Mopologetic "Bridge Building"

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Dancing around for attention. :dance:

[_Gadianton]

Professor,

I'm at a loss on where the "bridge building" attempt is headed. Well, I can guess. I think maybe there is a dual purpose here. Of course, they know very well that the broader EV/Charismatic movements have no interest whatsoever in building bridges with a cult like Mormonism anymore that Mormonism has an interest in building bridges with the FLDS.

On one level, perhaps most satisfying to the elite of LDS apologetics, there is the chance to exchange barbs and continue the nasty exchanges with EV critics. On another, their may be some subtle dishonesty when they talk about bridge building because to the extent that they are, it may be with only a very small and insignificant faction of Christians that EVs also don't really want anything to do with, the liberal staff at Claremont.

Supposidly, the "social trinity" goes pretty well with "opnenness theology" which was invented by Claremont staff. Of course, probably to most Christians, Open Theism is heresy as it denies God's Omniscience.

So to the very small extent it might be true that a bridge is being built, it's with a very small group of liberal staff at Claremont, and in conjunction with heavy funding of their institution.

[_harmony]

harm,

You said essentially the exact same thing that I stated above, only chose a somewhat different path. When a relationship is built on religion, and when the two groups in question differ in essential ways, how can the relationship be long lasting for at some point, wouldn't one or both groups be sort of faking it for each other?

This is one of the reasons that you and I "work". And why if underneath the surface, either of our only intents was to build religious bridges, that it wouldn't.

Agree or disagree?

Maybe it's different between individuals instead of institutions? Individuals seem to be able to get around all manner of differences, and even appreciate the differences, while institutions have to continually brag about their authority (to the detriment of any other institution's authority, since I guess there can only be ONE authority... heaven forbid we have more than ONE authority) or whatever else.

If what motivates people is that they just want to be friends, then bridges aren't necessary. We just walk along the beach until we meet and have a Coney dog and ice cream, even if we're coming from entirely opposite directions. I don't know what you eat on a Jersey beach, but that's what I'd expect to share, were we to meet there. But I don't think institutions like the Mormon church think in terms of wading in the water and eating ice cream on the beach. They think in terms of authority and such, stuffy stuff like white shirts and ties, and no women allowed.

Institutions need to walk along the beach more and brag about their authority less. Then there would be no need for bridges at all.

[_harmony]

Dancing around for attention. :dance:

Are you the dipper or the dippee?

[_harmony]

Of course, they know very well that the broader EV/Charismatic movements have no interest whatsoever in building bridges with a cult like Mormonism anymore that Mormonism has an interest in building bridges with the FLDS.

One does not need bridges built to one's hick cousins. One just wishes they'd stay back in the woods and not come to town too often, as their backwardness is so very embarrassing.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Dancing around for attention. :dance:

Are you the dipper or the dippee?

Expound.

[_harmony]

Expound.

You obviously are not a devotee of Dancing with the Stars.

[_beastie]

I want to clarify my personal stance. I have long ago given up on bridge building in any larger sense of the word. I think it's a futile effort as long as the LDS worldview includes viewing apostates as fundamentally flawed in some way (either through sin or the now more popular psychologically damaged theory). I think it is possible to build bridges with specific individuals.

I do agree that critics who have more serious aspirations in the mormonesque intellectual community have to learn to study and talk about Mormonism in a more objective, academic fashion, without focusing on whether or not the claims are "true". That's just standard for academic study of religions. It's not about whether or not the claims are true, but about the sociological and historical aspects of the religion in question.

For those who are serious about building bridges and finding more effective ways to communicate, there are plenty of bad habits on both sides of this particular fence that would need addressing.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

A little more on what DCP meant by "humble apologetics" can be found here:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08 ... etics.html

[_harmony]

A little more on what DCP meant by "humble apologetics" can be found here:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08 ... etics.html

And yet, when all's said and done, without dialogue, there is only isolation (which may indeed be the intent, anyway).