While people have liked my post #135 from earlier today, I have to say that after re-reading it a little while ago when I came back from my walk, I don't like it and I think it comes across as more confrontational and harsh than I meant it to be. I wouldn't disown it, but the tone seems off. I'll admit I'm frustrated and even exasperated at the constant correction having to be done here over even the most basic things, but at the root of that we must acknowledge a difference of understanding that is probably not going to go away with one or a million more explanations from any of the fathers, or from me, or from NYCGuy, or anyone else who has posted or will post. At their roots, Christianity and Mormonism are different religions, and hence it's a bit silly to even expect a Mormon to be able to be conversant in Christian theology and its terminology. Why would they be? They have their own Mormon terminology, phraseology, and understanding of everything, which of course to them is right, so there's no need to change it (in their view), or even to understand that of others (Christians).
But to the extent that Mormons still try to engage with and use Christian terminology and are not able to successfully do so, I think I have found a video that would be helpful. It is about the Islamic concept of "shirk" (association), answered from a Christian apologist who adopts the Islamic definition of what is after all an Islamic term, and uses that to answer Islamic claims to monotheistic belief:
The content of the video is irrelevant to why I chose it (it is an interesting topic, but completely outside the bounds of this thread). What I want to focus on is the way that the argument in it is constructed:
1- He establishes the definition of the term.
2- He shows how that definition is found in the traditional Islamic sources like the Qur'an and the Hadith by actually quoting them to show how
Islam defines this concept.
3- He goes on to show how, according to their own definition as established in their books, Islam is full of 'shirk' (association).
Now, no doubt this argument is still not convincing to many Muslims for whatever reason, but you cannot say that it is not properly structured. I would like to see more of that type of argumentation from our Mormon friends, because so far it seems like their argumentation instead go like this:
1- They are presented with some piece of Christian theology by Christians.
2- Christians substantiate that this is in fact the Christian belief by reference to the Holy Bible and the early fathers, or from whatever understanding comes from their own denomination or communion (for those who do not explicitly rely on the fathers and the other early sources like the Didache or the Didascalia Apostolorum).
3- Mormons take whatever is given in point 2, interpret the Christian doctrine therein according to Mormon understanding because their own religion does not recognize any of the traditional sources of Christianity (aside from the Bible, so long as it is also interpreted according to Mormonism).
4- That (Mormon) reinterpretation is then argued from, with the expectation that Christians will answer for the 'problems' pointed out in it that were actually created by it (e.g., this stuff about being one as Christ and the Father are one, which is not about sharing
essential oneness as is shared by the Father and the Son such that everyone is incorporated into the Holy Trinity to make one giant God out of millions of people, but since that's how Mormons here understand it, we are then expected to answer how we can maintain our Trinitarian doctrine in the face of that obvious 'contradiction' of it).
5- Christians tell Mormons that what the Mormon has presented is not in line in with what Christian doctrine actually is, that they have misunderstood it, and should (re-)read what they have been given.
6- The Mormon interlocutors are understandably offended at being told that they do not understand, or claim that the material or the terminology are just too dense or nonsensical to be understood, so everyone should be Mormon because it's easier (?), and the conversation finishes with no one having actually successfully communicated anything.
It is obvious from looking at the above why anyone, Christian or Mormon or other, would become exasperated after a few iterations of this, and in truth we have had many!
All of this is a long way of saying to Peter personally, and the board more generally, that I am sorry that I have at times in our conversations lost my temper and posted in a way that does not reflect the irenic spirit of Christianity. This is my fault and my sin, and I pray that the Lord set a guard over my mouth (fingers). I have sinned; forgive me.
And I hope that we can strive to understand one another better by a serious dedication to the study of the sources we are given as sources in themselves (i.e., as evidence that Christians believe X or that Mormons believe Y, and why they believe that), so that the Christians can understand Mormons and Mormonism and the Mormons can understand Christians and Christianity. We don't have to agree, but I think we can do better at
communicating than we are currently doing.
