A Debate ("Dialogue") Scheduled for Today in Magna, UT

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

A Presbyterian congregation located near the heart of Mormonism will hold a dialogue between a Christian apologist and a Mormon leader over the veracity of the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Christ Presbyterian Church of Magna, Utah, will hold a dialogue on Friday between James White, theologian and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Alma Allred, an LDS bishop and Institute of Religion instructor at the University of Utah.

Jason Wallace, pastor at Christ Presbyterian, explained in comments emailed to The Christian Post on Thursday that he hopes the dialogue will change minds.

"Our hope is that a respectful, but substantive exchange will make the truth clear. One young man credits the dialogue we did two years ago with his leaving Mormonism for Biblical Christianity," said Wallace.

More here:

Quote

It will take place at Christ Presbyterian Church, 8630 W. Main St. (2700 South), Magna, at 7 p.m. Admission is free.

The majority of the audience will be Protestants, says Jason Wallace, pastor at Christ Presbyterian, but 30 percent to 40 percent typically are Mormons.

“It often seems that LDS and Protestants either ignore their differences or ignore each other,” Wallace said. “Our aim is a respectful dialogue, with each side given an opportunity to explain and interact with the other side.”

I hope Bro. Allred acquits himself well.  I also hope he goes into this with his eyes open. 

I remember a few years ago reading something from Daniel Peterson who had, IIRC, declined to debate James White.  Part of the reason was that Dr. Peterson felt that in-person debates were less effective (and also perhaps less interesting, at least to some) than written debates.  I think he had a point.  This is why attorneys virtually always submit written briefs to the court, and then may or may not have oral argument about the briefs.   Written briefs clarify the scope of what is to be discussed.  They allow for a more structured and thoughtful interaction, whereas in-person debates can meander, get off-topic, devolve into bickering, etc.  Nevertheless, Dr. Peterson eventually did have a discussion with James White (see here).

If anyone goes, I hope we can get a recap here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

More here:

I hope Bro. Allred acquits himself well.  I also hope he goes into this with his eyes open. 

I remember a few years ago reading something from Daniel Peterson who had, IIRC, declined to debate James White.  Part of the reason was that Dr. Peterson felt that in-person debates were less effective (and also perhaps less interesting, at least to some) than written debates.  I think he had a point.  This is why attorneys virtually always submit written briefs to the court, and then may or may not have oral argument about the briefs.   Written briefs clarify the scope of what is to be discussed.  They allow for a more structured and thoughtful interaction, whereas in-person debates can meander, get off-topic, devolve into bickering, etc.  Nevertheless, Dr. Peterson eventually did have a discussion with James White (see here).

If anyone goes, I hope we can get a recap here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess it depends on whether they stick to the purpose "to explain and interact with the other side." In such situations, I would think the key to success is the ability to listen to each other rather than explain why the other side is wrong. 

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

More here:

I hope Bro. Allred acquits himself well.  I also hope he goes into this with his eyes open. 

I remember a few years ago reading something from Daniel Peterson who had, IIRC, declined to debate James White.  Part of the reason was that Dr. Peterson felt that in-person debates were less effective (and also perhaps less interesting, at least to some) than written debates.  I think he had a point.  This is why attorneys virtually always submit written briefs to the court, and then may or may not have oral argument about the briefs.   Written briefs clarify the scope of what is to be discussed.  They allow for a more structured and thoughtful interaction, whereas in-person debates can meander, get off-topic, devolve into bickering, etc.  Nevertheless, Dr. Peterson eventually did have a discussion with James White (see here).

If anyone goes, I hope we can get a recap here.

Thanks,

-Smac

James White? I haven’t heard from him in years. 

He is highly contentious, and I have my doubts about how “respectful” he would be. 

He used to picket Temple Square during general conference until the louder and more obnoxious “street preachers” began to upstage him. 

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess it depends on whether they stick to the purpose "to explain and interact with the other side." In such situations, I would think the key to success is the ability to listen to each other rather than explain why the other side is wrong. 

I agree....this will be interesting and I do hope it can remain civil and respectful while sticking to the true history and doctrines of the church (and vice versa).

Does anyone know much more about Bishop Allred?  I've heard of him and seen his name at different Mormon websites, but I'm not really very familiar with him.  I hope he knows the accurate history of the church (and I imagine that he does...) and is much more knowledgeable that many Bishops are regarding the difficult issues.  I know more and more are becoming better versed regarding these. 

I hope that someone who's there can give us a report regarding how it goes!

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree....this will be interesting and I do hope it can remain civil and respectful while sticking to the true history and doctrines of the church (and vice versa).

Does anyone know much more about Bishop Allred?  I've heard of him and seen his name at different Mormon websites, but I'm not really very familiar with him.  I hope he knows the accurate history of the church (and I imagine that he does...) and is much more knowledgeable that many Bishops are regarding the difficult issues.  I know more and more are becoming better versed regarding these. 

I hope that someone who's there can give us a report regarding how it goes!

He's an institute teacher so that should help.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree....this will be interesting and I do hope it can remain civil and respectful while sticking to the true history and doctrines of the church (and vice versa).

Does anyone know much more about Bishop Allred?  I've heard of him and seen his name at different Mormon websites, but I'm not really very familiar with him.  I hope he knows the accurate history of the church (and I imagine that he does...) and is much more knowledgeable that many Bishops are regarding the difficult issues.  I know more and more are becoming better versed regarding these. 

I hope that someone who's there can give us a report regarding how it goes!

He has been a contributor to FARMS Review of Books (this was before the junta at Maxwell Institute). 

Here’s a piece he wrote:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1451&index=11

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He's an institute teacher so that should help.

Apparently he does that part time. He has an administrative position with the University of Utah over parking and transportation, according to a Google search. 

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree....this will be interesting and I do hope it can remain civil and respectful while sticking to the true history and doctrines of the church (and vice versa).

Does anyone know much more about Bishop Allred?  I've heard of him and seen his name at different Mormon websites, but I'm not really very familiar with him.  I hope he knows the accurate history of the church (and I imagine that he does...) and is much more knowledgeable that many Bishops are regarding the difficult issues.  I know more and more are becoming better versed regarding these. 

I hope that someone who's there can give us a report regarding how it goes!

One of the biggest impediments to dialogue, IMO, is that Mormons and Protestants use a lot of the same terms, but they often mean something different for each group. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

One of the biggest impediments to dialogue, IMO, is that Mormons and Protestants use a lot of the same terms, but they often mean something different for each group. 

I sort of agree.  Another problem is that Protestants seem to want to disregard the LDS definitions of key terms and impute their (Protestant) definitions in their place when discussing LDS beliefs.  

And another is that Latter-day Saints sometimes use "the same terms" when discussing their (LDS) faith, but fail to fully realize how differently some of those terms are defined by different audiences.

So if the Protestants could allow for varied definitions of some terms as used in the LDS context, and if Latter-day Saints were more attentive to clarifying terms that are susceptible to multiple inferences, then I think the communication would improve.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I sort of agree.  Another problem is that Protestants seem to want to disregard the LDS definitions of key terms and impute their (Protestant) definitions in their place when discussing LDS beliefs.  

And another is that Latter-day Saints sometimes use "the same terms" when discussing their (LDS) faith, but fail to fully realize how differently some of those terms are defined by different audiences.

So if the Protestants could allow for varied definitions of some terms as used in the LDS context, and if Latter-day Saints were more attentive to clarifying terms that are susceptible to multiple inferences, then I think the communication would improve.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think it's intentional on either side.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sort of agree.  Another problem is that Protestants seem to want to disregard the LDS definitions of key terms and impute their (Protestant) definitions in their place when discussing LDS beliefs.  

And another is that Latter-day Saints sometimes use "the same terms" when discussing their (LDS) faith, but fail to fully realize how differently some of those terms are defined by different audiences.

So if the Protestants could allow for varied definitions of some terms as used in the LDS context, and if Latter-day Saints were more attentive to clarifying terms that are susceptible to multiple inferences, then I think the communication would improve.

Thanks,

-Smac

In my high school debate class we were taught that one of the things you do when presenting a case on the affirmative side is to define the terms of the proposition to be debated. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think it's intentional on either side.

In the main, I agree with you.  Often times it's not necessarily a difference in terms of definition, but of nuance.  "Salvation," for example, seems to have a definition that has broad application in various schools of Christian thought.  But that's just a surface-level kind of thing.  Protestants, when discussing "salvation," presuppose a dichotomous Heaven/Hell eschatology, and hence don't fully account for the LDS "Three Kingdom + Outer Darkness" eschatology.  The nuances, then, become the real areas of disagreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

In the main, I agree with you.  Often times it's not necessarily a difference in terms of definition, but of nuance.  "Salvation," for example, seems to have a definition that has broad application in various schools of Christian thought.  But that's just a surface-level kind of thing.  Protestants, when discussing "salvation," presuppose a dichotomous Heaven/Hell eschatology, and hence don't fully account for the LDS "Three Kingdom + Outer Darkness" eschatology.  The nuances, then, become the real areas of disagreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Which is why I hope they listen to each other with an aim of understanding each other, rather than "debating." 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the main, I agree with you.  Often times it's not necessarily a difference in terms of definition, but of nuance.  "Salvation," for example, seems to have a definition that has broad application in various schools of Christian thought.  But that's just a surface-level kind of thing.  Protestants, when discussing "salvation," presuppose a dichotomous Heaven/Hell eschatology, and hence don't fully account for the LDS "Three Kingdom + Outer Darkness" eschatology.  The nuances, then, become the real areas of disagreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Another problem is when they presume to tell Mormons what Mormons believe. It’s like they have learned just enough about Mormon doctrine to misrepresent and distort it. 

Alma Allred discusses this in the link I provided above. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Another problem is when they presume to tell Mormons what Mormons believe. It’s like they have learned just enough about Mormon doctrine to misrepresent and distort it. 

Alma Allred discusses this in the link I provided above. 

That's the difficulty of such an event. My guess is that such Protestants don't think they are misrepresenting or distorting Mormon doctrine. Hopefully, both sides will listen, and both sides will learn something.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Which is why I hope they listen to each other with an aim of understanding each other, rather than "debating." 

I hope so, too.  Alas, one of the participants is James White, who has been brought in from out of state for this "dialogue."  And Mr. White has a long history of debating, and not so much of "dialoguing."

If "dialogue" were really the intent of this event, then Pastor Wallace could have simply done it himself.  Instead, he brought in Mr. White as a hired gun.

If "dialogue" were really the intent of this event, then Pastor Wallace wouldn't be publicizing his hope that "a respectful, but substantive exchange will make the truth clear" and illustrating his hoped-for outcome by referencing "one young man [who] credits the dialogue we did two years ago with his leaving Mormonism for Biblical Christianity."

So the hallmarks here are for more of a debate than a dialogue, and for Mormonism to be scrutinized/criticized/attacked.  I don't think Presbyterianism will get much scrutiny at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Another problem is when they presume to tell Mormons what Mormons believe. It’s like they have learned just enough about Mormon doctrine to misrepresent and distort it. 

Alma Allred discusses this in the link I provided above. 

Yep.  IIRC, that's rather a speciality of James White's brand of "dialogue."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  IIRC, that's rather a speciality of James White's brand of "dialogue."

Thanks,

-Smac

That coincides with my memory of him — which is why I’m afraid the upcoming “dialogue” will be something of a train wreck. 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope so, too.  Alas, one of the participants is James White, who has been brought in from out of state for this "dialogue."  And Mr. White has a long history of debating, and not so much of "dialoguing."

If "dialogue" were really the intent of this event, then Pastor Wallace could have simply done it himself.  Instead, he brought in Mr. White as a hired gun.

If "dialogue" were really the intent of this event, then Pastor Wallace wouldn't be publicizing his hope that "a respectful, but substantive exchange will make the truth clear" and illustrating his hoped-for outcome by referencing "one young man [who] credits the dialogue we did two years ago with his leaving Mormonism for Biblical Christianity."

So the hallmarks here are for more of a debate than a dialogue, and for Mormonism to be scrutinized/criticized/attacked.  I don't think Presbyterianism will get much scrutiny at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not familiar with James White (I have read very little anti-Mormon literature, especially the Evangelical stuff), so I'll take your word for it that he's on the polemical side. That doesn't bode well for a dialogue.

[Jeanne]

Is there someone there to make it fair and non compromising to make it fair and/or to at least call..."time out"!!😋 Hopefully there is better understanding and a time table for explanations than strictly a debate where it is who ever is loudest.  There needs to be time for one or the other to say...why do you believe this about my religion..or what makes you say that?  In a quiet and purposeful conversation....Good luck to both!!

[smac97]

Daniel McClellan had a fairly extensive written "debate" with James White in 2011.

• Responding to James White (Part 1)
• Responding to James White (Part 2)
• Responding to James White (Part 3)
• Responding to James White (Part 4)
• Responding to James White (Part 5)
• Responding to James White (Part 6)

The last link above provides a fully set of links to both sides.

I'd like to say that this was a more effective way to "debate," and in general it is.  But with James White . . . not so much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

This isn't a debate/dialogue, this is a presentation on how to take down Mormons. 

Quote

The dialogue with Allred is part of an overall multiday apologetics conference that White is overseeing at Christ Presbyterian, titled "Defending the Faith in Troubled Times."

Even if Brother Allred "wins" the debate, he will lose in the post analysis.  Whatever he says will be picked apart later in the conference.  Allred will not be around to defend his position at that point.  This is a futile exercise. 

I predict a lot of speaking past each other, and a post analysis demonstration as to why Allred was wrong and why Mormonism is false.

Here is the topic they will be "discussing":

Quote

 

 There’s one Mormon belief that is a major sticking point with other Christian faiths: the claim that the LDS Church is the “only true and living church upon the face of the Earth.”

Of course, Latter-day Saints are not the only Christians who make that assertion.

So Christ Presbyterian Church in Magna decided to host a dialogue — debate? — on the topic.

 

 

[smac97]

For those of you who are not familiar with James White, here is a fairly long blog entry about him (written by a Catholic apologist).

You can also peruse Mr. White's website, aomin.org.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For those of you who are not familiar with James White, here is a fairly long blog entry about him (written by a Catholic apologist).

You can also peruse Mr. White's website, aomin.org.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, thanks. I always feel like I need a shower after I deal with Evangelical anti-Mormons.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Is there someone there to make it fair and non compromising to make it fair and/or to at least call..."time out"!!😋

It's being hosted by a Presbyterian pastor who is publicly hoping that the result of the "dialogue" will be that Mormons abandon their faith.

But hey!  Bro. Allred probably knew what he was getting into when he agreed to participate.

Thanks,

-Smac