What Are The Greatest Challenges In Communication For Lds To Non-Lds And Vice Versa.

[blueadept]

Fixed.

We're back to that 'one-trueness' hangup that LDS seem to be notorious for...

It's a matter of perspective though...

[Mars]

blueadept, of *course* some Mormons are going to have that attitude.

I just want it mentioned in the same breath that that attitude is hardly endemic to Mormons. You don't need to be Mormon to be judgmental.

Edit to add:

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that pointing this out is somehow related to the one-true belief of Mormons? If so, I don't see the connection. It's just a people thing. The bell curve for judgmental twits fits all walks of life. If your sample space is strictly atheists, and your bell curve represents how judgmental a person is, your regular atheist who's not anymore judgmental than anyone else in life will populate the bulk of the middle of the bell curve. The super judgmental will be on the one side and the extra careful not to judge will be on the opposite side. Now switch sample spaces to people with blue eyes, men named Eugene, Mormons, or the French. You'll get the same results.

I know I can get judgmental, so I took a sarcastic cheapshot at myself. I really don't want to extend it to indemnify a whole group - any group, really, but certainly not my own.

[blueadept]

I just want it mentioned in the same breath that that attitude is hardly endemic to Mormons. You don't need to be Mormon to be judgmental.

agreed...

Edit to add:

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that pointing this out is somehow related to the one-true belief of Mormons? If so, I don't see the connection. It's just a people thing. The bell curve for judgmental twits fits all walks of life. If your sample space is strictly atheists, and your bell curve represents how judgmental a person is, your regular atheist who's not anymore judgmental than anyone else in life will populate the bulk of the middle of the bell curve. The super judgmental will be on the one side and the extra careful not to judge will be on the opposite side. Now switch sample spaces to people with blue eyes, men named Eugene, Mormons, or the French. You'll get the same results.

I know I can get judgmental, so I took a sarcastic cheapshot at myself. I really don't want to extend it to indemnify a whole group - any group, really, but certainly not my own.

From my experience, many LDS testimonies incorporate 'one true church or the church is true' somewhere in their testimony. Thus, I believe LDS are notorious for it. I tend not to hear such statements from non-LDS folks testimonies and not necessarily notorious for the statement. That's just my experience. Of course, I've heard MANY more LDS testimonies than I've heard from other faiths but that's more of a culture thing IMHO.

[Deborah]

I tend not to hear such statements from non-LDS folks testimonies and not necessarily notorious for the statement.

That's because they don't believe in one true church. They believe in Jesus Christ and they believe they can go to any church that teaches about him or none at all. They believe the LDS church is wrong but anywhere else is ok. And yes I know this for a fact after attending the Methodist Church singles group for 10 years and meeting people of all denominations.

[blueadept]

That's because they don't believe in one true church. They believe in Jesus Christ and they believe they can go to any church that teaches about him or none at all. They believe the LDS church is wrong but anywhere else is ok. And yes I know this for a fact after attending the Methodist Church singles group for 10 years and meeting people of all denominations.

I guess I've encountered enough EV's who've argued that they have similar beliefs to believing they belong to Christ's church as well, otherwise they would go look for it. That's just what I've experienced

[Deborah]

I guess I've encountered enough EV's who've argued that they have similar beliefs to believing they belong to Christ's church as well, otherwise they would go look for it. That's just what I've experienced

Yes but you have to understand when they say that they aren't talking about a specific church they belong to; they are referring to Christ's church in the sense that they worship him. They don't believe there is one true church in the sense LDS use the term and they go to different churches throughout their lives, sometimes not even the same denomination. A lot of the choice in which body to attend depends on the pastor and the programs available.

I've been to the Nazarene, Methodist, Congregational and basically whatever church was close by when I was young. But I considered I was a member of Christ's church.

[Mudcat]

But I hold out hope that God treats 'One Trueness' as more malleable concept than we do, and he sends spiritual manifestations more to confirm of the "goodness" of things than the "trueness" of them.

This view has it's own problems, but I tend to head in this direction myself.

I would not expect such introspection from 19-year old mormon missionaries however. They spend 12 hours a day declaring what they believe to be God's supreme truth to a world lost in the wilderness of apostasy.

I dunno.. your probably right. I am suspending disbelief on the issue though. But, If we get past the notion that I believe X is true and they believe Y is true and X doesn't equal Y. To a discussion about what all that could possibly mean, I will be pleasantly surprised.

[CV75]

I dunno.. your probably right. I am suspending disbelief on the issue though. But, If we get past the notion that I believe X is true and they believe Y is true and X doesn't equal Y. To a discussion about what all that could possibly mean, I will be pleasantly surprised.

RE: the meaning of X not equaling Y is only important when the "worlds collide," or when it bothers someone to the point of taking him away from the peace of God that he once enjoyed before coming across the unequal X or Y:

The source of the witness is often revealed in how the individuals treat or respond to each other on the point of witness. For example, people of many faiths have a spiritual witness of God’s love, are converted on that point and so will not be inclined to contend about it (or on other points).

Where witnesses differ in good faith, each one has to be honest about the witnesses he received, or how true he is to the witness he received, especially regarding more particular details such as “this is the one true church.” The source of the witness is borne out in how he treats or responds to the other witness. If contention arises, it would typically commence with the person whose witness is false or with the person who is false to the true witness.

When a man gets the spirit of contention on a point of doctrine, he has to ask himself (among other things) whether his witness on the matter is really of God. If he honestly concludes that it is, he must repent of his contentiousness. And if he concludes his witness was not true after all, or questions the source of his witness, he must do what it takes to get a true witness.

[Vance]

They don't believe there is one true church in the sense LDS use the term and they go to different churches throughout their lives, sometimes not even the same denomination.

I work with a Baptist (well, I don't know if that is what he claims, but) who bypasses a Baptist church in his neighborhood, to drive across town to attend another Baptist church. Apparently, he prefers the one that uses the KJV over the other one.

Not sure what is all means.

[coolrok7]

Mud, in the missionaries’ earlier teaching in what was known as the “discussions”, (which you’re probably familiar with) they pretty much had a lesson outline they were to teach from. Under the newer, “Preach My Gospel”, they are at liberty to teach “by the Spirit” the manual which gives them more latitude in what subject matter to teach at a given setting.

From a point I had made back in ZLMB concerning this:

There was an article on the missionary program of the LDS Church in Sunstone magazine (September 2005). It is entitled: “THE NEW MISSIONARY DISCUSSIONS AND THE FUTURE OF CORRELATION” by Jon-Charles Duffy:

President Boyd K. Packer told mission presidents that Preach My Gospel is “a major change in direction” for LDS missionary teaching, a change that had already been signaled, in part by a First Presidency letter of December 2002 instructing missionaries to stop memorizing their presentations. The Church News trumpeted that Preach My Gospel is “perhaps the most dynamic revamping of missionary labors since the missionary discussions were introduced in the 1930s.” . . .Church leaders have touted the new manual as equipping missionaries to more effectively teach by the Spirit—that is, by freeing them to rely more on inspiration as opposed to following a standardized program. . . .

In its most familiar sense, “correlation” refers to the process of centralizing, standardizing, and simplifying Church organizations and publications that has been underway since the 1960s, first through the Correlation Committee, created under the leadership of Harold B. Lee in 1961, and more recently through the Correlation Department, which as of 1987, must approve all church publications and programs. . . .Correlation is about much more. . . .Correlation encompasses a philosophy—one might even say, a theology—. . .As I use the term, “correlation” refers to this philosophy. . .Church headquarters moves to define “the gospel” and to manage diversity within the Church.”

He sets out in FIGURE 1 on p.29 the following:

The Standard Missionary Discussions.

Since the mid-20th century, the Church has produced five sets of standardized missionary discussions. Each set superceded the one before.

1952 A Systematic Program for Teaching the Gospel

1961 A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators

1973 The Uniform System for Teaching Families

1986 The Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel

2004 Preach My Gospel

The first set of missionary lessons to come from Church headquarters, A Systematic Program for Teaching the Gospel, was created in 1952 under the direction of Gordon B. Hinckley. Though published by the Church, A Systematic Program was designated for optional use. . . .

In 1961, the same year as the creation of the Correlation Committee,, Hinckley, then an assistant to the twelve, unveiled A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators at the first worldwide seminar for mission presidents. These were the first missionary discussions intended for mandatory churchwide use. They were also the first to be called “discussions” rather than “lessons”. Six in number, the 1961 discussions were written as a series of dialogues with the investigator, now named Mr. Brown, who was led via question-and-answer into agreement with a series of numbered conclusions. Flannel board images provided a visual supplement to the spoken presentation.

The 1961 discussions were superseded in 1973 by The Uniform System for Teaching Families. . .”

These were the lessons in force (1973) when I first encountered missionaries for the first time (1979). After meeting my LDS friend in 1984, the 1986 lessons came into play. This was the time period when I became really familiar with Mormon proselytizing.

It became apparent to me over time that there was a certain reticence to discuss certain issues such as the “Adam God” doctrine of Brigham Young and other such teaching no longer adhered to by some or denied as being taught.

The whole idea of so-called “Mormon” authority (they are the only ones with that authority) comes from Joseph Smith through Brigham Young and their successors.

He taught the Adam-God doctrine (not theory as stated by President Kimball when he was still alive) as admitted to by Bruce R. McConkie in an in-house letter of reprimand as an LDS apostle (appealed to in the letter) to a Eugene England concerning things he was teaching at firesides which Elder Mcconkie objected to.

This in part has been my/others dilemma in discussing things with those here in ZLMB. The fact that things taught has changed over the years in which it is hard at times to determine which is/isn’t official church teaching. A lot of the discussions here have reflected that difficulty as well.

The challenge I have is to get the other side to really listen (properly hear) to what I actually believe (without twisting it up) as a lot here are always putting words in my mouth so to speak, things I don’t believe where others might.

We each will have to give an account for what we as individual’s actually believed. I try to refrain from the typicaly rather mean at times and sarcastic responses from some here. One can disagree without being mean and nasty about it.

I went and eventually took the instruction that I was invited to (starting in 1979 talking to the director at the Institute of Religion across from Golden West Jr. college in Huntington Beach, Ca. and in turn missionaries he sent to my home). Which led later to my taking the Gospel Principles class, the many missionary discussions, Conferences, Sunday School, Priesthood/Fast and Testimony meetings, all the books either given or recommended, etc..

I’ve learned a lot (made some corrections to my understanding as necessary) from my many years of dialogue and listening to what is being taught which is why I can’t buy into what the Mormonism of Joseph Smith is all about. Which I don’t believe is really Biblical (although I can agree with a lot of what is being taught by Mormons and others but I would disagree strongly with on essential doctrinal teaching not of my making).

Like Rob Bowman being invited here, I was invited both here and at ZLMB by Mormons.

They (the Mormon Church and its members) also do not adequately represent what it is I (and others) actually believe based on biblical teaching in context/totality.

I would like to include here as a footnote from a book entitled “The Spirituality of the Cross, The Way of the first Evangelicals” by Gene Edward Veith Jr.. A brief explanation of the term Evangelical and some historical context for better understanding of how I use the term or what this person describes as “Lutheran spirituality”:

THE ORIGINAL EVANGELICALS

A better term for “Lutheran spirituality is “evangelical” spirituality. The term “evangelical” is simply a term derived from the Greek word for “Gospel,” which in turn literally means “good news.” “Evangelical” means someone who focuses on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news that Christ, through His death and resurrection, has won forgiveness for sinful human beings and offers salvation as a free gift.

Today the term “evangelical” is used to refer to a wide variety of more-or-less conservative Protestants. For all the differences, Baptists, charismatics, Calvinists, Wesleyans, and the various non-denominational “para-church ministries” do stress salvation through Christ and emphasize “evangelism,” so the term is apt. But originally, the word “evangelical” meant “Lutheran”.

In the years following the Reformation, “Evangelicals” were those who followed Luther, as opposed to “reformed” who followed Calvin. (A later attempt to bring the two factions together resulted in the “Evangelical and Reformed Church,” today an American denomination.) Even today in Europe, churches that follow a Lutheran theology call themselves not “Lutheran”—a term Luther himself hated, not wanting Christ’s Church to be named after him—but “Evangelical.” The American usage of the term for any Bible-believing, salvation-preaching Christian is starting to catch on in Europe also, but American tourists at times get confused when they go into a German or Scandinavian church with “evangelische” on the sign, expecting revival songs and alter calls, only to find chorales and liturgy.

Though others are entitled to call themselves “evangelicals,” Lutherans are at least the first evangelicals. Keeping in mind the fact that Christians have always focused on the Gospel, from the New Testament days through the early Church and even through the Middle ages—a time when, Protestants contend, the emphasis on the Gospel and its implications became somewhat confused—Lutherans were the first to be called evangelical. They were also the first to emphasize the Gospel to such an extant that it became central to every level of their doctrine and practice. This evangelical focus, made over against medieval Catholicism, opened the door to every other Protestant expression that came later. But evangelical Lutheranism remains distinct.

As something of a spiritual wanderer—drifting from religion, church to church, from the very liberal to the very conservative—I myself finally discovered the Gospel and its implications. I found that I had become Lutheran. This book is partly a record of that pilgrimage, but only partly. It is mainly an account of what I—as a modern or perhaps post-modern American—have found to be of inestimable help and value in the Lutheran spiritual tradition.

This tradition has been somewhat obscured and is little known in the United States—sometimes, I regret to say, even among American Lutherans—but deserves consideration. Among other reasons, the teachings of the first evangelicals prove to be particularly relevant to problems now vexing American Christianity, and they speak in a powerful way to the needs and cravings of today’s generations. (pp.12-13)

[coolrok7]

Mud, in the missionaries’ earlier teaching in what was known as the “discussions”, (which you’re probably familiar with) they pretty much had a lesson outline they were to teach from. Under the newer, “Preach My Gospel”, they are at liberty to teach “by the Spirit” the manual which gives them more latitude in what subject matter to teach at a given setting.

From a point I had made back in ZLMB concerning this:

There was an article on the missionary program of the LDS Church in Sunstone magazine (September 2005). It is entitled: “THE NEW MISSIONARY DISCUSSIONS AND THE FUTURE OF CORRELATION” by Jon-Charles Duffy:

President Boyd K. Packer told mission presidents that Preach My Gospel is “a major change in direction” for LDS missionary teaching, a change that had already been signaled, in part by a First Presidency letter of December 2002 instructing missionaries to stop memorizing their presentations. The Church News trumpeted that Preach My Gospel is “perhaps the most dynamic revamping of missionary labors since the missionary discussions were introduced in the 1930s.” . . .Church leaders have touted the new manual as equipping missionaries to more effectively teach by the Spirit—that is, by freeing them to rely more on inspiration as opposed to following a standardized program. . . .

In its most familiar sense, “correlation” refers to the process of centralizing, standardizing, and simplifying Church organizations and publications that has been underway since the 1960s, first through the Correlation Committee, created under the leadership of Harold B. Lee in 1961, and more recently through the Correlation Department, which as of 1987, must approve all church publications and programs. . . .Correlation is about much more. . . .Correlation encompasses a philosophy—one might even say, a theology—. . .As I use the term, “correlation” refers to this philosophy. . .Church headquarters moves to define “the gospel” and to manage diversity within the Church.”

He sets out in FIGURE 1 on p.29 the following:

The Standard Missionary Discussions.

Since the mid-20th century, the Church has produced five sets of standardized missionary discussions. Each set superceded the one before.

1952 A Systematic Program for Teaching the Gospel

1961 A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators

1973 The Uniform System for Teaching Families

1986 The Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel

2004 Preach My Gospel

The first set of missionary lessons to come from Church headquarters, A Systematic Program for Teaching the Gospel, was created in 1952 under the direction of Gordon B. Hinckley. Though published by the Church, A Systematic Program was designated for optional use. . . .

In 1961, the same year as the creation of the Correlation Committee,, Hinckley, then an assistant to the twelve, unveiled A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators at the first worldwide seminar for mission presidents. These were the first missionary discussions intended for mandatory churchwide use. They were also the first to be called “discussions” rather than “lessons”. Six in number, the 1961 discussions were written as a series of dialogues with the investigator, now named Mr. Brown, who was led via question-and-answer into agreement with a series of numbered conclusions. Flannel board images provided a visual supplement to the spoken presentation.

The 1961 discussions were superseded in 1973 by The Uniform System for Teaching Families. . .”

These were the lessons in force (1973) when I first encountered missionaries for the first time (1979). After meeting my LDS friend in 1984, the 1986 lessons came into play. This was the time period when I became really familiar with Mormon proselytizing.

It became apparent to me over time that there was a certain reticence to discuss certain issues such as the “Adam God” doctrine of Brigham Young and other such teaching no longer adhered to by some or denied as being taught.

The whole idea of so-called “Mormon” authority (they are the only ones with that authority) comes from Joseph Smith through Brigham Young and their successors.

He taught the Adam-God doctrine (not theory as stated by President Kimball when he was still alive) as admitted to by Bruce R. McConkie in an in-house letter of reprimand as an LDS apostle (appealed to in the letter) to a Eugene England concerning things he was teaching at firesides which Elder Mcconkie objected to.

This in part has been my/others dilemma in discussing things with those here in ZLMB. The fact that things taught has changed over the years in which it is hard at times to determine which is/isn’t official church teaching. A lot of the discussions here have reflected that difficulty as well.

The challenge I have is to get the other side to really listen (properly hear) to what I actually believe (without twisting it up) as a lot here are always putting words in my mouth so to speak, things I don’t believe where others might.

We each will have to give an account for what we as individual’s actually believed. I try to refrain from the typicaly rather mean at times and sarcastic responses from some here. One can disagree without being mean and nasty about it.

I went and eventually took the instruction that I was invited to (starting in 1979 talking to the director at the Institute of Religion across from Golden West Jr. college in Huntington Beach, Ca. and in turn missionaries he sent to my home). Which led later to my taking the Gospel Principles class, the many missionary discussions, Conferences, Sunday School, Priesthood/Fast and Testimony meetings, all the books either given or recommended, etc..

I’ve learned a lot (made some corrections to my understanding as necessary) from my many years of dialogue and listening to what is being taught which is why I can’t buy into what the Mormonism of Joseph Smith is all about. Which I don’t believe is really Biblical (although I can agree with a lot of what is being taught by Mormons and others but I would disagree strongly with on essential doctrinal teaching not of my making).

Like Rob Bowman being invited here, I was invited both here and at ZLMB by Mormons.

They (the Mormon Church and its members) also do not adequately represent what it is I (and others) actually believe based on biblical teaching in context/totality.

I would like to include here as a footnote from a book entitled “The Spirituality of the Cross, The Way of the first Evangelicals” by Gene Edward Veith Jr.. A brief explanation of the term Evangelical and some historical context for better understanding of how I use the term or what this person describes as “Lutheran spirituality”:

THE ORIGINAL EVANGELICALS

A better term for “Lutheran spirituality is “evangelical” spirituality. The term “evangelical” is simply a term derived from the Greek word for “Gospel,” which in turn literally means “good news.” “Evangelical” means someone who focuses on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news that Christ, through His death and resurrection, has won forgiveness for sinful human beings and offers salvation as a free gift.

Today the term “evangelical” is used to refer to a wide variety of more-or-less conservative Protestants. For all the differences, Baptists, charismatics, Calvinists, Wesleyans, and the various non-denominational “para-church ministries” do stress salvation through Christ and emphasize “evangelism,” so the term is apt. But originally, the word “evangelical” meant “Lutheran”.

In the years following the Reformation, “Evangelicals” were those who followed Luther, as opposed to “reformed” who followed Calvin. (A later attempt to bring the two factions together resulted in the “Evangelical and Reformed Church,” today an American denomination.) Even today in Europe, churches that follow a Lutheran theology call themselves not “Lutheran”—a term Luther himself hated, not wanting Christ’s Church to be named after him—but “Evangelical.” The American usage of the term for any Bible-believing, salvation-preaching Christian is starting to catch on in Europe also, but American tourists at times get confused when they go into a German or Scandinavian church with “evangelische” on the sign, expecting revival songs and alter calls, only to find chorales and liturgy.

Though others are entitled to call themselves “evangelicals,” Lutherans are at least the first evangelicals. Keeping in mind the fact that Christians have always focused on the Gospel, from the New Testament days through the early Church and even through the Middle ages—a time when, Protestants contend, the emphasis on the Gospel and its implications became somewhat confused—Lutherans were the first to be called evangelical. They were also the first to emphasize the Gospel to such an extant that it became central to every level of their doctrine and practice. This evangelical focus, made over against medieval Catholicism, opened the door to every other Protestant expression that came later. But evangelical Lutheranism remains distinct.

As something of a spiritual wanderer—drifting from religion, church to church, from the very liberal to the very conservative—I myself finally discovered the Gospel and its implications. I found that I had become Lutheran. This book is partly a record of that pilgrimage, but only partly. It is mainly an account of what I—as a modern or perhaps post-modern American—have found to be of inestimable help and value in the Lutheran spiritual tradition.

This tradition has been somewhat obscured and is little known in the United States—sometimes, I regret to say, even among American Lutherans—but deserves consideration. Among other reasons, the teachings of the first evangelicals prove to be particularly relevant to problems now vexing American Christianity, and they speak in a powerful way to the needs and cravings of today’s generations. (pp.12-13)

[coolrok7]

double post

[coolrok7]

sorry, triple post

[Mudcat]

The challenge I have is to get the other side to really listen (properly hear) to what I actually believe (without twisting it up) as a lot here are always putting words in my mouth so to speak, things I don’t believe where others might.

I understand what you are saying here. Conversations about the LDS Godhead and the Trinity come to mind.

I don't know that "twisting it up" is the way I would put it. Typically, there is a general misunderstanding about the Trinity on the part of LDS, for example. I don't think forum posters here would apply to that generalization for the most part.

But many of the LDS in RL I have encountered seem to think it's something like an odd form of Modalism as they express it to me and I have to spend some time straightening out misconceptions. Which is fine, as long the other party is open to a better understanding of what my beliefs actually are.

Though this misunderstanding may be have it's roots on the LDS side of the isle... sadly, they could be getting this information from other Evangelicals. Of all the doctrines Christianity generally agrees upon, the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be the average EV has a difficulty articulating.

[coolrok7]

coolrok7, on 03 May 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:

The challenge I have is to get the other side to really listen (properly hear) to what I actually believe (without twisting it up) as a lot here are always putting words in my mouth so to speak, things I don’t believe where others might.”

I understand what you are saying here. Conversations about the LDS Godhead and the Trinity come to mind.

I don't know that "twisting it up" is the way I would put it. Typically, there is a general misunderstanding about the Trinity on the part of LDS, for example. I don't think forum posters here would apply to that generalization for the most part.

But many of the LDS in RL I have encountered seem to think it's something like an odd form of Modalism as they express it to me and I have to spend some time straightening out misconceptions. Which is fine, as long the other party is open to a better understanding of what my beliefs actually are.

Though this misunderstanding may be have it's roots on the LDS side of the isle... sadly, they could be getting this information from other Evangelicals. Of all the doctrines Christianity generally agrees upon, the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be the average EV has a difficulty articulating.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:36-37)

I understand that when it comes to Protestant/Evangelicals, there are different varieties, in which some have a slightly different understanding of the same things in which a lot of are ignorant in what the Solas of the Reformation mean in its historical context. I’m soley responsible for my belief though, not theirs:

Mormons use this as a universal understanding when it is not in which I don’t necessarily blame all Mormons for, only those that insist it is what I actually believe after having explained it to them quite a few times both here and at ZLMB.

After all the conversations I’ve had since 1979, in the whole of the debate between what we would refer to as orthodox (traditional) Christianity and Mormonism, I’ve been basically repeating a lot of the same arguments from the perspective of my belief as anyone else here does as to what side of the line they are on.

Mormons have the right to believe as they see fit. I’ve been interacting mainly with “official” Mormon teaching that I’m contrasting with what I believe wherein they say I’m “wrong”.

It becomes after awhile, disengenuous in my perspective, for any here (mostly just a few but all in some way in the context of Mormon teaching about others) to constantly put words in my mouth (figuratively speaking) that I don’t accept as part of personal belief. This is what I meant by the term “twist” in the context of my faith.

The other part of this is the “twist” as stated by Peter concerning Paul’s writings (I’m not anyone’s judge here):

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

Mormon missionaries (and those here who are returned missionaries) are the ones who have been sent by their so-called “Prophet” (Matthew 7) on missions (have come to my door, not necessarily those here) and distort what it is I believe inconsistent with the truth of which is defendable Biblical doctrine.

The following is part of a past conversation I had with Kevin [Wayne] Graham from his Mormon Answers website (first my statement, then his response; this was from back in May of 1999):

When your Church teaches that what I believe as a Protestant Christian is “pagan” and “heretical” and that I’m wrong, my point back is to give a defense of both what I believe from scripture (the Bible) and what I have been told officially by members of the LDS Church.

In reference to the word “some” Paul as you know wrote both 1&2 Timothy as well as 1&2 Thessalonians. The word apostasy in Thessalonians and some that would fall away in Timothy is speaking about the same thing. . .There will always be people falling away from the truth which will eventually culminate in the final delusion of the last anti-Christ (Paul identifies as the son of perdition)(there have been many anti-Christ’s as John says), who will be destroyed at the appearing of Jesus in the clouds. The point being there was and always will be the truth as contained in the Bible, preserved by the Holy Spirit of God. . . .

Excellent post Roy, and I do agree with most of what you stated. You have made an interesting argument about the two epistles to Timothy, and I do appreciate this, since I have never heard this as a defense for “some” apostasy. It is well noted! But I do have to say that the “Falling away” passage never literally said “Complete” either, and is perhaps one of the weaker scriptures used to defend the LDS position of a “complete apostasy”, although it is probably the most cited. . . .

“Some” is not the same as “complete” “total”:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, . . .In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. (1 Timothy 4:1 2, 6)

3. There was a complete apostasy affecting both Catholic and Protestant churches. . . .2. There was a total apostasy affecting the Catholic and Protestant churches. . . . (A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, pp.32, 58).

Salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. In him and in him alone is there redemption. But he works in his own way. God’s way is not man’s way. The Lord provided that salvation should come through his gospel functioning through his church, wherein are prophets and apostles “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:12). . .Is there such a church upon the earth? Until 1830 there was not. It had been lost through the falling away we have described in this pamphlet. (Which Church is Right pamphlet, p.17)

They have to twist the Bible and history to arrive at their conclusions. Mormonism I believe falsely teaches:

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its place—a religion that professed to be Jesus Christ’s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiah’s true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof. (POGP, JOSEPH SMITH—HISTORY, 1:19)

Joseph Smith is not the author of the Bible and therefore is not a work of his (the exception being Joseph’s unjustified rewriting of some of it in the JST).

Early on in their history, “Latter-day Saints” began to be referred to as “Mormons” (there have been three Different names for the Church; initially called the “Church of Christ”):

I would like to speak of the institution. . .The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes known as the Mormon Church. That is not the Church’s correct name; it is only a nickname derived from our belief in the Book of Mormon, . . .—Elder Russell M. Nelson (AN APOSTLE’S TESTIMONY pamphlet, p.2)

the name of the Church on the title pages of the first three printings of the revelations: “The Church of Christ- (Book of Commandments) 1833, “The Church of the Latter-day Saints” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1835), and “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1844).” (The Ensign, January 1979, p.13)

In September of 1987, I received the letter (passed on to me) that was addressed to the Pastor of the Church that I’m a member of (St. Luke’s in Westminster, Ca., LCMS). The writers of the letter, a Don and Brennan Kingsland, identified themselves as:

members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormons, and we would like to ask you to investigate the TRUTH about our church.

In reference to being, “also known as Mormons”, this “MORMON CHURCH” advertisement from a past Reader’s Digest (from last page of an insert about “Mormon Missionaries” entitled, “When You Open the Door”):

FREE 150-page BOOK answers more questions about Mormons than any other book we could send you.

clip, fill-in, mail this coupon to:

MORMON CHURCH

P.O. Box 30700, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

shows picture of book here-

Please check one or more boxes below

Please send me the

FREE BOOK “A Marvelous

Work and a Wonder”

OR CALL TOLL FREE

1-800-331-1750

and ask for “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”

I would like to talk with Mormon Missionaries

(NOTE: No one will visit unless you check here.)

My phone__________________

(personal Address information here)

LDS 1980

The stated intent of the letter:

is simply an attempt to establish the TRUTH about our church and to undo the lies that are being told about us by certain deceitful people. . . .We would like to offer. . .a book about what Mormons REALLY BELIEVE, . . .To enable you to ascertain the TRUTH about our church, we are offering “MORMONS ARE CHRISTIANS TOO!”. . .to pastors. . . .

As you probably know, Mormons prefer to be called “Latter-day Saints” or members of, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. I do not to refer to them as “Christian” in that I don’t believe the teachings of Joseph Smith are so I use the term “Mormon” as they have used that for themselves.

They can be Christian in my view if they do in fact believe Christian doctrine in which I don’t see that they do even though some of the same terminology is used (ultimately with different meanings). I believe it comprimises the truth of Christianity/Biblical teaching.

They don’t have to accept my personal belief but all are obligated to believe (myself included) what God says through the recorded word of God as “delivered to the saints” in the first century.

The answer to this is found in the Bible as it came to us in history which Mormonism has claimed to accept (but ultimately undermine its teaching’s in which non-Mormons are convinced of/persuaded based on what they end up teaching):

As Latter-day Saints we accept the following scriptures as the standard works of the Church: the Bible (consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official statements made by our leaders. Regarding the Bible: There is a misconception that the Bible is one book instead of a collection of sixty-six books, thirty-nine of which comprise the Old Testament and twenty-seven of which constitute the New Testament. (The Ensign, Church magazine—contains official statements of leaders, Church Conference, Elder Henry D. Taylor, Nov. 1976, p.63)

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. (Gospel Principles manual, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1988, pp. 49-51)

My view is that the “saints” of the Mormon Church actually adhere to the Mormonism of Joseph Smith with the façade of Christian terminology with different a meaning which I believe tends to neutralize what they do believe that is correct, not actually contained in the Bible but imported through what they would refer to as their “Standard Works”.

A Mormon General Authority:

THE DIVINE MISSION OF JOSEPH SMITH

CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH.

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188, 1954 edition)

I have never told a Mormon or anyone for that matter that, “they are going to hell”, which I’m accused of at times, but the Bible teaches that all are born under the wrath of God and are destined to go there as the result of being a sinful human being by nature, responsible for their own behavior.

Only the grace of God allows those of faith (in the truth) to escape it. This is the purpose for the preaching of the Gospel where those of all time periods are capable of receiving eternal life (the decision is made in their life here on earth and how they lived with what they knew), even if they have never heard of Jesus Christ (which is covered in chapters 1 and 2 of Romans).

The following quote is from an individual Christian’s response to Stephen E. Robinson’s book asking, “ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS?” (I agree with the following statement, except for not necessarily “have boldly stated” as they are now trying to downplay the negative things they have said over the years concerning others, i.e., changing their public vocabulary):

The top leadership of the LDS Church in public and often in official capacity have boldly stated that all Christian churches are wrong and their teachings an abomination. . . .Traditional Christians say the Mormon Church is not truly a Christian church. Is that really so different from Mormons saying that the LDS Church is the only true Church? There is something inherently wrong with proclaiming: “All Christian churches are wrong—we are a Christian church too!” By its own claims Mormonism cannot be a Christian church too. If all professing Churches are false, Mormonism must be Christian instead. There is no middle ground. This has been the historic position—not just of Mormonism’s critics—but the LDS Church itself.

Why is it wrong to say, “Mormonism is Christian?” It is because to say Mormonism is a true Christian church is to admit that no other church is. If true, then Christianity ceased to exist before Joseph Smith restored it in 1830. Christians who are knowledgeable of Mormonism’s claims realize what they are being asked to do. Traditional Christians are being asked to declare bankruptcy—a price most find to high. (A RESPONSE TO STEPHEN E. ROBINSON’S ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS, SUBMITTED TO E. RAY CLENDENEN, PH.D., IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE GED 702 RESEARCH SEMINAR BY JAMES K. WALKER, DECEMBER, 1991 (REV. JUNE 1992)

[Mars]

Only the grace of God allows those of faith (in the truth) to escape it.

Bummer. Sucks to be someone who lived and died without ever hearing the name Jesus Christ.

Or live in a country where your government won't allow Christian missionaries in.

Or be a believer in the divine Sonship and saving power of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection without your specific nod of approval.

The Book of Coolrok, chapter 7, verse 23:

Yea, wo shall be unto ye who doth not interpret the way that I doeth, the word of the Bible, for I say unto thee: Thou art screwed. Or, in fine, it is not that thou art screwed, more that I am constrained to speak the truth of thy screwedness because of thine understanding of the Bible which matcheth not mine.

[coolrok7]

Bummer. Sucks to be someone who lived and died without ever hearing the name Jesus Christ.

Or live in a country where your government won't allow Christian missionaries in.

Or be a believer in the divine Sonship and saving power of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection without your specific nod of approval.

The Book of Coolrok, chapter 7, verse 23:

Yea, wo shall be unto ye who doth not interpret the way that I doeth, the word of the Bible, for I say unto thee: Thou art screwed. Or, in fine, it is not that thou art screwed, more that I am constrained to speak the truth of thy screwedness because of thine understanding of the Bible which matcheth not mine.

Now try reading the rest of what I said that you apparently chose to ignore (and by the way read Romans chapters 1 and 2 for some understanding instead of assigning words to me that I did not say):

Only the grace of God allows those of faith (in the truth) to escape it. This is the purpose for the preaching of the Gospel where those of all time periods are capable of receiving eternal life (the decision is made in their life here on earth and how they lived with what they knew), even if they have never heard of Jesus Christ (which is covered in chapters 1 and 2 of Romans).

Yea, it really ***** when people say things about others that aren't true, especially in the context of those who claim to be in the only "true church"!

[Mars]

So is it possible to disagree with you about what the Bible says, and be saved?

I believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God. I believe that He is the only way any of us can get back to God, because we all fall short.

But I get the feeling that won't be good enough for you.

You know what? Nevermind.

I won't get anything out of this conversation. I'm sure you won't either.

I am sorry for putting words in your mouth. It was wrong. I appreciate you posting your thoughts and I will do a better job of stating your position before posting in the future.

[coolrok7]

So is it possible to disagree with you about what the Bible says, and be saved?

I believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God. I believe that He is the only way any of us can get back to God, because we all fall short.

But I get the feeling that won't be good enough for you.

You know what? Nevermind.

I won't get anything out of this conversation. I'm sure you won't either.

I am sorry for putting words in your mouth. It was wrong. I appreciate you posting your thoughts and I will do a better job of stating your position before posting in the future.

Thanks Mars, I'm willing to listen to what you would have to say. I'm not intending to be mean here. I'm only trying to respond with what my experiences are in the context of being told I'm "wrong", without justification for the most part although I'm not always right in everthing I say but I try to be.

Believe me, I'm not blaming it on you as I'm sure we would get along just fine in person and I'm sure you are sincere in your faith as I believe I am.

[Storm Rider]

What do you think are the greatest challenges in communication for LDS to non-LDS and vice versa?

Furthermore, what do you think are the best ways to surmount such challenges?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Mudcat, to me the greatest problem having a religious conversation between Mormons and non-Mormons is having words put in my mouth. Having a Catholic or Evangelical tell me what the LDS Church teaches is frustrating. One can quickly tell which anti-Mormon website they are getting their information and it does not matter how many times one says, "that is not correct" their mind is closed and they just go right on believing what they think the LDS Church teaches.

Then there is the misunderstanding on both sides that what an individaul believes does not equate to official doctrines found on both sides. Disciples of Christ follow their Master as best as they can and often they have a different doctrinal/religious focus at different points throughout their life. It takes time to grasp the full breadth of an individual's beliefs and it is very difficult when there is not a loving acceptable between two Chrisitan people that both are doing the best they can to follow Jesus.

At the end of the day, there is much wisdom that as soon as one party stops listening to understand the other, at that point is the time to stop and begin talking about the wonderful weather we are having.

[shalamabobbi]

What do you think are the greatest challenges in communication for LDS to non-LDS and vice versa?

Talking past each other definitely.

As noted by coolrok7 the same words are used by different religions to frame different concepts.

My first foray onto this board had myself embroiled with a female EV for days after which when we finally understood each other well enough we discovered the difference in our views was not very substantial.

What I find peculiar personally about being persuaded that the LDS faith has it wrong by the bible-belt side is the idea that if I were to leave the LDS faith I would hop on board with some other *main stream* version of Christianity. Rather, I would more likely abandon all faith.

The reason why is that there is this thing called the american continent with people on it. And if the continent and its inhabitants were unknown to the God of the Bible that doesn't say a whole lot about His omniscience or at least His care and concern for all His children.

Furthermore, what do you think are the best ways to surmount such challenges?

Invite each other over for coffee and donuts. Ooopppps....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I missed this thread. I did not read very much beyond the OP. I think, though, that the biggest issue is thinking your know what some one else believes or is talking about and then not letting that person explain what they think and trying to play gotcha. I have been guilty of this. Great topic Mud.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

The new missionaries will be coming by the house next Wed.

I was open to them scheduling a date but after scheduling I explained a bit about myself and my exposure to LDS theology. I offered that they were welcome to follow whatever guidelines they normally had set for a first visit, but I also acknowledged that there was the possibility of redundancy on the matter.

At that point, one of the Elders said, "Hey.. we will talk about whatever you want to talk about."

I said, "Okay I'll get back with you on what it is."

I have thought about and decided on a topic.

In short, it is the topic posted in title of the OP.

"What are the greatest challenges in communication for LDS to non-LDS and vice versa?"

I informed the missionaries and they thought it was cool. I didn't want to hog the discussion on that topic, so I left the caveat that after a half hour at most we would move on to whatever they wished to discuss. They informed me that they would update me on their particular topic of choice after they had come up with one.

I suppose I am glad they are prepared to do a bit a "free-styling".

Regardless, I thought it might be an interesting subject for the forum.

What do you think are the greatest challenges in communication for LDS to non-LDS and vice versa?

Furthermore, what do you think are the best ways to surmount such challenges?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Predetermined stereotypes on both sides, especially when you talk about the extreme folks on both sides.

Thankfully I no longer live in an area where Mormons are dominant. Nor are evangelicals dominant here. That helps a lot

[mfbukowski]

delete

[Mudcat]

Mudcat, to me the greatest problem having a religious conversation between Mormons and non-Mormons is having words put in my mouth. Having a Catholic or Evangelical tell me what the LDS Church teaches is frustrating. One can quickly tell which anti-Mormon website they are getting their information and it does not matter how many times one says, "that is not correct" their mind is closed and they just go right on believing what they think the LDS Church teaches.

Hi SR,

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree in part. Most of us come to some vague understandings of other sects beliefs from within our own sect.. distortions seem part and parcel of that sort of thing. I don't mind so much anyone coming to the table with some sort of presupposition about my beliefs, the thing that disturbs me is when a person holds to their presuppositions after we talk about them.

It's a bit more difficult in this respect for Evangelicals than LDS or Catholics, IMO. Reason being, the term Evangelical is associated with a number of sects/denominations that have differing views on certain issues.

Then there is the misunderstanding on both sides that what an individaul believes does not equate to official doctrines found on both sides. Disciples of Christ follow their Master as best as they can and often they have a different doctrinal/religious focus at different points throughout their life. It takes time to grasp the full breadth of an individual's beliefs and it is very difficult when there is not a loving acceptable between two Chrisitan people that both are doing the best they can to follow Jesus.

I agree here too. Good words.

Regards,

Mudcat