Guest Posted November 8, 2017 Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 (edited) I was struggling with which forum to put this in. I suppose this one is as good as another. Yesterday, I was having lunch with my wife at a common lunch hangout in town. It is owned by an evangelical family. They have "As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" painted on the main wall in the dining area. Every time I read it, I have to tilt my head a bit at the word "household". I'm used to the KJV wording of "house". This, by itself, is trivial. But it laid the groundwork for something that happened while we were eating. Behind me were seated six men who were talking very loudly. So loudly that we were having difficulty hearing our own conversation. I was getting irritated to the point where I was about to get up and ask them to quiet down. But since I've been trying to control my temper lately, I took a "celestial time out". I started listening to what they were saying. I signed to my wife seated across from me to be quiet and listen to their conversation. She mentioned that the main voice among them was the minister who owned a church less than a mile from our house. They have a large plot of land that they rent out for campground space. Our boy scouts went on a campout there. The ward had a ward campout there. THE CONVERSATION The minister mentioned that at his 'day job' (I can certainly appreciate a low-paid or unpaid minister) he was being visited by some big wigs from corporate headquarters who were all from Utah. He naturally assumed most of them were Mormon. He got to know them over the course of the day. They toured the facility, audited books, inspected policies and procedures, etc. He thought they were nice enough folks. He talked to them professionally. And as the day wore on, he talked to them personally. By mid-afternoon the conversations drifted to religion. He didn't actually find out just who was or was not a Mormon in the group. He described to his dining companions that he never had the intention to really try to convert any of them. He just wanted to get a conversation going. He told the man who was his shadow for the day that he really does appreciate all the service that the Mormons are doing especially after the floods these past few years that have hit the South so hard. But he then said that the ministry is more than just helping people. His ministry is about helping people come to Christ. And that is why he's so concerned about Mormons. They do all these good things. But they just don't have Christ in their lives. And they will just never know the peace that comes from being a "believer". It turned out that his shadow for the day was a man who had actually apostatized in the middle of his mission many years back. He turned his back on the Church and his family (5 generations of Mormons) and hasn't gone back. He also never joined any other faith. He only had "an overarching belief in God" (His words). The remainder of his conversation with his eating companions described how it was nice to just talk with a Mormon about religious things without bashing or trying to convert -- just get the conversation going. And that was how he believed that Mormons would eventually come around, by loving them to Christ. MY REACTION I was considering that I ought to say something. But what could I say that wasn't argumentative or come off as a bully? I took some time to consider. I truly appreciated the fact that this minister proved that they had loving and thoughtful conversations about Mormons. These were almost verbatim the same ones that we have about non-Mormons. We want to love them to Christ. They want to love us to Christ. So, what was the problem? I grew up with four categories of people: 1) Those who knew nothing about Mormonism 2) Those who converted 3) Those who hated our faith and felt it was their duty to save us & 4) Those who knew, were friends, and decided to just avoid the topic of religion because they "just wanted to be friends". So, I found it refreshing to hear him talk about finding more friendly and affable methods of reaching out to Mormons. In my youth, there was no group of people who wanted to save us who actually loved us. At least, from everything I saw on my end, the first words out of their mouths were always about how X, Y, or Z was wrong with this "cult" I was a part of. Yeah, that will really "love us to Christ". Billy Graham (or possibly Franklin Graham) said about Mormons being a cult,"We're not going to bring people to Christ by calling them names." Now, there is a big difference between "cult" and "religion" as far as connotations go. It is a small difference between "house" and "household". But minor differences in wording are a major part of what separates us. All throughout the conversation of this minister and with the words of Franklin Graham there is another word thrown about that no one even considers. "Christian". We consider ourselves Christians. They UTTERLY refuse to use that appellation regarding Mormons. So, the only thing they can call us are things like "cult" or "parasite on Christianity". Yes, one anti-Mormon friend would constantly and quite casually call us that "a parasite". In the end I realized that I'd be more like this guy who apostatized. If I ever found sufficient cause to leave the faith and renounce my beliefs, I could never join an evangelical faith because of this one fact. They absolutely refuse to call us Christians. In fact, most actively state that we are NOT Christians. Some have even gotten offended and angry at me for being a Mormon who believed that Jesus was my Savior. They can only get around it by formulating definitions that allow them this delusion. And even then it is applied inconsistently. It is this behavior and belief that I simply could never accept. I know we are Christians. I know how much our beliefs and teaching center around Christ. The level of systemic cognitive disconnect among them is just too great for me to get past. This minster (with every few phrases) kept stating how close we were, but we simply weren't Christians. Franklin Graham on a number of occasions has stated that we are not Christians. So many others in my experience. How many other ministers in TV interviews and televangelists have made similar comments? If evangelists really want to reach out to us, they're going to have to start acknowledging the fact that we really are a Christian faith. As it is, all they have is those who have left the Church on their own. Edited November 8, 2017 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted November 8, 2017 Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 I have mixed feelings about this post and other stories like it (I've encountered many such ones myself). So I'm just kind of ramble my response-- - You response to this: given the context of what happened and how you heard that story (essentially eavesdropping someone you didn't know well at a public lunch), I don't think butting in would have been of benefit really. Maybe if the man in question wanted to talk afterwards, that would have been an opportunity, or a number of other possibilities. But essentially jumping tables in the middle of a public lunch... yeah, just not a good time or place. - "I don't want to bash" and "you don't know Christ"/"I want you to come to Christ" are diametrically opposed statements. Flat out denying someone's relationship with Christ is the apex of bashing. This applies to any one of any remotely Christian faith, not just LDS. - I do appreciate people in general improving in manners to move beyond calling other individuals "parasites". Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but in general I think people have improved in being respectful over time. - My take on the Protestant refusal to acknowledge LDS as Christians: in the last few decades there has been a rise of the "I'm just a Christian, not any denomination" sentiment in Protestantism, corresponding the to the rise of "non-denominational" churches (which usually really are some type of Baptist and/or Evangelical group). When you "same-difference" different Protestant groups as "just Christian", the natural consequences then you loose a name for other Christian groups as not of your particular persuasion and are forced to either "same-difference" them too or deny that they are remotely Christian. Hence the fear of calling LDS "Christian"-- because in their minds it's say "you're just like us!". It's a failure of the "just Christian" binary mindset. - If you truly love someone, you see them as they truly are (the good and bad). If somebody doesn't know me at all, and doesn't know I'm totally devoted to Christ, that's whatever. But if it's a person I do know closely and they have heard of my love for Christ many times, then they should know I'm totally devoted to Him. If they have been told this and see my actions for Christ, and yet refuse to see my relation with Him... then they aren't really seeing me. They're seeing an fake-cartoon they slapped my name on. If such a cartoon-seeing-person says "I love you, I want to you to have Christ in your life".... I'm sorry, they don't love *me*, and they don't want to save *me*. They want to save the fake-cartoon they slapped my name on, and don't care enough about me to actually see ME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2017 Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 (edited) Anyone who uses the word "cult" to describe Mormonism frankly doesn't know what they are talking about. They are either grossly ignorant or have an ax to grind against Mormonism. You could talk to such people, but don't be surprised if it is like talking to the flat-earth crowd. I prefer to just ignore. Edited November 8, 2017 by DoctorLemon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted November 8, 2017 Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said: Anyone who uses the word "cult" to describe Mormonism frankly doesn't know what they are talking about. They are either grossly ignorant or have an ax to grind against Mormonism. Or they're using some special definition of the word that's not in the dictionary. 4 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said: You could talk to such people, but don't be surprised if it is like talking to the flat-earth crowd (or, maybe more appropriately, the Islamic fundamentalist crowd- they have a lot more in common than either care to admit). As they are not going to listen to me, and I have already closely investigated and prayed about protestant fundamentalism and found it to be false insofar as it diverges from Mormonism, I just prefer to ignore such people. For the axe-grinding: showing them charity is the best route. "Debate" is useless. For the ignorant crowd: some are ignorant simply because they haven't ever had the opportunity to learn but are open to learning. Talking to them and showing charity can be very rewarding. Those that don't have ears to hear, just show charity. Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midwest LDS Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 It's this exact reason I struggled for so many years to like Evangelicals. I know it's wrong to dislike a class of people, but growing up the ones I knew always were the loudest and most vocal in their condemnation of me to hell, the quickest to point out that I didn't believe in Christ and when I would correct them they would sneer and say I didn't believe in the same Christ. They were the ones who would forbid their daughters from being friends with my sisters, and who would invite us to their church groups just to yell and scream at us about our church in the most ignorant way possible. As I have a deep and personal relationship with Christ this always hurt. Sometimes I was the better man and walked away. Others I would return railing for railing. But I think it took me till I reached adulthood before I ran into any Evangelicals who broke that mold. I was glad to learn that my experiences did not apply universally to that faith. But even though I've run into ones that are normal now, and actually believe me when I tell them I love my Savior, these earlier experiences mean I'm still always a little on edge when someone tells me they are an Evangelical. Because of that I have to agree with @Carborendum. I could never be one. The willful ignorance and vitriol I witnessed has permanently stained my perception of them. I'd like to say I'm man enough to look past those experiences and judge each new person I meet based on their merits and not my past experiences with others, but I completely understand the frustration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) I completely understand why Protestants and Catholics refuse to call us Christians. And I'm fine with that. These people are Trinitarians. When they say Jesus Christ, they mean the God of the Trinity. Not some other God some sect says he is. So, if that's what they mean when they say Christian, then I am happy to say I'm not Christian. So, it's like this (appealing to absurdum to get my point across) - if you call yourself Christian because you follow Christ's teachings but you think Christ is this green leprechaun who sits on a stone in Ireland, it wouldn't matter how great a Christian you are, Christians would be hard pressed to call you Christian. Rather, they'd call you a non-Christian following Christian living. It's like being called feminist. If being feminist means a woman who believes there's a systemic wage gap in the USA and that the government should pay for birth control and abortion should be unrestricted... then no, I'm not a feminist. Or being a liberal joining the arena of discussion in the USA and abandoning that label because it means something completely different in the US. etc. etc. etc. Edited November 9, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) dos Edited November 9, 2017 by anatess2 Jane_Doe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) tres. Edited November 9, 2017 by anatess2 Jane_Doe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: - You response to this: given the context of what happened and how you heard that story (essentially eavesdropping someone you didn't know well at a public lunch), I don't think butting in would have been of benefit really. Maybe if the man in question wanted to talk afterwards, that would have been an opportunity, or a number of other possibilities. But essentially jumping tables in the middle of a public lunch... yeah, just not a good time or place. For the record, I took so long considering what to say that my wife got impatient and wanted to leave. So, I never actually said anything to him. The intent of the thread Title was to say that He spoke with the Mormons in that corporate group. And he spoke to me. I didn't speak to him. And, no, I don't consider it eavesdropping when he was talking so loudly that I could have heard his voice across the room through the din of all the conversations by other patrons. Remember, I was doing my best to ignore him at first. It was only when I wished to engage him (asking politely for him to quiet down) that I started listening. What on earth was so important that he wanted to shout above the entire room? 22 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: "I don't want to bash" and "you don't know Christ"/"I want you to come to Christ" are diametrically opposed statements. Flat out denying someone's relationship with Christ is the apex of bashing. This applies to any one of any remotely Christian faith, not just LDS. Yes, that is an accurately concise re-wording of what I intended to say about us being Christians. I'm not sure about the "I want you to come to Christ" part. I think we can say that about anyone, including ourselves. But I've come across too many (like @Midwest LDS mentioned) that say "you worship a different Christ" or some such. Whatever. Edited November 9, 2017 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, anatess2 said: I completely understand why Protestants and Catholics refuse to call us Christians. And I'm fine with that. These people are Trinitarians. When they say Jesus Christ, they mean the God of the Trinity. Not some other God some sect says he is. So, if that's what they mean when they say Christian, then I am happy to say I'm not Christian. So, it's like this (appealing to absurdum to get my point across) - if you call yourself Christian because you follow Christ's teachings but you think Christ is this green leprechaun who sits on a stone in Ireland, it wouldn't matter how great a Christian you are, Christians would be hard pressed to call you Christian. Rather, they'd call you a non-Christian following Christian living. It's like being called feminist. If being feminist means a woman who believes there's a systemic wage gap in the USA and that the government should pay for birth control and abortion should be unrestricted... then no, I'm not a feminist. Or being a liberal joining the arena of discussion in the USA and abandoning that label because it means something completely different in the US. etc. etc. etc. Yeah... I think that's bunk and am totally not ok with it. (sorry my blunt response). The Bible defines Christians as a "disciple of Christ". I go with the Biblical definition of Christian, not the Creedal one. If you want to call me a non-Anthansian* Christian, I'm totally cool with that, but it doesn't sound nearly as scary to say that. (*pardon my lazy spelling). And besides, functionally many mainstream in-the-pews Christians are modalists, not trinitarians. Edited November 9, 2017 by Jane_Doe Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Carborendum said: And, no, I don't consider it eavesdropping when he was talking so loudly that I could have heard his voice across the room through the din of all the conversations by other patrons. Remember, I was doing my best to ignore him at first. It was only when I wished to engage him (asking politely for him to quiet down) that I started listening. What on earth was so important that he wanted to shout above the entire room? I don't really consider it eavesdropping either- I just couldn't think of a better word. Sorry if my vocabulary short caused offense. 7 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Yes, that is an accurately concise re-wording of what I intended to say about us being Christians. I'm not sure about the "I want you to come to Christ" part. I think we can say that about anyone, including ourselves. We want each of us to *continue* coming unto Christ. We do acknowledge that other folks, even non-LDS, are starting their way down that path. Edited November 9, 2017 by Jane_Doe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Midwest LDS said: It's this exact reason I struggled for so many years to like Evangelicals. I know it's wrong to dislike a class of people, but growing up the ones I knew always were the loudest and most vocal in their condemnation of me to hell, the quickest to point out that I didn't believe in Christ and when I would correct them they would sneer and say I didn't believe in the same Christ. They were the ones who would forbid their daughters from being friends with my sisters, and who would invite us to their church groups just to yell and scream at us about our church in the most ignorant way possible. As I have a deep and personal relationship with Christ this always hurt. Sometimes I was the better man and walked away. Others I would return railing for railing. But I think it took me till I reached adulthood before I ran into any Evangelicals who broke that mold. I was glad to learn that my experiences did not apply universally to that faith. But even though I've run into ones that are normal now, and actually believe me when I tell them I love my Savior, these earlier experiences mean I'm still always a little on edge when someone tells me they are an Evangelical. Because of that I have to agree with @Carborendum. I could never be one. The willful ignorance and vitriol I witnessed has permanently stained my perception of them. I'd like to say I'm man enough to look past those experiences and judge each new person I meet based on their merits and not my past experiences with others, but I completely understand the frustration. I have had many of these same experiences, particularly the "we can't be friends because you are a Mormon" situation. Funny, if I were atheist or agnostic the evangelical parents wouldn't have had a problem in many of these cases . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midwest LDS Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said: I have had many of these same experiences, particularly the "we can't be friends because you are a Mormon" situation. Funny, if I were atheist or agnostic the evangelical parents wouldn't have had a problem in many of these cases . . . That's what always got me. In 95% of moral arguments we would be on the same dang side, but they were more afraid of us than people diametrically opposed to their way of life. I just never got it and I never will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Yeah... I think that's bunk and am totally not ok with it. (sorry my blunt response). The Bible defines Christians as a "disciple of Christ". I go with the Biblical definition of Christian, not the Creedal one. If you want to call me a non-Anthansian* Christian, I'm totally cool with that, but it doesn't sound nearly as scary to say that. (*pardon my lazy spelling). And besides, functionally many mainstream in-the-pews Christians are modalists, not trinitarians. Object question: Would you still call somebody Christian if he believes Christ is this great prophet akin to Moses and not the literal son of God? Edited November 9, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 Just now, anatess2 said: Object question: Would you still call somebody Christian if he believes Christ is this great prophet and not the literal son of God? Yes. They have a *lot* to learn, but I'm not going to deny their relationship with Christ. And Christ being the son of God is in the Bible, shared ousia is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Yes. They have a *lot* to learn, but I'm not going to deny their relationship with Christ. And Christ being the son of God is in the Bible, shared ousia is not. Ok. Then that's where you're different from those who don't call Mormons Christians. It's no big deal. It's simply where they draw the line. One God is in the Bible. Jesus coming to America is not. As you can see, we are very different. Edited November 9, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 1 minute ago, anatess2 said: Ok. Then that's where you're different from those who don't call Mormons Christians. It's no big deal. It's simply where they draw the line. I understand that. I think it's totally unBiblical bunk, but I do understand it. 1 minute ago, anatess2 said: One God is in the Bible. LDS and Creedal Christians both agree that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 persons in 1 God, so that's not the issue. The issue is disagreements on Creedal declarations on how 3 are 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 11 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Object question: Would you still call somebody Christian if he believes Christ is this great prophet akin to Moses and not the literal son of God? The elephant in the room is a lot of Christians, even Evangelicals, actually do believe that . . . and no one challenges their Christianity, even other Evangelicals . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: LDS and Creedal Christians both agree that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 persons in 1 God, so that's not the issue. The issue is disagreements on Creedal declarations on how 3 are 1. The only real difference between Mormon beliefs and the Nicene Creed itself appears to be the inclusion of the word meaning "of the same substance". This word was apparently insisted upon by Emperor Constantine, who if I remember correctly was not even baptized during the creed, over the objections of many/most of the bishops... If I remember correctly, the Pope at the time advised Constantine not to cause contention over such "minor" doctrinal matters (and was ignored) . . . Of course, subsequent creeds, "interpreting" the Nicene Creed, got loopier and loopier . . . Edited November 9, 2017 by DoctorLemon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said: loopier and loopier Jane_Doe and Midwest LDS 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said: The only real difference between Mormon beliefs and the Nicene Creed itself appears to be the inclusion of the word meaning "of the same substance". This word was apparently insisted upon by Emperor Constantine, who if I remember correctly was not even baptized during the creed, over the objections of many/most of the bishops... If I remember correctly, the Pope at the time advised Constantine not to cause contention over such "minor" doctrinal matters (and was ignored) . . . Of course, subsequent creeds, "interpreting" the Nicene Creed, got loopier and loopier . . . The phrase "of the same substance" doesn't even appear in many English translations nowadays. The real difference is with the Athanasian Creed (written 500 AD), which isn't even accept by many Christian denominations and majority of Christians in the pews haven't even heard of. Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said: The phrase "of the same substance" doesn't even appear in many English translations nowadays. The real difference is with the Athanasian Creed (written 500 AD), which isn't even accept by many Christian denominations and majority of Christians in the pews haven't even heard of. Yeah, I was just reading the Nicene Creed translations on wikipedia, and I basically cannot tell the difference between the Nicene Creed translations and Mormon theology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 47 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said: The elephant in the room is a lot of Christians, even Evangelicals, actually do believe that . . . and no one challenges their Christianity, even other Evangelicals . . . I have never heard of a Christian denomination who teaches this. Believing it is different from a Church teaching it. Saying Mormons is not Christian is not an indictment on the belief of an individual. It is an indictment on the teaching of the Church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 33 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said: Yeah, I was just reading the Nicene Creed translations on wikipedia, and I basically cannot tell the difference between the Nicene Creed translations and Mormon theology. Big difference - "cosubstantial with the Father". Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eVa Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 57 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Ok. Then that's where you're different from those who don't call Mormons Christians. It's no big deal. It's simply where they draw the line. One God is in the Bible. Jesus coming to America is not. As you can see, we are very different. The Bible actually shines light on the possibility that Christ visited America, but there is nothing in the Bible saying Jesus did not come to America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.