LDS Definitions of Christian Terminology "Completely Different?"

[jkwilliams]

Just now, pogi said:

You are right that the issues causing people to leave the church are not about whether the church is Christian or not.  But that is a reason as to why more evangelicals are not joining the church.  I think we do need to be concerned about how we are perceived by outsiders and try to correct any misconceptions when possible. 

My impression has never been that the Evangelical community is a fertile field for proselyting. Either way, I'm not involved in this anymore, but when I was, I chose my battles carefully. Correcting misconceptions is fine, but it's pointless to try to correct people who are willfully ignorant and deliberately distorting your beliefs.

[pogi]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

My impression has never been that the Evangelical community is a fertile field for proselyting. Either way, I'm not involved in this anymore, but when I was, I chose my battles carefully. Correcting misconceptions is fine, but it's pointless to try to correct people who are willfully ignorant and deliberately distorting your beliefs.

There is truth to that.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Like I said, I think this is low-hanging fruit and not worth the effort, but that's just me. Years ago, MorningStar was participating on an American Idol message board, and there was a pastor spouting a lot of nonsense about the church, so she asked me if I would engage him. I took a sort of perverse pleasure in turning the tables on that guy. He had been making the church and its members out to be deluded, ignorant cultists, etc., and it was easy to show that he was the ignorant one and that his opposition was based more on fear and hysteria than anything else. I also made some friends over there, and I never would have met them otherwise, not being particularly interested in American Idol. 

So, I suppose there's a time and a place where engaging this kind of nonsense is appropriate. I've just lost all patience with these folks. 

Okay.  For me, it was worth 30 minutes to read the article and watch the interview with Mr. Hornock (I watched it at double speed, though - thanks YouTube!).

If anything, it helps me be more patient with people who seriously misrepresent and/or misunderstand our faith.  I can hardly blame them for that if they are taking their cues about us from people like Mr. Hornock.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Okay.  For me, it was worth 30 minutes to read the article and watch the interview with Mr. Hornock (I watched it at double speed, though - thanks YouTube!).

If anything, it helps me be more patient with people who seriously misrepresent and/or misunderstand our faith.  I can hardly blame them for that if they are taking their cues about us from people like Mr. Hornock.

If there is a God in heaven, people who lie about other people's beliefs will have to account for themselves. 

[smac97]

.

Edited August 24, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Godhead (three numerically distinct persons perfectly unified in purpose, righteousness, etc.) is fairly distinguishable from the Trinity (which I won't even try to summarize, though I think Daniel Peterson's summary of the development of that concept is quite good).

Nevertheless, I think differentiating between the two is more about - as you put it - "semantics" and theory and argument, and has little practical application in everyday life.

Agreed.

I'm not sure this has to do with the "nature of God" as much as the eschatology (eternal destiny) of man.  It is the concept of exaltation, of our condition in the eternities, that I think "otherizes" us the most from the rest of Christianity.

It is interesting to read online articles of various pastors and such theorizing about "what will we do in heaven."  Our concept of exaltation seems to go considerably farther.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, I think it's very different to say, God is a man and a part of the universe (or multiverse), vs God being beyond the universe, beyond time. It really is a VERY different theological concept. Christians really like the "first cause" argument for God's existence, but that doesn't apply to LDS theology because God isn't the first cause.

But I agree, eschatology also plays a role in why Latter-day Saints are seen as so different.

But honestly for all practical purposes Mormonism is really quite similar. Most people don't really think that deeply about theology or eschatology. At the end of the day its two traditions of people striving to follow Jesus and be reunited with God after they die.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Gray

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

See here:

"Totally different meanings?"

Is there a static definition of terms that is consistent throughout all of Christendom except for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Maybe not, but we do think of different things when we use the words of the Bible - like Godhead. Our idea of grace is thankfully not off the deep end either, which has caused many modern evangelical types to even discount baptism as a work. In my view they are the ones who have been led to false ideas about Biblical interpretation, but admittedly the ideas are different. We just need to communicate why our interpretations of these words are in line with their original intent, so as to give the Spirit a chance to work on their hearts, so they can see the truth of what we are saying.

Quote

Darrell Bock, executive director of Cultural Engagement and senior research professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary: Instead, the best strategy is to simply challenge them to read the Bible.

That's how Micah Wilder, who was raised in a Mormon home and was a full-time missionary for the LDS Church, ended up giving his life to Christ. He now leads Adam's Road Ministry to reach out to Mormons with "the true Gospel of Jesus."

Being that the Bible is what converted me to the restored gospel, I'm fine with this strategy. The terms that traditional Christians get their panties all in a wad about are almost all from the Bible except some like Trinity which LDS don't use much. The restored gospel just brings a different perspective to the Bible. Instead of God being a non-corporeal detached being, in LDS "theology" He is very much invested in our welfare, because He was once like us and found His way to being our Father - like Yeshua will. The orthodox idea of God comes out of early Greek philosophical ideas, which influenced their reading of the Bible. I get that. But, we can engage these "orthodox" ideas with the Bible itself, and show them to be just what they are. For instance if God is bodiless and invisible, why does He tell Moses, that whosoever sees Him in all His glory must surely die? and why is the Son in His express image?

This type of discussion gives me an opportunity to point out to orthodox Christians that their beliefs really aren't terribly compatible with the Bible - a chance to point out restored beliefs about these issues. I don't begrudge orthodox their beliefs, because I see them as an opportunity for friendly discussion about why I don't believe that way.

Edited August 24, 2018 by RevTestament

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Do you think the EV's are truly ignorant about the nuts and bolts of the LDS faith, or that they simply reject the doctrines as heresy?  

My personal view, having talked to many EV and even being married to one: vast vast majority are ignorant when it comes to understanding the LDS faith.  A large portion are ignorant simply because they've never heard, and a simple conversation goes a long way.  Others are simply victims of people giving them false info (like the pastor in the OP).  Others are willfully ignorant.  And still others fall into other camps.  

Edited August 24, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, I think it's very different to say, God is a man and a part of the universe (or multiverse), vs God being beyond the universe, beyond time.

I suppose.  But for me, that's like saying 10 quintillion miles is very different from 50 quintillion miles.  Both concepts are far beyond my ability to meaningfully comprehend.  And test.  So I go with faith.

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

It really is a VERY different theological concept. Christians really like the "first cause" argument for God's existence, but that doesn't apply to LDS theology because God isn't the first cause.

I don't see how the difference itself plays out in our lives in any meaningful way.  It's not like we can test or prove that one concept is correct and the other is not.  Both are pretty much purely matters of faith.

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

But I agree, eschatology also plays a role in why Latter-day Saints are seen as so different.

But honestly for all practical purposes Mormonism is really quite similar.

Perhaps not all practical purposes.  My devotion to the Church relies very heavily on the exclusivistic truth claims made within it.  Many of the most important decisions in my life have been influenced by these claims.

Consider, for example, the Law of Chastity, the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, observance of the Sabbath (including attending where I am assigned, rather than where I might choose), sustaining of leaders, saving ordinances and temple work (for myself and as proxy for others), family history work, missionary work, priesthood authority restored by angelic ministers, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and so on.  If I had not been a member of the Church, these precepts would not have affected my daily life they way they do now.

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

Most people don't really think that deeply about theology or eschatology.

Not by those terms.  But the doctrines of the Church are all geared toward an eschatology that involves eternal marriage and families, tripartite kingdoms of glory, eternal progression, etc.  We end up discussing these concepts all the time.  More importantly, we end up assuming these concepts.  We base our decisions on the assumption that these concepts are true and correct.

For example, when I was 19, I volunteered to serve a mission.  Not because I had in mind my eschatalogical destiny, but because I had a testimony of the Restored Gospel, and missionary work is part and parcel of that.  

When I was 22, I proposed to my girlfriend.  We chose to get married in the Salt Lake Temple, having spent our formative teen years and early 20s adhering to a fairly strict code of sexual, dietary, and behavioral ethics.  Adhering to these fairly stringent parameters, both prior to and after our marriage, is an expression of faith.  We believe marriage is for this life and the next.  However, that belief is more of an assumption than a daily contemplation.  My devotion to my family is predicated on preparing for, and strengthened by the prospect of, having an eschatalogical destiny together. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

My impression has never been that the Evangelical community is a fertile field for proselyting. Either way, I'm not involved in this anymore, but when I was, I chose my battles carefully. Correcting misconceptions is fine, but it's pointless to try to correct people who are willfully ignorant and deliberately distorting your beliefs.

My intention was not "to try to correct people."  I didn't reach out to Mr. Hornock.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

My personal view, having talked to many EV and even being married to one: vast vast majority are ignorant when it comes to understanding the LDS faith.  A large portion are ignorant simply because they've never heard, and a simple conversation goes a long way.  Others are simply victims of people giving them false info (like the pastor in the OP).  Others are willfully ignorant.  And still others fall into other camps.  

I wonder what a member of this "vast vast majority" would think of us if they took a step back from things like Mr. Hornock's seminar, and instead sat down and read the Gospel Principles manual.  I wouldn't really expect such folks to convert en masse or anything like that.  But that manual does a pretty good job of giving a relatively brief, and yet accurate, survey of the basics of our faith.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

My intention was not "to try to correct people."  I didn't reach out to Mr. Hornock.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I wasn’t responding to you but to pogi, who mentioned it was important to correct misinformation. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder what a member of this "vast vast majority" would think of us if they took a step back from things like Mr. Hornock's seminar, and instead sat down and read the Gospel Principles manual.  I wouldn't really expect such folks to convert en masse or anything like that.  But that manual does a pretty good job of giving a relatively brief, and yet accurate, survey of the basics of our faith.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Having seen that situation play out many times, it causes a lot of internal conflict on the EV part ("conflict" isn't the best word here, but I can't think of a better one).  On one hand: you have their pastor (a man they intrinsically trust and is a face of religious guidance) and on the other hand this book.   And the stories they tell don't match -- so which do you believe?  

Some folks are willing to get the facts straight and it's no big deal that their pastor isn't an expert on everything.

Others this comes down to a loyalty thing-- of course their pastor is right and told them the truth.  

And still other in other camps.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

Having seen that situation play out many times, it causes a lot of internal conflict on the EV part ("conflict" isn't the best word here, but I can't think of a better one).  On one hand: you have their pastor (a man they intrinsically trust and is a face of religious guidance) and on the other hand this book.   And the stories they tell don't match -- so which do you believe?  

Some folks are willing to get the facts straight and it's no big deal that their pastor isn't an expert on everything.

Others this comes down to a loyalty thing-- of course their pastor is right and told them the truth.  

And still other in other camps.

"Cognitive dissonance" works. 

[Analytics]

If you take what evangelicals say at face-value, then Mormons have faith in Jesus Christ and are therefore saved!

But the promise of salvation doesn't go the other way--according to Mormonism, EVs have to become Mormons to be saved.

This imbalance is a bit off-putting and unfair--wouldn't it be more fair if there was some sort of mutual-salvation agreement between the two faiths? Because otherwise, EVs can do some Pascalian reasoning and realize that since Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, they might as well bet on Mormonism--that way you are saved if Mormonism is true AND saved if non-Mormon Christianity is true.

But since Mormonism doesn't offer this mutual-salvation agreement, the EVs are forced to figure out a way to damn Mormons in the same way that Mormons damn non-Mormon Christians. That's tough to do, because according to the plain language and teachings of evangelical Christianity, Mormons are in fact already saved. But they can't be saved. To get out of this bind, the words must mean something different.

[snowflake]

49 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

My personal view, having talked to many EV and even being married to one: vast vast majority are ignorant when it comes to understanding the LDS faith.  A large portion are ignorant simply because they've never heard, and a simple conversation goes a long way.  Others are simply victims of people giving them false info (like the pastor in the OP).  Others are willfully ignorant.  And still others fall into other camps.  

I would disagree. I think the majority of the EV's do understand Mormonism, and simply reject the LDS premise because they see it as unbiblical. For example, Gray touched on this in this thread. In Mormonism God is a man.....completely different from the EV's view on God, and when the EV's hear this they immediately reject it as heresy.  

Which one of these camps does your spouse fall into? Why isn't he LDS?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

If you take what evangelicals say at face-value, then Mormons have faith in Jesus Christ and are therefore saved!

Well, no.  There is a necessary caveat to the Evangelical notion that "Mormons have faith in Jesus Christ."  That caveat is . . . that we have faith in a false Christ.  In a numerically distinct Christ from the one described in the New Testament.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

But the promise of salvation doesn't go the other way--according to Mormonism, EVs have to become Mormons to be saved.

EVs have to become members of the Church to be exalted, yes.  But salvation is a broader category, encompassing all three kingdoms of glory. 

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

This imbalance is a bit off-putting and unfair--wouldn't it be more fair if there was some sort of mutual-salvation agreement between the two faiths? Because otherwise, EVs can do some Pascalian reasoning and realize that since Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, they might as well bet on Mormonism--that way you are saved if Mormonism is true AND saved if non-Mormon Christianity is true.

Nah.  It'll never happen.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

But since Mormonism doesn't offer this mutual-salvation agreement, the EVs are forced to figure out a way to damn Mormons in the same way that Mormons damn non-Mormon Christians. That's tough to do, because according to the plain language and teachings of evangelical Christianity, Mormons are in fact already saved. But they can't be saved. To get out of this bind, the words must mean something different.

I think the difference arises in differing approaches to "salvation."  The "heaven/hell" dichotomy in Evangenlicalism versus the "tripartite kingdoms of glory and outer darkness" concept posited by the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you take what evangelicals say at face-value, then Mormons have faith in Jesus Christ and are therefore saved!

But the promise of salvation doesn't go the other way--according to Mormonism, EVs have to become Mormons to be saved.

This imbalance is a bit off-putting and unfair--wouldn't it be more fair if there was some sort of mutual-salvation agreement between the two faiths? Because otherwise, EVs can do some Pascalian reasoning and realize that since Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, they might as well bet on Mormonism--that way you are saved if Mormonism is true AND saved if non-Mormon Christianity is true.

But since Mormonism doesn't offer this mutual-salvation agreement, the EVs are forced to figure out a way to damn Mormons in the same way that Mormons damn non-Mormon Christians. That's tough to do, because according to the plain language and teachings of evangelical Christianity, Mormons are in fact already saved. But they can't be saved. To get out of this bind, the words must mean something different.

Good point. I believe EVs actually struggle to maintain "scriptural" differences from the restored gospel, because if there are no differences, they would deny their own history, and may as well convert. There seems to be a tendency to whip up as many differences as they can to their congregations so as to make LDS Christians look unchristian. I am reminded of a pastor in a small Baptist Church my father attends. He presented a class on "Mormonism," and how to witness to Mormons on an occasion I happened to be visiting. It was interesting. I spoke up several times to point out what my LDS beliefs are in accordance with the Bible - for instance the God being an exalted man thing. EVs always point to John 4:24 so I referred to John 5 and OT passages. Anyway, on every point I spoke  on, I was trying to show how our beliefs are biblically based. I believe this has the effect of at least tempering the tendency to paint LDS as left-field heretics. The modern EV tendency to proclaim salvation on faith alone does mean I can present myself as saved, so of course they have to say I believe "in a different Jesus." I don't take this route because I really do believe in a different Jesus - one who expects us to follow the commandments, and not sin. One who was actually once like us, and who came to teach us how to become one with the Father. I believe, unfortunately, modern EVs have essentially completely lost sight of this aspect of the gospel. 

[RevTestament]

To further make my point, Muslims say they believe in Jesus, but their Jesus is not our Savior. I do not consider them Christians. They are Muslims. They do not believe Jesus atoned for our sins nor died on the cross. I have no problem saying they do believe in a different Jesus. Mere use of the same words or names, doesn't mean one has the same ideas or meanings associated with those words. I do not try to convince any EV Christians that I believe the same as them, because I don't. I will take every opportunity to explain how my beliefs and scriptural interpretations correspond to the Bible.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  There is a necessary caveat to the Evangelical notion that "Mormons have faith in Jesus Christ."  That caveat is . . . that we have faith in a false Christ.  In a numerically distinct Christ from the one described in the New Testament.

The "necessary caveat" is not part of the plain meaning of what the Evangelicals actually say in their fundamental, primary message. Are deliberately trying to miss my point?

Edited August 24, 2018 by Analytics

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The "necessary caveat" is not part of the plain meaning of what the Evangelicals actually say in their fundamental, primary message. 

I have spoken with enough evangelicals on here to know that they will disagree with you.  They will say the "plain meaning" of their fundamental, primary message is believing in Christ - the trinity.  There are false Christ's after all! 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, pogi said:

I have spoken with enough evangelicals on here to know that they will disagree with you.  They will say the "plain meaning" of their fundamental, primary message is believing in Christ - the trinity.  There are false Christ's after all! 

I've had some EVs tell me my wife is going to hell because she's a member of the church. Others have told me that, despite her membership, she is still a "real" Christian because she has faith in Jesus. 

Go figure.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I would disagree. I think the majority of the EV's do understand Mormonism, and simply reject the LDS premise because they see it as unbiblical. 

Different opinions then

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Which one of these camps does your spouse fall into? Why isn't he LDS?

He is EV / non-denom because that is his belief and choosing.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

There is a necessary caveat to the Evangelical notion that "Mormons have faith in Jesus Christ."  That caveat is . . . that we have faith in a false Christ.  In a numerically distinct Christ from the one described in the New Testament.

The "necessary caveat" is not part of the plain meaning of what the Evangelicals actually say in their fundamental, primary message.

But it is part of the plain meaning of what many, many Evangelicals actually say about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Their "fundamental, primary message" is to have faith in Christ.  But here many Evangelicals resort to a sort of No True Scotsman-esque flourish when that message is applied to people like me.  It goes like this:

• EV: All we need for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ.
• ME: I believe in Jesus Christ.
• EV: No, you Mormons believe in a false Christ.  I'm saying that you have to believe in the true Jesus Christ.
• ME: But I do believe that.  I believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
• EV: No, you believe in a "different Jesus," like it says in 2 Corinthians 11:4.
• ME: No, we don't.  This point has come up so often that a well-known scholar in our church, Robert Millet, has written an entire book about it: A Different Jesus?: The Christ of the Latter-day Saints.
• EV: You believe in a different Jesus.  Just like this article says.  And this one.  And on and on and on.

And so it goes.  Round and round on the merry-go-round.  Ad infinitum.

Quote

Are deliberately trying to miss my point?

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 24, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Good point. I believe EVs actually struggle to maintain "scriptural" differences from the restored gospel, because if there are no differences, they would deny their own history, and may as well convert. There seems to be a tendency to whip up as many differences as they can to their congregations so as to make LDS Christians look unchristian. I am reminded of a pastor in a small Baptist Church my father attends. He presented a class on "Mormonism," and how to witness to Mormons on an occasion I happened to be visiting. It was interesting. I spoke up several times to point out what my LDS beliefs are in accordance with the Bible - for instance the God being an exalted man thing. EVs always point to John 4:24 so I referred to John 5 and OT passages. Anyway, on every point I spoke  on, I was trying to show how our beliefs are biblically based. I believe this has the effect of at least tempering the tendency to paint LDS as left-field heretics.

I hope that has some positive effect.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The modern EV tendency to proclaim salvation on faith alone does mean I can present myself as saved, so of course they have to say I believe "in a different Jesus."

I think the Altar Call / OSAS ("Once Saved, Always Saved") approach to soteriology has really put EVs in a bind.  It's part of a sort of watered-down, easy-believism mechanism divorces faith from any genuine obligation to conform one's personal behavior to that faith.  But divorcing orthodoxy from from orthopraxy really seems to diminish the significance of the Gospel message.  

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I don't take this route because I really do believe in a different Jesus - one who expects us to follow the commandments, and not sin.

I think there is some risk in adopting that sort of semantic characterization.  Both EVs and Latter-day Saints profess belief in the Jesus described in the New Testament.  Born in Bethlehem, baptized by John, called some apostles, performed miracles, taught wonderful messages, served others, suffered in Gethsemane, was crucified, died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven.  

We have some different ideas about Jesus, but there is no numerically distinct being in view.

Thanks,

-Smac