"How Christians Should Engage Latter-Day Saints"

[thesometimesaint]

coolrock:

If someone has to lie about their basic qualifications that goes directly against what they say. He put out his pretend doctorate for the purpose of fooling the unwary and gullible.

[coolrok7]

What Mormons themselves say in the context of presenting on what Mormonism teaches by its General Authorities is for me the bottom line.

If Walter Martin's claimed degree was fraudulent (which is debated and I still don't know for sure) then so be it. I've read both sides. But in the context of the thread op, engaging in dialogue with Latter-day Saints which I've participated in the last 30+ years of experience is where I'm coming from.

This on Mormon turf, attending their classes as I was requested to. I've done it open mindedly and still listen, Some things are not argueable/some are so I continue.

I know what is taught and how it is discussed by Mormons themselves in their own setting in which cannot be disputed. Walter Martin stated correctly what I heard/read in their literature and out of their own mouth.

His own conclusions I can agree with for the most part. I'm not deluded as it squares with what he stated over the years,even if Mormons disagree here and elsewhere, I've heard both side and continue in my faith perspective based on the facts of what I personally have learned over the years. I'm trying to get Mormons to own up on the side of truth with when I'm continually misrepresented in the literature provided by Mormon missionaries and church members after having been invited to talk to them both publically and privately:

To meet the opponents of the church, both in public and in private—

Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you in public and private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. (D&C 71:7-eight)

What I stated to the missionaries and their response is what I initially posted. I know what I said and how it was responded to. For the one missionary to say it was a mistake was not representative of the truth of the matter I was stating to him as an example of the point I was making.

He is sent on his mission by an official call letter by the "Prophet" of the Mormon Church. The church misrepresents what I believe as a Chrstian, evangelical/protestant. I assured him that I agree that it is done to Mormons as well which doesn't excuse either side that does it:

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111

March 23, ****

Elder ******* ******** ******

***** Ward, ********** **** Stake

**** *******

**** ******* ********** *****

Dear Elder ******:

You are hereby called to be a missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to labor in the ******* Mission.

You are scheduled to enter the Mission Home in Salt Lake City at 119 North

Main Street on ********, ***** **, ****.

Your presiding officers have recommended you as one worthy to represent

the Church of our Lord as a Minister of the Gospel. It will be your duty to

live righteously, to keep the commandments of the Lord, to honor the holy

Priesthood which you bear, to increase your testimony of the divinity of

the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, to be an exemplar in your life of all

the Christian virtues, and so to conduct yourself as a devoted servant of the

Lord that you may be an effective advocate and messenger of the Truth.

We repose in you our confidence and extend to you our prayers that the Lord

Will help you thus to meet your responsibilities.

The Lord will reward the goodness of your life, and greater blessings and

More happiness than you have yet experienced await you as you serve Him

Humbly and prayerfully in this labor of love among His children.

We ask that you please send your written acceptance promptly, endorsed

By your presiding officer in the ward or branch where you live.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]oseph Fielding Smith

President

Edited September 16, 2012 by coolrok7

[Calm]

One can read from/explore original sources, etc. and still not have the correct understanding, especially if one brings too many assumptions to the reading in the first place.

It is excellent to go to the source and not rely on secondhand info as much as possible, but one shouldn't assume one has an accurate knowledge solely based on exposure. It is wise to test one's understanding by asking believers if one's interpretation is correct and then accepting and adapting one's understanding based on their reactions.

Those who insist that their use of primary sources is correct in the face of believers' denials are no better in my view than those who rely on second or thirdhand sources and insist that interpretation is correct.

[coolrok7]

What about the incorrect assumptions made by Mormons in the dialogue that they don't want to own up to? I'm open to correction if I wrongly assume things.

[Calm]

What I said goes for anyone in conversation with a believer about that individual's faith. That is why I didn't identify a particular faith in my comment above...

And for what it is worth why I usually add a disclaimer when I am representing concepts from another's faith that I may be wrong and would welcome correction from a believer if needed.

I also speak up whenever I hear something I know is wrong even if it is coming from a fellow Saint.

Edited September 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[coolrok7]

Then why don't Mormons own up to their sides misrepresentations of what others actually believe and Mormons don't accept the corrections when it is pointed out to them?

Anyone has the right to believe what they want but not to misrepresent what others believe that is in line with Biblical teaching.

[urroner]

Then why don't Mormons own up to their sides misrepresentations of what others actually believe and Mormons don't accept the corrections when it is pointed out to them?

Anyone has the right to believe what they want but not to misrepresent what others believe that is in line with Biblical teaching.

CR7, are you saying that no Mormons own up or that some Mormon don't own up? When you said "Then why don't Mormons own up...," it seems to me that you are saying that no Mormons own up since there was no qualifier with it.

Are typical Biblical/Traditional/Creedal/Historical/Evangelical/Historical/Fundamental Christians any more willing to own up as the typical Mormon?

[Calm]

Then why don't Mormons own up to their sides misrepresentations of what others actually believe and Mormons don't accept the corrections when it is pointed out to them?

Anyone has the right to believe what they want but not to misrepresent what others believe that is in line with Biblical teaching.

I am not disagreeing with you. Please show me where I haven't "own[ed] up" if you are suggesting I haven't. Please show me where I haven't accepted correction.

Not every LDS is as careful or as educated in other beliefs as I am. I am certainly not the most careful and definitely not the most educated among my fellow Saints either. I correct them when I see or hear error that I am aware of, but you can hardly hold me responsible for every one who does this since I cannot be everywhere at once nor do I know all things in regards to religious beliefs.

Some Saints do this out of simple misunderstanding with no ill intent. Others do it because of laziness. Likely there are other reasons as well. They are wrong to do so if they don't accept honest corrections.

Edited September 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Carborendum]

Then why don't Mormons own up to their sides misrepresentations of what others actually believe and Mormons don't accept the corrections when it is pointed out to them?

Anyone has the right to believe what they want but not to misrepresent what others believe that is in line with Biblical teaching.

Does anyone have any idea what he's talking about?

[Calm]

I know some LDS think the Trinity is some kind of modalistic concept. Sometimes this is due to their own misunderstanding, others it is because it has been taught to them that way by believers who aren't fully informed about their own faith's official teachings.

I wouldn't be surprised if he is also referring to the easy grace concept. Some LDS have in my experienced applied "easy grace" to every "grace only" believer, which again isn't an accurate portrayal.

If he has something else in mind, he will have to speak up for himself.

I have never had a fellow Saint refuse to accept correction on this issue when I've pointed out error in my memory.

Edited September 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Carborendum]

I know some LDS think the Trinity is some kind of modalistic concept. Sometimes this is due to their own misunderstanding, others it is because it has been taught to them that way by believers who aren't fully informed about their own faith's official teachings.

I wouldn't be surprised if he is also referring to the easy grace concept. Some LDS have in my experienced applied "easy grace" to every "grace only" believer, which again isn't an accurate portrayal.

...

I have never had a fellow Saint refuse to accept correction on this issue when I've pointed out error in my memory.

I actualy grew up with a very strong anti-Mormon. He himself gave me a description of the Trinity by describing what I found many years later to be "modalism". So, perfect example.

And, same guy, actually did believe in easy grace. As did a particular phony investigator on my mission. So, you can't blame me for listening to what these two actually said. No misrepresentations from my church leaders. It was straight from adherents.

I even tried to give them some wiggle room. But they absolutely would not take it. Both of them.

Other evangelicals I've come across, the subject never comes up. But the common statement I hear from many is: "There is nothing we can do to earn salvation." This sounds like easy grace to me.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Carborendum

[Calm]

This sounds like easy grace to me.

For me, 'easy grace' is about making excuses for sinning, less about how they actually view salvation.

[Carborendum]

For me, 'easy grace' is about making excuses for sinning, less about how they actually view salvation.

OK, clarify the difference.

What I'm hearing as the difference is:

1) Hey, I'm a believer, so I can do whatever I want and I'll still be saved.

2) Because I'm a believer, I know that I'll be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven regardless of how bad a sinner I am.

Yes, I see the subtle differences. But that is exactly what they are. Subtle. And in a practical application, I don't see the difference when there is NO emphasis on individual *effort*.

The thing about our theology on salvation is that there is a requirement for *effort*. If we go down to the bottom line and ask "are we *earning* our way to salvation?" The answer is no. But the effort is still required of us.

One EV even told me about a particular sin he maintained and whenever he prays he simply says,"Well, You made me this way."

Granted, it wasn't a major sin we're talking about. But still, he had *no* desire to get rid of it because Jesus saves.

[Saints Alive]

One EV even told me about a particular sin he maintained and whenever he prays he simply says,"Well, You made me this way."

Granted, it wasn't a major sin we're talking about. But still, he had *no* desire to get rid of it because Jesus saves.

This quote highlights one of my major hangups with Evangelicalism.

[mfbukowski]

never mind

Edited September 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Saints Alive]

Evangelical “how-to” sermons are not going to reach our LDS neighbors. Neither are anti-theological churches that major on Christian experience and piety disconnected from doctrinal content. Instead, we must present the gospel the way the apostles did in the aftermath of Pentecost: as a “mystery” that now explains everything in terms of God’s purposes in Jesus Christ.

ignoring the anti-mormon sentiments and the parts of the article that basically say "mormons believe what they want to believe" this is what I was talking about when a said a step in the right direction (even though it might be one step on a journey of 1000 miles)... Tell me what you believe and answer my questions, don't tell me why I am wrong.

[coolrok7]

CR7, are you saying that no Mormons own up or that some Mormon don't own up? When you said "Then why don't Mormons own up...," it seems to me that you are saying that no Mormons own up since there was no qualifier with it.

Are typical Biblical/Traditional/Creedal/Historical/Evangelical/Historical/Fundamental Christians any more willing to own up as the typical Mormon?

That would of course depend on the individual involved. Some would while others might or will not. I didn't mean all but more often then not they don't seem to want to correct what I've laways pointed out, their misrepresentaion on things such as grace alone, the teaching that the Trinity is pagan while it is not among other things.

I've always been open to correction when I see that I have been in need of it (which is not often but i have at least a few times). The specific context is how I opened my response which is typical of most Mormons I've come across when they've come to my door, met me in a public setting or while after being invited to the local ward or stake center and talk with those that are there.

Here I've been ignored when I bring the same type issues up. Mormon General Authorities don't like the following (neither do I when it is done to what I believe is misrepresented by Mormons at all levels):

As always, there are self-appointed spokesman who scoff at what we believe and misrepresent what we teach. (The Ensign, Elder Boyd K. Packer, Nov. 1984, p.66)

But at the LDS Church’s General Conference in October 1983, Elder Gordon B. Hinckley of the church’s ruling First Presidency lashed out at those “who have taken upon themselves as their mission to belittle and demean and destroy the faith of the weak, with a badly flawed argument that we are not Christians.” (Newsweek, March 4, 1985, p.65)

I was handed a tract the other day. It was written by a critic, an enemy of the Church whose desire is to undermine the faith of the weak and the unknowing. It repeats fallacies that have been parroted for a century and more. It purports to set forth what you and I, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, believe. (The Ensign, President Gordon B. Hinckley, Nov. 1986, p.49)

Misrepresentation happens on all sides of discussions as I've observed in which also don't condone it when I see it.

[Pahoran]

I encountered some missionaries in Orange (Ca.) on my way home from EMFJ, (I volunteer there every fourth Saturday).

EMFJ = "Ex-Mormons for Jesus?"

So you are so enchanted with a hate movement that you actually help them out for no reward?

I'm sure Ed Decker is pleased with you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Carborendum]

Here I've been ignored when I bring the same type issues up. Mormon General Authorities don't like the following (neither do I when it is done to what I believe is misrepresented by Mormons at all levels):

I still don't get what you're talking about.

Misrepresentation happens on all sides of discussions as I've observed in which also don't condone it when I see it.

I agree. And neither do I.

Here's an idea. If you feel like you are truly that "open", and you can be polite, and we can be polite, how about you start a new thread and discuss "Grace Alone" or whatever you want to title it.

There is already a thread on the Trinity. So, maybe you'll comment on that thread regarding that. See "Which Trinity".

[urroner]

[Flyonthewall]

One thing you may want to keep in mind, when speaking of non-LDS christians, we generalize and do not speak of a specific one.

So if a GA states that traditional christianity believes X, that simply means that the belief of X is out there in traditional christianity...of course there are thousands of different denominations, so if you don't believe X, that doesn't mean there isn't a denomination or some denominations that believe X.

[Vance]

One thing you may want to keep in mind, when speaking of non-LDS christians, we generalize and do not speak of a specific one.

So if a GA states that traditional christianity believes X, that simply means that the belief of X is out there in traditional christianity...of course there are thousands of different denominations, so if you don't believe X, that doesn't mean there isn't a denomination or some denominations that believe X.

There you go again. Taking away their excuse for being offended.

Why shouldn't they be able to say, "Hey, I don't believe that, so you are misrepresenting what traditional Christians believe". (Because, we all know that each and every individual traditional Christian believes the exact same things about everything and that they can speak for ALL the rest.)

Do I really need the sarc/off tag?

[urroner]

Do I really need the sarc/off tag?

WHAT!!!??? Are you being sarcastic about being sarcastic?

[Vance]

WHAT!!!??? Are you being sarcastic about being sarcastic?

Why would anyone think I was being sarcastic?

[mfbukowski]

One thing you may want to keep in mind, when speaking of non-LDS christians, we generalize and do not speak of a specific one.

So if a GA states that traditional christianity believes X, that simply means that the belief of X is out there in traditional christianity...of course there are thousands of different denominations, so if you don't believe X, that doesn't mean there isn't a denomination or some denominations that believe X.

I have heard that a lot of people believe in X, and I am highly opposed to it. Believing in pornography doesn't strike me as a very good religion.