Understanding anothers religious beliefs

[leem]

In my younger years even though I have been baptized in the church on age nine I was not very active and began to investigate other religious beliefs. When I finally became fully active in the church I would also go with the missionaries on various meetings with non-members. It didn't take long to realize that many missionaries had very little knowledge about other people's religious beliefs. Fundamentally there are two basic differences between our faith and most Christian faiths. The toughest one to get around is the once saved always saved belief. It's very difficult to explain to someone that actually they are not really saved the way they believe they are. The other difference is the trinity. This could be another obstacle that's sometimes difficult to get around. 

[zil2]

19 hours ago, leem said:

It didn't take long to realize that many missionaries had very little knowledge about other people's religious beliefs.

I expect this is common among those who grew up in the Church, more especially if they grew up in a place with enough members to make up wards and stakes (as opposed to just branches, or just a district).

[zil2]

19 hours ago, leem said:

The toughest one to get around is the once saved always saved belief.

We are not the only Christians who disbelieve this idea.

19 hours ago, leem said:

It's very difficult to explain to someone that actually they are not really saved the way they believe they are.

Personally, I think this isn't the way to even try to approach things.  I think Ammon teaching Lamoni is one example of how to approach this.  And I think Brad Wilcox's devotional, "His Grace Is Sufficient" has some good ideas.

19 hours ago, leem said:

The other difference is the trinity. This could be another obstacle that's sometimes difficult to get around.

Yeah, this one seems the most difficult.  But again, I think trying to argue positions / points of doctrine is the wrong way.  Do things that invite the Spirit - minister and testify.  If they can feel the Spirit, they'll want to know more (sooner or later - it may take multiple examples across a lifetime before someone is ready to learn from missionaries).

[zil2]

5 minutes ago, zil2 said:

And I think Brad Wilcox's devotional, "His Grace Is Sufficient" has some good ideas.

Here's a snippet:

Quote

I have born-again Christian friends who say to me, “You Mormons are trying to earn your way to heaven.”

I say, “No, we are not earning heaven. We are learning heaven. We are preparing for it (see D&C 78:7). We are practicing for it.”

They ask me, “Have you been saved by grace?”

I answer, “Yes. Absolutely, totally, completely, thankfully—yes!”

Then I ask them a question that perhaps they have not fully considered: “Have you been changed by grace?” They are so excited about being saved that maybe they are not thinking enough about what comes next. They are so happy the debt is paid that they may not have considered why the debt existed in the first place. Latter-day Saints know not only what Jesus has saved us from but also what He has saved us for. As my friend Brett Sanders puts it, “A life impacted by grace eventually begins to look like Christ’s life.” As my friend Omar Canals puts it, “While many Christians view Christ’s suffering as only a huge favor He did for us, Latter-day Saints also recognize it as a huge investment He made in us.” As Moroni puts it, grace isn’t just about being saved. It is also about becoming like the Savior (see Moroni 7:48).

[leem]

On 9/10/2024 at 12:05 PM, zil2 said:

We are not the only Christians who disbelieve this idea.

Personally, I think this isn't the way to even try to approach things.  I think Ammon teaching Lamoni is one example of how to approach this.  And I think Brad Wilcox's devotional, "His Grace Is Sufficient" has some good ideas.

Yeah, this one seems the most difficult.  But again, I think trying to argue positions / points of doctrine is the wrong way.  Do things that invite the Spirit - minister and testify.  If they can feel the Spirit, they'll want to know more (sooner or later - it may take multiple examples across a lifetime before someone is ready to learn from missionaries).

If you want to drive the Spirit away very quickly.. begin to argue

[leem]

Missionaries have to give people a certain amount of credit for having their own mind. They have to realize that people can make decisions based upon the information they receive and compare it with the information they already have. I have been on visits with many many missionaries over the years and I found that most of them do this. If we were to get serious, and   without for knowledge, how many of us would believe that a 14 year old boy was visited by Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ without a certain pause? For almost every Christian this would be completely against everything they've been taught. 

[prisonchaplain]

On 9/9/2024 at 1:45 PM, leem said:

The toughest one to get around is the once saved always saved belief. It's very difficult to explain to someone that actually they are not really saved the way they believe they are. The other difference is the trinity. This could be another obstacle that's sometimes difficult to get around. 

As the non-LDS person on the board, I can affirm that "once saved always saved," is a belief of a small segment of Christians, known as Calvinists (following the doctrines of John Calvin). Most Christians do not believe the doctrine. On the other hand, the Trinity is a belief that is widely accepted by most, including Catholics, mainstream Protestants, the National Association of Evangelicals, most Baptists, and even most Pentecostals (though there is a sub-branch, called Oneness Pentecostals, who do not).  

[prisonchaplain]

I appreciate @zil2's approach. One Christian music group has a song with a great line, "What about the change? What about the difference?" Have we been changed by grace, indeed.

Beyond the Trinity, another difference is salvation. Traditional Christians, like myself, believe that Jesus saves us for a single heaven. Yes, salvation is by grace, but it requires faith. Those who do not believe in Jesus, do not repent to Him of their sins, will not enter any heavenly kingdom. There is no terrestrial or telestial kingdoms for them--only hell. 

As for the Trinity, the main distinction comes down to what unifies God. Latter-day Saints believe in the Father, in the Son, in the Holy Ghost. However, are they united in purpose or in substance? Some Latter-day Saints even argue that they are trinitarian, but that the three being united by purpose is enough. It's a distinction that may seem small, but it's why non-LDS bristle at talk of the Father having a corporeal body.

[zil2]

Nice to see you, @prisonchaplain.

[Carborendum]

19 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

As the non-LDS person on the board, I can affirm that "once saved always saved," is a belief of a small segment of Christians, known as Calvinists (following the doctrines of John Calvin).

I don't really have the percentages of various denominations in my head.  But I can say that the great majority of the kids I grew up with were "Evangelically Free".  I believe (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) that is the same as what we'd call the "Evangelical Christian" today.  

Of those, all of them would say that because they have "accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" they are saved.  And by that, they meant that they could sin all they wanted and would still be saved in the Kingdom of God.  It took them a while to admit that.  But when I repeated back to them what they had told me and I walked through the logic, they all admitted that "if it really came to that" then, yes, Jesus would forgive them and save them. (Please see note at bottom).

I'm well aware that most orthodox churches (including Catholics) don't believe that.  But in the US, the population of religious people is largely evangelical (AFAIK).

Back in those daysI knew a couple of methodists.  Several Catholics.  A couple of Lutherans.  I even knew a pair of twins who were Pentacostal.  But the bulk of them were evangelical.

19 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Most Christians do not believe the doctrine. On the other hand, the Trinity is a belief that is widely accepted by most, including Catholics, mainstream Protestants, the National Association of Evangelicals, most Baptists, and even most Pentecostals (though there is a sub-branch, called Oneness Pentecostals, who do not).  

I recently saw a discussion (and it was a discussion, not a debate) about the difference between the Trinity and the Godhead.

The Latter-day Saint took the diagram that the pastor had

And after some discussion, he said,"If you just replace "God" with "Godhead" that is basically what we believe.  On the surface at least, he seems to be right.  But I'll have to think about that to see if I fully agree.

What I really found interesting was that the pastor essentially said two things:

• We can't really explain the Trinity because it is beyond our comprehension. (Ok, I get the idea that God is certainly beyond mortal comprehension in his fully God-powered form).
• We have to believe it because we know there are three, but we also know we're not polytheists.

I don't think he realized what he was just admitting to there.  But that's exactly what he posited.

NOTE: BEING SAVED

I know that we tend to give the once saved, always saved crowd a lot of flak.  But my day-to-day observation has been that a lot of them are also really good people who just want to live a loving and peaceful life. (And, yes, I've also known several who are at the opposite end as well.  And they have no intention of repenting.)

[prisonchaplain]

This is from the official website: 

Do you believe in the Trinity?

The Holy Trinity is the term many Christian religions use to describe God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. We believe in the existence of all three, but we believe They are separate and distinct beings who are one in purpose. Their purpose is to help us achieve true joy—in this life and after we die.

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

This is from the official website: 

Do you believe in the Trinity?

The Holy Trinity is the term many Christian religions use to describe God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. We believe in the existence of all three, but we believe They are separate and distinct beings who are one in purpose. Their purpose is to help us achieve true joy—in this life and after we die.

WOW!  That is a complete departure from the past.  I'm not sure which "official website" you're talking about, but this goes against every scholarly conversation I've been a part of or seen online.

Ok, so let's say that I'm just ignorant.  And all the conversations I've had previously with sectarians were not accurate representative samples.  Let's just make that assumption.

What is the difference between the Trinity (as understood by traditional Christianity) and the Godhead (as understood by LDS)?

 

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

WOW!  That is a complete departure from the past.  I'm not sure which "official website" you're talking about, but this goes against every scholarly conversation I've been a part of or seen online.

He's talking about our official website.

 

(Just one example of why I wish everyone did as I do - take the time to get the link and include it in your post - whether for quotes or scripture.)

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

He's talking about our official website.

 

(Just one example of why I wish everyone did as I do - take the time to get the link and include it in your post - whether for quotes or scripture.)

Ah...  That would make more sense.  Background is important.

@prisonchaplain, I'm not sure what you were getting at with that post.  The LDS statement you quoted above is perfectly in line with what I posted before.  So...??

 

[Ironhold]

On 9/18/2024 at 7:25 PM, prisonchaplain said:

As the non-LDS person on the board, I can affirm that "once saved always saved," is a belief of a small segment of Christians, known as Calvinists (following the doctrines of John Calvin). Most Christians do not believe the doctrine. On the other hand, the Trinity is a belief that is widely accepted by most, including Catholics, mainstream Protestants, the National Association of Evangelicals, most Baptists, and even most Pentecostals (though there is a sub-branch, called Oneness Pentecostals, who do not).  

"Once Saved, Always Saved" is a bit tricky to discuss because there are a handful of Protestant groups who functionally do believe in it but don't use that name or terminology. 

One of the bigger non-Calivinist proponents of this was Jack Chick, a tract author who created an entire "ministry" based on the idea of buying his tracts, which were essentially miniature comic books, in bulk and circulating them. Chick frequently declared that salvation was as simple as saying a single prayer to Heavenly Father, and even periodically included different prayers that his readers could pray to this effect. His tracts also frequently depicted a variation on the idea of "deathbed confession", where a person would be instantly saved provided they made that prayer just before they went. 

Even though Chick's material is hideously flawed and incredibly hateful towards groups Chick didn't like (he *literally* referred to the communion wafer used by Roman Catholicism as a "death cookie" in one tract), there are still Protestant churches who take pride in littering their cities with his tracts. 

[prisonchaplain]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

WOW!  That is a complete departure from the past.  I'm not sure which "official website" you're talking about, but this goes against every scholarly conversation I've been a part of or seen online.

 

Here's the link: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/welcome/common-questions?lang=eng  Once there, look under Christian Beliefs, "Do you believe the trinity?"

Edited September 20, 2024 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What is the difference between the Trinity (as understood by traditional Christianity) and the Godhead (as understood by LDS)?

 

It comes down to whether the Godhead is one in purpose or in substance. This is why, for example, Trinitarians bristle at the teaching that the Father has a physical body. Jews and Muslims argue that the Christian trinity is really tri-theism. We reject that. To say that God is one in purpose but is three personages seems to give some credence to Jewish and Islamic criticisms. 

Edited September 20, 2024 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Ah...  That would make more sense.  Background is important.

@prisonchaplain, I'm not sure what you were getting at with that post.  The LDS statement you quoted above is perfectly in line with what I posted before.  So...??

 

I was posting the official LDS statement on the Trinity. My apologies for not making that clear. There seemed to be a question of what was different, so I thought posting the LDS view would be helpful. 

[prisonchaplain]

On 9/20/2024 at 9:00 AM, Ironhold said:

"Once Saved, Always Saved" is a bit tricky to discuss because there are a handful of Protestant groups who functionally do believe in it but don't use that name or terminology. 

One of the bigger non-Calivinist proponents of this was Jack Chick, a tract author who created an entire "ministry" based on the idea of buying his tracts, which were essentially miniature comic books, in bulk and circulating them. Chick frequently declared that salvation was as simple as saying a single prayer to Heavenly Father, and even periodically included different prayers that his readers could pray to this effect. His tracts also frequently depicted a variation on the idea of "deathbed confession", where a person would be instantly saved provided they made that prayer just before they went. 

Even though Chick's material is hideously flawed and incredibly hateful towards groups Chick didn't like (he *literally* referred to the communion wafer used by Roman Catholicism as a "death cookie" in one tract), there are still Protestant churches who take pride in littering their cities with his tracts. 

A few observations:

1. "Once saved always saved" is taught as God's blessing--what He redeems will not be lost. The doctrine is in error, imho. It is sometimes abused by those who want to claim salvation and faith in Jesus, while living for themselves (or the devil). They say, "Well, I'm backslidden." 

2. Deathbed conversions are another matter. It is indeed God who saves. His work is a grace we cannot earn, so yes, it can happen at the end of life. It is a matter of faith, not works. Then again, if one has opposed God his/her whole life, thinking that in the final moments they can be saved, God is no fool. Often, they oppose God long enough that their hearts are hardened, and they don't humble themselves at the end. Also, it's not enough to believe there is a God, or even to have correct beliefs. If the confession is insincere, we are warned that Jesus will tell many at the judgement, even those who claim to have done great works in Jesus' name, depart from me--I never knew you. 

3. Chick tracts are banned from most Christian stores. They are too anti just about everyone. His booklets were very popular through the late 1970s (maybe early 1980s), and then became unwelcomed by most. 

[Carborendum]

19 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

2. Deathbed conversions are another matter. It is indeed God who saves. His work is a grace we cannot earn, so yes, it can happen at the end of life. It is a matter of faith, not works. Then again, if one has opposed God his/her whole life, thinking that in the final moments they can be saved, God is no fool. Often, they oppose God long enough that their hearts are hardened, and they don't humble themselves at the end.

I don't know why, but even though I've read stuff like this many times, I am looking at this with new eyes.  This ^ ^  has made me question the effect of vicarious ordinances.  (Notice I said "effect", not "effectiveness")

The common teaching is that Jesus said that everyone needs to be baptized.  So, we all need to be baptized (for reasons that only the Lord fully understands).

I had theorized that it was because we are physical beings.  And when we make a non-physical decision (like dedicating ourselves to a cause) some physical act must accompany it to make that commitment real in our hearts and minds.  That's why we have ceremonies like weddings.

We know baptism is effective or else the Lord wouldn't tell us to do it.  OK, then what is the effect?  They are no longer physical beings by that point.

I have thought of several possible explanations.  And it is possible that it is a combination of all of them.  I'm still pondering.

[prisonchaplain]

Many of us Evangelicals underrate ordinances like baptism, and even Communion (the Lord's Supper, Eucharist). Ironically, as a Pentecostal, I often anoint with oil when I pray for people. The oil is symbolic of the presence of the Holy Ghost. It's a physical substance that communicates a spiritual reality. God intervenes--He heals, he brings about miracles. Water baptism is a huge marker in a believer's life. The taking of the bread and the cup are also powerful. Yes, they are simple, symbolic acts. They are powerful, because the God we serve is powerful. Scripture says that the spiritual realm is more real than the physical. Perhaps it is the symbolic that helps us catch just a glimpse of that truth?

[Ironhold]

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

3. Chick tracts are banned from most Christian stores. They are too anti just about everyone. His booklets were very popular through the late 1970s (maybe early 1980s), and then became unwelcomed by most. 

Not only is Chick Publications still in business, individual churches are still doling them out. 

One church in town buys them in bulk, stamps their name & address on the back, and gives them to their congregants. I'll literally see them laying about on store shelves and in other public places, having been left and abandoned on purpose. I usually just turn these into the store workers and warn them to be on the lookout. 

The local Walgreen's in particular keeps getting hit, with someone actually taking a religious book and slipping it onto the shelves with the paperback novels. 

This is the same church that actually sends street preachers out during the warmer months, where they'll stand at a busy intersection waving mass-produced signs and boldly walk right up to anyone whose window is rolled down (which is quite a few people, this being Texas). 

...And the same church that invited a guest speaker from Missouri to appear shortly after the Covid lockdowns were lifted, with the speaker having Covid and much of the congregation getting it as a result. 

[prisonchaplain]

Sounds like you're in the Bible belt. I'm out here in the anti-Bible belt (I still remember (circa 1980s) the head of one of the major political parties trying to explain our reality to a state representative of the now-defunct Moral Majority). His counsel: Yes, please knock on doors for our candidates. But, keep the religious stuff on the down-low--you're in the anti-Bible belt, after all.

[Carborendum]

On 9/20/2024 at 3:04 PM, prisonchaplain said:

It comes down to whether the Godhead is one in purpose or in substance. This is why, for example, Trinitarians bristle at the teaching that the Father has a physical body. Jews and Muslims argue that the Christian trinity is really tri-theism. We reject that. To say that God is one in purpose but is three personages seems to give some credence to Jewish and Islamic criticisms. 

So, to go over the Trinity, I thought I'd go over the Nicene Creed.

Quote

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
 of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
 the Only Begotten Son of God,
 born of the Father before all ages.
 God from God, Light from Light,
 true God from true God,
 begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
 through him all things were made.
 For us men and for our salvation
 he came down from heaven,
 and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
 and became man.
 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
 he suffered death and was buried,
 and rose again on the third day
 in accordance with the Scriptures.
 He ascended into heaven
 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
 He will come again in glory
 to judge the living and the dead
 and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
 who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
 who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
 who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
 I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
 and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
 and the life of the world to come. Amen.

As I read this, I only see one phrase that I have trouble with.  And we could finagle a meaning out of it that wouldn't be offensive to the LDS sensibility.  But I think that goes against the intended meaning.  In fact, I don't really know what others mean when they say it.  I doubt they know.

All the other lines in this creed seems to be perfectly in-line with LDS beliefs.

Over the past 10 years or so, I've come to understand that we have a lot more of the "daily walk" beliefs in common with other denominations than we tend to believe.

Edited September 25, 2024 by Carborendum