prior to my becoming LDS, is to simply listen to what I had to say, thank me for sharing my opinion, and simply explain what and why the church teaches a certain principal.  

No arguing, no telling me I was wrong, but listening to better understand me and help me better understand them.  Then they simply left it at that!  In the process we got to know each other as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and found out that we have so much more in common than we don't.  

They were interested in helping me develop as a Christian instead of tearing me down by poo-pooing what I knew based upon my background as an evangelical.  

And when I saw that they were there to help me in my walk with Christ I was able to move past many of the prejudices and misconceptions I held.  I was able to look beyond doctrine to the fruits they bore and see them as Christians, different from myself, but Christians nonetheless.   

 

 

 

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, warnerfranklin said:

we spend too much time arguing over items that are tantamount of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". 

Now, for the most fundamental of Evangelicals this debate has long been resolved. After all, no good angel would be caught dancing! 

[zil]

5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Now, for the most fundamental of Evangelicals this debate has long been resolved. After all, no good angel would be caught dancing! 

See there?  You're just avoiding the question, which doesn't specify "good" angels, only angels - the devil has his angels, too, you know.

However, as phrased, the question is imprecise - does it mean "how many angels can dance at the same time on the head of a pin?"  or is it simply "how many angels have the knowledge and physical capacity to dance on the head of a pin?"  Further, the question doesn't say what sort of dancing we're talking about - the answer to that could have serious impact on the both interpretations of the question.  And finally, it's entirely possible I haven't considered some other vagary inherent in this question.

Nope, I'm thinking if someone wants to discuss this question, it's going to have to be improved first.

[prisonchaplain]

@zil Perhaps it's you that's avoiding the underlying reality?   We all know what dancing leads to, so... are all your provisos, nuances, and general hazy murky wonderings truly causing confusion? The answers are simple. The angels (all good, actually) know how to dance, but won't. The demons (no longer worthy to be called 'angels') very much want to dance, but are too stupid to know how. Then there is us. So, what shall we therefore do?

[lostinwater]

On 7/28/2016 at 6:11 AM, Carborendum said:

Can we point the similarities where we normally see differences?

This is a great idea for a thread.  

i agree - sects tend to fixate on their differences.  i wonder the reason sometimes.  i sort of think it's some subconscious thread of thought within an organization that knows if it does not reinforce it's sense of separateness, it will cease to exist.  Or it requires letting go of one's sense of identity - which is a frightening thing.  But perhaps i am being a little too like Freud here.

i think anymore that kindness and compassion are the things to focus on - and that bickering between the religions on finer points ends up defeating the whole purpose of religion in general - to bring us to God through Jesus - and make us kinder and more compassionate people.  That the idea that a specific religion is an end unto itself.  i personally don't believe that God and Jesus will ask us what religion we were part of when we get to heaven.  They will want to know how many people we helped - and how much compassion there is inside of us.  But, that's just my opinion.