Is Teaching The Great Apostasy Attacking Other Faiths?

[maklelan]

It is a basis for attacking other faiths, but it may not be an attack itself.

But those attacks from the base of a belief in apostasy are not executed by the church, they are executed by independent members who are acting upon their own initiative (and I have personally never seen an "attack," only rebuttals of attacks). The difference is that the EV attacks are orchestrated and endorsed officially by the churches.

[maklelan]

Hi Mak--

I agree with this, "Everyone who believes they are right has to explain how others are wrong." That's why I fail to see contra-Mormon explanations of traditional Christianity vis-a-vis Mormonism as "anti-Mormon" attacks in the way that some Mormons are so ready and willing to highlight.

I see a huge difference. One demographic passively believes the other is mistaken but doesn't do anything about it unless the other person has voluntarily progressed past two discussions and is reading the book of Mormon, and even then we explain only that the authority was lost. We don't zero in on any specific denomination or belief, and if they say stop, we stop. The other demographic spent thousands of dollars and man hours in deceptively forcing that belief on unsuspecting people who found the misrepresentations and hate-speech repugnant. I see a difference.

The third discussion is not the issue here, Mak. Historically, the point is that the extant Protestant churches known to JS were corrupt and wrong. Their beliefs were wrong. Their creeds were wrong. They proclaimed as doctrine about God things that were false. You're right: the LDS faith does not single out any individual or faith or doctrine. The LDS faith assumes that all pre-Restoration conceptions of Christianity teach blatant falsehoods. There is no specificity here; the brush is broad enough to include all non-LDS conceptions of deity.

The third discussion is indeed the issue. You said

Teaching the Great Apostasy is quite obviously an attack on traditional, "creedal" Christianity.

Teaching the great apostasy to non-members of the church occurs in one situation and one only: the third discussion. The question of this thread addresses the third discussion. Whether there is specificity or not, we afford them the right to believe what they want in peace. They do not. We passively believe this, they actively force their beliefs on us. We respect what others believe and make no judgments about their faith or testimony, they tell us (with a wide and indiscriminating brush, mind you) that none of us believe in Jesus Christ and we are all going to hell. You think these two situations are comparable?

Yes, this constitutes an attack. Or, what would you call it? A friendly correction? Then, so is mine. The LDS conception of God is far more blatantly anti-traditionally-Christian than traditional Christians are anti-Mormon. It's a cool buzzword, I guess. But, use of the term "anti-Mormon" utterly fails to acknowledge that "Mormons" are committed to beliefs that are "anti-traditionally-Christian." Mormons are "anti" traditional Christianity. Period.

CKS

We may be anti-traditional Christian, but we don't attack. You still haven't told me how it is an attack, you've just told me that it is an attack, with no apparent regard for the definition of the word. We don't have to sneak around at midnight and deceive people into watching a DVD in order to proclaim the good news. We teach that we have the truth and we do it to people who tell us they want to listen. That, by default, means that others are mistaken. They don't teach that they have the truth, they just teach that we don't have the truth (they make it the focus of their message rather than a default conclusion), and they deceive people so that permission doesn't have to be acquired. It's pathetic and it's cowardly and I'm am surprised that you are defending it.

[maklelan]

Hi J--

It was a paraphrase, as you wrote. Nothing I wrote, however, was false. Some of it's just "deep doctrine," (to quote the missionary's response when I asked him, "Do you believe that Elohim had to achieve Godhood?" He would neither confirm nor deny.) I'm not really that much concerned with how something is presented; I'm much more concerned with the actual content of belief.

Best.

CKS

But the question is whether we teach it in the context of an attack, not "can we present a belief somewhere in a manner that will constitute an attack, even if it has never been presented that way?" You could construe any person's beliefs in a way that constitutes an attack on any other person's beliefs. Is this really where you want to take this?

[maklelan]

And, as a Protestant, let me be the first the say that, no, I don't believe in an apostasy.

Best.

CKS

Now you're attacking me. I'm so oppressed. I will now feel justified in spending thousands of hours studying exactly (not exactly, but close enough that the uninitiated will think I know what I'm talking about) what CK believes so that I can write a book and mail it to him for free (making sure to package it like it's coming from his congregation, a la By the Hand of Joseph), produce a DVD and do the same, picket outside his house in replicas of his underwear and call his wife a whore. If he gets upset I can hide behind the argument that he attacked my belief in an apostasy in a manner so inconsiderate that my actions are a perfectly equal reciprocation.

[Smith]

Well, there are quite a few Catholics on earth. And, as a Protestant, let me be the first the say that, no, I don't believe in an apostasy.

If you don't believe there was an apostacy then why are you not a Catholic? Doesn't make sense to me.

[The Dude]

But those attacks from the base of a belief in apostasy are not executed by the church, they are executed by independent members who are acting upon their own initiative (and I have personally never seen an "attack," only rebuttals of attacks). The difference is that the EV attacks are orchestrated and endorsed officially by the churches.

I didn't know this was a thread about determining which religion has the greater fault.

[maklelan]

I didn't know this was a thread about determining which religion has the greater fault.

I didn't know that's how my point is being interpreted. I'm trying to show that what they perceive as an attack is nothing more than a passive belief that in no way affects our perception of their testimonies, and is a part of every single belief system in that is possible, while their attacks are aggressive, deceitful, and demeaning caricatures of what other people believe.

[soren]

Now you're attacking me. I'm so oppressed. I will now feel justified in spending thousands of hours studying exactly (not exactly, but close enough that the uninitiated will think I know what I'm talking about) what CK believes so that I can write a book and mail it to him for free (making sure to package it like it's coming from his congregation, a la By the Hand of Joseph), produce a DVD and do the same, picket outside his house in replicas of his underwear and call his wife a whore. If he gets upset I can hide behind the argument that he attacked my belief in an apostasy in a manner so inconsiderate that my actions are a perfectly equal reciprocation.

But what about when someone opposes your faith only after investing their best efforts to learn the subject, or who, having studied imperfectly, is willing, even desirous, to allow correction of a misunderstood doctrine from a believer?

I mention this because I am occasionally accused of not understanding an LDS teaching. Often this accusation is true, and when that happens I allow correction from a Latter-day Saint. If you read my posts on other threads, you will find a few examples recently. For instance, on my Matthew thread PacMan corrected me on how ordinances work in LDS theology, so I submitted a major claim that I had made.

Yet I have also been accused of rank ignorance in matters of which I had in fact full knowledge. If I make an argument for which a Latter-day Saint has a rebuttal, I am sometime met with criticism for my ignorance, when in fact I was already aware of the LDS counter, not impressed by it, and prepared to respond.

Now, I think this presumption of ignorance is understandable, since there are way too many people who oppose the LDS Church without even attempting to study its doctrines except through the filter of anti-LDS literature, which is often shallow. These people also tend to be the most vocal, because their irresponsibility extends to more things than their discipline as students. For instance when I see photos of protestors in Temple Square, I can tell from their signs alone that they are unaware of LDS interpretations of the very verses that they expect will bludgeon people into belief. Had they any knowledge of what they were opposing, they would seek a different tactic. But then, that would require Christian charity, wouldnâ??t it?

Yet I am not one of these individuals. In fact, I will be in Temple Square about a month from now, and I have no plans to hold up any signs, hand out any tracts, or argue with anyone there, because I donâ??t think it honors the gospel to harass people at their places of worship. Instead, I stick to this forum, which is an appropriate place to engage in dialogue, since the people here are already willing to participate, and the venue requires me to be accountable for my claims.

And I am not unstudied. I have read all the LDS scriptures, some LDS general instruction materials like Gospel Principles, healthy chunks of the Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine, Talmageâ??s The Great Apostasy and Jesus the Christ, some LDS apologetics works like Offenders for a Word and The Truth About the Godmakers, and quite a lot more. I have also attended services at my familyâ??s ward and sat in on classes.

When other Catholics ask me about Mormonism, I do not tell them it is a cult, or that Mormons arenâ??t Christian. I do tell them how and why I think Mormonism is wrong and dangerous, but I also tell them stories about Mormons I know, about their personal experiences, their cultural history, and what I like about them. I even talk about why LDS theology is attractive to many people, and what shortcomings in mainstream Christian culture the LDS Church seems to offer an alternative to. I then advise them against reading anti-Mormon literature (at least not by evangelicals and not without comparing it to LDS responses) and instead recommend studying Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed to help sharpen their ability to explain their own beliefs.

By contrast, when I have talked to LDS missionaries, and listened to the arguments they make against Catholicism, I have never been impressed by their knowledge of my doctrines. Not at all. This always comes up in our discussions because I never engage them on any issue except the Great Apostasy. This frequently prompts them to make claims about various errors of Catholic theology and bad events in Christian history. Sadly, the arguments they make tend to reflect basic, beginner-level misunderstandings as serious as any I have heard against the LDS Church. A few objective errors that I heard from missionaries just recently are:

That the doctrine of the eucharist, â??transubstantiation,â? was invented by the Council of Trent

The vague thought that Trinitarianism somehow denies a real distinction between the persons of the Trinity â?? a very serious misunderstanding

That Catholicism views God as a nothingness

That Catholicism teaches that God is our Father figuratively

The missionaries, I might add, are never mean-spirited about any of this, and unlike a lot of anti-Catholics, they pay attention my responses, with an obvious interest in learning. (That is why I donâ??t consider them anti-Catholics.) I even remember once long ago hearing a missionary correct another about a false statement he had made about a Catholic teaching. The other took the correction, which I thought reflected well on both of them.

Yet I must wonder, when such claims are made, if the LDS Church really seeks to provide its members with a good understanding of the religions it teaches them to refute. In particular, given that the Trinity is the central belief of almost all Christian churches, I find it disturbing that so few Mormons can give an accurate explanation of it, and that they typically confound it with modalism or even use the fact that it is difficult to understand as some kind of argument against it. As one who actually does understand Trinitarianism, I find such tactics disingenuous, and insultingly dismissive. Quite frankly I will only believe the LDS Churchâ??s claim that it respects other religions when it puts its money where its mouth is and starts teaching its members to respond to an accurate construction of Catholicismâ??s central doctrine.

[T-Bone]

Pointing out the errors can be seen as an attack. Walking a few steps in the other person's shoes might be useful and instructive here. See the following discussion?

Apologist: Why are you attacking my church? Don't you have anything better to do?

Critic: I'm not attacking, I'm just pointing out the errors.

Apologist: You only attack because it's true.

Critic: You only get upset because I've pointed out the errors.

Aologist and Critic in unison: But I'm right!

It just depends on whose side you're on.

T-Bone

[blueadept]

Too bad the OP didn't separate LDS and non-LDS with this question. I would expect a night and day difference in the response. The first time I heard the story was in a bible study for the 2nd hour. I felt like the only one in the room wanting to ask a question with 200 others going, duh!!!!

It's about the same when HTs come over and my wife wishes for me not to be contraversial. What one does to keep peace in the family.

[Obiwan]

What's funny, is if this simple statement of belief that doesn't directly attack other Faiths is an "attack" according to Evangelicals, and thus is so bad that they call it an "attack", then why do they engage in activities that are in fact direct assaults and bearing false witnessing that are way beyond this simple understanding of reality?

[cksalmon]

What's funny, is if this simple statement of belief that doesn't directly attack other Faiths is an "attack" according to Evangelicals, and thus is so bad that they call it an "attack", then why do they engage in activities that are in fact direct assaults and bearing false witnessing that are way beyond this simple understanding of reality?

That's a good point. I've been phrasing my responses here as strongly as possible to see what sort of reaction I'd get. As I suspected, the response from LDS is that, of course, they're not attacking. The difference in perception stems, I think, from the orientation of the two groups theological claims. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, but, bear with me...

The LDS Gospel, when presented to those who already profess some form of Christianity, is frequently couched in terms of adding additional truths to already-known truths. The traditional Christian, of course, believes that the so-called truths that are added are actually false.

Without trying to assign specifics to the additional truths, I assume that LDS believers view their faith in a way that somewhat resembles the following equation (yes, it's a crude analogy, but I think there is some truth to it):

Basic Christian Truth

+ Additional LDS Truth #1

+ Additional LDS Truth #2

+ Additional LDS Truth #3

+ Additional LDS Truth #4

+ Additional LDS Truth #5 (etc.)

______________________

The Restored Gospel

Now, of course, the traditional Christian views the situation from the opposite perspective, e.g.:

The Restored Gospel

- Additional LDS Truth #1

- Additional LDS Truth #2

- Additional LDS Truth #3

- Additional LDS Truth #4

- Additional LDS Truth #5 (etc.)

______________________

Basic Christian Truth

If one holds that the additional truths of Restoration expressions of Christianity are not true, one must either be silent about it or proclaim them as falsehoods. Of course, there are times to be silent, but there are various venues and contexts in which to be silent, I believe, would be a breach of Christian duty. I don't see another way to proceed. Suggestions?

Best.

CKS

[Pahoran]

Yet I must wonder, when such claims are made, if the LDS Church really seeks to provide its members with a good understanding of the religions it teaches them to refute. In particular, given that the Trinity is the central belief of almost all Christian churches, I find it disturbing that so few Mormons can give an accurate explanation of it, and that they typically confound it with modalism or even use the fact that it is difficult to understand as some kind of argument against it. As one who actually does understand Trinitarianism, I find such tactics disingenuous, and insultingly dismissive. Quite frankly I will only believe the LDS Churchâ??s claim that it respects other religions when it puts its money where its mouth is and starts teaching its members to respond to an accurate construction of Catholicismâ??s central doctrine.

Actually what we do is even superior to this: The Church of Jesus Christ doesn't "teach them to refute" other churches to begin with. It's just that simple. All the information, faulty or otherwise, that we have about other churches comes from other believers.

You find it "disturbing," do you, that "so few Mormons can give an accurate explanation of" creedal trinitarianism? I agree that few of us can, but I fail to see why that should be "disturbing." It is, after all, not our responsibility to do so. You really ought to find that fact far less disturbing than the fact that nearly as few creedal Christians can explain the doctrine correctly. If so many of us understand trinitarianism in modalist terms, then you should be aware that that is largely because that is the way other Christians have explained it to us; we did not make it up. If you must fix blame for this, blame those alleged Christians who take such delight in getting right in our faces and screaming their halitosis-laden accusations that we are all hell-bound cultists because we believe the Father and the Son are separate. It is at least somewhat difficult to get into the subtleties of the doctrine with someone whose idea of dialogue extends no further than slogans and epithets.

The Church must be about the great business of building the kingdom. That is its mission. We have neither the time nor the inclination to be devoting to detailed study of every other doctrine out there. Do you suppose the Saints in Ephesus, post-Pauline times, could give accurate explanations of the subtleties of the doctrine of Diana? And indeed, why should they?

Now this may come as a shock to you, Soren, but your good opinion is not quite important enough to motivate us to start jumping through hoops to secure it. You don't get to dictate the terms upon which you will accept a plain and truthful statement. We will not be teaching our members about other doctrines; but we do in fact respect those of other faiths. If you choose not to believe this rather incontrovertible fact, but instead prefer to manufacture excuses to dismiss it, then that will reflect poorly upon no-one but yourself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rhinomelon]

Soren and ck, those last two posts were quite good. I can especially relate to soren's perspective (perhaps since it mirrors mine in many ways).

Take care, everyone

[pcarthew]

So, do you think that teaching the great apostasy is attacking other faiths? Does it provide justification for Christian critics who actively oppose the Church?

How can teaching about an event be an attack? I wouldn't think that this doctrine in the LDS church is taught in an agressive way or positioned as an attack on other christians. Put the words ani-mormon into goole and see who is the general aggressor is. It is not the church. I fact i think it would be very difficult to find much of substance where the organization of the church attcks anyones christian or religious beliefs.

[soren]

Actually what we do is even superior to this: The Church of Jesus Christ doesn't "teach them to refute" other churches to begin with. It's just that simple. All the information, faulty or otherwise, that we have about other churches comes from other believers.

You find it "disturbing," do you, that "so few Mormons can give an accurate explanation of" creedal trinitarianism? I agree that few of us can, but I fail to see why that should be "disturbing." It is, after all, not our responsibility to do so.

It is your responsibility if you attempt to refute other views, as indeed you do. You may claim that the LDS Church does not "teach them to refute" anything, but missionaries are trained in refutation, as is obvious from talking to them. When I say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in being, and a missionary responds, "But they talk to each other," then he is attempting a refutation - and not just a shallow one either. If you deny that argument is part of LDS evangelism, I only wish I had a transcript of any conversation I have ever had with a missionary. I don't think one missionary has ever disrespected me, but they have all argued and in ways that obviously reflected training in such interaction.

You really ought to find that fact far less disturbing than the fact that nearly as few creedal Christians can explain the doctrine correctly. If so many of us understand trinitarianism in modalist terms, then you should be aware that that is largely because that is the way other Christians have explained it to us; we did not make it up.

Indeed, I am most disturbed by the lack of theological education among Christians. That is why I have taught classes on the Trinity at several parishes in California and constantly advocate that people read Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity. I am about to move my family all the way to West Virginia to begin graduate studies to be an educator in the Church. This is because I see a dire need for change in Catholic education.

However, I do not think the error is propagated simply by other Christians explaining it to you incorrectly. That does indeed happen a lot, doubtless most of the time, but my experience is that Latter-day Saints have a hard time seeing the difference between orthodoxy and modalism even when it is explained correctly, whereas I have little trouble explaining it to Catholics. Why? I think it is because an LDS education predisposes one to not see certain distinctions that must be made before the doctrine can be understood. Most obvious to me is the interchangeable use of the words "distinct" and "separate" in Church literature and teaching about the Godhead. Using these words used interchageably makes them seem like the same idea, so that "distinct but not separate" becomes a confusing statement. I would never dare to use language that fostered any such unclarity when explaining a point of controversy between Catholicism and any other religion, and I would seek to correct it if I did.

If you must fix blame for this, blame those alleged Christians who take such delight in getting right in our faces and screaming their halitosis-laden accusations that we are all hell-bound cultists because we believe the Father and the Son are separate. It is at least somewhat difficult to get into the subtleties of the doctrine with someone whose idea of dialogue extends no further than slogans and epithets.

I consider you more Christian than those people. Anything that communicates itself by hate is not the gospel.

The Church must be about the great business of building the kingdom. That is its mission. We have neither the time nor the inclination to be devoting to detailed study of every other doctrine out there. Do you suppose the Saints in Ephesus, post-Pauline times, could give accurate explanations of the subtleties of the doctrine of Diana? And indeed, why should they?

The kingdon of God has time for everyone and everything.

The early Christians probably did know about Diana, and those who sought to communicate the gospel to people who believed in it should have studied it. If one's belief in Diana is a stumbling block to accepting Chirst, then it is an act of love to remove that stumbling block. In Acts, 17, St. Paul stands before the idols in Athens, and directly contrasts the true God with the idols on the hill - which would include Diana - teaching true worship to the Athenians while exposing the poverty of their false religion. In Acts 13:6-12, he strikes blind a sorcerer who hinders the preaching of the gospel. Likewise, Christians, mature Christians, are called to address the stumbling blocks that hinder the Word. Those stumbling blocks are not just sorcerers and statues, but can also be ideas. When they are, Christians must interact with those ideas and not with convenient misrepresentations. When Peter instructs us to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you," (1 Pet. 3:15) he is not suggesting that we tear down straw men, for he asks us to give a reason, not an excuse. A refutation that works on the basis of a misunderstanding is not obedient to this command and is, moreover, a form of slander. This is at enimty with truth at a fundamental level, and the gospel has no place for such methods of instruction, for God is the spirit of truth.

Now this may come as a shock to you, Soren, but your good opinion is not quite important enough to motivate us to start jumping through hoops to secure it. You don't get to dictate the terms upon which you will accept a plain and truthful statement.

My appeal is to moral principle, not to my opinion.

We will not be teaching our members about other doctrines;

I know.

but we do in fact respect those of other faiths.

Then you will teach their doctrines accurately before pretending to refute them or not demand the same respect from others.

If you choose not to believe this rather incontrovertible fact, but instead prefer to manufacture excuses to dismiss it, then that will reflect poorly upon no-one but yourself.

Regards,

Pahoran

Those who read may judge.

[3DOP]

I replied in the affirmative. But I would qualify my answer.

1) Even the positive claims of any religious group are an implicit "attack" on claims of religious groups that disagree. Even though I tend to only discuss the positive claims of the Catholic faith, I believe my doctrine properly understood, is more effectively "anti-Mormon" than the tactics used by those who get labelled anti-Mormon. This is classically called apologetics. Defense of faith. It is a necessary prelude to polemics, or the negative analysis of an alleged false view.

2) Properly speaking, neither polemics nor apologetics are a kind of "attack" that is necessarily insulting or malicious, but rather the natural course of events for any religious group that must establish its claims before those who are wondering about or challenging said claims. It is no different than a courtroom where attorneys try to break down the evidence of parties whose witness differs with their own. Sometimes, besides making a defense, it is necessary for a good lawyer to expose for the good of one's client, the shortcomings of someone's claims or character. That is what the Great Apostasy doctrine properly attempts.

In conclusion, I think it is naive for any religious group to imagine that it does not in some way "attack" other religious groups with every truth claim. It is ironic, but the most vigorous attacks on my faith are often made by those religious groups who imagine themselves the least offensive, by claiming to be doctrinally "agnostic", denying that one true faith and one true church has been revealed!

If I were to become LDS, I wouldn't try to pretend that the doctrine of the Great Apostasy poses no attack on other's faith. In some ways, it is more painful to hear Mormons nicely explain why my church is false, than to hear Reformed Baptists say the same things in a less pleasant manner. So yes, in the sense I have described, it is an attack, but it is expected, and I must "attack" in return. As the surgeon attacks unhealthy tissue, so Christians, motivated by charity are obligated as they are able, to attack unhealthy ideas if they care about souls as much as surgeons care about bodies.

[jwhitlock]

If one holds that the additional truths of Restoration expressions of Christianity are not true, one must either be silent about it or proclaim them as falsehoods. Of course, there are times to be silent, but there are various venues and contexts in which to be silent, I believe, would be a breach of Christian duty. I don't see another way to proceed. Suggestions?

One suggestion, of course (and this seems to be avoided by most anti-Mormons), is to quit saying that there is no difference between an honest opinion that an LDS doctrine is in error, and the purposeful attempts to deceive and slander that most anti-Mormons engage in.

Why many EVs seem to think that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and embrace the tactics and smears of anti-Mormons as being valid is beyond me. And again, CK, false presentation and paraphrasing are basic tools in those tactics that are used against us.

[Pahoran]

It is your responsibility if you attempt to refute other views, as indeed you do. You may claim that the LDS Church does not "teach them to refute" anything, but missionaries are trained in refutation, as is obvious from talking to them. When I say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in being, and a missionary responds, "But they talk to each other," then he is attempting a refutation - and not just a shallow one either. If you deny that argument is part of LDS evangelism, I only wish I had a transcript of any conversation I have ever had with a missionary. I don't think one missionary has ever disrespected me, but they have all argued and in ways that obviously reflected training in such interaction.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There is no such "training" as you imagine to happen. Or if you want to call it training, it works like this:

1) The missionary spends a few weeks in the MTC, learning how to teach the missionary lessons from the Scriptures.

2) The missionary then goes into the mission field and is assigned to a senior companion.

3) The missionary and his companion commence to work.

4) A person they are teaching brings up an objection.

5) The senior companion responds to that objection as his senior companion had on a previous occasion.

6) The junior companion remembers it and, next time he encounters an objection that sounds similar to the one he's just heard refuted, he repeats what he heard.

There's the "training," if you insist on calling it that.

Indeed, I am most disturbed by the lack of theological education among Christians. That is why I have taught classes on the Trinity at several parishes in California and constantly advocate that people read Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity. I am about to move my family all the way to West Virginia to begin graduate studies to be an educator in the Church. This is because I see a dire need for change in Catholic education.

Good for you. I wish you well. It sounds like you have enough work to do bearing your own ark to try to steady ours.

However, I do not think the error is propagated simply by other Christians explaining it to you incorrectly. That does indeed happen a lot, doubtless most of the time, but my experience is that Latter-day Saints have a hard time seeing the difference between orthodoxy and modalism even when it is explained correctly, whereas I have little trouble explaining it to Catholics. Why? I think it is because an LDS education predisposes one to not see certain distinctions that must be made before the doctrine can be understood. Most obvious to me is the interchangeable use of the words "distinct" and "separate" in Church literature and teaching about the Godhead. Using these words used interchageably makes them seem like the same idea, so that "distinct but not separate" becomes a confusing statement. I would never dare to use language that fostered any such unclarity when explaining a point of controversy between Catholicism and any other religion, and I would seek to correct it if I did.

Thank you, but why is the difference in usage particularly our fault? Why is it not just as much your own?

Every faith community has its own shared vocabulary, and few of the terms therein are actually unique words. Rather, they are just common words that have gained special meanings of their own in a given cultural context. This is not any sort of plot; we don't say "separate and distinct" just to confound the creedalists any more than we hold "firesides" just so we can have a good guffaw at the expense of the fellow who is naive enough to show up with a mug and a bag of marshmallows.

I consider you more Christian than those people. Anything that communicates itself by hate is not the gospel.

Thank you.

The kingdon of God has time for everyone and everything.

I'm sure God does; but alas, we poor mortals here below have to make do with our allotted span of threescore and ten, which is nowhere near enough time to learn all the intricacies of every doctrinal system out there and do our part in preaching the Gospel.

The early Christians probably did know about Diana, and those who sought to communicate the gospel to people who believed in it should have studied it. If one's belief in Diana is a stumbling block to accepting Chirst, then it is an act of love to remove that stumbling block.

And yet there is no evidence that anyone ever did. In the famous near-riot at Ephesus, there is not one word about the Christians "exposing the errors" of the cult of Artemis, or "speaking the truth in love" (anti-Mormon slogan for unscrupulously propagandising) at her worshippers. But there is valid evidence to the contrary:

Acts 19

37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

The same, not only in word but in principle, can be said for the Latter-day Saints. Pity it cannot be said for our detractors.

In Acts, 17, St. Paul stands before the idols in Athens, and directly contrasts the true God with the idols on the hill - which would include Diana - teaching true worship to the Athenians while exposing the poverty of their false religion.

Really?

To someone with a polemical bent, maybe that's what it looks like; but calling them "too superstitious" (i.e. "most religious") didn't bother them in the least, and no more did the conventional old "God dwelleth not in temples made with hands," a standard school maxim. They were the intelligentsia of the day, and knew (and accepted) all the usual arguments against idolatry. It wasn't until Paul mentioned the resurrection (v. 31) that they hooted in derision (v. 32.)

In Acts 13:6-12, he strikes blind a sorcerer who hinders the preaching of the gospel.

So he did. And was Elymas struck blind while harmlessly going about his own business of preaching a competing doctrine, or was he behaving like the predecessors of the anti-Mormons, by directly opposing the Lord's servants?

Likewise, Christians, mature Christians, are called to address the stumbling blocks that hinder the Word. Those stumbling blocks are not just sorcerers and statues, but can also be ideas. When they are, Christians must interact with those ideas and not with convenient misrepresentations. When Peter instructs us to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you," (1 Pet. 3:15) he is not suggesting that we tear down straw men, for he asks us to give a reason, not an excuse.

More than that; he is not asking us to aggressively proclaim our reasons for thinking the other fellow is wrong; he is asking us to give "an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you."

I do not suppose that we are alone in following the example of the ancient Saints, namely, proclaiming our own message without reference to the beliefs of others; we are just alone among those who choose to dispute with us.

A refutation that works on the basis of a misunderstanding is not obedient to this command and is, moreover, a form of slander.

I'm sorry, but you are pushing your argument to extremes there. The notion that we have to get down to the minutiae of your doctrines before we have a right to disagree with you or else we are liars is an exercise in truly jesuitical sophistry. At the end of the day, the only really important thing we need to know about your doctrines is that they are not ours, and therefore we don't proclaim them.

This is at enimty with truth at a fundamental level, and the gospel has no place for such methods of instruction, for God is the spirit of truth.

As I have explained above, the "methods of instruction" you deplore exist only in your imagination.

My appeal is to moral principle, not to my opinion.

Well then, you should be satisfied. We operate upon the moral principle that every believer is entitled to speak for his own belief, and not have some self-appointed expert who does not share that belief putting himself forward to speak for him. As moral principles go, that is clearly superior to the notion that we should devote ourselves to studying the other fellow's doctrine so that we can refute it properly.

I know.

Then you will teach their doctrines accurately before pretending to refute them or not demand the same respect from others.

No.

We will not be teaching their doctrines at all. We are just not that damnably arrogant.

Those who read may judge.

Indeed.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kenngo1969]

Note: jwhitlock makes many of these points in his/her Post #24 on this thread. However, in the interest of redundancy â?¦

"Your version of Christianity is perverted and corrupt.â?

Yep. Thatâ??s the first thing missionaries teach prospective members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Choosing such a confrontational posture at the outset helps build trust and establish rapport. )

How about, â??Before Joseph Smith, Christianity was incompleteâ?? (Nahhh! Thatâ??s too neutral, relatively non-pejorative, and not confrontational enough â?¦ The more loaded the descriptors, the better!)

â?Your Bible has been altered.â?

We revere the Holy Bible as the most extensive account of the establishment of Christâ??s Church in the meridian of time; as the most detailed exposition of his teachings; and as the best account of His birth, death, and resurrection. All of this having been said, we do not regard any book of scripture as error-free, including the restoration scriptures the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. (I realize this attempt to inject context into the assertion that the Holy Bible is something less than perfect lacks sensationalism â?¦ so it wonâ??t work for your purposes, and I apologize.)

â?Your beliefs about God the Father and Jesus Christ are wrong.â?

Here again, sensationalism, pejoratives, and confrontation work best to build trust and establish rapport. Thatâ??s why something more neutral, such as, â??Although your beliefs about God the Father and Jesus Christ may be incomplete, the good news is that appearance of God and Christ to Joseph Smith instantly cut through hundreds of years of confusion underlying traditional Christianityâ? plainly wouldnâ??t work.

â?God the Father had to achieve Godhood; he was once a man; now, he's an exalted manâ??a God.â?

If traditional Christianity has a more logical explication of this issue, Iâ??m all ears. In the meantime, nobody in the Church of Jesus Christ is busy enough loving their spouses, rearing their children, earning a living and maintaining a home, fulfilling Church callings, doing unto others as they would have done unto them, loving their neighbors as themselves, and so forth, to not have to worry about how God became God. Nope. Weâ??re all consumed by the question!

â??Jesus, too, became a God.â?

Your point being?

Let me show you 'real' Christianityâ??Mormon-style."

Right. President Gordon B. Hinckley never invited non-LDS to bring the good that they have from their religious heritage and â??let us add to it.â? Thatâ??s not sensationalistic or pejorative enough.

I'm curious, CK. Why did you feel the need to paraphrase our beliefs in quotes (or is there a reference I'm missing?) in a way that is an obvious mischaracterization of how we would present them?

I second the call for an answer to this question.

I'm not really that much concerned with how something is presented; I'm much more concerned with the actual content of belief.

Right. And it is just that lack of concern that allows you to divorce the teachings from their all-important context.

It is your responsibility [to understand creedal Christianity] if you attempt to refute other views, as indeed you do.

The First Vision is the best possible refutation of creedal Christianity extant. If it occurred, as devout Latter-day Saints believe it did, then no, we neednâ??t spend endless hours trying to understand something we are convinced does not accurately reflect Godâ??s nature.

â?¦ [M]issionaries are trained in refutation, as is obvious from talking to them.

Yep. The entire first year of the two-year Missionary Training Center curriculum (which is then followed by the two-year proselyting mission) consists of training in techniques that enable missionaries to refute the erroneous beliefs of others.

The Church must be about the great business of building the kingdom. That is its mission. We have neither the time nor the inclination to be devoting to detailed study of every other doctrine out there.

Nonsense, Pahoran! Why, thatâ??s what the five-year pre-baptism course of study offered to prospective members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is all about. You must think that missionary work is about finding people whose hearts have already been prepared to accept the message of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than taking the time necessary to refute all of the teachings of every other church! Honestly! I just donâ??t know where you get such silly notions!

[freakin a man]

It depends on how the teaching is done. If one uses the teaching to start bashing another faiths belief system, doctrines, leaders then yes it can be. However it if just simply to tell the story of the restoration and what the LDS Church is based on then no its not an attack. Now for those who assert that it is an attack then let me ask two question.

1. How do you propose the LDS to teach the First Vision, Restoration of the Priesthood, and other things associated with the overal restoration of the Church without speaking of the Apostasy?

2. How would you advise us to teach the Apostasy that would not constitute an "attack" on other faiths in your mind?

[Zakuska]

Nearly every Prophet Spoke about it. Even the Savior seemd to tell us about the "Dark Night" in whch nobody could work.

[cksalmon]

It depends on how the teaching is done. If one uses the teaching to start bashing another faiths belief system, doctrines, leaders then yes it can be. However it if just simply to tell the story of the restoration and what the LDS Church is based on then no its not an attack. Now for those who assert that it is an attack then let me ask two question.

1. How do you propose the LDS to teach the First Vision, Restoration of the Priesthood, and other things associated with the overal restoration of the Church without speaking of the Apostasy?

2. How would you advise us to teach the Apostasy that would not constitute an "attack" on other faiths in your mind?

Hi FAM--

You're right, of course. It can't be done without affirming and teaching the Apostasy. On the other hand, it is not possible to deny the necessity of a Restoration without denying the truth claims of the Restoration. LDS have every right to promote their theological worldview; if they're correct, then, of course, the world is and will continue to be a better place as more and more people actively accept their message. Conversely, disbelievers in the Restoration, who deny both its neccesity and the truth of its specific claims, have every right to promote their theological worldview as well.

LDS often counter that "anti-Mormons" are motivated by a desire to tear down, rather than build up (as LDS suppose themselves to be doing). LDS are "positive" in their presentation of the Restored Gospel; "anti-Mormons" are negative. Bracketing for a moment the moral overtones in that assessment, when looked at in a purely functional way, there is, indeed, some truth to the statement. This is simply a function of their respective theological worldviews.

LDS believe that additional revelatory truths are necessary to the Restored Gospel. Thus, they add to basic Christian truth, generically conceived, and in several instances, they radically revise and redefine basic and traditional Christian doctrine as it has obtained in the Christian Church, writ large and generically, for millennia. In this sense, and precisely in this sense, can one correctly state that LDS are involved in "negative" proselyting behavior. That is, they are explicitly negative regarding the state of the post-Apostolic early church.

This is not a value judgment. I don't think the missionaries who teach the Apostasy are thereby shown to be personally "negative" (i.e., pessimistic or some such). Rather, the positive view of the LDS Restoration entails a negative view toward the period leading up to the Apostasy as well as toward the supposed theological (and, one might add, textual errors) that crept into Christian orthodoxy during the Apostasy.

Traditional Christians, on the other hand, necessarily disbelieve in the Restoration. I write, "necessarily," simpy because core traditionally-Christian theology (e.g., the nature of God the Father, the nature of creation, the nature of Spirit, the nature of Christ, etc.) is radically undermined--even overturned--by adherence to Restoration theological claims. Traditional Christians would cease to be such if and when they affirmed belief in Restoration theology. Their theological identity is bound up in truth claims that run counter to LDS truth claims.

Note that LDS theological truth claims are added theological truth claims. The Restoration claims to have added back that which was once taken away. If I am a person who disbelieves in the necessity of the Restoration (and I am), and I am a person who thereby denies the truth of many Restorationist theological claims (and I am), then I am also a person who believes that those added theological truth claims should be vigorously denied and, ultimately, abandoned by their current adherents (and I am).

That doesn't make me a pessimistic, bitter, angry, rude, jealous, ugly, mean-spirited person. It just means I believe that many LDS theological truth claims are wrong and should be denounced as such.

That's enough to make me an "anti-Mormon" in the eyes of many here. So be it. I would just suggest that that reaction, as it is articulated by some, has the appearance of one that is non-rational, unnuanced, and eschews any sort of objectivity. (And, please, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't accuse me of asking you to wear it.)

I think I went a bit far afield here.

At any rate, best.

CKS

[ozemc]

I am TBM and I voted YES but not for the same reasons that cksalmon did.

The Restoration is a death blow to over 1500 years of Traditional Christianityâ??s Scholarly Authority. It completely undercuts what Christian philosophers and theologians having been trying build for nearly 2000 thousand years.

â??19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: â??they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.â? JSH 1:19

All were wrong because of the sources of their authority, namely the religious professors and the creeds that they produced. The Prophet boldly declared that his authority wasnâ??t granted to men upon graduation from a seminary, but only when the heavens are opened.

It is little wonder that the professors of his day hated him so and continue to even to this day.

â??21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as avisions or brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. â?? JSH 1:21

From the Great Apostasy until Restoration they were in charge, and they were the source. But when the heavens were opened they were fully exposed for the entire world to see. They should have just ignored Joseph but they couldnâ??t. They couldnâ??t just pass him off as a poor crazy farm boy. They planned, conspired, and stirred up those that they could to utterly wipe the Prophet and his new religion.

The Prophet was martyred but much to the criticâ??s dismay the Church flourishes to this day.

The ultimate irony is such events have a very important precedent.

Christ himself was poor unschooled farm boy. He too claimed special authority, not of scholarly study, but from The Heavens Themselves. To the religious leaders of His time He couldnâ??t simply be ignored and so they planned and conspired against Him and his new religion.

And like Joseph Smith, the Saviors fate was sealed when he declared that His authority did not derive from the almost 1500 years of religious tradition but from The Heaven.

â??And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.â? Mark 14:62 see Daniel 7:13-14

By declaring that His authority came from Heaven he undermined the authority of all the religious professors of his day and therefore was guilty of the ultimate sin of blasphemy. A sin for which there was only resolution, death.

Did Joseph Smith and Jesus attack the religious leaders of their day? Yes, but they did not debate the finer points of doctrinal difference, they went straight to the heart of the matter, the authority. Once the foundation of authority is taken away the rest falls in short order.

Bro. Edmodnson

Good grief. This is the sort of reasoning that leads people to describe what the LDS church promotes as an "attack".

You're actually trying to equate Joseph Smith with Jesus? How does that sound to other "Christian" religions? Pretty blasphemous. And, I would add, an "attack" on what they hold dear.

BTW, how do you know that "Christ himself was poor unschooled farm boy"? I don't seem to recall anything from the Bible that indicates he was anything but a carpenter. Sounds to me like he probably made a good living.

His family was obviously wealthy enough to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem when He was a boy, where He taught in the synagogue.

[cksalmon]

Hi Ken--

QUOTE(jwhitlock)

I'm curious, CK. Why did you feel the need to paraphrase our beliefs in quotes (or is there a reference I'm missing?) in a way that is an obvious mischaracterization of how we would present them?

I second the call for an answer to this question.

See below.

QUOTE(CKSalmon)

I'm not really that much concerned with how something is presented; I'm much more concerned with the actual content of belief.

Right. And it is just that lack of concern that allows you to divorce the teachings from their all-important context.

I'm quite concerned with context. Throughout the thread, I've been trying to make the case that labeling the actions of Evaneglicals as an "attack" is irresponsible and many times quite acontextual. My silly summaries of the LDS Gospel are no sillier than the "anti-Evangelical" rhetoric I frequently read on this board from a few. Both should be avoided.

You don't want the label. But, I don't want it, either.

Also, you might see here, if you happen to have missed it the first time 'round.

Best.

CKS