Condesending or honest and realistic?

If you don’t think we need to have a basic agreement on the attributes of God, you’re only fooling yourself.

Unfortunately, there is a version that’s right and one that’s wrong. Understanding the nature of God is critical. So, unfortunately, the truth is that one version will be worth something and the other worthless.

You agree that we’re saved by grace; however, your understanding of grace limits it to after all you can do (2 Nephi 25:23). Doctrine does not save, but it informs our faith, and we are justified by faith. It’s important to believe in that which is true.

Pardon me brother, but your post sounds a bit condscending to me. Also, I am not sure it does matter whether or not Evangelicals and Mormons agree on the personal attributes of God in order to have a discussion on faith. Finally, it seems a bit artifical to suggest that a simple disagreement on the nature of God needs to be presented as a dichotomy – as if one version is right and the other is wrong – suggesting that one version is worth something and the other, worthless.

A simple discussion on faith can be shared by Mormons and Evangelicals and even Catholics – after all, we are saved by Grace, not doctrine.

blessings

Your language sounds good, but before Christians and Mormons can dialog on how to bring others closer to God, there needs to be an understanding of whose God will be the focus: LDS god or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The LDS god has a beginning, possibly sinned, and progressed from a man to his current status. The Christian God is without beginning or end, never sinned, and has always been God. Your attempt at creating some utopia by creating some hybrid Mormon/Christian is out of touch with reality.

Beautiful! I love your thoughts on communication and your vision of how people of all faiths can have an uplifting dialogue and learn and grow together.

One of the major problems is a lack of evaluation of our communication strategies. Many people are happy to use the same methods year in and year out without any thought to their efficacy. There needs to be a careful and responsible assessment of what we are saying and how we say it and the results of our actions (and this does not mean relinquishing our doctrine). The kind of approach I take today with those of different faiths is based on evaluating the results of my communication. If I can say something which is going to make me feel really good and all my pals are going to pat me on the back and tell me good job, but which have absolutely no effect on my intended audience, then what is the advantage of persisting in my way? It cannot be but for selfish reasons. To be sure, dialogue with others is not something anyone is perfect in. We stumble, we say the wrong things, we make several mistakes along the way, however, we should be constantly improving and that only comes from noticing what works.

If there are Evangelicals out there who don’t want to “dialogue” with the Latter-day Saints, but rather believe that refutation of a false religion is the only true option for any faithful Christian, then that is a position they can take, and that is their prerogative. I only suggest perhaps that they reflect on the Mormon and Evangelical history and see how well that has worked, to see if this has achieved their goals (which may include the complete eradication of Mormonism). From my observations of the reactions of Mormons, these kinds of methods are not effective, and rather simply strengthen the religious convictions of Mormons, confirm their suspicions about the religious other, and situate themselves in larger history of religious persecution. This, I do not believe, is the result that Evangelicals would want to happen, and yet this continues to happen. In fact, in some sense it is actually to the advantage of the Latter-day Saints that Evangelicals keep using the same methods because they will keep getting the same results. Ironically, many of the suggestions for dialogue would only assist Evangelicals in their evangelistic efforts with the Latter-day Saints. However, I believe the greater advantage is for people of faith to better understand each other through dialogue, and that this benefits all those involved.

There are many out there who tire of religious polemics and the negative effects this has had on families, friendships and communities. It is important to keep in mind where this push for dialogue is coming from. It is based on assessing the current state of affairs and realizing something needs to change. Many do not realize that many advocates (both Mormon and Evangelical) for dialogue actual come out of a strong apologetic background (and have made many mistakes along the way) and who well know and understand the doctrinal arguments involved, but who want more than simply telling someone off, but rather who desire to actually reach people at a deeper and fundamental level, at a relational level. Not everyone is ready for or interested in such a dialogue, however, it is clear that the number of individuals who are ready is rising and it is my hope these individuals can be put in contact with each other.

Thanks for your comments and I think you’re right with your comments. We should respect others and thanks for the clarification on “universal salvation.” You got the right idea I was trying to convey.

The comments you make are out of context with this post. This post is designed to discuss the similarities and not debate doctrine. Please start over and focus on what Mormons and Christians can do to work together to build a better world and bring people closer to God. If you can not do this, please do not comment.

Thanks for telling us what we believe. I’ll try not to tell you what you believe, and you do the same, okay? Tell us about your beliefs is a-okay, however. That’s a lot of okays…

The bit about “universal salvation” (imo) is referring to the fact that Mormons believe that everyone will be saved, but not everyone will return to live with God. We could debate this stuff all day (something that ama49 clearly did not ask for) but it’s more of a semantic argument than a doctrinal one.

Nice post, ama49… Personally I think the term “Christian” is a bigger term than most will allow, and it encompasses anyone that believes in the teachings of Christ, regardless of interpretation. That being said, I think the FLDS or other groups like that should be able to call themselves Mormon. People should be able label themselves what they want, imo.