The Old "Ecumenism"

[3DOP]

Interestingly,

I find the miltant defense of Latter-day Saints of a mere generation ago to be refreshing. I was on the phone just yesterday to an old friend of mine and internet acquaintance of a few of you from ZLMB days. I mentioned to him how a less direct, perhaps nicer, but ultimately less urgent approach to non-LDS Christianity seems to be gaining the ascendancy among LDS on the internet. The prevailing claim here at MD&D that LDS never criticize other religions may hold true for most Mormons today, but in his recent thread Rob Bowman demonstrates that there is a wealth of evidence to show that this was not the style of Mormonism's founders nor even LDS apologetics of just a few years ago.

I am a little bit conflicted about the the whole thing. On one hand, it's good to see a thread that talks about LDS standing with the Catholics. Who doesn't want to be friendly? No anti-Christ. No idolatry. The opposition to my faith now comes not so much from those eager to defend traditional LDS teachings, but rather from progressive elements who will corrupt the traditional teachings and morals of the LDS, Catholic, or Protestant church they would try to reform. Its certainly nicer here these days. I used to be relieved to come home from work to discover there wasn't any objectionable reference to the Catholic faith requiring my attention. Now, I sometimes miss those days. It is this spirit of change to the "niceness" of the progressive modernist that I find most alarming about all faiths. Stand with us on how to vote if it makes sense. But don't forget why we can not worship together and can't go to Church together. I am preaching the "old ecumenism" that starts with recognizing urgent problems before assessing our unity.

My wife wrote many years ago to a Capuchin monastery to explain that we had attended as Baptists the Franciscan seminary that the Capuchins had sold because of a lack of vocations. She thought that they would be cheered by the news that like them, we had become Catholics, and maybe they could take some solace from our story after having lost their seminary to the Baptists. The disappointing reply revealed that there is within the Catholic Church, this friendly spirit of niceness that does not criticize other religions, and can see no urgency whatsoever in making life changing faith decisions, especially about one's church affiliation. In short, we were informed that the Baptists are our brothers. Either we would have to divorce ourselves from this spirit of niceness, or we wouldn't have had any reason to become Catholic.

I think you know what we decided upon. It is with these thoughts in mind that I wonder if perhaps I might have more in common with Bruce McConkey, Rob Bowman, and Martin Luther, than I have with TV Protestants, progressive Mormons, and those elements within my own faith who have lost the traditions of their Fathers. Whoever we follow, whatever we believe, we are all of us parts of a religion whose founders believed that the truths they preached were so important, that the faith decisions we make are so important, that missions must go through all the world to reach not only pagans who have never heard of Christ, but to sects which believe in Jesus, but imperfectly. Our churches didn't begin by being tolerant of false beliefs. Our fathers held that the fulness of God's revelation was urgently needed in our poor world, so that God's will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. In short, we are a religion founded on martyrs. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

For what it is worth, there is a sense in which I would say that Rob Bowman and Bruce McConkey are better Catholics than those Capuchins who sold a seminary and couldn't care less that we joined their church. With the former, I think I sense an urgency borne of a deep and confident belief that Goliath always comes back to be slain. Where is David now? Is there not a cause? There is no way that a new religion starts without this kind of sacrifice which is willing to oppose something vigorous and seemingly insurmountable. A new religon becomes old and durable only by retaining that vigorous spirit of urgency. We like that little David slew the giant, but like ancient Israel, we forget how hard it is to maintain faith uncorrupted.

Over generations, compromises are made which make many modern Lutherans, Mormons, and Catholics unrecognizable shadows of their Fathers. What I am saying is that I reject, I spew out of my mouth, this unrecognizable shadow of any faith. Before I am Christian, before I am Catholic, I will be a child of fathers who would have died to give me something rare and precious. I must find what they loved and keep it in its purity. Moderns don't need or want an old religion. Moderns will only corrupt religion much less found a new one. I can't talk about where to go to church to a modern. The "old ecumenism" I espouse recognizes the unity that exists among those who will not sacrifice eternal truths for temporary and prevailing fads. I can't talk to any except that select company about the next question. What to believe and where to find truth? Only to those wary of tired and recycled 21st Century platitudes can one profitably speak of a new Restoration, or a faith with the uncorrupted traditions that reach back to beginnings!

Beware of the modernist wherever you worship. I am more Lutheran than that lady minister from the ELCA. I am a better Mormon than a few here who while remaining LDS in name, would corrupt the morals and doctrines of those whose faith you profess to follow. I can never imagine not being Catholic, but if I could, I wouldn't be ashamed of names like Bruce McConkey or Rob Bowman who have shown fearlessness in an age that disproportionately fears above all things, being accused of not being tolerant of other beliefs.

Edited February 11, 2012 by 3DOP

[Maidservant]

You make good points and are very articulate in them, I enjoyed what you had to say and was almost persuaded .

But I think I'll just disagree in the end. The idea that since some faith defenders may have learned to be kind, to share instead of debate, (not that we're kinder or the past was less, but just to speak to the ideas in your post; or even I can't see that it is nicer on this board really, ha ha) etc etc . . . perhaps a shift or reframe of values, yes . . . is somehow a lack of faith or a mistake in direction . . . hm, I just disagree. Why doesn't it mean that we have matured in faith, not lost it? In fact, for me I see that it does mean that.

Which, oddly enough, means I took a stand, ha ha. So, I suppose there is still a good criticism in what you say that is worth examining ourselves for . . . maybe not the behavior itself, but the reasons for our behavior? Hm, shall have to think on it more.

[3DOP]

Thanks for your consideration Maidservant. You will note that I admitted to being conflicted a little myself. I like to get along. Few of us seek conflict for the sake of conflict. It is necessary to be kind, to share, to love, while opposing error in debate. Any criticism that is unloving is doomed if only that it alienates. Active love is compatible with opposition. Tolerance of error is not necessarily love. It might just be a desire for rest, for peace at any expense. It may be only indifference.

Edited February 11, 2012 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

I see the problem for fundamentalists is the perceived conflict with science.

As long as you adhere to the correspondence theory of truth- that what is knowable is hard and fast and unchanging- and apart from our perceptions of it- you will always have a perceived conflict with science. Science is based ultimately on empiricism- what we SEE is what is real.

And that perceived conflict will eventually be fatal to fundamentalism. I don't see how you can make it work.

As long as appearances are seen as "not real" by fundamentalists, there is going to be a conflict.

Edited February 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Maybe this will make the point more clearly:

Is reality the way things appear to us, the way we experience them, or something else?

If reality is something outside of what we can sense, we can never know what it is- because we can't sense it!

I think that fundamentalists tend to think that reality is something "more" than appearances, because we cannot see God. Surely God is real, so reality must be beyond what we can experience.

God never changes, and things change in appearance, so God cannot be just "mere appearance"

"Facts" about what is true or false correspond to this reality beyond appearances.

This is the old fashioned Cartesian dualism of fundamentalism. There is a rift between appearance and "reality", and "facts" correspond to reality.

The problem with this view is that somehow we have to know - without using our senses, because they only know "appearances"- that "facts" correspond to that reality.

But if all we know is what our senses tell us, how can we ever get beyond our senses to what is "real" so that we can see that the "facts" correspond to what is "real"?

This is the classic problem epistemology was invented to fix.

On the other hand, there are those who think that appearances ARE what is "real". This view, I suspect, is what is being discussed here as the "modern" view, though really that is a misnomer- but that is not relevant to the point.

Appearances change because the world is a place of continuing change. The best we can do in forming a rational picture of this changing reality is to come up with something that "works" in action, much as a hammer works to drive a nail, but is a miserable tool to saw a board. "Facts" are just ideas that work better than other ideas, but there is no way to know what "ultimate reality" is- because we cannot experience it. All we experience are appearances. And all of what we say is conditioned by and restricted to linguistic statements and their interpretation, because we have no other tools available to us but language. It's just a tad hard to speak about anything without using language! So "facts" are just what works linguistically, and reality and appearance are one, and changing constantly. The only eternal verities are change itself.

But where does this then place God in our lives? I would argue closer than is possible in the "old" view.

Can God be experienced?

Of course he can- subjectively through feelings and emotions. Is he "real" then? Of course he is- as real as anything can be, since feelings and emotions are just as important as what is scientifically observable, and in some ways MORE important than what is scientifically observable since we make most decisions in our lives based on feelings and emotions and not what is scientifically observable.

God is experienced as someone with whom one can commuicate as often as one wants, as an infinitely wise father, a family member who is just a simple prayer away instead of some ineffable Magesterial Spirit Mystery of the Universe besides whom we are corrupted beings with a filthy nature.

I guess you could say I like the "modern" view better.

[Nevo]

Over generations, compromises are made which make many modern Lutherans, Mormons, and Catholics unrecognizable shadows of their Fathers. What I am saying is that I reject, I spew out of my mouth, this unrecognizable shadow of any faith. Before I am Christian, before I am Catholic, I will be a child of fathers who would have died to give me something rare and precious. I must find what they loved and keep it in its purity.

This sentiment resonates with me, even though I feel incapable of living up to it.

I often feel nostalgic for the LDS church of my childhood, from the 70s and 80s, and worry that I may pass on only a diluted, watered-down faith to my children (as I have made many compromises over the last two decades). Elder Jeffrey R. Holland spoke in General Conference a few years ago to those "who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church’s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith." He was speaking to me. He went on to warn: "Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance. If in matters of faith and belief children are at risk of being swept downstream by this intellectual current or that cultural rapid, we as their parents must be more certain than ever to hold to anchored, unmistakable moorings clearly recognizable to those of our own household."

Anyway, I commend your commitment to keep your faith in its purity. And rest assured that the "old ecumenism" is still alive and well in my corner of the world. I was in a small Catholic bookshop last night and noticed a shelf dedicated to countering Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (sample title: What Mormons Really Believe).

By the way, 3DOP, what are the top five (or ten) "Catholic" books you'd recommend? (I already have Thomas a Kempis' Imitation of Christ, works by Augustine and Aquinas, Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth, and Peter Kreeft's Making Sense Out of Suffering.)

[Maidservant]

Active love is compatible with opposition.

I do agree with you here. "Kindness" should not lead to ceding one's beliefs, faith, rituals, laws; rather to maintain them clearly, with integrity, and to speak up when appropriate, and maybe a few times when it isn't. However, for me at least, I would like to think that keeping a clear hold upon our beliefs, both in living and in communicating, does not mean that a relationship or union on a human level with another person or group should be severed because of those differences--that union can be maintained across the boundaries of belief systems. But I don't know if that is what you were saying or not.

And keeping a healthy dose of realizing we all have more to learn.

Maybe it's a fine line.

[blackstrap]

Unfortunately,a lot of people have taken the differences between religions to the extent that they see the "we are right,you are wrong" as a licence to enforce their will upon each other even to the point of war.Has that ever happened between Catholics and Protestants? Christians and Muslims? Hindus and Muslims? Atheists and 'pick your group' ?

[3DOP]

This sentiment resonates with me, even though I feel incapable of living up to it.

I often feel nostalgic for the LDS church of my childhood, from the 70s and 80s, and worry that I may pass on only a diluted, watered-down faith to my children (as I have made many compromises over the last two decades). Elder Jeffrey R. Holland spoke in General Conference a few years ago to those "who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church’s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith." He was speaking to me. He went on to warn: "Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance. If in matters of faith and belief children are at risk of being swept downstream by this intellectual current or that cultural rapid, we as their parents must be more certain than ever to hold to anchored, unmistakable moorings clearly recognizable to those of our own household."

Anyway, I commend your commitment to keep your faith in its purity. And rest assured that the "old ecumenism" is still alive and well in my corner of the world. I was in a small Catholic bookshop last night and noticed a shelf dedicated to countering Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (sample title: What Mormons Really Believe).

By the way, 3DOP, what are the top five (or ten) "Catholic" books you'd recommend? (I already have Thomas a Kempis' Imitation of Christ, works by Augustine and Aquinas, Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth, and Peter Kreeft's Making Sense Out of Suffering.)

Hi Nevo. I am grateful for the resonance. I suggest that it is more than nostalgia that unites us.

For the record Nevo, I am unimpressed with published Catholic attempts to explain the LDS faith.

Let me think about your question about books. Does a doctor of physic give the same medicine to every patient?

Edited February 12, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Unfortunately,a lot of people have taken the differences between religions to the extent that they see the "we are right,you are wrong" as a licence to enforce their will upon each other even to the point of war.Has that ever happened between Catholics and Protestants? Christians and Muslims? Hindus and Muslims? Atheists and 'pick your group' ?

That war has resulted from differences in cherished beliefs neither surprises nor scandalizes me. I will not die for the Republican platform. I just won't. I don't care enough. Even though I will likely vote that way. People will only die for what they really love. Mothers, Children, Country, Faith. Of course they can cause individual or local conflicts and even erupt into war. But I am not going to throw any of those in the poopcan merely because people have always cared about them more than most other things on earth!

Edited February 12, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Hey bukowski...I thought you might stop in. Good to see you.

I believe what I see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. If a good God made the world and put rational souls who perceive with senses in it, I expect that what He gives us to sense must be real and not a deception. Of course experience teaches me that a mirage is a mirage, a real thing albeit different than what may initially appear. A mirror image is a mirror image and only a reflection of what is real. The senses are not divorced from the intellect and with exercise can discern fact from fancy. I paraphrase from St. Hilary of Poitiers who said that the smallest thing in creation is "declarative being".

Does that make me fundamentalist? Unscientific? You can decide for yourself. I don't see anything unscientific about the faiths which have come down to us clamoring for our acceptance. I do see irreligious and hostile parties who in the name of science, (falsely so-called) would declare religion to be obsolete.

Regards,

Rory

Edited February 12, 2012 by 3DOP

[BCSpace]

The prevailing claim here at MD&D that LDS never criticize other religions may hold true for most Mormons today,

Depends on what you mean by criticism. Our doctrine on the universal apostasy, the Restoration, and the only true Church notion hasn't changed at all over the decades.

In addition, beginning in the about mid 1980's the Church began to adopt what essentially was a "we're Christians just like you" campaign which they gave up after about a decade after realizing that differentiation was the best way to gain converts. What incentive is there for someone to investigate the Church if we're just like them?

[TAO]

Hey 3DOP =).

I see your point, that I do. But I also see the point in the other point of view.

To be quite honest, I am a sort of 'progressive', in that sense; I don't see much of a point of criticizing other religions... or at least talking harshly about why I believe they are wrong. It just, isn't as important to me. My job is to help those who the Lord wants me to help... and it usually isn't by arguing people, at least in my case =p.

I got reprimanded for that the other day. A preacher trying to challenge my beliefs didn't like my pragmaticism, and thought it was relativism. I was stupid - because I knew it was coming, and I had been warned by the Lord not to get in arguments with people earlier that day. I made a mistake, and have sense repented of it. The mistake wasn't that I was wrong... it was that I approached it in a way which was not what the Lord wanted. So yes, I will answer questions, I will know how others are wrong... but... I will be Christlike in how I show that to other people.

That isn't to say that the compromising some people do is good... in fact... it is, in certain ways, more awful. What makes religion clean and pure needs to be protected. Or else, there won't be a use for religion anymore... the feelings of purity, and cleanliness, and purpose, and hope, those are what make it worthwhile. When I visit the temple, I find, and get, the feeling of hope, and of purpose; of cleanliness and purity. And I preserve it in my heart. Now... I know you don't have a temple... but I am sure you have a pure place of your own... a place... that is just marvelously intoxicatingly spiritual. Keep that in your heart... it will help you when your faith is challenged, and you need to remember what it is like, to be in the presence of God.

I guess you could say, it's my refuge. In any case, that is a refuge, that for me, must be protected at all costs. I will protect my heart, my temple, for it is my refuge. There are things we can't barter for; we can't compromise on; we must protect. Those things, must stay, and we must realize what those things are, I guess =p.

Now I'm rambling off... but... I guess the important thing for me, is that I must remember what God wants me to be. My third cousin got told a great piece of advice one time... it was 'God's Law's are more important than God's commandments'. Now, sometimes, laws are commandments too... but... I guess the important part is we need to realize God's priorities for us. His priorities first, than ours =).

Meh, now I'm completely random XD.

Ah, oh well =p.

Best of Wishes despite the randomness,

-TAO

[Robert F. Smith]

I find the miltant defense of Latter-day Saints of a mere generation ago to be refreshing. I was on the phone just yesterday to an old friend of mine and internet acquaintance of a few of you from ZLMB days. I mentioned to him how a less direct, perhaps nicer, but ultimately less urgent approach to non-LDS Christianity seems to be gaining the ascendancy among LDS on the internet. The prevailing claim here at MD&D that LDS never criticize other religions may hold true for most Mormons today, but in his recent thread Rob Bowman demonstrates that there is a wealth of evidence to show that this was not the style of Mormonism's founders nor even LDS apologetics of just a few years ago.

I am a little bit conflicted about the the whole thing. On one hand, it's good to see a thread that talks about LDS standing with the Catholics. Who doesn't want to be friendly? No anti-Christ. No idolatry. The opposition to my faith now comes not so much from those eager to defend traditional LDS teachings, but rather from progressive elements who will corrupt the traditional teachings and morals of the LDS, Catholic, or Protestant church they would try to reform. Its certainly nicer here these days. I used to be relieved to come home from work to discover there wasn't any objectionable reference to the Catholic faith requiring my attention. Now, I sometimes miss those days. It is this spirit of change to the "niceness" of the progressive modernist that I find most alarming about all faiths. Stand with us on how to vote if it makes sense. But don't forget why we can not worship together and can't go to Church together. I am preaching the "old ecumenism" that starts with recognizing urgent problems before assessing our unity.

I think you know what we decided upon. It is with these thoughts in mind that I wonder if perhaps I might have more in common with Bruce McConkey, Rob Bowman, and Martin Luther, than I have with TV Protestants, progressive Mormons, and those elements within my own faith who have lost the traditions of their Fathers. Whoever we follow, whatever we believe, we are all of us parts of a religion whose founders believed that the truths they preached were so important, that the faith decisions we make are so important, that missions must go through all the world to reach not only pagans who have never heard of Christ, but to sects which believe in Jesus, but imperfectly. Our churches didn't begin by being tolerant of false beliefs. Our fathers held that the fulness of God's revelation was urgently needed in our poor world, so that God's will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. In short, we are a religion founded on martyrs. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

For what it is worth, there is a sense in which I would say that Rob Bowman and Bruce McConkey are better Catholics than those Capuchins who sold a seminary and couldn't care less that we joined their church. With the former, I think I sense an urgency borne of a deep and confident belief that Goliath always comes back to be slain. Where is David now? Is there not a cause? There is no way that a new religion starts without this kind of sacrifice which is willing to oppose something vigorous and seemingly insurmountable. A new religon becomes old and durable only by retaining that vigorous spirit of urgency. We like that little David slew the giant, but like ancient Israel, we forget how hard it is to maintain faith uncorrupted.

Over generations, compromises are made which make many modern Lutherans, Mormons, and Catholics unrecognizable shadows of their Fathers. What I am saying is that I reject, I spew out of my mouth, this unrecognizable shadow of any faith. Before I am Christian, before I am Catholic, I will be a child of fathers who would have died to give me something rare and precious. I must find what they loved and keep it in its purity. Moderns don't need or want an old religion. Moderns will only corrupt religion much less found a new one. I can't talk about where to go to church to a modern. The "old ecumenism" I espouse recognizes the unity that exists among those who will not sacrifice eternal truths for temporary and prevailing fads. I can't talk to any except that select company about the next question. What to believe and where to find truth? Only to those wary of tired and recycled 21st Century platitudes can one profitably speak of a new Restoration, or a faith with the uncorrupted traditions that reach back to beginnings!

Beware of the modernist wherever you worship. I am more Lutheran than that lady minister from the ELCA. I am a better Mormon than a few here who while remaining LDS in name, would corrupt the morals and doctrines of those whose faith you profess to follow. I can never imagine not being Catholic, but if I could, I wouldn't be ashamed of names like Bruce McConkey or Rob Bowman who have shown fearlessness in an age that disproportionately fears above all things, being accused of not being tolerant of other beliefs.

I'm not sure that you know what ecumenism means, nor why it was adopted so urgently within my lifetime. Perhaps you need to hark back to the world of peaceful European Judaism (think of Tevye's shtetl, Anatevka, created by Sholem Aleichem), and then think about the 6 1/2 million Jews systematically exterminated by the Nazis -- in the midst of by far the bloodiest century in human history. Martin Luther hated Jews and said so, calling for their persecution and death. John Calvin and de Torquemada both burned people at the stake simply because they didn't have the correct theological views. God-fearing Americans in the deep South bought and sold slaves like cattle, and (when slavery was declared illegal) used lynchings and cross-burnings to keep the mud-people in line. Free-wheeling intolerance was used to justify nearly any falsehood told about the minority group which needed to be exterminated.

Having been continually mobbed, murdered, and run out of town, Mormons were finally able to retreat to a place of temporary safety in the West where they could engage in a kind of solipsistic splendor. Now that they are part of a much wider world (more of them live abroad now than in the USA) they have found that being and having good neighbors is very important, and the rest of the world largely agrees. Those who have been sobered by the reckless bloodletting of the past have realized that feeding the hungry and clothing the naked may best be accomplished by religions which put first things first -- as does the LDS Church when it puts millions of dollars in the hands of Catholic Relief in places where that is the only organization capable of dealing responsibly with desperate problems. That is and has been the true ecumenical spirit.

There is indeed a place and time for debating the fine points of religion, but it should always be pursued in an atmosphere of mutual respect and sincere honesty.

[Xander]

Robert,

I loved how you went from comparing those evil murdering Protestants to Adolf Hitler, and then suddenly directed our attention to those poor, charitable, though eternally persecuted Mormons.

LOL!

That's OK, I'm sure "Godwins law" doesn't apply to you.

But I'm sure you invoked the emotions, er, I mean "spirit", in many Mormons here who love to hear this kind of nonsense.

Millions of dollars means nothing to a corporation that's bringing in tens of billions. And a million in charity is hardly impressive when you turn around and spend a couple billion on a shopping mall. Just to put some of your silliness into perspective.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

Back around 2004 I started a thread apologizing to the Catholic faith for believing so much of the anti-Catholic sentiments I had learned as a Mormon. I was particularly embarrassed by the way I had invoked the inquisitions and Crusades and used them as a club to bludgeon Catholicism as a missionary and apologist. I cannot find the thread, so it may have been deleted. But I remember the vast majority of Mormons got upset with me and started defending their use of these events to criticize Catholics because so many LDS leaders in the past had used them as well. Modern scholarship on the subject had no effect on their attitude.

Scholarship has revealed to us that so much of this stuff, the way it has traditionally been understood as intolerant, was based on myth. So in short, the Catholic Church had been taking a beating over these events for centuries, and in the end, a proper understanding of them made the Church appear quite reasonable. Did you know the Crusades were essentially an act of self-defense?

It is ironic that some of the people who complain about these events are some of the same people who get indignant if anyone dare raise the issue of Mountain Meadows, or the Danites etc. They love to constantly raise the persecution Mormons suffered in Missouri but they're never interested in discussing why so many people hated the Mormons. I'm not saying it was justified hatred, but Joseph Smith certainly didn't help their situation with his need to start and justify polygamy.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

I loved how you went from comparing those evil murdering Protestants to Adolf Hitler, and then suddenly directed our attention to those poor, charitable, though eternally persecuted Mormons.

LOL!

That's OK, I'm sure "Godwins law" doesn't apply to you.

But I'm sure you invoked the emotions, er, I mean "spirit", in many Mormons here who love to hear this kind of nonsense.

Millions of dollars means nothing to a corporation that's bringing in tens of billions. And a million in charity is hardly impressive when you turn around and spend a couple billion on a shopping mall. Just to put some of your silliness into perspective.

Kevin,

JDave gave the following quote from the late Gordon B. Hinckley on another thread:

“We recognize the good in all churches. We recognize the value of religion generally. We say to everyone: live the teachings which you have received from your church. We invite you to come and learn from us, to see if we can add to those teachings and enhance your life and your understanding of things sacred and divine. Now we work with people of other faiths on common causes, many of them across the world. We recognize theological differences. We believe that we can disagree theologically without being disagreeable, and we hope to do so. We have been rather careful about surrendering in any way our doctrinal standards, anything of that kind as part of an ecumenical effort, but we certainly have worked with people, and do work with people, and want to work with other groups in tackling common social problems, things of that kind which are so much in need of attention these days throughout the world” (interview with Lawrence Spicer,

London News Service

, 28 Aug. 1995).

When I said "millions" I was thinking of only one specific occasion in the mid-1980s in which a dire crisis faced the persecuted people of south Sudan. Within only a few days of being informed of the need, the Brethren (Courtesy of Catholic Relief) had a large convoy of trucks leaving Nairobi en route to Sudan with food and water, with nary a mention of it in the press. The LDS Church has spent billions on just such "silliness" and "nonsense." I Corinthians 1:18-25.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Storm Rider]

3DOP, it is an interesting proposition. Do you reallly think that individuals have become more docile in their faith and unwilling to stand firm in the truths of their respective churches?

I have come to appreciate to charitable feelings that are occaisional felt when discussion religion honestly. I find the kind of one-note song of derision a al Xander to be as scratching on a chalkboard. It grates the soul so badly as to simply block out all he has to say. When I have visited the Cathoic Forum I find some of the same quality of derision. They are all completely devoid of sharing any truth and full of putrid venom for the "other".

I love to see the Catholic commercials about Coming Home, they are done well and are very appealing. There is so much that is good within Catholicism that I tend to focus on that then in deriding that which I find erroneous. For example, marian traditions are beyond me, the rosary is for the same reason. However, unless I am in conversation with someone personally, I don't feel it is appropriate to bring up. Conversations in person are so much more effective when discussing such serious matters. More important, I cannot see me ever starting a thread on this website that its sole purpose is to deride the beliefs of others.

I am LDS, even with the problems I find, because I know of no doctrine that makes as much sense and rings with as much truth. Nothing explains the purpose creation better than the teachings of the LDS Church. Just as important, nothing teaches the purpose of eternity as well either.

The LDS Church continues to and will continue to send her missionaries into the world to preach the gospel of complete Salvation to all who will listen. She will not back down because of her nay-sayers, critics, and the worst of her anti-Mormons. Even those more mundane, common one-note wonders that continue to bang away on that single note of disdain will not turn her from her purpose.

[Xander]

The LDS Church has spent billions on just such "silliness" and "nonsense."

CFR!!

Saying we "recognize the good" in other CHurches is hardly being specific. It is kinda like how racist folks try to nuetralize their racist remarks by saying things like, "But I like black people ... and lookie here, I have lots of black friends."

That sounds all nice and dandy when trying to put on a show for the press, but I'd be more impressed if you could produce at least as many LDS citations referring to the specific "good in other Churches" as Bowman and I have produced, from LDS teachings and conference talks. Provide a dozen or so and then you'd be approaching a 2:1 ratio.

Until then, Hinckley's comment should be understood for what it was. He was in PR mode, trying to make Mormonism more appealing in our age of tolerance.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

The LDS Church continues to and will continue to send her missionaries into the world to preach the gospel of complete Salvation to all who will listen. She will not back down because of her nay-sayers, critics, and the worst of her anti-Mormons. Even those more mundane, common one-note wonders that continue to bang away on that single note of disdain will not turn her from her purpose.

She will not back down because "she" believes all other Christians are in dire need of true salvation which can only come from the "true" Gospel. That's why anti-Mormons exist to begin with. People who do not like what the Church teaches or how it acts. No one wakes up one day and decides, hey I think I will criticize the Mormon Church for no reason whatsoever. Most "antis" feel the same exact way the LDS Church does about converting people. They think Mormonism is a perverted form of Christianity the same way LDS leaders have traditionally taught about Catholics and Protestants. There is no difference so it is hypocritical to claim victim-hood. The main difference is that non-LDS Christians are consistent in their bigotry whereas Mormons change their tune based on how they think their actions will be interpreted in public opinion. They know if they were as vocally bigoted as they were during the pre-1990 period, then that would prove devastating to an already struggling Church. Hinckley was by far the most PR minded President of the corporation. And I liked a lot of what he said, but I also know that much of what he said didn't jive with how most Mormons believe or act. Do you think for a second he'd approve of the way you LDS folks hang around on these forums and attack critics left and right? The lashing Bowman has been receiving for simply stating his sincere disagreements with LDS theology, are embarrassing to the Church.

Your attitude is out of place in a civil thread. Xander has left the building.

[Nevo]

Just a note on the term "ecumenism." Although the LDS Church has long enjoined respect for other faiths, and cooperates with other churches to achieve common goals, it has shied away from ecumenism per se.

As Boyd K. Packer explained in his 1985 talk, "The Only True Church," "we remain independent. While we cooperate with others to reach mutual objectives, we do it in our own way. We do not recognize the ordinances performed in other churches. We will not exchange baptisms, a practice which has become commonplace in the Christian world. We do not join associations of clergy or councils of churches. We keep our distance from the ecumenical movements. The restored gospel is the means by which Christians must ultimately be united."

[3DOP]

To those who have questioned my use of the term "ecumenism", I would reply that the reason for putting the term in quotation marks, as I did, was to show that what I would advocate is not what is ordinarily considered to be ecumenism. On the other hand, I am trying to show that there are important principles that reach across religious institutions that in some cases make individual Mormons, Catholics, and Protestants more alike than is ordinarily recognized.

The Old "Ecumenism" is my own expression. It wasn't intended to signify what is ordinarily meant by mere ecumenism. If I was not clear before, allow me to say that I am advocating a maintained unity that goes deeper and is more profound than the superficiality of different churches cooperating in a canned food drive or some joint religious service where all the prayers are watered down so as not to offend anybody. The modernists within all of our camps recognize both unities. Progressives are against a unity based on truth. Progressives want unity so badly that they would change or at least mask certain doctrines that are incompatible with everyone else's beliefs. The Mass as a sacrifice, the intercession of the saints, and devotion to the Mother of God are a few of these teachings that Catholic ecumenists would sweep under the rug. There has been for some time now a prominent Cardinal in the Vatican who teaches that Jews are saved by adherence to the Old Testament! He means well, but if that were true there is no way the Catholic Church is also true. I don't know if any Christian society has ever believed that! Now do we all have to become Jews? No...just everybody stay where you are. Diversity you know. We're all brothers.

Ecumenism (in its ordinary usage) results in progressive unity, a bland, lifeless, sterile thing that the young will find unstimulating. What young person would want to be a missionary for an organization that says you are saved in every organization? The young want truth, the old want peace. We must have both. Not peace at any price. I do not admit that firm adherence to ancient truths necessarily results in gas chambers or torture cells. Such attacks against truth are very practical and many people believe it. I suspect our "Jewish" Cardinal believes it. Assuredly you aren't going to find anyone zealously attached to a nebulous "faith" that seeks peace, only peace, and nothing but peace. Everybody is okay. Just be the best Buddhist, Jew, or Shaman you can be? Of course no one fights for that!

I am suggesting that true religious unity begins foundationally on the principle that ancient teachings and morals must either be compatible with the times and places in which we live or the religion from which they sprang is false. We defend (*see footnote below) our faiths from the beginnings. If we are Lutheran we defend the reasons for the Reformation. If we are Catholic we defend the teachings on indulgences and treasury of the saints. If we are LDS we defend the polygamy of Joseph Smith. We don't abandon what our fathers gave us. We aren't ashamed of our fathers. We pass it on at all cost. Even at the cost of being called derogatory names like fundamentalist. Even at the cost of being accused of being hateful. The old "ecumenism" doesn't permit that we should go to church together, but it makes us realize that if we should ever need to consider that we truly cannot defend the beginnings of our faiths, that we have fellows on the other side of the fence who understand your way of thinking and who would be delighted to offer explanations for how his beliefs and practices reach back to the Apostles with whom Jesus broke bread. If in the end, one is convinced that what is needed is a church rooted in the 21st Century, the "old ecumenist" is looking for more than human insight learned from what has come down to us so far. If after all thorough investigation, one cannot defend any extant faiths that claim to reach back to Christ, let such an one confidently wait and pray for a New Restoration founded on revelation rather than getting caught up in modern ecumenism, with its 21st Century guilt trips and media-driven morality. I challenge anyone who loves truth to realize that if one faith cannot stand, it does not mean that all faiths must fail.

3DOP

*Defense does not necessarily mean strict adherence and approval of every practice or attitude. It may take the form of arguing that Luther's antisemitism came from another influence, or that the forced baptisms of Jews in 14th Century Spain was a disastrous, but politically understandable perversion of everything the Church had always taught about compulsion. We can always appeal to the Old Testament which if nothing else seems like a chronicle of vile acts of immorality and infidelity to God's revelation which never resulted in the utter loss of priestly authority or the true religion into which Christ was born and practiced. In my opinion, a good defense of Brigham Young's Adam-God theory denies the teaching but saves the Church explaining how it never became official doctrine.

Edited February 12, 2012 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

I am suggesting that true religious unity begins foundationally on the principle that ancient teachings and morals must either be compatible with the times and places in which we live or the religion from which they sprang is false.

Not false, just no longer relevant to modern life.

That is precisely why we need prophets and on going revelation.

[peacefulleeman]

Interestingly,

I find the miltant defense of Latter-day Saints of a mere generation ago to be refreshing. I was on the phone just yesterday to an old friend of mine and internet acquaintance of a few of you from ZLMB days. I mentioned to him how a less direct, perhaps nicer, but ultimately less urgent approach to non-LDS Christianity seems to be gaining the ascendancy among LDS on the internet. The prevailing claim here at MD&D that LDS never criticize other religions may hold true for most Mormons today, but in his recent thread Rob Bowman demonstrates that there is a wealth of evidence to show that this was not the style of Mormonism's founders nor even LDS apologetics of just a few years ago.

Honestly I don't think anything has actually changed from then to now. LDS always had the standard of being more Ecuminical, and it was a foundation of our Faith. But there are times when we do like to get fired up and critical of others those we believe have perverted the Gospel of Christ. I think the only difference between then and now is that the leadership strives to be more diplomatic and aware of the hurt words can do. In the past, I don't think anyone in the culture was afraid of speaking their mind, that was just the culture. Today the culture including LDS believe in being more charitable to others, to not harm feelings.

Don't misunderstand, we are still firm in the faith, and we can still strongly chastize falsehood, but I think it's a good thing to most of the time be better about it. And to be fair, LDS leaders in the past were also most of the time better about it. It's just when they weren't, they weren't afraid to do so in public.

Truly, it's a false dichotomy Rob engages in. belittling other believers and religions was never the norm for mormons and mormonism. It's just when it did happen, it was recorded and public. And now Rob and other anti-mormons think that by quote mining history he/they can say that "see, mormons were/are no different than me". That's simply false. Mormons were always different. We always had tolerant Theology towards other Faiths and others, and we generally lived it. But yes, when men did get passionate and emotional, and maybe even errored in their approach before, it was public. Of course, some of the things claimed as bad, aren't even bad, but are misrepresented by Rob and others. It's like his list. Most of the things in his list were simply contrary beliefs, not even actual attacks of other faiths.

[Maidservant]

Article of Faith 11.