DiscussMormonism.com

Pasted below is something i think that points in the right direction, according to my philosophy of, "how it should be". There are a number of details that i would like to discuss with the author. I think is exceptionally well writen. And, in principle it recieves my endorsement... What about yours??

[quote]The Abrahamic Friendship Society

I am an English Christian man, baptized and confirmed as an Anglican.
I do not live in a particularly multicultural part of England. However
my own circle of family and friends includes those of the Jewish and
Muslim faiths, as well as of those of different Christian
denominations, and those of no faith.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam have their roots in the same place.
All are known as "Abrahamic" religions as they recognize the prophet
Abraham as being the first "man of faith". Whether called by the name
of God, Jehovah or Allah, all of these faiths worship the same
spiritual entity. In the Christian Bible, these other faiths are
referred to not as heretics, but as "other flocks".
We live in a time of increasing tension between faiths. From a
Christian viewpoint, I see this as God's adversary- an entity also
acknowledged by all three religions- trying to drive a wedge between
His faithful followers. It is therefore of the utmost importance that
His earthly servants reject this division and pray for the day when
God's people can be reunited as one body before God.

As a believer in God, I have faith that should we pray for such unity,
He will deliver, in the form of signs to mankind, the route that we
should follow to achieve this goal. By sharing our spiritual
experiences, prophesies and miracles, we can find out what our Creator
requires of us. By keeping an open mind, we can realise that no-one is
entirely in the right, and no-one is entirely in the wrong. In fact it
is beyond our scope as mortals to know all the answers to these
questions, until the day He wishes to reveal His plan. So we must also
pray for the humility to accept that we do not, and never by ourselves
will, know the route to salvation.
I would like to found the Abrahamic Friendship Society to provide such
a forum for well-mannered theological debate, the sharing of our
personal spirituality and the opportunity to form friendships across
the faith divide.

The Holy Land of Israel and Palestine is sacred to all three faiths.

We must pray that this land becomes the magnet that draws us all
together, as opposed to the detonator that blows us all apart.
I would like to end this letter on the happy note that there has been
meaningful correspondence between leaders in the Abrahamic faiths. It
is not too late to save mankind from the fates of war and/or tyranny.
I believe there will be a day, when Christian, Muslim and Jew will be
united in praise of, in harmony with, and in submission to, the will
of God. The road ahead will be trying and filled with obstacles, but
it is a road we must travel together if Civilised man is to have a
future on Earth, and in the realms beyond...

[quote]

Thoughts? Comments? Warm regards, Roger

Roger Morrison wrote:Pasted below is something I think that points in the right direction, according to my philosophy of, "how it should be". There are a number of details that I would like to discuss with the author. I think is exceptionally well writen. And, in principle it recieves my endorsement... What about yours??

The Abrahamic Friendship Society
...
Christianity, Judaism and Islam have their roots in the same place. All are known as "Abrahamic" religions as they recognize the prophet Abraham as being the first "man of faith".
...
As a believer in God, I have faith that should we pray for such unity,
...

Thoughts? Comments? Warm regards, Roger

As a nonbeliever, I have faith that this would make a new exclusion. A new "we and they" opposition.
Are not able to cooperate in something the Buddhists? The Taoists? The atheists?

Hi Ludwim, a good point. As are the thoughts of one that i forwarded this to:

Hi Roger. This is a well-intentioned piece. Nonetheless, I would not pass it forward as it is chock full of patriarchy. The author has taken a first step towards ecumenism but has left out 1/2 of humankind ("mankind") in the vocabulary he chooses. He also refers to God in the 10th line as a "spiritual entity" but throughout his discourse sees God in male terms (He, His).

He shows an ingrained reluctance to think of only the male as made in God's image. He has a long way to go before I would consider his thinking. Mutuality and equality among humankind is absent from his thought as is the belief that speaking of God can only be best expressed in male terms.

Thanks to both of you for expanding my thinking. Other thoughts?? Warm regards, Roger

Well, his main point seems to be people getting together on things. It's about cooperation. It's about respecting others' differences. It's a great, utopian idea. But all that stuff is possible without religion, and mostly unrelated to religion. In fact, it's more likely to happen without religion.

The problem with religion is the baggage. Try telling a Mormon we'd be better off respecting and rejoicing in other people's beliefs, no matter what they are (secular or otherwise). It'll never happen. They'll always think they're right, others are wrong, and will look out for the interests of their own group at the expense of others. That's the nature of the religious game.

Roger Morrison wrote:Pasted below is something I think that points in the right direction, according to my philosophy of, "how it should be". There are a number of details that I would like to discuss with the author. I think is exceptionally well writen. And, in principle it recieves my endorsement... What about yours??

The Abrahamic Friendship Society

I am an English Christian man, baptized and confirmed as an Anglican.
I do not live in a particularly multicultural part of England. However
my own circle of family and friends includes those of the Jewish and
Muslim faiths, as well as of those of different Christian
denominations, and those of no faith.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam have their roots in the same place.
All are known as "Abrahamic" religions as they recognize the prophet
Abraham as being the first "man of faith". Whether called by the name
of God, Jehovah or Allah, all of these faiths worship the same
spiritual entity. In the Christian Bible, these other faiths are
referred to not as heretics, but as "other flocks".
We live in a time of increasing tension between faiths. From a
Christian viewpoint, I see this as God's adversary- an entity also
acknowledged by all three religions- trying to drive a wedge between
His faithful followers. It is therefore of the utmost importance that
His earthly servants reject this division and pray for the day when
God's people can be reunited as one body before God.

As a believer in God, I have faith that should we pray for such unity,
He will deliver, in the form of signs to mankind, the route that we
should follow to achieve this goal. By sharing our spiritual
experiences, prophesies and miracles, we can find out what our Creator
requires of us. By keeping an open mind, we can realise that no-one is
entirely in the right, and no-one is entirely in the wrong. In fact it
is beyond our scope as mortals to know all the answers to these
questions, until the day He wishes to reveal His plan. So we must also
pray for the humility to accept that we do not, and never by ourselves
will, know the route to salvation.
I would like to found the Abrahamic Friendship Society to provide such
a forum for well-mannered theological debate, the sharing of our
personal spirituality and the opportunity to form friendships across
the faith divide.

The Holy Land of Israel and Palestine is sacred to all three faiths.

We must pray that this land becomes the magnet that draws us all
together, as opposed to the detonator that blows us all apart.
I would like to end this letter on the happy note that there has been
meaningful correspondence between leaders in the Abrahamic faiths. It
is not too late to save mankind from the fates of war and/or tyranny.
I believe there will be a day, when Christian, Muslim and Jew will be
united in praise of, in harmony with, and in submission to, the will
of God. The road ahead will be trying and filled with obstacles, but
it is a road we must travel together if Civilised man is to have a
future on Earth, and in the realms beyond...

Thoughts? Comments? Warm regards, Roger

As a Non-Believer of JudeoChristianity-Islam, would it count if I prayed to Zoroaster, Baal-Zebub, Ishtar?
Or to a gallon of milk, thanking cows for their gift of calcium.

Submitting to will of god?
Sounds like submitting to a perpetual abuser.

Generally, I have some agreement with what others have said.

However, the author begins well but quickly deteriorates in the first paragraph as he states:

“From a Christian viewpoint, I see this as God's adversary- an entity also
acknowledged by all three religions- trying to drive a wedge between
His faithful followers.”

What he fails to understand it that there is no “Christian viewpoint.”
There are many viewpoints which various Christian groups claim as the authentic, singular viewpoint.

Second, just what does he mean by “God’s adversary”? There’s an implication in that statement. It’s not a transparent statement.

Third, he fails to understand that the evolution of religions comes from within various cultures and civilizations dating as far back as we can trace even unreliable yet existing documentation. He fails to recognize the great schisms in Christianity.

In order to understand these schisms, one must acquire a considerable quantity of historical information.

Prior to the capacity of the masses to read, there were schisms. However, the significance of the Protestant Reformation is well documented outside the various dogmas of denominations, sects, and cults.

“Faithful followers” is relative as well. Faithful to what is the question. Since there are many groups resulting from and following from the Protestant Reformation, his reference is much too general to be of use.

-----------------------

The “wedge” to which he refers is fictional in his statement. It’s the wrong word to characterize the evolution of various Christian groups as well as groups from other world religions.

Then the author states:

“It is therefore of the utmost importance that His earthly servants reject this division and pray for the day when God's people can be reunited as one body before God.”

It’s an unworkable proposal. The number of divisions has increased in religious interpretations over the past 500 years. Prayer is irrelevant. What are the facts regarding the changes which have occurred in religious doctrine over time? How have they come about? What can we expect in the future?

The notion of “reunited as one body” has been a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) since the Protestant Reformation schism. What that means (from the perspective of the RCC is that all who have parted with that church should return to the true church. Ecumenical movements have not succeeded.

-----------------------

In the second paragraph, he begins with what is really a vague statement absent definition.

He states:

“As a believer in God, I have faith that should we pray for such unity, He will deliver, in the form of signs to mankind, the route that we should follow to achieve this goal.”

God is a vague assertion in his statement. Absent clear definition as to just what this author means by that term, we have no idea what he means by what follows like “unity” and “deliver” and “signs” and “route that we should follow.”

And the point at which he becomes specific about that, others will disagree with his characterization. Hence no unity as he advocates. Absent full agreement and agreement upon that which is clear and transparent, “unity” is not possible. Religious doctrines are very specific.

He continues:

“By sharing our spiritual experiences, prophesies and miracles, we can find out what our Creator requires of us.”

Nonsense. People of religious persuasion don’t agree on “prophesies” or “miracles.” Sharing is exactly how we (humans/mankind) evolved the various multiple doctrines which are declared as true, yet remain conflicted.

His notion is most unrealistic. It’s not going to happen.

He continues:

”By keeping an open mind, we can realise [sic] that no-one is entirely in the right, and no-one is entirely in the wrong.”

An “open mind” is the last thing which religious doctrine can tolerate. However, if we actually recognized something here it would be that no one has the truth which he claims to have. No declaration of “right” with regard to religious doctrine/dogma has reliability. If we achieved anything from his proposal it would be agnosticism. That is, people don’t know what their religious indoctrination insists upon.

It’s easy to state what he does in the abstract. However, the moment anyone begins to assign specifics to that “right” or that “wrong,” the abstract fails in the specific.

He continues:

“In fact it is beyond our scope as mortals to know all the answers to these
questions, until the day He wishes to reveal His plan.”

Well, if it’s “beyond our scope,” we mortals are speculating. The author continues to persist in a MALE God.

Some today perceive God as other-than-human. How would this author accommodate that perception? It appears that he would not.

The author asserts there will be “the day He wishes to reveal His plan.”

That’s strong partisan, punditship of religious dogma. Earlier (first paragraph) he referred to “Christianity, Judaism and Islam.” No agreement can be found in the many, many divisions of all three of those which fits into the religious box this author constructs.

Out of time for me to address this further

------------------------

Close analysis of vague words and implicit doctrine and dogma in this author’s statement gives it little merit.

JAK

JAK, informative as usual. Followed your link to Christian Schisms, ever-more, thanks. The author states, into which i inject in bold:

As a believer in God, I have faith that should we pray for such unity,
He will deliver, in the form of signs to mankind, the route that we
should follow to achieve this goal. RM: I doubt that "unity" is dependent on "prayer" as it is traditionally understood and practiced. By sharing our spiritual
experiences, prophesies and miracles, we can find out what our Creator
requires of us. RM: Sharing aspirations i think will be more effective to the goal of "unity" in living peaceably together. By keeping an open mind, we can realise that no-one is
entirely in the right, and no-one is entirely in the wrong. RM: True. In fact it
is beyond our scope as mortals to know all the answers to these
questions, RM: Not sure what "these questions" are? until the day He wishes to reveal His plan. RM: This seems a retreat into mystic expectations that absolves humanity of active participation in the pursuit of "unity"--in "God's" hands, in his time?? NO! In our hands... So we must also
pray for the humility to accept that we do not, and never by ourselves
will, know the route to salvation. RM: Very presumptuous theological talk irrelevant to human "unity" in all but agreement to disagree in a peaceful coexistance in recognition of the common roots of Jewism, Islam and Christianity as traditionally defined. Would such a "unity" then be a force against other 'faiths' and/or Atheism?
I would like to found the Abrahamic Friendship Society to provide such
a forum for well-mannered theological debate, the sharing of our
personal spirituality and the opportunity to form friendships across
the faith divide. RM: I'm for friendships across all divides. Be they philosophical faith/religious, social/political, or practical economic poverty/wealth, ethnic, gender, etc...

That being said, i give the author credit for his initiative and general good intent. As well his success in bringing it to public attention. How does one do that--found a "...Society to provide a forum..." as he intends--with 'our' worthy-projects? ;-) Roger

Roger Morrison wrote:JAK, informative as usual. Followed your link to Christian Schisms, ever-more, thanks. The author states, into which I inject in bold:

As a believer in God, I have faith that should we pray for such unity,
He will deliver, in the form of signs to mankind, the route that we
should follow to achieve this goal. RM: I doubt that "unity" is dependent on "prayer" as it is traditionally understood and practiced. By sharing our spiritual
experiences, prophesies and miracles, we can find out what our Creator
requires of us. RM: Sharing aspirations I think will be more effective to the goal of "unity" in living peaceably together. By keeping an open mind, we can realise that no-one is
entirely in the right, and no-one is entirely in the wrong. RM: True. In fact it
is beyond our scope as mortals to know all the answers to these
questions, RM: Not sure what "these questions" are? until the day He wishes to reveal His plan. RM: This seems a retreat into mystic expectations that absolves humanity of active participation in the pursuit of "unity"--in "God's" hands, in his time?? NO! In our hands... So we must also
pray for the humility to accept that we do not, and never by ourselves
will, know the route to salvation. RM: Very presumptuous theological talk irrelevant to human "unity" in all but agreement to disagree in a peaceful coexistance in recognition of the common roots of Jewism, Islam and Christianity as traditionally defined. Would such a "unity" then be a force against other 'faiths' and/or Atheism?
I would like to found the Abrahamic Friendship Society to provide such
a forum for well-mannered theological debate, the sharing of our
personal spirituality and the opportunity to form friendships across
the faith divide. RM: I'm for friendships across all divides. Be they philosophical faith/religious, social/political, or practical economic poverty/wealth, ethnic, gender, etc...

That being said, I give the author credit for his initiative and general good intent. As well his success in bringing it to public attention. How does one do that--found a "...Society to provide a forum..." as he intends--with 'our' worthy-projects? ;-) Roger

Roger,

As you might expect, I agree with some of your observations, not all

Author: By keeping an open mind, we can realise that no-one is
entirely in the right, and no-one is entirely in the wrong.

RM: True.

JAK:
Vague and non-descript. Required here is precise detail since religious doctrine is not only specific, it’s unyielding. The critical issue on “right” or correct vs wrong lies in the details. While it appears a nice generalization, absent clarity on consensus of what IS “right,” we have nothing.

Author:
In fact it is beyond our scope as mortals to know all the answers to these
questions,

RM: Not sure what "these questions" are?

JAK:
Of course. It’s another vague mercurial generalization.

Author:
until the day He wishes to reveal His plan.

RM: This seems a retreat into mystic expectations that absolves humanity of active participation in the pursuit of "unity"--in "God's" hands, in his time?? NO! In our hands...

JAK:
Exactly. Hence the statement is of little merit. And even with his generalization you find disagreement. God’s hands rhetoric is irrelevant. What we humans can do or fail to do is the critical issue/question/action.

Author:
So we must also pray for the humility to accept that we do not, and never by ourselves will, know the route to salvation.

RM: Very presumptuous theological talk irrelevant to human "unity" in all but agreement to disagree in a peaceful coexistance in recognition of the common roots of Jewism, Islam and Christianity as traditionally defined. Would such a "unity" then be a force against other 'faiths' and/or Atheism?

JAK:
Yes. Good question. Since the various religious doctrines disagree, who wins out over a contrary doctrine/dogma?

The author is in tooth fairy land here with generalizations as he avoids the specifics of contentions/assertions of disagreeing religious positions.

Author:
I would like to found the Abrahamic Friendship Society to provide such
a forum for well-mannered theological debate, the sharing of our
personal spirituality and the opportunity to form friendships across
the faith divide.

RM: I'm for friendships across all divides. Be they philosophical faith/religious, social/political, or practical economic poverty/wealth, ethnic, gender, etc...

JAK:
While friendships can transcend some barriers, it cannot transcend all of them. When we are with people who have like interests (collecting antiques as example), we don’t need to address political or religious chasms we know exist. We can have “friendships” but we tread lightly on our differences.

Mike Huckabee’s Christian fundamentalism (he’s a creationist) might have little effect or relevance in a game of Bridge with him or talk about some other subject which is so remote to his religious bias as to make that religious bias insignificant and marginalized.

JAK

It'll never work, Roger, much as some might like it to. And the reason is all wrapped in this one paragraph:

By keeping an open mind, we can realise that no-one is
entirely in the right, and no-one is entirely in the wrong. In fact it
is beyond our scope as mortals to know all the answers to these
questions, until the day He wishes to reveal His plan. So we must also
pray for the humility to accept that we do not, and never by ourselves
will, know the route to salvation.

Mormons do not believe that no one is entirely right. We're convinced that we're entirely right. We think the others are a little bit right, but we're as right as right gets. The idea that we cannot know that we're right flies in the face every missionary out there, declaring our version of the gospel is the true version and our church is the true church. Humility? In the LDS church? What are you thinking???? We know the route to salvation... it goes through the priesthood, through the temple, and through enduring to the end.

*sigh* I'm sure the author had good intentions, but we know which road is paved with good intentions.

Ecumenical activities are wanting in the world. Instead of praying for unity amongst humanity (regardless of faith), perhaps a more advantageous path would be to take matters into our own hands.

Even in the LDS faith there seems to be an aversion towards ecumenism. There’s an essay (I believe by Millet) in the somewhat recent festschrift for Robert J. Matthews (published by BYU Religious Studies Center) that caught me fairly off-guard by its promotion, and attempt for justification of anti-ecumenicalism.

To quote Dr. Zoidberg as he was dressed like Jesus (and asked to save the executioner): “I help those who help themselves.”
----------
As a side note, I don’t know why, but this reminded me of something I once heard someone say that gave me a chuckle:

“A Mormon is a Muslim who thinks he's Christian, but wishes he were a Jew.”