Evangelicals And Latter-Day Saints Misunderstanding Each Other

[altersteve]

Would you agree that this is the reason for most, if not all, disagreements between Latter-day Saints and other Christians? It arises from a misunderstanding on both sides, not simply on the evangelical's side as so many Saints claim. For example, I think the whole "Mormons aren't Christians" thing comes from merely a disagreement over what the term "Christian" means. For evangelicals, the word "Christian" refers to anyone who they believe is "saved." However, since most Latter-day Saints aren't familiar with the concept of being "saved" in this life, and since they see salvation as a progress rather than something that happens instantly, to them the word "Christian" refers to anyone who worships Jesus Christ.

There are many other examples too. I tend to think that the Trinity is saying almost the same thing as our doctrine of the Godhead, except that it uses terms and concepts that are easily misunderstood, even by those who believe it.

What are your thoughts?

[Senator]

However, since most Latter-day Saints aren't familiar with the concept of being "saved" in this life,

They aren't?

What a shame.

[altersteve]

They aren't?

What a shame.

I mean not in the same way evangelicals believe. To an evangelical Christian, a person is saved simply by accepting Christ, and once you're saved, you're saved. That's it. But we don't accept the "once saved, always saved" idea. I tried to make that clear in my post.

[seriously honestly]

I mean not in the same way evangelicals believe. To an evangelical Christian, a person is saved simply by accepting Christ, and once you're saved, you're saved. That's it. But we don't accept the "once saved, always saved" idea. I tried to make that clear in my post.

Many Christians don't either.

[mfbukowski]

No question that there is a lot of misunderstanding, but we really ARE very different.

The belief in a bodily God, that we can be exalted to be like him, and can have personal verification of doctrinal issues and in fact should seek to have such personal revelations, and the notion that we can "change our minds" and be "converted" in the afterlife- these are all huge differences between us and other Christians.

Heck, if there were no differences, there would be no need for a Restoration.

I think we are too interested in wanting to be "in the club" and not interested enough in what makes us unique. We don't need to be "in the club" and there are good reasons we are not!

The belief in a bodily God is the real reason the Trinity makes no sense to us at all. Three people cannot be one, in any way except in purpose and by a symbolic unity in love. That's the only way it works. The same way I am "one" with my wife and family- that is the way three people with three bodies can be "one".

Yes I know the HG's body is "spirit matter" but it is a body nevertheless!

Edited September 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Avatar4321]

I would suggeset that the reason for misunderstanding is pride and refusing to understand one another.

[Questing Beast]

I propose that the main reason for disagreement and misunderstanding is fear: fear that you might be mistaken; and worse, fear that "they" might be right....

[Senator]

Groupthink may be a player...

[Sky]

Some Evangelicals offer sermons and/or classes in their churches about why Mormonism is wrong. Latter-day Saints don’t do that to Evangelicals, but our missionaries knock on their doors. Evangelical Christians are also much more numerous than Latter-day Saints. I think these factors could have a lot to do with the misunderstandings.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Sky

[Cobalt-70]

I think the issue isn't helped by a bit of smugness on both sides. Both sides ought to be open to the idea that they could learn from each other. Mormons, for example, don't have a good understanding of the theology of the Book of Mormon because unlike early Mormons who had been exposed to Protestantism, few Mormons today understand the kind of dialogue that the Book of Mormon has with Protestant theology. There is common ground with evangelicals to be found in the Book of Mormon. Evangelicals can also benefit from this common ground. Mormons and evangelicals ought to realize that they both came from the same stock of early 18th century Christian experimentalists. I agree with Harold Bloom that Mormons and evangelicals are far more alike than either of them is to European Christianity.

[The Nehor]

Would you agree that this is the reason for most, if not all, disagreements between Latter-day Saints and other Christians? It arises from a misunderstanding on both sides, not simply on the evangelical's side as so many Saints claim. For example, I think the whole "Mormons aren't Christians" thing comes from merely a disagreement over what the term "Christian" means. For evangelicals, the word "Christian" refers to anyone who they believe is "saved." However, since most Latter-day Saints aren't familiar with the concept of being "saved" in this life, and since they see salvation as a progress rather than something that happens instantly, to them the word "Christian" refers to anyone who worships Jesus Christ.

The problem with this is that Evangelicals seem to accept others as Christians who would disagree with their concept of how salvation is attained. Catholics and Anglicans just to name two. Maybe it's just that the gap is wider?

[altersteve]

The problem with this is that Evangelicals seem to accept others as Christians who would disagree with their concept of how salvation is attained. Catholics and Anglicans just to name two. Maybe it's just that the gap is wider?

Some evangelicals don't even accept Catholics as Christians.

[Ahab]

Would you agree that this is the reason for most, if not all, disagreements between Latter-day Saints and other Christians? It arises from a misunderstanding on both sides, not simply on the evangelical's side as so many Saints claim. For example, I think the whole "Mormons aren't Christians" thing comes from merely a disagreement over what the term "Christian" means. For evangelicals, the word "Christian" refers to anyone who they believe is "saved." However, since most Latter-day Saints aren't familiar with the concept of being "saved" in this life, and since they see salvation as a progress rather than something that happens instantly, to them the word "Christian" refers to anyone who worships Jesus Christ.

There are many other examples too. I tend to think that the Trinity is saying almost the same thing as our doctrine of the Godhead, except that it uses terms and concepts that are easily misunderstood, even by those who believe it.

What are your thoughts?

Sometimes they don't agree with what they think we mean, and sometimes they don't agree even when they correctly understand what we mean.

Not all of us do a good job when trying to share what our Lord has told us, you know. Some of us on both sides are wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

Altersteve:

It's kinda hard to misunderstand someone when he tell's you you're going to the place of fire, and brimstone simply because you're a Mormon.

Edited September 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Vance]

"Knowing" that you are "saved" breeds arrogance and judgmental-ism. That mixed with fear of "sheep stealing" causes intense animosity and vicious dishonest attacks on Mormons and Mormonism.

Some Mormons respond to such attacks in kind.

[oremites]

... the notion that we can "change our minds" and be "converted" in the afterlife ...

I don't think "change our minds" accurately reflects LDS doctrine. I don't believe we teach that people can "change their minds," but rather that people who didn't have a chance to make up their minds can still be converted in the afterlife.

[Vance]

I don't think "change our minds" accurately reflects LDS doctrine. I don't believe we teach that people can "change their minds," but rather that people who didn't have a chance to make up their minds can still be converted in the afterlife.

Doesn't "conversion" mean a "change" of "mind"?

Just sayin.

[Mudcat]

What are your thoughts?

As long as a person is content with the notion that you can be understood completely and still not be agreed with, then this seems like a reasonable expectation of "understanding" what someone else believes.

The primary barrier in such an understanding is dispensed with when we are prepared to lay aside any ingrained misconceptions of another's faith.

The debate on Grace and works is one that comes to mind. There is a lot that both sides seem to look past on this issue because they feel they understand what someone else believes... but in truth they are just accepting their own misconceptions.

In general we focus on what seperates us from them.. However the "them" may be. It's counterproductive and IMO we aren't as miles apart on beliefs as many would portray. It just takes a willingness to hear as well as being heard.

Another more treatable communication barrier is semantics. LDS and EVs use a lot of the same terms, but these terms have different connotations. It can be a bit tedious, but seeking clear definitions and presenting clear definitions does a lot for getting your ideas across.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Mudcat

[KevinG]

A review and summary of How wide the divide?

[Ahab]

As long as a person is content with the notion that you can be understood completely and still not be agreed with, then this seems like a reasonable expectation of "understanding" what someone else believes.

The primary barrier in such an understanding is dispensed with when we are prepared to lay aside any ingrained misconceptions of another's faith.

The debate on Grace and works is one that comes to mind. There is a lot that both sides seem to look past on this issue because they feel they understand what someone else believes... but in truth they are just accepting their own misconceptions.

In general we focus on what seperates us from them.. However the "them" may be. It's counterproductive and IMO we aren't as miles apart on beliefs as many would portray. It just takes a willingness to hear as well as being heard.

Another more treatable communication barrier is semantics. LDS and EVs use a lot of the same terms, but these terms have different connotations. It can be a bit tedious, but seeking clear definitions and presenting clear definitions does a lot for getting your ideas across.

Great points, and I agree that we actually agree on some issues even though some people think we don't.

And then there are the issues which we actually don't agree on while understanding what the other believes.

Some of those are biggies,and some of them are just a matter of one having more knowledge than the other.

Do you think it's possible that we may simply know more than you do on some issues because we accept more of the revelations God has revealed on those issues?

If you do, then I wouldn't chalk that up to a misunderstanding, but rather that we believe more of what God has revealed.

[Jesterss]

No question that there is a lot of misunderstanding, but we really ARE very different.

The belief in a bodily God, that we can be exalted to be like him, and can have personal verification of doctrinal issues and in fact should seek to have such personal revelations, and the notion that we can "change our minds" and be "converted" in the afterlife- these are all huge differences between us and other Christians.

Heck, if there were no differences, there would be no need for a Restoration.

I think we are too interested in wanting to be "in the club" and not interested enough in what makes us unique. We don't need to be "in the club" and there are good reasons we are not!

The belief in a bodily God is the real reason the Trinity makes no sense to us at all. Three people cannot be one, in any way except in purpose and by a symbolic unity in love. That's the only way it works. The same way I am "one" with my wife and family- that is the way three people with three bodies can be "one".

Yes I know the HG's body is "spirit matter" but it is a body nevertheless!

As long as a person is content with the notion that you can be understood completely and still not be agreed with, then this seems like a reasonable expectation of "understanding" what someone else believes.

The primary barrier in such an understanding is dispensed with when we are prepared to lay aside any ingrained misconceptions of another's faith.

The debate on Grace and works is one that comes to mind. There is a lot that both sides seem to look past on this issue because they feel they understand what someone else believes... but in truth they are just accepting their own misconceptions.

In general we focus on what seperates us from them.. However the "them" may be. It's counterproductive and IMO we aren't as miles apart on beliefs as many would portray. It just takes a willingness to hear as well as being heard.

Another more treatable communication barrier is semantics. LDS and EVs use a lot of the same terms, but these terms have different connotations. It can be a bit tedious, but seeking clear definitions and presenting clear definitions does a lot for getting your ideas across.

Both very good thoughts and points on this topic... Like they both mentioned, I don't think it's fully a lack of understanding, I think the disagreements come because there truly are differences in core theology.... If it were one of understanding, then both sides would simply agree to disagree (remember that phrase steve? sorry had to), but its the fact that both sides preach such different doctrine on most things that the disagreements occur.. But I do agree that there are a lot of times when understanding what someone meant becomes the issue, but as far as a whole, its the doctrine that is preached that creates the difference of opinion.

[Ahab]

Both very good thoughts and points on this topic... Like they both mentioned, I don't think it's fully a lack of understanding, I think the disagreements come because there truly are differences in core theology.... If it were one of understanding, then both sides would simply agree to disagree (remember that phrase steve? sorry had to), but its the fact that both sides preach such different doctrine on most things that the disagreements occur.. But I do agree that there are a lot of times when understanding what someone meant becomes the issue, but as far as a whole, its the doctrine that is preached that creates the difference of opinion.

The doctrine that is preached IS the difference of opinion, not what creates it.

Some people believe what other people don't believe, and vice versa. That's all that is going on here.

[Whiskeypete]

For example, I think the whole "Mormons aren't Christians" thing comes from merely a disagreement over what the term "Christian" means. For evangelicals, the word "Christian" refers to anyone who they believe is "saved." However, since most Latter-day Saints aren't familiar with the concept of being "saved" in this life, and since they see salvation as a progress rather than something that happens instantly, to them the word "Christian" refers to anyone who worships Jesus Christ.

Most evangelicals I've spoken to start with the premise that Mormons aren't Christians, and then define Christian in such a way as to exclude Mormons. Or Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other group that they consider a "cult"

[Ahab]

Most evangelicals I've spoken to start with the premise that Mormons aren't Christians, and then define Christian in such a way as to exclude Mormons. Or Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other group that they consider a "cult"

If we (LDS) wanted to be more precise, we would refer to Christians who aren't members of our Lord's Church as "apostate Christians", or "Christians who are wrong on some issues about God (our Father in heaven) and Jesus Christ".

And why would we do that? Because we know they're wrong on those issues, which is pretty much the same principle other "Christians" use when saying we aren't Christian, as if someone has to be a "completely-correct-on every-issue-they-espouse-Christian" before they can be any kind of Christian at all.

It's really very interesting to see how much of a mirror image we are to each other, while understanding that we are very much opposites on those issues.

They say we are wrong, on some issues, and we say they are wrong on some issues, too.

You do realize good and evil are total opposites of each other, don't you?

[Cobalt-70]

When I was a missionary, I soon realized that there is no way I could have a meaningful conversation with people unless I had some understanding about their beliefs, and could see things from their perspective. Unfortunately, I think that there are very few non-convert Mormons who have made the effort to understand classical Christian theology. Most Mormons who have been through Sunday School and CES programs, and even missions, understand only a caricature of classical Christianity. We do not do a good job of teaching ourselves what other faiths believe. Evangelicals will not listen to us if we are incapable of seeing their theology from their own perspective.

Same goes for Evangelicals, most of whom (unless they are ex-Mormon) understand only a caricature of Mormonism, or else approach Mormons only to condemn, rather than to discuss. I think we have a lot to learn from each other.