However, because I believe this doesn’t give me a right to bash what others believe or to try to prove them wrong.

I just wrote a post entitled “Bridging the Mormon/Evangelical Divide” that addresses some of the ideas you bring up here and more. I’d love to hear what you have to say about it.

http://www.graceforgrace.com

Just for the record, I hope that’s part of eternity - only that, as with all other things, we’ve perfected it by then. That’s a life I can look forward to living. *grin*

“It is no wonder those outside our church think we teach that, when some members can’t stop saying it.” LoL, maybe they can’t stop saying it because they can’t imagine a world without it. Really, when people have attacked me on this issue, I want to respond by saying, “yeah, and your point is? Isn’t sex a good thing?” Without it being “Doctrine” perhaps we should not be teaching it, but honestly, I don’t see what is offensive about the idea.

1) and Catholics and all others who rely in any way on spiritual manifestations - This isn’t a “Mormon” thing.

2) Matthew 16:18 doesn’t necessarily condemn it. That is one interpretation, but it’s not the only reasonable one.

3&4) Protestants don’t see a necessary positing of authority in mankind; they can posit that God is the authority, so what he says (His Word) is seen as having more intrinsic authority than what man claims. You and I disagree with that position, but it’s the only logical one that was and is available to Protestants - especially given their founders’ statements about knowing they did not have “invested authority” from God. Their authority was seen as the Word of God, meaning if you challenge that authority, you challenge the very foundation of their claim. Frankly, I believe the Book of Mormon is a MUCH more serious “attack” on Protestantism and was the biggest reason for the rejection of Joseph’s claims - not his claim to be a prophet. That claim would have made him nothing more than another Pope-wannabe, in their minds. They reject Catholicism; they revile Mormonism.

5) Correct.

6) This one is for JfQ to answer first.

7) Only the ones between the C’s and P’s qualify as wars in the sense that JfQ used. The Danite/Missourian battles didn’t rise nearly to the classification of “war”, but I have no problem classifying them in the same broad category of regrettable religious conflict that caused death.
Mormons claiming to be the Restoration of true Christianity, necessitated by Catholicism’s apostasy and Protestantism’s lack of priesthood authority does little if anything to unite Christians. I can’t disagree with that, but I would add that the only way to unite Christians without requiring some of them to give up their beliefs is non-doctrinally. I am fine with that. I would love to see all Christians, including Mormons, work side-by-side in true Christian charity to address the “temporal salvation” of mankind while admitting and allowing doctrinal differences.

“By their fruits ye shall know them.” “Not everyone that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord . . .” I can work with those whose specific ideas of salvation I don’t accept. That’s the unity I would like to see.

I know I have misinterpreted posts in my day, but I have never messed up like I have with your post. Thank you so much for clarifying. I am so glad I got a chance to re-read your former post in the light of your latest post. You have a lot to offer - thank you!!

RL: Granted. How did Wesleyan determine the difference between the Spirit’s callings and indigestion? The same question applies to LDS members today.

Q: If any group shouldn’t be “denying the apple tree” (to paraphrase BY) — if such an argument even mattered more than hyperbolically — it is any of the branches of Christian Restorationism.

RL: The incident was not only unnecessary, but condemned according to Matt 16:18.

Q: Authoritarianism and authority are different matters entirely. As to the latter, there is valid New Testament scriptural and early Christian church historical basis for Protestant interpretation of calling and ecclesiology.

RL: I am not following……

Q: There is a unity of faith — at least since Vatican II — with Protestants and Catholics on matters of foundational Truth and where authority ultimately rests: in God.

RL: Authority has always rested in God – pre-Vatican II and Post Vatican II.

Q: Quibbles over manifestation of His authority — to the extent the Richards quote reflects and defines the LDS position — is not quite the way that RCs and Ps see their differences.

RL: C/P differences are well documented.

Q: There are ecclesiological and, especially, sacramental theology and liturgy differences among the denominations of Christendom, sure, that probably still shouldn’t divide the way they do.

RL: Explain…….

Q: And especially so considering the religious wars of the past.

RL: Between the Danites and the Missourians or the C and the Ps?

Q: However, defining or explaining Christendom’s intramural divisions through the LDS lens and world-view of “the problem of authority” and “Great Apostasy” isn’t very illuminating, historical nor useful line of argument toward addressing or healing Christendom’s divide(s).

RL: Huh?

Smith’s earliest claims to authority follow the Wesleyan argument and modality of being called out and authorised by the Spirit. If any group shouldn’t be “denying the apple tree” (to paraphrase BY) — if such an argument even mattered more than hyperbolically — it is any of the branches of Christian Restorationism. This aspect of LDS history is well documented in Quinn’s Hierarchy series. The LDS church’s more enduring claim to revealed and restored priesthood authority and governing hierarchy isn’t proved nor a historical restoration. (It is a new modality that is more antagonistic to RC than is Protestantism in my view). The “it’s either us or the Catholics” argument of LeGrand Richard’s Marvelous Work and a Wonder just isn’t an accurate trifurcation when it comes to Christian religious studies.

Authoritarianism and authority are different matters entirely. As to the latter, there is valid New Testament scriptural and early Christian church historical basis for Protestant interpretation of calling and ecclesiology. There is a unity of faith — at least since Vatican II — with Protestants and Catholics on matters of foundational Truth and where authority ultimately rests: in God. Quibbles over manifestation of His authority — to the extent the Richards quote reflects and defines the LDS position — is not quite the way that RCs and Ps see their differences. There are ecclesiological and, especially, sacramental theology and liturgy differences among the denominations of Christendom, sure, that probably still shouldn’t divide the way they do. And especially so considering the religious wars of the past. However, defining or explaining Christendom’s intramural divisions through the LDS lens and world-view of “the problem of authority” and “Great Apostasy” isn’t very illuminating, historical nor useful line of argument toward addressing or healing Christendom’s divide(s).

In a related rant, it always bugs me when Mormons say we teach that we will have sexual intercourse in the afterlife. NOTHING in our canon makes that claim. We simply teach that we will be able to create spirit children, as an integral part of becoming like God. We have NO IDEA whatsoever how that will happen - and NOTHING in our canon says that’s how we were created as spirit children or how Jesus was conceived. It is no wonder those outside our church think we teach that, when some members can’t stop saying it.

(Everyone else, don’t throw out the “after the manner of the flesh” phrase from the BofM. The actual verse - I Nephi 11:18 says, “Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.” That says NOTHING about the role of the Father in the process; the only thing that it says for certain is that Mary gave birth to Jesus in the same “manner of the flesh” as all mothers do. Everything else is speculation, even if it was the speculation of certain priesthood leaders. Such speculation is not obvious or even consistent with the text, since the verse says *explicitly* that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth.)

Sorry, can’t really respond now. (Weekends only for me) Would you mind if I emailed you? I really can’t respond again for this week. I think I can get away with email though. I promise to keep it short.

Given our current scientific knowledge of in vitro fertilization and other conception methods, it could have happened in a variety of ways that do not necessitate “human/Human” sexual intercourse.

I am in full acceptance of your admiration of the Catholic Church,

I appreciate your last post, very much, Admittedly, I am left confused about your understanding of the virgin birth of Christ and the fact that you belief of the nature of the Father is of flesh and bone?

How do you reconcile this idea?

I agree with those who have expressed an affinity with Catholicism. There is much to admire, and conversely we are often attacked equally vociferously by the same groups. Today McCain’s pastor is being excoriated (in the media anyway) for calling the Catholic church the whore of the earth. In my experience, most LDS have believed that either we or Catholicism have the truth because Protestants are the apple that denies the apple tree (to paraphrase BY). What I find interesting now is the trend away from authority entirely (a la the megachurches, and even the fundamentals of Protestantism which relies on “traditional” authority - which is code for no authority at all or “if I have a Bible, read it, and imitate what it says, I have authority to do so.”) Some of the critics of LDS and Catholicism share an anti-authoritarian bent that is in vogue in religion right now.

I’m not supposed to post during weekdays… but wanted to say things again for the exchange. I feel the same way about you too.

I know it didn’t really come across in our exchange, but I can’t begin to express my gratitude for the Catholic Church and all the good it does/has done. I’ve always felt a certain closeness to it despite the “alien” (I don’t mean this in a bad way) trappings that I’m not so familiar with.

Here are my beliefs, btw: (modified from yours intentionally)

I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father; was born of a virgin; lived, died, and rose again for the salvation of those who believe [have faith] and obey Christ; I believe Jesus is fully man and fully divine and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God.

Again, I think this is a classic case of seeing what we believe, ironically with the Mormons being the Bible literalists in this discussion.

I can see why the potential to be deified is both humbling and inspiring from a LDS point of view; however, have yo ever considered it from a C/P point of view?

To C/P, deification is simply terrifying. The fact is, deification of humanity is the whole issue behind the concept of Original Sin that C/Ps teach, promote, and bundle up in the concept of Pride.

Thank you so much for your willingness to talk and provide education to me.

Adam, I will share my own post in regards to this.

Thanks.

Can I just pipe up again and say that I really appreciate that we had an outside perspective on this? Thanks!

I served my mission in Portugal (what was at the time Lisbon North Mission, but that’s no longer around ). I worked with a lot of our good Catholic friends, and I admire that there is a strong loyalty to their faith. We need more of that, and I suspect that in another three or four centuries we might develop it, if we have that long.

Me, I’m going to say this again, because it got lost between RL & BN: The nature of God is extremely important from a motivation/behavior point of view. Think about it like this: I believe I have the potential to become not just another servant of God in the eternities, but to become like God in the eternities. To become a joint-heir with Christ (how’s that for Biblical language that indicates the divine potential of man to become like God?). To inherit what Christ inherits. Whatever that may be.

The trick is, we don’t know exactly what that entails. We are extremely short on details. We have generalities, but few details. This is why continuing revelation is so important. But having an idea of the nature of God tells me what I am working for, why grace is important, why works are necessary, and why other things are necessary. It makes the the entire plan play together more cohesively and gives the entire theology a type of complexity and richness that I appreciate.

All of which is tangential to behavior. I argue that the Trinitarian view encourages a very different set of behaviors with regard to a relationship with deity than does a Godhead view. An embodied view of deity changes how we behave. That’s my thesis, but the data collection has yet to occur, as I lack funding for the research. Now if anyone cares to pay my salary, provide other funding and otherwise assist, I’ll be glad to set up a 2-3 year program to study the question (should run more than a few million). Any takers?

Thanks again for the thoughtful response. Yes, it did help this time. I think maybe we are really agreeing but I see it as a large issue and you see it as a small issue (and thus our disagreement is on amount of impact, not on whether or not the impact has taken place.)

I try to be even handed about this. I have heard Protestants call Catholics “non-Christians” and I correct them and ask them to please not misrepresent Catholics like that.

For the record, I do NOW think I understand where you are coming from, but didn’t up until that last post.

That being said, I certainly did not mean or imply that I “expect them to have a good reason for why they believe before [I] educate them.”

Understanding that calling Mormons “non-Christian” causes people to think we’re a variant of Budism (just an example) is not something that is all that difficult to understand and a single example should suffice to explain the point. My question to them isn’t why they think I’m a non-Christian (which to them probably actually means “unsaved”) so that I can educated them on why I am saved, it’s why they feel such a misrepresentation isn’t that big of deal and why they don’t use language that states their beliefs without misrepresenting me since such language is available and easy to use.

Why they believe I’m “non-Christian” in the sense of (from their point of view) being unsaved is a completely different question, though also valid to ask. But that WOULD require education of a lot of beliefs on both sides. And of course I probably AM a non-Christian from their point of view in that sense of the word. That’s just a non-standard use of the word “Christian”.

I am, unfortunately, out of time and can’t comment any more.

Thanks for the exchange. I’m sorry I caused a lot of misunderstandings.

Most people are like you and don’t really understand why this means so much to me. And so I have to admit that most people, since they feel it’s not that important, will think I’m demanding a lot or am being silly. I suppose I should just get used to that fact, though to be honest I still consider it very important even if the rest of he world considers it silly.

I see this as being the same as politically correct language. Many people think politically correct language is just being overly sensitive or silly. It gets mocked all the time with words that are never actually used (”horizontally challenged” for example.) But in fact a change of our use of language was key to overcoming sexism and the gender bias built into it. (And other types of bias as well, of course.) I feel just as strongly about Mormons being called “non-Christians” as I do about gender-biased language. I think of it as religiously-bias language. It leaves false impresssions and I believe is the starting point towards other kinds of discrimination.

1. I think there has been misinformation communicated to Cs and Ps members about the LDS Church. Just like I believe there has been misinformation about C/Ps spread around LDS circles. Am I going to get upset about it - probably not - it happens.

Why? I think many mainline Ps, and Cs are worried about losing members to the LDS church and the fear drives them to exaggerate LDS teachings. I also think it is often times based in ignorance of the LDS faith. On a different note, I think many Fundamentalist Ps tend to attack what is “other”; their form of Christianity thrives on fighting against an enemy - perceived or otherwise. Cs and LDS make good targets. They also tend to believe that the end justifies the means - and will do whatever it takes to squelch out the opposition. Of course I am speaking in generalities, but I think there is a core of truth in what I am saying.

Admittedly, when I first attended a LDS service when I was a kid, I was shocked to hear a RM talking about Jesus in front of the other members because I was told by my youth minister (incorrectly) that the ‘powerful name of Jesus’ was never spoken in the LDS church. Of course, I later found out that he had never been inside a LDS church. The fact is, there is ignorance about different faiths in all churches (mine and your included). I am sure you have heard many of the Catholic myths out there - that we worship statues and believe Mary is divine (neither are truly Catholic teachings). Only civil cross-religious dialogue will clear up these misconceptions.

2. Despite the fact that LDS teach the importance of believing in Jesus, the Son of God, in a social Triune relationship with the Father and the HS; many Ps and Cs have been taught that LDS are teach about another God named Jesus (to put it bluntly, and simplitically). The God that LDS teach about is the first born of all mankind, rather than the Only Son of the Father, born of the Virgin Mary; who is one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit - and the differences continue from there.

So to answer your questions, I think misinformation mixed with actual diffences between LDS and C/P doctrine are spread throughout C/P churches. I am not sure you can stop these ideas by demanding that people who hold the ideas use a specific term to label you like ‘herectical Christian’; instead, I think the best way to combat false ideas is the same method best used to promote your religion and relationship with Jesus; simply create real, quality relationships with those who are attacking your faith and engage in meaningful dialogue with them. Heck, I once befriended the most intensely anti-catholic I had ever met previously; it took a year and a half of deep conversation before he was willing to admit that his previous ideas about the Catholic Church were false and that Christians do exist in the Catholic Church. Now, he never became Catholic, nor did he even believe it to be a Christian Church, but his mind was opened a bit wider than before I met him. The funny thing is that he actually ended up adopting the Catholic teaching on birth control (I was more shocked than anyone because it was the last thing I was trying to promote). All we can do it promote dialogue whenever we get the chance.

So to answer your question; should C/Ps refer to LDS as non-Christian only if they provide a detailed explaination - once again, I think your are asking a lot. I think you have the right to ask them why they think you are non-Christian; the average C/P will probably not know or may give you an inaccurate answer - so don’t fly off the handle - simply educate them instead. I think expecting them to have a good reason for why they believe before you educate them is totally unrealistic, however. In my experience, most people accross all religious faiths have little or no clue about what they believe, let alone why they believe it!

Hope that helps.

I hear you on this… I have to confess, I think the treatment of the more fundamentalist Protestants of Catholics is intolerant and misrepresents them too. I actually have strong feelings about this and I quickly jump in and defends Catholic teachings from Protestants that try to say they believe they have to work there way to heaven or that they save themselves.

I also really dislike it when Protestants (again some, not all) say things like “Biblical Christianity vs. Catholic” or even “Christian vs. Catholic.” I feel this misrepresents Catholics. However, there is a bit of difference here. Catholics are a large enough organization that everyone knows they are in fact really Christians. So this is less a hurtful misrepresentation and more a hurtful pejorative in this case. (Both are wrong, of course.)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I sometimes forget that when I write a lot it seems like I am upset and I think my side of the conversation suffered from this. Again, I apologize for the fact that it didn’t come across well. I wrote post #38 backtracking a bit so I hope you will at least give me the credit of the attempt.

Also, I hope you’ll realize that misunderstandings are bound to happen on the internet and that backtracking is inevitable if real understanding it going to happen. I am imperfect and thus incapable of understanding your underlying meaning in all cases.

Also I made a huge mistake in wording when I started saying “you” which you took to me “you personally” when I was actually using it in the (ungramatical) “generic you” sense. I should have been saying “one” or “a C/P” or something like that.

I have no concerns with you stating your understanding of orthodox or historic or traditional Christianity leaves Mormons outside the label. In fact, I completely agree. You actually don’t even go this far when you say “Well, not that I ever said Mormons were non-Christian, but rather that Mormon doctrine and Catholic doctrine on the Trinity do not agree.” I did seem to misunderstand your previous posts as saying that you felt it appropriate to refer to Mormons as “non-Christian.” Please forgive me. Internet postings are a difficult medium.

My sole concern is that I’ve seen people believe Mormons are some variant of Muslim or Jew or whatever because they have been told by their Catholic priest (or whoever) that Mormons “aren’t Christian” and no attempt was made to clarify what they meant, thus leaving a false impression.

If you had previously explained to me that you had read the post I would not have asked it again, so I apologize for that misunderstanding too. Also, somewhere in there the word “misrepresentation” came across as “intentional misrepresentation” and so I see why this offended you also. You have said your against misrepresentation, and I agree that you clearly are based on your writings.

I am/was really asking for clarification against two points:

1. Do you believe that some or possibly even many C/Ps are told Mormons aren’t Christian and mistakenly understand this to means that Mormons do not believe in Jesus at all or that He isn’t the redeemer of the world? Do you feel I’m off base on this? Or do you believe this really does happen?

2. If you agree that many people are coming away with a false understanding, do you feel this is an issue? If you don’t agree, I’d appreciate an explanation rather than just a statement that you are against misrepresentation. I’m hoping to understand why you might disagree with my belief that this issue matters. What I don’t necessarily understand is why you might feel this doesn’t qualify given the real life examples. Is it just that you think it’s a minor nit and I’m over-reacting? Is it because you think such misunderstandings are really rare?

Also, do you think the above questions are worthy questions at all? Are they worth a Mormon asking a knowledge Catholic about?

Again, if you DO agree with me, that C/Ps should not merely call Mormons “non-Christians” without a real attempt at a nunaced explanation of what that really means, then I respectfully retract every question I have asked you as none of it matters and we were just talking past each other.

Also, if you are uncomfortable answering a question like this I’ll understand. (Didn’t really occur to me that I should worry about this until now.)

In answer to your questions:

# What do you believe about God?

He is our parent and He loves us.

# Where does your belief come from?

Personal experience with praying and feeling God’s intense love through His Spirit.

# What scripture(s) or teachings best describe you belief?

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39.)

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. (1 Jn. 4:7-8.)

# In what ways are your beliefs about God manifested in your life?

Hopefully, by being a loving person.

# Which is more important: the personal characteristics of God, or what God looks like?

Obviously the characteristics of God, which we naturally seek to emulate, although the doctrine that God has a body helps me to relate to Him better than I imagine I would if I believed He were an intangible force.

aquinas - thanks for the link–I can’t look at it right now as I’m going to bed, but I’ll check it out as soon as I can.

Ron, I feel like we might be going in circles now. The problem here is that I’m not suggesting that believing in similar language is a guarantee that we believe the same ideas. My point was the exact opposite, that we don’t. So that means Catholics and Protestants, when defining someone else’s faith, have a moral duty to take a lot of care when explaining and representing (or misrepresenting) someone of another faith.

RL: It seems that we are spending a lot of time at effort talking past each other. I am starting to believe that you want me to condemn you based on my Church doctrine; and you want me to use specific language when I do condemn you. I am only here to talk about the doctrine of the Trinity, remember?

BN:

You may not feel that when I say Son of God I mean the same thing you do. Maybe maybe not. I can’t tell without finding out a lot more about what you believe. And maybe I don’t feel Jesus is God in the same sense you do. That’s possible. Again, I don’t know. Such a judgment would require you to define your terms.

RL: My beliefs are in line with the Catholic Church. I think I have been clear about my adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of the Father; was born of a virgin; lived, died, and rose again for the salvation of those who believe and obey Christ; I believe Jesus is fully man and fully divine and is one in essence with the Father and the HS. If you agree with my definition than we are in agreement; if you do not we disagree.

BN: But here is the point, I’m going to state it one more time,

RL: This appears condescending to me. If you are tired of this discussion, please take a break; I am trying to be clear and to understand you, just like you are trying to be clear and understand me. We need to exercise patience with one another or drop the conversation.

BN: I’m looking for some feedback from you that you understand what I am getting at:

RL: Indeed, I have be cordial and even understanding of your position, time and time again throughout this conversation.

BN:

If you merely say “Mormons are not Christian” it does not matter that according to your private definition of Christian (regardless of whether or not you agree with the dictionary definition) if we are or aren’t. You still communicated something that isn’t true to your audience.

RL: Once again, I came here to talk about the Catholic view of the doctrine of the Trinity. I adhere to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, which happens to be a defining view of Christianity, based on the Catholic point of view. It seems self-evident that based on my understanding of Christianity (which is hardly a private definition), non-Trinitarian believers fail outside the definition.

Although you seem to avoid the many attempts I have made to clearly state that I respect the faith and the obedience of LDS members; I have not been shy about talking about my admiration in this area. Honestly, I am starting to feel pressure to renounce all the great attributes I have about Mormons and condemn you according to Catholic doctrine in a way that does not misrepresent your beliefs! That just seems silly to me.

BN: Please read my post I gave you links too. I am basing this on first hand knowledge of real events.

RL: I heard you, and I read your post the first time you asked me to read it; and then I read it again the second time you asked me. I think I am going to decline your request this time.

BN:

When Catholics and Protestants go around saying Mormons are “not Christian” and don’t take care to explain, they absolutely categorically misrepresent Mormons. This is a fact. It is not up for dispute because I have first hand evidence it’s the case. So at least in the cases I’m aware of, it’s absolute true. I ask that you acknowledge this fact.

RL: It is clear that you have believed this for sometime and I am certainly not going to influence your opinion in this area.

Once again, C/Ps exclude LDS from the larger community of Christianity because LDS teachings on the nature of God do not match up with C/P teachings. I am not sure I can get much clearer.

BN: Your arguments that it’s a gray area simply aren’t true. There is no gray area here at all. If you aren’t taking care to explain further, you are misrepresenting, period.

RL: Purposely misrepresenting a church’s teachings or a person’s belief system is akin to perpetuating a lie. Not only have I denounced such behavior in my earlier post, I have certainly not been guilty of it on this site. Frankly, I am insulted that you are accusing me of such behavior.

BN:

(Again, please please read my post. The real life examples will cement this.) (Update: what I mean here is that since I know of real life examples where Mormons being represented as “non-Christian” by Cathlolics, or Protestants, led to a real misunderstanding of what Mormons do in fact actually believe, thus it’s black and white that such language does cause many people to misunderstand what Mormons really believe.)

RL: This is the 4th time you have asked me to read your post. For the record, I have read the BOM, the PoGP, the majority of the DoC, the entire history of JS, a great deal of President Hinkley’s writings, A Rough Stone Rolling (thanks Adam), and many, many other Mormon publications. I reject all anti-mormon literature including Chick tracts, and David Hunt, James White, Ray Rhodes articles and books. After all the effort I have put into understanding the LDS religion, and never claiming any expertise; I think it is a bit outrageous for you to suggest that I am misrepresenting your religion – unbelievable.

Finally, if you have put half the effort into understanding Catholicism as I have LDS doctrine, I will be more willing to continue our discussion. As it stands right now, I refuse to be forced into condemning you or your church, despite your insistence – it is one thing for Mormons to endure persecution, it is another to go looking for it; and I will have no part it.

BN:

I’m not sure how else to phrase this, so I guess I’ll have to leave it at that. I know this is a big change I’m asking of people, but it is a moral one and it needs to happen. It is not tolerant to misrepresent Mormons by calling Mormons “non-Christian” without being careful how you define your terms is mispreresentation. This is very simple.

RL: Ok, so I am not being tolerant or moral and I’ve missed even the simplest courtesy - ugh

BN:

Now how to properly represent Mormons, well, that’s more difficult and I think this is the path of your arguments. Mormons define terms differently and they see things differently. You made this point many times and I agree with you.

RL: I don’t even know how to reply to this…..

BN: I have a alternative for you to consider, Ron. If your real concern is that you want to communicate that Mormons are not Christians as per the “traditional” creedal definition

RL: Actually, I am not here to talk about whether LDS members are Christian or not, despite your insistence.

BN: … well, why are you misrepresenting by saying “non-Christian” when you clearly could just say any of the following which I will not reject at all:

* Mormons are not creedal Christians
* Mormons are heretical Christians (from a Catholic point of view anyhow)
* Mormons reject the creeds defining the Trinity
* Mormons do not come from the historic Christian tradition. (Obivously I believe we are a restoration, but I acknowledge we are not “historic” in that we historically came from a line of succession.)

RL: Well, not that I ever said Mormons were non-Christian, but rather that Mormon doctrine and Catholic doctrine on the Trinity do not agree; however the reason why I would never use the labels to describe Mormons that you suggest is because based on the teachings of my Church they are all oxymorons. Describing yourself by using any of those terms is akin to saying, “I am a non-Christian.

BN:

So there is my real point. If you are sincere about wanting to be truthful (and I believe you are) please represent Mormons in one of those ways which communicates your point without offending me for the misrepresentation. There is no need to confuse the issue by saying “Mormons or not Christian” but to not bother to explain or define your terms and thus leave your audience with a false impression — as I have often found is the case.

RL: Point taken. I will only refer to LDS members as LDS members, but I will not shy away from discussing the differences between LDS doctrine and C/P doctrine if someone asks me to or invites me to a board.

BN: If you are okay with similar treatment and misrepresentation, I’ll at least see that you are consistent and I’ll agree to disagree with you.

RL: Ugh….

BN:

Of course I’ll still believe it’s wrong to call Mormons non-Christians if you don’t bother to explain what you realy meant. Certainly Mormons aren’t “non-Christians” in the same sense that, say, Muslims or Budahists are. Is it wrong for me to ask for this when it seems so obviously true?

RL: Ps who care about the difference between LDS doctrine and their brand of Christianity do not see a difference between LDS doctrine and Buddhism or Hinduism – believe me. Don’t worry; they do not see a difference between Catholicism and non-Christian religions either. Don’t waste you life jousting after windmills over this issue – they will never be convinced.

Wrong? No. A wasted effort? probably. You appear to be on a quest to convince people who disagree with your doctrine to classify your belief system in a manner that is less upsetting for you – good luck with that! Don’t you think that your effort would be much better spent on developing your relationship with Christ? Or developing your prayer life? Or engaging in Holy reading? Again, why do you care what non-LDS call you?

BN:

I do not believe I’m asking much of Catholics or Protestants here. In fact, I think I’m just asking for good old fashion respectful behavior. I do not think this is a hard thing I ask (except that there is a deeply ingrown habit to over come now) and I don’t believe it limits your self representation as being different from Mormons.

If you think that Cs and Ps that do not comply with your classification system are automatically being disrespectful you are being too idealistic and you are setting yourself up to be bitter and disappointed.

BN:

I am afraid my posts might come across negatively and in a way that I don’t intend them. So I apologize for that. I respect your point of view on everything you have said. I simply do not accept that this is a valid excuse to call me a non-Christian. Yes, Mormons are different. Yes, they are different in ways that matter to Catholics. Yes, Mormons are non-historical in that we have no ties whatsoever to the Catholic Church.

RL: Thank you for the clarification – I was really starting to lose hope for our discussion.

BN:

As you can guess, I’ve been hit by this intolerance in my past and I’m sensitive to it now, as well I should be. Plus I have made this a “pet project” of sorts to stand up to what I see as a misrepresentation of Mormonism.

RL: As far as intolerance – you are preaching to the choir! We live in a P nation and the loudest, most intolerant Ps are the most active against LDS and Catholics. So please recognize me for what I am – LDS-Friendly. Yes, I disagree with your doctrine, but I respect your faith and obedience – that should count for something.

BN:

I am hoping it shocks you a little that I don’t mind you calling me a heretical Christian. I hope you’ll really look at that and think about it. Historically Catholics called those that rejected the Trinity doctrine heretical Christians. I’m asking that you do so for me.

RL: Actually, they called them heretics before they disemboweled them – there was no Christian label attached. I think I’ll just call you Bruce, if you don’t mind

I will type up a response for the Bible, but it will take a while. I might e-mail it to you, since you might want to take it apart or edit it into a separate post or two or three. If you read it and want me to post it here on this thread, that’s fine.

I really admire the last couple, but I have some serious reservations about the current one. That, however, is not a subject for any Mormon-themed blog, imho - so please, no response.

I am afraid my posts might come across negatively and in a way that I don’t intend them. So I apologize for that. I respect your point of view on everything you have said. I simply do not accept that this is a valid excuse to call me a non-Christian. Yes, Mormons are different. Yes, they are different in ways that matter to Catholics. Yes, Mormons are non-historical in that we have no ties whatsoever to the Catholic Church.

As you can guess, I’ve been hit by this intolerance in my past and I’m sensitive to it now, as well I should be. Plus I have made this a “pet project” of sorts to stand up to what I see as a misrepresentation of Mormonism.

I am hoping it shocks you a little that I don’t mind you calling me a heretical Christian. I hope you’ll really look at that and think about it. Historically Catholics called those that rejected the Trinity doctrine heretical Christians. I’m asking that you do so for me.

You see, if a Catholic calls me a heretic, I find it non-offensive. It just means that they believe my beliefs are wrong. There is no mispreresentation going on. In fact, it’s really self representation — and it’s being done so accurately. (Update: what I mean here is that you have a right to define your own beliefs and in so far as I don’t match them you have the right to call me a heretic if you want.)

But if you call me a non-Christian (without further explanation that is), you are mispresenting me to an average hearer. This is not a small matter to me or some other Mormons. (Though you’ll probably find I care more about it than most Mormons.)

To be honest, I think the entire conversation we’ve had has basically been me trying to explain that I don’t care if you exclude me — but please don’t misrepresent me — and then you thinking that secretly I’m trying to use the language of tolerance to try to force you to include me. In fact, that’s exactly what it seems to be.

To me, this itself is somewhat unfair of the Catholic/Protestant view. Catholics and Protestants have started this by calling Mormons “non-Christian” rather than “heretical Christians.” This was a misrepresentation and always will be. (Again, unless you take the time to explain it fully and completely, which is admitted a heavy burden)

But when Mormons began to protest Catholics and Protestants (mostly Protestants actually) began to claim that this was because Mormons wanted to “desperately be included” when in fact we were simply correctly the mispresentation. I don’t know of any Mormon that I’ve ever met that wants to be included with Catholic/Protestant forms of Christianity. So I find this characterization of myself inaccurate and offensive in and of itself.

But that line of thought is obviously very powerful. That it has kept a misunderstanding between us going this whole time is the proof of the danger of this misreprentation. And it is why I can’t and never will back down on it. It is intolerance in it’s most subtle form and I do not believe it is an accident that it’s been perpetuated on Mormons.

So again, I will say it, and believe me I mean it: I do not want you to include me in any way shape or form. I solely and exclusively want you to NOT misrepresent me. That is all I am asking for. Please call me a heretic instead of a non-Christian and we can both accept the label as accurate from a Catholic point of view. That way we can both be happy.