Stendahl'S Rules And Apologetics

[Mudcat]

Hi all. I was thinking about Stendahl's Rules today. IIRC, I was introduced to them early in my participation here D.C. Peterson.

To give you a bit of background on Krister Stendhal, he was a Lutheran Bishop in Sweden and there was quite a bit of turmoil over the matter of LDS building a Temple in Stockholm. In 1985 he made a public address on the topic and submitted three general rules on understanding those of other religions.

The Stockholm Temple is a pretty place IMO.

As a side note, I find it interesting that the T.S. Monson officiated the ground breaking and G.B. Hinckley handled the dedication of it.

The rules are as follows.

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

2. Don't compare your best to their worst.

3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Rule 2 seems quite obvious to me and should to all.

Rule 1 leaves a particular belief system to be defined by its members rather than its adversaries. On the surface, it makes sense.. but taking an odd topic like cannibalism for example, it has it's problems. I mean should you even bother to ask a cannibal, why they think it's a good idea?

Rule 3. This bit about "Holy Envy". This leaves the connotation that all religions have something they are doing better than someone else and such a something should be recognized.

Rule 3, would be my primary difficulty. In that it seeks to elevate any religion on some level as superior in some particular category. The underlying premise, is that any given religion is doing something better than your own. I don't think that such a notion is actually true in all cases.

Rule 3, is flawed IMO. It assumes some level of equality in all religious walks and I don't think that is case.

[Calm]

I think they are dead on.

We had a thread a long while back on "holy envy" where we listed things we admired in other faiths. I for one love the ritual of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths as I find ritual to be a very effective way of turning the secular into the sacred, of bringing heaven to earth. Many evangelicals that I know have completely placed their lives into Christ's hands, having total faith in him to carry them in any circumstance. I find that ability remarkable.

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

I like these rules too. I don't understand the first rule to preclude respectful criticism from outside, but I certainly agree with the principle of getting one's understanding of a religion from its participants and especially from its primary sources. The second rule may be the one most violated. And of course the third rule is also excellent. We evangelicals should have no trouble admiring the LDS emphasis on family, for example.

Hi all. I was thinking about Stendahl's Rules today. IIRC, I was introduced to them early in my participation here D.C. Peterson.

To give you a bit of background on Krister Stendhal, he was a Lutheran Bishop in Sweden and there was quite a bit of turmoil over the matter of LDS building a Temple in Stockholm. In 1985 he made a public address on the topic and submitted three general rules on understanding those of other religions. The rules are as follows.

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

2. Don't compare your best to their worst.

3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

[Mudcat]

Crud....

Thanks Cal and Rob for responses.

I wasn't quite done with the thread... power went out during a lightning storm and somehow it got submitted.

Give me a minute and I'll fix it.

....Okay done.......

Cal and Rob, feel free to revise if need be.

[Calm]

I was wondering.

I will add some comments tomorrow, just had some disturbing news that I can do nothing about but gnash my teeth over and can't think all that clearly now tonight...or even sit down long enough, got to get up and PACE! Gotta love adrenaline.

[Brant Gardner]

Rule 3. This bit about "Holy Envy". This leaves the connotation that all religions have something they are doing better than someone else and such a something should be recognized.

Rule 3, would be my primary difficulty. In that it seeks to elevate any religion on some level as superior in some particular category. The underlying premise, is that any given religion is doing something better than your own. I don't think that such a notion is actually true in all cases.

I think you just read it a little too quickly. Slow down over the "leave room for. . . " part. I don't think that he is saying that all religions must have something better, but that we should not automatically assume that everything is worse.

Part of his rules seem to imply that as we examine someone else's religion that we will still prefer to maintain our own. That there are multiple religions is obvious. It is obvious that some people see something better and accept a different religion (and many of us don't agree with their decisions--unless they happen to choose our religion, of course). Still, if I want to know an understand Jainsim, I should allow that there is good there which I may view with Holy Envy rather than assume that it is so foreign that it must be nonsense and without merit.

[Pahoran]

Hi all. I was thinking about Stendahl's Rules today. IIRC, I was introduced to them early in my participation here D.C. Peterson.

To give you a bit of background on Krister Stendhal, he was a Lutheran Bishop in Sweden and there was quite a bit of turmoil over the matter of LDS building a Temple in Stockholm. In 1985 he made a public address on the topic and submitted three general rules on understanding those of other religions.

The Stockholm Temple is a pretty place IMO.

As a side note, I find it interesting that the T.S. Monson officiated the ground breaking and G.B. Hinckley handled the dedication of it.

The rules are as follows.

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

2. Don't compare your best to their worst.

3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Rule 2 seems quite obvious to me and should to all.

Rule 1 leaves a particular belief system to be defined by its members rather than its adversaries. On the surface, it makes sense.. but taking an odd topic like cannibalism for example, it has it's problems. I mean should you even bother to ask a cannibal, why they think it's a good idea?

It's a rather extreme example; but what are you, hypothetically, trying to do? Are you simply reporting that some people eat people? Or are you attempting to explain the belief system that undergirds the practice? If the latter, then how can you explain something if you don't understand it? And how can you understand it except as explained by an informed adherent?

Rule 3. This bit about "Holy Envy". This leaves the connotation that all religions have something they are doing better than someone else and such a something should be recognized.

Not quite. It simply leaves open the possibility that you might, in the course of your investigations, find out something about another faith that you find admirable.

Rule 3, would be my primary difficulty. In that it seeks to elevate any religion on some level as superior in some particular category. The underlying premise, is that any given religion is doing something better than your own. I don't think that such a notion is actually true in all cases.

No, but Stendahl thinks you should "leave room" for the possibility that it might be true in any given case, even if you don't expect it to be.

Remembering, after all, that everyone finds something admirable in their belief system, otherwise they would probably abandon it. That's why whenever I hear something like "I can't understand why those people follow that rubbish," I'm reasonably confident that there hasn't been any serious attempt to understand the belief system in question.

Including, or especially, when the expression of incredulity purports to be offered by a former believer.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mars]

I've always admired the way American Evangelicals put Jesus as a daily part of their life.

[Libs]

I like the rules, and I think they can be applied with very rare exception.

There are some religions (like Satanism, maybe?) where we may not be able to apply the "Holy envy" concept. But, in most cases, I think it would be fairly easy to find many good things about other religions.

[SilverKnight]

I like these rules too. I don't understand the first rule to preclude respectful criticism from outside, but I certainly agree with the principle of getting one's understanding of a religion from its participants and especially from its primary sources. The second rule may be the one most violated. And of course the third rule is also excellent.

We evangelicals should have no trouble admiring the LDS emphasis on family, for example.

Though I respect the sentiment - whenever I hear this in regard to the idea of Holy Envy, I am inclined to view it as a copout.

Recognizing in some nebulously noncommital way the commendable qualities of a religion and its adherents is not what Stendahl was talking about when he described "holy envy".

"Holy Envy" refers to swallowing your pride, stepping outside your religious paradigm, suspending the belief in your own faith's inherent 'one trueness', and identifying another religion's specific doctrines, beliefs and worship practices that are superior to your own.

That is what 'envy' means - that you covet something that another possesses, which you do not have.

So when it comes to mormonism, can you do that?

Which mormon doctrines are superior to Evangelical doctrines?

Which Book of Mormon scriptural treatises are more inspiring than their Bible counterparts?

What LDS beliefs about God, Jesus and Humanity are simply better than Mainline Christianity's?

If you (or anyone else) can't think of any, then perhaps your are less of a scholar and more of a polemicist.

If the biggest compliment you can muster about mormonism is they have an admirable "emphasis on the family", then call me unimpressed.

It goes both directions of course - LDS are just as guilty of copping out when we try to have Holy Envy towards the beliefs of others.

LDS should be able to identify several Christian doctrines that are strictly superior to our own - even if it flies in the face of being the 'Restored' Church.

I would be happy to rattle off the Evangelical/Christian beliefs and doctrines that I think are 'better' than my own mormon beliefs.

Anyone care to do the same, and see if they really constitute holy envy?

It's hard because it means removing your own cherished religious beliefs off their pedestal of hallowed superiority, and tacitly admitting another religion did a better job than yours.

[volgadon]

There are some religions (like Satanism, maybe?) where we may not be able to apply the "Holy envy" concept. But, in most cases, I think it would be fairly easy to find many good things about other religions.

Way back in the 16th century the Maharal of Prague pointed out that even idolatry is not 100% false. They recognise some of God's creative power in the universe, and wish to worship it. Where they go wrong is attaching themselves to only a single aspect or manifestation of God's power.

[Libs]

Though I respect the sentiment - whenever I hear this in regard to the idea of Holy Envy, I am inclined to view it as a copout.

Recognizing in some nebulously noncommital way the commendable qualities of a religion and its adherents is not what Stendahl was talking about when he described "holy envy".

"Holy Envy" refers to swallowing your pride, stepping outside your religious paradigm, suspending the belief in your own faith's inherent 'one trueness', and identifying another religion's specific doctrines, beliefs and worship practices that are superior to your own.

That is what 'envy' means - that you covet something that another possesses, which you do not have.

So when it comes to mormonism, can you do that?

Which mormon doctrines are superior to Evangelical doctrines?

Which Book of Mormon scriptural treatises are more inspiring than their Bible counterparts?

What LDS beliefs about God, Jesus and Humanity are simply better than Mainline Christianity's?

If you (or anyone else) can't think of any, then perhaps your are less of a scholar and more of a polemicist.

If the biggest compliment you can muster about mormonism is they have an admirable "emphasis on the family", then call me unimpressed.

It goes both directions of course - LDS are just as guilty of copping out when we try to have Holy Envy towards the beliefs of others.

LDS should be able to identify several Christian doctrines that are strictly superior to our own - even if it flies in the face of being the 'Restored' Church.

I would be happy to rattle off the Evangelical/Christian beliefs and doctrines that I think are 'better' than my own mormon beliefs.

Anyone care to do the same, and see if they really constitute holy envy?

It's hard because it means removing your own cherished religious beliefs off their pedestal of hallowed superiority, and tacitly admitting another religion did a better job than yours.

Well, I'm not sure if I count, because technically I am still LDS, but I have moved on. I attend a Protestant Church, now.

The things I liked about LDS doctrine are some of the same things that encouraged me to join the church, to begin with.

1. I love the idea of eternal progression. I hope, in some way, that is true, because I think eternity will get very boring, if it's not.

2. I think the Godhead is easier to understand than the Trinity.

3. Unlike some ex-LDS, I enjoyed the Temple. It's beautiful (and quiet) and I was always able to spend some time in meditative prayer, there.

4. I loved visiting teaching. That's a great program! I still have a visiting teacher.

5. Not exactly doctrinal, but I love the Mormon Tabernacle choir.

[Libs]

Way back in the 16th century the Maharal of Prague pointed out that even idolatry is not 100% false. They recognise some of God's creative power in the universe, and wish to worship it. Where they go wrong is attaching themselves to only a single aspect or manifestation of God's power.

Interesting and good point.

[Pahoran]

Though I respect the sentiment - whenever I hear this in regard to the idea of Holy Envy, I am inclined to view it as a copout.

Recognizing in some nebulously noncommital way the commendable qualities of a religion and its adherents is not what Stendahl was talking about when he described "holy envy".

"Holy Envy" refers to swallowing your pride, stepping outside your religious paradigm, suspending the belief in your own faith's inherent 'one trueness', and identifying another religion's specific doctrines, beliefs and worship practices that are superior to your own.

That is what 'envy' means - that you covet something that another possesses, which you do not have.

The specific example that Stendahl gave was Baptism for the Dead. In contrast to the terminal naysayers who frequently ridicule the temple and its ordinances, he felt that BtfD was a good and admirable thing, he could imagine himself doing it, and wished that his own faith tradition had something like it.

So when it comes to mormonism, can you do that?

Which mormon doctrines are superior to Evangelical doctrines?

Which Book of Mormon scriptural treatises are more inspiring than their Bible counterparts?

What LDS beliefs about God, Jesus and Humanity are simply better than Mainline Christianity's?

If you (or anyone else) can't think of any, then perhaps your are less of a scholar and more of a polemicist.

If the biggest compliment you can muster about mormonism is they have an admirable "emphasis on the family", then call me unimpressed.

Note that Stendahl didn't suggest that everyone should take such a view towards every other faith. Rather, he simply felt that a serious study of any other faith tradition should follow those rules.

Mind you, anyone who advertises himself as the "director of research" for an organisation that has "religious research" in its name probably ought to be engaged in just such a serious study, and therefore should be following Stendahl's rules.

It goes both directions of course - LDS are just as guilty of copping out when we try to have Holy Envy towards the beliefs of others.

LDS should be able to identify several Christian doctrines that are strictly superior to our own - even if it flies in the face of being the 'Restored' Church.

Why?

Given that "Mormonism" is Christian, and given that we have no creeds or systematic theology to circumscribe our belief, it follows that any Christian doctrine that is true is a doctrine we can claim.

And if it isn't true, why would we envy it?

But in any event, I don't think doctrines are necessarily the subject of "holy envy." Again, the specific example Stendahl gave was not of a doctrine, but of a practice.

And when it comes to practices, if I were undertaking a serious study of another faith tradition, I would be willing to consider whether any of their practices were enviable.

I would be happy to rattle off the Evangelical/Christian beliefs and doctrines that I think are 'better' than my own mormon beliefs.

Anyone care to do the same, and see if they really constitute holy envy?

It's hard because it means removing your own cherished religious beliefs off their pedestal of hallowed superiority, and tacitly admitting another religion did a better job than yours.

One area where EV Protestants have definitely outperformed us is in the way they have managed to use language to their advantage. Your own use of "Evangelical/Christian" as though the two things were mere synonyms -- and as though "Christian" can meaningfully be contrasted to "Mormon" -- is a case in point. Of course, "Christian" does not equal "Evangelical" any more than "Mormon" equals "non-Christian," but just getting people to think in those categories means the argument is three-quarters won.

It isn't true, of course; EV Protestantism is merely a modern North American innovation within a recent minority faction of Western Christianity; but I wish our PR could be that effective.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

SilverKnight,

If I sincerely thought that some particular Mormon doctrine was superior to the evangelical doctrine on that topic, well then, it would be my doctrine, too. I am not a partisan for evangelicalism, blindly defending a party line. I am evangelical by conviction, not by accident or for convenience.

For example, if I concluded that 1 Corinthians 15:29 taught that Christians should practice proxy baptism for the departed who never heard the gospel, I would advocate the practice, even though I am an evangelical and not a Mormon. I would!

Let me give you a real-life, not hypothetical, example. For years, I thought Jehovah's Witnesses were correct to condemn the use of political flags as idolatrous. I was perhaps the only evangelical on the planet who thought so. Yet I was highly critical of JW doctrine in general and of course never was a JW. I thought JWs happened to be right on this one issue (on the "broken clock" principle). Eventually I realized that I was mistaken in giving them credit on this issue, but I could easily have finished my days of mortal life thinking the JWs actually got this one right.

I have to say that I don't assess doctrines, scriptures, or beliefs as more or less "inspiring." For something to be "inspiring," at least in the usual modern parlance, is a subjective judgment having to do with the power of something to move us emotionally or perhaps spiritually. I'll confess right now that I find many passages in C. S. Lewis more "inspiring" in that sense than some passages in, say, 1 Chronicles. But 1 Chronicles is inspired and Lewis's writings (as he would have been quick to agree) are not. To be "inspired" means that God superintended the writing of a text to ensure that it conveyed his truth authoritatively and faithfully in ways that in some way went beyond (even if it used) the natural abilities and knowledge of the writers. The issue, then, when it comes to assessing doctrines or beliefs and scriptures is not whether I find them uplifting or "inspiring" but whether they are true. And if I thought, say, the Book of Abraham was true, I would accept it. Period. I wouldn't "envy" Mormons for having it: I would embrace it as my own, as scripture that I accept and live by.

One difference between Mormons and evangelicals is that LDS doctrine is essentially a package deal; one must either accept Joseph Smith, the LDS scriptures, and the LDS Church's doctrines and rituals in toto or one cannot be a member of the LDS Church in good standing. One can be an evangelical, on the other hand, and have a range of doctrinal viewpoints, within certain limits, that are viable within evangelicalism. Thus, one can be an Arminian or a Calvinist (or something else); one can accept a premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial eschatology; one can be Pentecostal, charismatic, or noncharismatic in one's views of spiritual gifts; etc. This makes it somewhat easier for me as an evangelical to be open to other religious groups having something true and valid that my particular denomination doesn't have. I don't see how a faithful Mormon could take the viewpoint that some evangelical doctrine contrary to LDS doctrine is actually right (but perhaps you could explain to me how that might work).

Though I respect the sentiment - whenever I hear this in regard to the idea of Holy Envy, I am inclined to view it as a copout.

Recognizing in some nebulously noncommital way the commendable qualities of a religion and its adherents is not what Stendahl was talking about when he described "holy envy".

"Holy Envy" refers to swallowing your pride, stepping outside your religious paradigm, suspending the belief in your own faith's inherent 'one trueness', and identifying another religion's specific doctrines, beliefs and worship practices that are superior to your own.

That is what 'envy' means - that you covet something that another possesses, which you do not have.

So when it comes to mormonism, can you do that?

Which mormon doctrines are superior to Evangelical doctrines?

Which Book of Mormon scriptural treatises are more inspiring than their Bible counterparts?

What LDS beliefs about God, Jesus and Humanity are simply better than Mainline Christianity's?

If you (or anyone else) can't think of any, then perhaps your are less of a scholar and more of a polemicist.

If the biggest compliment you can muster about mormonism is they have an admirable "emphasis on the family", then call me unimpressed.

It goes both directions of course - LDS are just as guilty of copping out when we try to have Holy Envy towards the beliefs of others.

LDS should be able to identify several Christian doctrines that are strictly superior to our own - even if it flies in the face of being the 'Restored' Church.

I would be happy to rattle off the Evangelical/Christian beliefs and doctrines that I think are 'better' than my own mormon beliefs.

Anyone care to do the same, and see if they really constitute holy envy?

It's hard because it means removing your own cherished religious beliefs off their pedestal of hallowed superiority, and tacitly admitting another religion did a better job than yours.

[Mudcat]

I think you just read it a little too quickly. Slow down over the "leave room for. . . " part. I don't think that he is saying that all religions must have something better, but that we should not automatically assume that everything is worse.

I dunno Brant. I am no expert on Stendhal's views, but if I take the rules proffered at face value. I get the point that we should look at other peoples faiths with an impetus to find the good and to also be "envious" towards areas they seem to excel in. In regards to Christianity in general I think his rules seem to apply to some degree... but it certainly has it's difficulties.

In example, LDS do a better job of tithing than Evangelical Christians. It is notable and something EV's should strive to do better at. But to say that Evangelicals should strive to follow the example that LDS set in tithing for the same reason LDS do would be disingenuous.

In a way it's dissecting a faith into sub-elements of the same faith, so that no individual has to denigrate the whole, even though they might disagree with the faith. I mean, if we are to maintain our own paradigms while finding "room for envy" in another, this seems to be the course of action.

IMO, The underlying issue is if it is true or not that any particular faith can be or should be subdivided into parts?

[TAO]

If I may, there is this excellent verse in Phillipians =).

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Phillipians 4:8 - Italics added for emphasis

And I also love how the Articles of Faith state it, reflected from that statement.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Article of Faith 13 - Italics added for emphasis

So yes... although I would call it the desire to do all good, that I would =D.

[Mudcat]

It's a rather extreme example; but what are you, hypothetically, trying to do? Are you simply reporting that some people eat people? Or are you attempting to explain the belief system that undergirds the practice? If the latter, then how can you explain something if you don't understand it? And how can you understand it except as explained by an informed adherent?

Sure it's an extreme example. To answer specifically your 5 questions in order.

1. I am not trying to do anything hypothetically. I am insinuating that a religion that eats people as part of it's paradigm doesn't seem like one that I should feel forced to understand in any respect.

2. No I am not. The fact that cannibalism has been practiced is likely evident to most.

3. Not at all.. I don't really think I should bother trying to.

4. Neither.

5. I don't feel there is an actual need for me to understand why someone relates their faiths justification to eating human flesh. Such conversation will in no way change my opinion on the matter.

Pahoran, my primary issue with Stendhal's rules is that they push us to separate the actions of a particular faith from the intentions that the same faith has towards such actions.

[Pahoran]

Sure it's an extreme example. To answer specifically your 5 questions in order.

1. I am not trying to do anything hypothetically. I am insinuating that a religion that eats people as part of it's paradigm doesn't seem like one that I should feel forced to understand in any respect.

2. No I am not. The fact that cannibalism has been practiced is likely evident to most.

3. Not at all.. I don't really think I should bother trying to.

4. Neither.

5. I don't feel there is an actual need for me to understand why someone relates their faiths justification to eating human flesh. Such conversation will in no way change my opinion on the matter.

In which case, what is the point of mentioning it? I'm not trying to be contentious, but merely to understand; what is the context in which you would bring up cannibalism? If you were providing a report on (say) mountain tribes in Papua New Guinea, would a simple statement like "Until recently, they practiced cannibalism" be sufficient? Or would you be trying to get a handle on the religious underpinnings of the practice?

AFAICT, nobody is trying to "force" you to understand anything anywhere. There are a great many religions in the world; I don't see Stendahl as urging us to "understand" them all. He seems to be confining his remarks to those religions that we do go to the effort of studying/describing/attacking/posing as experts upon. Since, by your own admission, you don't see any value in trying to understand a religious system that includes cannibalism, I take it you won't be writing books or giving lectures on such a religion, will you?

In which case, I don't see that Stendahl's rules apply to your (non) interaction with such religions at all.

Pahoran, my primary issue with Stendhal's rules is that they push us to separate the actions of a particular faith from the intentions that the same faith has towards such actions.

Not necessarily. It could be analogous to a person's face. Can you admire someone's eyes if their chin is weak? Can they have nice hair if their teeth are crooked? Is every part only as good as the whole, or must they all be as bad as the worst of all the parts?

I'm not trying to pick on you here, Mudcat; I just wonder if you're being a bit too defensive. As I mentioned, Stendahl admired Baptism for the Dead, and used it as an example of what he was talking about. (He also agreed that our interpretation of it was biblically sound; he was right.) But on another occasion, he was frankly critical of parts of 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon. His criticisms were such that he would, and apparently did, also apply to the Gospel of John, but that's just by the way. The point is that Stendahl seemed to say that, as someone viewing another faith that you don't actually agree with, there's no harm in asking the question: what are its good points? And can you honestly admit that it has them?

I've actually got high hopes for you, Mudcat.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mudcat]

In which case, I don't see that Stendahl's rules apply to your (non) interaction with such religions at all.

You've got a good point. Stendahl's rules actually are only applicable with the caveat of "When you are trying to understand". I suppose in that respect, I was being a bit irrational. I'll drop my primary contention with rule one.

I'll still maintain on my difficulties with 3 and this notion of "Holy envy".

Not necessarily. It could be analogous to a person's face. Can you admire someone's eyes if their chin is weak? Can they have nice hair if their teeth are crooked?

I think we might do better with a less personal analogy like a car or machine or something. But assuming the example of a person's face. But I agree that judgements like nice eyes, nice hair, bad teeth, weak chin and so forth are certainly statements that apply, but such application would apply to the person as a whole. They have nice this or that... Or they have bad this or that.

Such judgements impact the whole but are judgements upon particular and separable features from the whole.

It's a rather gory illustration, but we could remove all these features... hair, eyes, chin and teeth from a persons face and this person would still have a face. I don't know that we can do this with religions though, which is the issue I am driving at.

Is every part only as good as the whole, or must they all be as bad as the worst of all the parts?

That question was nicely stated. But the issue as I see it is, can we in fairness divide a faith into parts.

If you remove belief in BftD from an LDS, are they still LDS? Is a person still a Southern Baptist without a belief in the Trinity?

I think religious beliefs are different that way. They are more like integral parts of a machine in that respect. The sum of its parts achieves a particular function or functions. If all parts are of necessity to the function of a religion, then I don't think we can place judgement on it's parts.

I am pressed for time this a.m., so will have to cut my post short.

I'm not trying to pick on you here, Mudcat; I just wonder if you're being a bit too defensive.

No worries. It's possible I am being too defensive. I don't think so, though.

Just taking Stendahl's rules out for road test to see how well they hold up.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[SilverKnight]

The specific example that Stendahl gave was Baptism for the Dead. In contrast to the terminal naysayers who frequently ridicule the temple and its ordinances, he felt that BtfD was a good and admirable thing, he could imagine himself doing it, and wished that his own faith tradition had something like it.

Baptism for the Dead is unquestionable one of mormonism's leading candidates for 'holy envy', yet (mostly EV) critics rail upon it as heretical perversion of Christian practice.

Take an irreligious person, not brimming with their own religious biases, and they will likely tell you BftD is a marvelous religious adaptation that fixes a plethora of Christian problems.

Note that Stendahl didn't suggest that everyone should take such a view towards every other faith. Rather, he simply felt that a serious study of any other faith tradition should follow those rules.

I may be misunderstanding Stendal's intent. Perhaps it is merely the capacity to appreciate the good in other faiths, but calling it 'envy' to me seems something more.

Mind you, anyone who advertises himself as the "director of research" for an organisation that has "religious research" in its name probably ought to be engaged in just such a serious study, and therefore should be following Stendahl's rules.

I think Rob's refusal to admit any particle of mormonism might be better to Evangelicalism is disappointing - but I understand why he can't/won't.

If he did, he might be out of a job.

Why?

Given that "Mormonism" is Christian, and given that we have no creeds or systematic theology to circumscribe our belief, it follows that any Christian doctrine that is true is a doctrine we can claim.

I agree, but I am asking us to something we are all loathe to do: find something substantial/doctrinal in another faith, that is superior to our own.

There are a handful of doctrines in the Evangelicalism, Buddhism and even Unitarianism, that I can say are better than related mormon doctrines.

And to do this is a bit paradoxical, given that I have a testimony of the truthfulness of mormonism.

And if it isn't true, why would we envy it?

This is the reason why Holy Envy (or at least my understainding of it) is impossible.

It's nice to stand from afar and appreciate a few positive aspects of another faith. But in practice you, me and Rob Bowman all feel we are following the true path of God. We each feel our doctrine is the closest to God's will, and anything that deviates from it is false/wrong/unworth of emulation or 'envy'. As Rob said, it is flatly impossible him to consider one iota of mormon doctrine as superior to his own.

But in any event, I don't think doctrines are necessarily the subject of "holy envy." Again, the specific example Stendahl gave was not of a doctrine, but of a practice.

I agree. I wish Stendahl would have went a step further and explored the doctrine behind BftD, and admitted that it was superior to his own Christian beliefs on the fate of the dead.

One area where EV Protestants have definitely outperformed us is in the way they have managed to use language to their advantage.

This is merely cynicism and a backhanded swipe at EV protestantism - not holy envy.

[SilverKnight]

SilverKnight,

If I sincerely thought that some particular Mormon doctrine was superior to the evangelical doctrine on that topic, well then, it would be my doctrine, too. I am not a partisan for evangelicalism, blindly defending a party line. I am evangelical by conviction, not by accident or for convenience.

I understand completely - but you have also slammed the door for having Holy Envy in any real capacity.

I am asking you to lay aside your convictions for a brief moment, pretend you are an unbiased irreligious seeker of truth, and compare the doctrines Evangelicalism and Mormonism side by side - and determine which mormon doctrines are superior.

For example, if I concluded that 1 Corinthians 15:29 taught that Christians should practice proxy baptism for the departed who never heard the gospel, I would advocate the practice, even though I am an evangelical and not a Mormon. I would!

If you strip away your religious biases and loyalty to your own faith - I think you would agree that BftD is unquestionably an improvement upon the doctrines described in 1 Cor 15:29.

Let me give you a real-life, not hypothetical, example. For years, I thought Jehovah's Witnesses were correct to condemn the use of political flags as idolatrous. I was perhaps the only evangelical on the planet who thought so. Yet I was highly critical of JW doctrine in general and of course never was a JW. I thought JWs happened to be right on this one issue (on the "broken clock" principle). Eventually I realized that I was mistaken in giving them credit on this issue, but I could easily have finished my days of mortal life thinking the JWs actually got this one right.

Indeed, I think the loyalty to Christian belief will always win the day - Just as my loyalty to mormonism will.

But it is possible to have Holy Envy for a brief moment.

I have to say that I don't assess doctrines, scriptures, or beliefs as more or less "inspiring."

This is the problem. Competing doctrines can't break through your wall of 'conviction' - it's impeneatrable.

The removal of even one brick might cause it to collapse.

The first step in having 'Holy Envy' is to say to allow for the possibility that you might be wrong...

For something to be "inspiring," at least in the usual modern parlance, is a subjective judgment having to do with the power of something to move us emotionally or perhaps spiritually. I'll confess right now that I find many passages in C. S. Lewis more "inspiring" in that sense than some passages in, say, 1 Chronicles. But 1 Chronicles is inspired and Lewis's writings (as he would have been quick to agree) are not.

I believe CS Lewis writings to be more inspired than much of the bible.

This is why, contrary to your assertation about mormons below, I think it harder for Christians to have holy envy than even mormons - due to the primacy and innerancy of the bible. This supreme place the bible enjoys in Christian thought effectively ends all discussion that might lead to holy envy. Other faith traditions, especially Eastern ones, are much better at assimilating alternate truths and doctrines into their own. Abrahamic religions are far less organic.

To be "inspired" means that God superintended the writing of a text to ensure that it conveyed his truth authoritatively and faithfully in ways that in some way went beyond (even if it used) the natural abilities and knowledge of the writers. The issue, then, when it comes to assessing doctrines or beliefs and scriptures is not whether I find them uplifting or "inspiring" but whether they are true.

But ultimately you and I have no idea what is inspired and what is not.

It comes down to faith, making educated guesses about what came from God and what didn't.

And if I thought, say, the Book of Abraham was true, I would accept it. Period. I wouldn't "envy" Mormons for having it: I would embrace it as my own, as scripture that I accept and live by.

Holy Envy (as I am understanding it) requests that you jettison this sort of black and white fundamentalism.

One difference between Mormons and evangelicals is that LDS doctrine is essentially a package deal; one must either accept Joseph Smith, the LDS scriptures, and the LDS Church's doctrines and rituals in toto or one cannot be a member of the LDS Church in good standing.

Agree - it is very difficult for LDS to have true Holy Envy because the entirety of our belief hinges upon the truth of the restoration.

One can be an evangelical, on the other hand, and have a range of doctrinal viewpoints, within certain limits, that are viable within evangelicalism. Thus, one can be an Arminian or a Calvinist (or something else); one can accept a premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial eschatology; one can be Pentecostal, charismatic, or noncharismatic in one's views of spiritual gifts; etc.

So long as you never stray outside the umbrella of Biblical Christianity.

Holy Envy asks you to do that, there are a great many non-christian faiths - they must be considered.

Frankly, there are a few areas where Eastern Faiths make us Christians look pretty bad.

This makes it somewhat easier for me as an evangelical to be open to other religious groups having something true and valid that my particular denomination doesn't have.

Your abject refusal to do it for a non-Christian faith (which includes mormonism from certain perspectives), makes me think this not so.

I don't see how a faithful Mormon could take the viewpoint that some evangelical doctrine contrary to LDS doctrine is actually right (but perhaps you could explain to me how that might work).

"Right" is not exactly the goal.

"Better" is closer to the objective.

At the risk of illiciting scorn from my fellow LDS, here are some Evangelical beliefs that I feel are superior to my own LDS beliefs:

- EV understanding of grace is better than the LDS insistence on obedience

- EV direct communion with God is better than the LDS inserting a priesthood leader as the intermediary

- EV obtaining forgiveness directly is better than LDS requiring the intervention of a priesthood leader

- EV belief that Christ instantly and immediately forgives the sinner is better than the punishments and disciplines LDS levy upon sinners

- EV welcoming inclusiveness with worship is better than the exclusionary practices of LDS - especially with regard to temples.

I'll duck and cover now!

[consiglieri]

I envy the way modern evangelical Christians are so enthusiastic in their worship.

I think we should emulate that in the LDS Church.

(See? It isn't so hard.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Libs]

The music in most Ev churches, on any given Sunday, is far superior, and so is the enthusiasm (with hands raised and genuine praising going on), as Consig mentioned.

[Pahoran]

Libs, a Protestant, wrote:

The music in most Ev churches, on any given Sunday, is far superior, and so is the enthusiasm (with hands raised and genuine praising going on), as Consig mentioned.

I'm unclear as to why quiet and reverent worship isn't "genuine praising," or why "genuine praising" has to be loud and ostentatious, and accompanied by gestures that look disconcertingly like a certain political salute.

Also I'm not the least bit envious of church music that involves guitar bands trying too hard to be like, hip, man.

But I will agree that professional musicians may do a better job than unpaid volunteers. But all things considered, I prefer the volunteers.

Regards,

Pahoran