Evangelicals And Latter-Day Saints Misunderstanding Each Other

[mfbukowski]

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.

I see little difference.

[mfbukowski]

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

Just sayin.

So does "re-pent".

[Ahab]

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.

I agree that most who do understand are the converted members of other churches, having once been in their shoes, but I wouldn't say there are very few in number who were raised in the Church who do understand. Very few as a percentage of the whole Church, maybe, but not very few in number.

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.

Most of them won't listen to us even when we can see from their perspective either, though, because they still see from their perspective while not being able to see from our new perspective as we do. Most won't allow themselves to think their own understanding could be wrong. Not really. And of those who do most of them are later converted to our Church, unless they are determined to stay with their church, anyway.

Have you ever heard some people say they would join our Church if only they could get paid for being a preacher or minister in our church, like they are in their own church? I have. Some hope to get to the point where they can get another job and then join our church, later, while thinking they'll have the opportunity to do that later as well as they could have before, and some don't think it makes a whole lot of difference which church they are a member of as long as they accept Jesus Christ. It's really weird.

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.

Yes, but some things we can learn from and about each other aren't very pretty, even though they're not as bad as they could be.

I'm constantly amazed by the people I consider to be pretty good people who are members of other churches, like some of the people we have on this board. They get so close to understanding our doctrine, at least on some issues, and yet they still don't want to join us. And why is that? Because even though they're learning about us, and what we believe, they'd still rather be as they are now. Now the only question is if they will stay that way forever.

[KevinG]

To me the fundamental differences can be summed up in this.

Some of my Evangelical frenemies condemn me to hell for my peculiar belief in Jesus Christ

Some of my Evangelical freinds celebrate our common faith in Jesus Christ

All of my Mormon friends are willing to be baptized in proxy for anyone who may have got it wrong in this life so they can enjoy the benefits of exaltation.

[diglot]

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"

As a mainstream evangelical I can attest that this is indeed the habit of my brethren. I would say that most Evangelicals I have interacted with define "Christian" as someone who holds to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian Creeds.

Personally, though, my definition of Christian is quite broad and encompasses a lot of non-mainstream Christianities (including Mormonism). But I also don't really care whether a person or group label themselves as "Christian" anyways, because it is only a label, which in the end, signifies nothing.

Edited September 28, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

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?

While I would agree that there is a lot of misunderstandings between Evangelicals and Mormons, our understandings of God as Trinity are significantly different.

[Ahab]

While I would agree that there is a lot of misunderstandings between Evangelicals and Mormons, our understandings of God as Trinity are significantly different.

Not really. It all hinges on what each person thinks of when thinking about a "being", or a "kind" of a being.

God, as a kind of being, is simply the most supreme being in all of existence, and even those "Trinitarians" realize there is more than one person who is that kind of being which we refer to as "God", collectively, while each person is that kind of being.

[diglot]

Not really. It all hinges on what each person thinks of when thinking about a "being", or a "kind" of a being.

God, as a kind of being, is simply the most supreme being in all of existence, and even those "Trinitarians" realize there is more than one person who is that kind of being which we refer to as "God", collectively, while each person is that kind of being.

No.

Either I really don't understand the Mormon view on God and the Trinity in the slightest, or you really don't understand what mainstream Christianity means by the Trinity.

Our two conceptions of God as Trinity are very different.

Edited September 28, 2011 by diglot

[altersteve]

No.

Either I really don't understand the Mormon view on God and the Trinity in the slightest, or you really don't understand what mainstream Christianity means by the Trinity.

Our two conceptions of God as Trinity are very different.

You don't understand the Mormon view that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are collectively, and individually, God? Isn't that what you believe?

[Ahab]

No.

Yes.

Either I really don't understand the Mormon view on God and the Trinity in the slightest, or you really don't understand what mainstream Christianity means by the Trinity.

You have some understanding of the "Mormon" view on God and the Trinity while still falling short of a full understanding.

Like I said, it all comes down to what each person thinks of when thinking about what a "being" or a "kind" of being is.

Our two conceptions of God as Trinity are very different.

As I said, not really. Think about it some more.

[diglot]

You don't understand the Mormon view that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are collectively, and individually, God? Isn't that what you believe?

Yes, that is what Evangelicals believe, but that is a very simplified condensation of the doctrine of the Trinity that just happens to ignore the differences between the LDS view on the Trinity and the Evangelical view on the Trinity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in LDS theology isn't God three physically separate individuals? If that is true then there is one very different conception of God as Trinity. For instance, I don't see how one can reconcile a corporeal view of God with the perichoretic view of the Trinity as it is understood in mainstream Christianity.

Edited September 28, 2011 by diglot

[altersteve]

Yes, that is what Evangelicals believe, but that is a very simplified condensation of the doctrine of the Trinity that just happens to ignore the differences between the LDS view on the Trinity and the Evangelical view on the Trinity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in LDS theology isn't God three physically separate individuals? If that is true then there is one very different conception of God as Trinity. For instance, I don't see how one can reconcile a corporeal view of God with the perichoretic view of the Trinity as it is understood in mainstream Christianity.

I never said that the LDS view and the evangelical view regarding the Godhead are exactly the same, I said they are very similar. The basic idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God is the same in our respective beliefs. We share that as common ground.

[diglot]

I never said that the LDS view and the evangelical view regarding the Godhead are exactly the same, I said they are very similar. The basic idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God is the same in our respective beliefs. We share that as common ground.

Yes, we do share that as common ground, but I think it is very important to not gloss over the large differences.

I am actually quite a fan of ecumenical and inter-faith discussion and so forth, but one thing I dislike about it is that it can lead people who use that worldview to gloss over important differences between faiths in an attempt to be more friendly and respectful towards one another.

Edited September 28, 2011 by diglot

[orion88]

I think the greatest difference in teachings is on the identity of Jesus Christ. In LDS theology,

Jesus is the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents, who progressed into becoming a God.

Evangelicals on the other hand believe Jesus is the Eternal God - there never was a time

when he wasn't God.

Thanks,

Tony

[Ahab]

I think the greatest difference in teachings is on the identity of Jesus Christ. In LDS theology,

Jesus is the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents, who progressed into becoming a God.

He didn't progress to becoming a God. He was already God when he was born as a spirit child of our Father in heaven by virtue of him being the same kind of being as his (and our) Father in heaven. His "progression" simply made him as perfect as our Father in heaven, as he grew from grace to grace, but all the while he was growing he was already and always had been the same kind of being as our Father in heaven.

Evangelicals on the other hand believe Jesus is the Eternal God - there never was a time when he wasn't God.

We believe that too. You just don't seem to get that.

[orion88]

He didn't progress to becoming a God.

Have a look at some other teachings in your manuals.

1998 version of Gospel Principles, page 305 - "It will be a great work to learn

our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. This is the way our

Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle

of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God … He was once a

man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same

as Jesus Christ did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346).

Heavenly Father (like Jesus) is not eternally God - “We have imagined and

supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take

away the veil, so that you may see” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,

1938, p. 345). These words of Joseph Smith have disappeared from the 2008

version.

Heavenly Father was once a man who lived on an earth, overcame problems,

passed through several stages, and climbed his “ladder,” starting from the

bottom to the top, until he became a God (Gospel Fundamentals, p. 204)

From the April 2002 magazine, "The Father and the Son" - "Jesus Christ is

not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this

earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of

Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been

made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only

resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only

such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal

life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due

sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents

have attained exaltation."

Another 2004 manual has Jesus progressing into a God after reaching a certain

level of intelligence - “By obedience and devotion to the truth he [Jesus] attained

that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent,

while yet in his pre-existent state” (Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of the Gospel

Student Manual, p. 10).

Prior to this "attaining," he was not a God.

I hope this clarifies things.

Tony

Edited September 29, 2011 by orion88

[Cobalt-70]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in LDS theology isn't God three physically separate individuals? If that is true then there is one very different conception of God as Trinity. For instance, I don't see how one can reconcile a corporeal view of God with the perichoretic view of the Trinity as it is understood in mainstream Christianity.

I'm a Mormon who will be the first to admit that the Mormon conception of God, as currently understood by Mormons, is very different from the Trinity. I don't see a need to gloss over any differences, and there are many. At the same time, however, I think that there is room within the Mormon view of God for recognizing certain elements of the Trinity. For example, while Mormons need God to have a body, and the Father and Son to have distinct bodies, but why can't Mormons still say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same essence or substance? After all, trinitarians also believe that Jesus has a bodily form, yet his person is consubstantial with the Father.

I also think there is room within trinitarianism for a slightly more progressive and American view of God that recognizes some of the spark of God that is within each human.

[Ahab]

Have a look at some other teachings in your manuals.

1998 version of Gospel Principles, page 305 - "It will be a great work to learn

our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. This is the way our

Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle

of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God … He was once a

man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same

as Jesus Christ did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346).

Heavenly Father (like Jesus) is not eternally God [meaning as perfect as the kind of being he is can be) - “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938, p. 345). These words of Joseph Smith have disappeared from the 2008 version.

Heavenly Father was once a man who lived on an earth, overcame problems,

passed through several stages, and climbed his “ladder,” starting from the

bottom to the top, until he became a God (Gospel Fundamentals, p. 204)

From the April 2002 magazine, "The Father and the Son" - "Jesus Christ is

not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this

earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of

Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been

made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only

resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only

such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal

life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due

sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents

have attained exaltation."

Another 2004 manual has Jesus progressing into a God after reaching a certain

level of intelligence - “By obedience and devotion to the truth he [Jesus] attained

that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent,

while yet in his pre-existent state” (Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of the Gospel

Student Manual, p. 10).

Prior to this "attaining," he was not a God.

I hope this clarifies things.

Tony

Some people just don't care very much about being politically correct, which is why they say things such as our heavenly Father became God. Once you realize God is a term which we use to refer to a specific kind of being, though, as well as a name/title for each person who is that kind of being in perfection, the mystery gradually starts to disappear and you can see things as they really are.

[Mudcat]

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.

I agree there are differences on a number of points, though I try to avoid giving priority to one over another. I think we both believe Christ came in the flesh, ministered to many, performed miracles, made bold messianic claims, fulfilled messianic prophecy, was crucified and Christ's claims were vindicated by his resurrection. I also think we both try to follow Christ and his teachings in the best way we believe we can. IMO, that is the real biggie.

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?

In a probabilistic sense, anything is possible Ahab. However, given all present available evidence on the issue I have looked at.. and I won't bother with a diatribe of the difficulties. I don't find this possibility very likely.

That being said, I think LDS suffer from the same issues we Evangelicals have issues with. It has do with the representation of belief by the body of believers. You seem to plagued with misappropriated legalism, the same as we EVs have been and we have given you the brunt of such when opportunity has provided itself. There isn't a thing compelling about such.

[BCSpace]

Would you agree that this is the reason for most, if not all, disagreements between Latter-day Saints and other Christians?

That we misunderstand each other? No, not really. There are indeed some semantic issues (like salvation and the oneness of God), but the disagreements are a direct result of opposing doctrines.

Edited September 29, 2011 by BCSpace

[Storm Rider]

Many Christians don't either.

In fact, most don't believe in once saved always saved. Only a distinct minority of Christians believe in this concept.

[Storm Rider]

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!

I don't think LDS want to be "in the club"; however, it is very painful for others to deny the belief that we hold most dear, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Other than to be acknowledged for our deeply held Christian belief, there is no other reason. We a very basic sense we are not ecumenical; we stand apart and call everyone else to repentance and to enter into the Kingdom of God.

[Calm]

I don't think LDS want to be "in the club"; however, it is very painful for others to deny the belief that we hold most dear, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Other than to be acknowledged for our deeply held Christian belief, there is no other reason. We a very basic sense we are not ecumenical; we stand apart and call everyone else to repentance and to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Very much my feelings. I don't feel the need to be viewed as a fellow believer, I am okay if someone thinks it is wrong to pray with me because they are concerned it will give me false hope in thinking that my relationship with God is valid. I don't have the least problem with people criticizing my beliefs.....as long as they've sincerely try and get them right (by my understanding, not insisting they've interpreted the beliefs correctly if I tell them otherwise).

While a major part of my identity is as a follower of Christ (my mother gave me the name of Christ-follower as one of my names so I would always remember this), it is fine by me to view myself as following a different path to Christ than others and I don't even mind if they think the path I am on is leading me to hell.

I am just grateful if someone isn't offended because I think that eventually if they want to stay on the path to God, their walk is going to have to intersect and join up with mine. I don't think someone should be offended since I figure at the very least they think the same way about me, but apparently some are from what they have said....

Most LDS I know feel the same way, they want to be recognized as Christians, but also want to be seen as "distinct" or "peculiar", as different. Only a few take this desire to the extreme of rejecting the name of Christian because they think it has been usurped by others that they don't want to be identified with, but I think that is allowing those few to 'make the rules'.

Edited September 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Very much my feelings. I don't feel the need to be viewed as a fellow believer, I am okay if someone thinks it is wrong to pray with me because they are concerned it will give me false hope in thinking that my relationship with God is valid. I don't have the least problem with people criticizing my beliefs.....as long as they've sincerely try and get them right (by my understanding, not insisting they've interpreted the beliefs correctly if I tell them otherwise).

I suspect you mean their belief that you're not following God doesn't affect the assurance God gives you that you are following him, although you would prefer that others recognize the fact that you are following God rather than believe you're not. That's how I feel, and it's not because it hurts my feeling that others don't think I am following Christ, but because I have pity on those who are making false judgments about me that affect their own standing before God. Judging people incorrectly is a pretty big deal, I think, which is why I tend to try to give people the benefit of any doubt I may have about them.

While a major part of my identity is as a follower of Christ (my mother gave me the name of Christ-follower as one of my names so I would always remember this), it is fine by me to view myself as following a different path to Christ than others and I don't even mind if they think the path I am on is leading me to hell.

There is only one path to Christ, it's just that some people act as if they can negotiate around issues they don't understand correctly while getting back on the path once around that particular issue. For example, we really do need to be baptized in the name of Christ, by those with the authority to baptize us and act in that name, otherwise we're not following Christ and his commandment to do that, and yet some people don't think that's necessary or that they have been baptized correctly and with authority when they really haven't and thus they don't get started on the correct path and act as if they can get on the path from another point... and all of this because they have some misunderstanding.

I am just grateful if someone isn't offended because I think that eventually if they want to stay on the path to God, their walk is going to have to intersect and join up with mine.

I think I see what you mean, but I see it as them needing to go down that same path you followed if they want to get everything right with God, otherwise they'll have missed some necessary part of that path.

I don't think someone should be offended since I figure at the very least they think the same way about me, but apparently some are from what they have said....

Yes, and the path to Christ is not be offended because of the offenses of others, and instead have pity on those who are wrong because they're only hurting themselves, which hopefully they'll get straight and worked out before the end, with God's help.

Most LDS I know feel the same way, they want to be recognized as Christians, but also want to be seen as "distinct" or "peculiar", as different. Only a few take this desire to the extreme of rejecting the name of Christian because they think it has been usurped by others that they don't want to be identified with, but I think that is allowing those few to 'make the rules'.

... or they reject the term "Trinitarian" because they think only those who understand it incorrectly can correctly be referred to by that term, thus allowing others misunderstanding to affect their own understanding.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think LDS want to be "in the club"; however, it is very painful for others to deny the belief that we hold most dear, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Other than to be acknowledged for our deeply held Christian belief, there is no other reason. We a very basic sense we are not ecumenical; we stand apart and call everyone else to repentance and to enter into the Kingdom of God.

My reply is what she said:

Most LDS I know feel the same way, they want to be recognized as Christians, but also want to be seen as "distinct" or "peculiar", as different. Only a few take this desire to the extreme of rejecting the name of Christian because they think it has been usurped by others that they don't want to be identified with, but I think that is allowing those few to 'make the rules'.