Nuance Hoe claims missionaries now using bait-and-switch "we're Christian" tactics

[huckelberry]

To be fair the Catholic Church views it as a mystery, something which cannot be fully understood. And something to which natural reasoning does not fully apply.

I know, but if you read up on the history of Christian theology and its relationship with Greek philosophy, then it looks a lot less arbitrary and impenetrable. Is it difficult yes? Is it completely understandable? No. Not for me, anyway. But it is not the caricature that is often made of it either, and I include LDS anti-Trinidadian propaganda among the bad misrepresentations.

Kishkumen,

My thought was that the basic ideas presented in the Nicene creed are fairly simple to understand and are understood by youth all over the world in some sort of instruction. On the other hand one can ask questions about it which lead to mystery as drumdude points out. One could study the history of the development of distinctions, how the Greek terminology was chosen and make an in depth study. There are after all thick gnarly tomes written about the trinity. I am sure many, almost all, perhaps all, of those youth I mentioned understanding the creed do not follow or understand all the various possible views and problems considered in such books.

I am sure it can be overcome but the basic concepts of divinity, personhood and history of God are so different in LDS teaching that if that is a persons starting point the idea of the trinity is pretty alien.

[Bond]

Ideas 1-3 seem like things that will definitely be happening within 20-30 years lest the church become a million member church sitting on a trillion in assets. The problem is that young people are rejecting Christianity in general for homophobia and misogyny and any other reason from the secular playbook. Mormonism just has more extant skeletons in the closet because it was created during an era of literacy.

[Moksha]

I mean, if Evangelicals can fall all over themselves to worship Trump, the idea of them rejecting Mormons as Christians is pretty damn hilarious.

Yeah, but... for Evangelicals, Trump worship is a form of deviance and deviltry. For Mormons, not recoiling from the cross or braids of garlic is the next step toward seeing their reflection in a mirror.

[Gadianton]

Mormons equally reject EV Christianity as invalid. And they don't want to be accepted as Christian in order to be accepted as Christian, but to get a foot in the door to proselyte and teach the third discussion about the apostasy, and then draw people away from those churches and into Mormonism. In my time in the church, I don't recall another church getting any respect from any Mormons I knew. As a child, our neighbors two houses down were Baptists, and my parents had all the respect in the world for them (save for their coffee pot). They were such good people -- but they didn't have the truth. It became a war of inviting each other to respective services as each loved the other but considered the other's church as an abomination.

EVs coopted the word "Christian" as a normative label, while Mormons use it only as a descriptive label -- on par with a dictionary definition. While I think the EV coopting is lame in its own right, the Mormon counter-offensive is just as lame. When an EV recognizes another church as "Christian", it means the church is right with the Bible and offers a path to salvation. Mormons use the label per the dictionary, any church with a Catholic or Protestant heritage and a Bible is a Christian church. And they are all false. Oh sure, "they teach much good" (cough), that's the official line now, not because anyone in the Church believes it but because in the book, How to win friends and influence people (a book DCP or any apologist hasn't read, yet it's the foundation of Stephen Covey and missionary program of the 80s and 90s), it's a bad sales tactic to focus on the negative. Their status as "Christians" give them zero, per Mormonism. They are saved per the general effects of the atonement, but so is everybody else. They may reach the Terrestrial kingdom, but not because they are "Christian" per se, as Muslims, Buddhists, and any "good person" can also reach the Terrestrial kingdom. Their baptisms are false. Their prayers may be heard, but so are the prayers of everyone; being "Christian" has no special credibility with God.

If a Baptist recognizes another church as a "Christian church" it's because they believe that other church has access to salvation. I can assure you that it never happens that church A accepts church B as valid to salvation while church B doesn't accept church A. And so as a "Christian" in this normative sense, you're a part of a network of churches that acknowledge each other as on roughly equal footing. And so for Mormons to be accepted as "Christian" in the way EVs bear the label, they would need to agree that EVs are "saved" in the way EV's think they are saved, and not equivocate with the Mormon "general sense" version of salvation that applies to everyone. I'm not saying this alone would make EV's accept them, but it's an unspoken necessary condition, even if not a sufficient condition. Mormons certainly don't want that. they want to be in the special position of "we have what you have, but you don't have what we have, and how dare you not acknowledge it!"

I hate to say it, but the Mormon plight to be Christian is literally to put on the sheep clothes in order to gain access to the flock and then go on a bloody and ravenous long-fang sheep-eating spree.

[Markk]

Mormons equally reject EV Christianity as invalid. And they don't want to be accepted as Christian in order to be accepted as Christian, but to get a foot in the door to proselyte and teach the third discussion about the apostasy, and then draw people away from those churches and into Mormonism. In my time in the church, I don't recall another church getting any respect from any Mormons I knew. As a child, our neighbors two houses down were Baptists, and my parents had all the respect in the world for them (save for their coffee pot). They were such good people -- but they didn't have the truth. It became a war of inviting each other to respective services as each loved the other but considered the other's church as an abomination.

EVs coopted the word "Christian" as a normative label, while Mormons use it only as a descriptive label -- on par with a dictionary definition. While I think the EV coopting is lame in its own right, the Mormon counter-offensive is just as lame. When an EV recognizes another church as "Christian", it means the church is right with the Bible and offers a path to salvation. Mormons use the label per the dictionary, any church with a Catholic or Protestant heritage and a Bible is a Christian church. And they are all false. Oh sure, "they teach much good" (cough), that's the official line now, not because anyone in the Church believes it but because in the book, How to win friends and influence people (a book DCP or any apologist hasn't read, yet it's the foundation of Stephen Covey and missionary program of the 80s and 90s), it's a bad sales tactic to focus on the negative. Their status as "Christians" give them zero, per Mormonism. They are saved per the general effects of the atonement, but so is everybody else. They may reach the Terrestrial kingdom, but not because they are "Christian" per se, as Muslims, Buddhists, and any "good person" can also reach the Terrestrial kingdom. Their baptisms are false. Their prayers may be heard, but so are the prayers of everyone; being "Christian" has no special credibility with God.

If a Baptist recognizes another church as a "Christian church" it's because they believe that other church has access to salvation. I can assure you that it never happens that church A accepts church B as valid to salvation while church B doesn't accept church A. And so as a "Christian" in this normative sense, you're a part of a network of churches that acknowledge each other as on roughly equal footing. And so for Mormons to be accepted as "Christian" in the way EVs bear the label, they would need to agree that EVs are "saved" in the way EV's think they are saved, and not equivocate with the Mormon "general sense" version of salvation that applies to everyone. I'm not saying this alone would make EV's accept them, but it's an unspoken necessary condition, even if not a sufficient condition. Mormons certainly don't want that. they want to be in the special position of "we have what you have, but you don't have what we have, and how dare you not acknowledge it!"

I hate to say it, but the Mormon plight to be Christian is literally to put on the sheep clothes in order to gain access to the flock and then go on a bloody and ravenous long-fang sheep-eating spree.

I hit a milestone this year, I was LDS for 33 years, and have now been an EV for 33 years. So let me add my two cents to your post.

I agree with most of what you say here on the surface, in my opinion you are close. But without getting too deep, what you are missing is that today's mainstream EV's view what you call a church here more as a "Christian Fellowship" and " the church" as the body of believers "in" Christ. You might say that to the Mormon it is "The Church" and to the Christian "the church."

If a Baptist recognizes another church as a "Christian church" it's because they believe that other church has access to salvation.

Every Baptist I know, and I have attended many Baptist meetings, and fellowshipped at a church associated with the SBC for a year or so, would phrase that in the context of "everybody has access to Christ" apart from any affiliation. Are their exceptions, certainly, but those are not normative.

Church is everything to a saint. Christ is what, behind Joseph Smith, The Prophet, worthiness...etc. When I was in my late teens and screwing up a bit, drinking beer, ditching PH with my buddies, and having a bad attitude with my folks...my father told me I need to get right with "the church." If it were in a Christian context, at least EV experience, he would have told me to get right with Christ, on a personal level.

One big difference, and this is huge...Mormonism is corporate in just about every way...it is always about "The Church." Whereas Christianity is very intimate and personal, with the focus on Christ.

in my opinion, in reality "The Church" is the true God of Mormonism, with Joseph Smith coming in second. HF, Christ, doctrine, living and dead prophets, scripture, and core doctrines all change and/or get swept under the rug...but..."The Church" has to survive at all costs.

LOL...I will now lie down and let the usuals pile on.

[drumdude]

Mormons equally reject EV Christianity as invalid. And they don't want to be accepted as Christian in order to be accepted as Christian, but to get a foot in the door to proselyte and teach the third discussion about the apostasy, and then draw people away from those churches and into Mormonism. In my time in the church, I don't recall another church getting any respect from any Mormons I knew. As a child, our neighbors two houses down were Baptists, and my parents had all the respect in the world for them (save for their coffee pot). They were such good people -- but they didn't have the truth. It became a war of inviting each other to respective services as each loved the other but considered the other's church as an abomination.

EVs coopted the word "Christian" as a normative label, while Mormons use it only as a descriptive label -- on par with a dictionary definition. While I think the EV coopting is lame in its own right, the Mormon counter-offensive is just as lame. When an EV recognizes another church as "Christian", it means the church is right with the Bible and offers a path to salvation. Mormons use the label per the dictionary, any church with a Catholic or Protestant heritage and a Bible is a Christian church. And they are all false. Oh sure, "they teach much good" (cough), that's the official line now, not because anyone in the Church believes it but because in the book, How to win friends and influence people (a book DCP or any apologist hasn't read, yet it's the foundation of Stephen Covey and missionary program of the 80s and 90s), it's a bad sales tactic to focus on the negative. Their status as "Christians" give them zero, per Mormonism. They are saved per the general effects of the atonement, but so is everybody else. They may reach the Terrestrial kingdom, but not because they are "Christian" per se, as Muslims, Buddhists, and any "good person" can also reach the Terrestrial kingdom. Their baptisms are false. Their prayers may be heard, but so are the prayers of everyone; being "Christian" has no special credibility with God.

If a Baptist recognizes another church as a "Christian church" it's because they believe that other church has access to salvation. I can assure you that it never happens that church A accepts church B as valid to salvation while church B doesn't accept church A. And so as a "Christian" in this normative sense, you're a part of a network of churches that acknowledge each other as on roughly equal footing. And so for Mormons to be accepted as "Christian" in the way EVs bear the label, they would need to agree that EVs are "saved" in the way EV's think they are saved, and not equivocate with the Mormon "general sense" version of salvation that applies to everyone. I'm not saying this alone would make EV's accept them, but it's an unspoken necessary condition, even if not a sufficient condition. Mormons certainly don't want that. they want to be in the special position of "we have what you have, but you don't have what we have, and how dare you not acknowledge it!"

I hate to say it, but the Mormon plight to be Christian is literally to put on the sheep clothes in order to gain access to the flock and then go on a bloody and ravenous long-fang sheep-eating spree.

I hit a milestone this year, I was LDS for 33 years, and have now been an EV for 33 years. So let me add my two cents to your post.

I agree with most of what you say here on the surface, in my opinion you are close. But without getting too deep, what you are missing is that today's mainstream EV's view what you call a church here more as a "Christian Fellowship" and " the church" as the body of believers "in" Christ. You might say that to the Mormon it is "The Church" and to the Christian "the church."

If a Baptist recognizes another church as a "Christian church" it's because they believe that other church has access to salvation.

Every Baptist I know, and I have attended many Baptist meetings, and fellowshipped at a church associated with the SBC for a year or so, would phrase that in the context of "everybody has access to Christ" apart from any affiliation. Are their exceptions, certainly, but those are not normative.

Church is everything to a saint. Christ is what, behind Joseph Smith, The Prophet, worthiness...etc. When I was in my late teens and screwing up a bit, drinking beer, ditching PH with my buddies, and having a bad attitude with my folks...my father told me I need to get right with "the church." If it were in a Christian context, at least EV experience, he would have told me to get right with Christ, on a personal level.

One big difference, and this is huge...Mormonism is corporate in just about every way...it is always about "The Church." Whereas Christianity is very intimate and personal, with the focus on Christ.

in my opinion, in reality "The Church" is the true God of Mormonism, with Joseph Smith coming in second. HF, Christ, doctrine, living and dead prophets, scripture, and core doctrines all change and/or get swept under the rug...but..."The Church" has to survive at all costs.

LOL...I will now lie down and let the usuals pile on.

I think that kind of Christianity is awesome and I appreciate you sharing it with us.

Once you escape from the trap of authority, you are free to worship Christ as you see fit.

[Gadianton]

Right, I agree with with that. In theory, A Christian doesn't need a church to be saved. Each individual has access to the Bible and can have a personal relationship with Jesus directly.

And so you can update what I said to ensure when thinking of "church A" and "church B" we aren't talking about the corporate entities but subsections of the body of Christ, collections of individual believers as it were.

[Gadianton]

Once you escape from the trap of authority, you are free to worship Christ as you see fit.

Sounds good on paper. But can you explain why so many of these Christians who disavow authority are so enamored with authoritarian leaders like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and want to turn the US into a police state?

[drumdude]

Once you escape from the trap of authority, you are free to worship Christ as you see fit.

Sounds good on paper. But can you explain why so many of these Christians who disavow authority are so enamored with authoritarian leaders like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and want to turn the US into a police state?

I don’t think they understand the larger picture. They just see something they disagree with (liberal agenda, lgbt, abortion, ect) and choose the side which says they’re against all of that. Even if it’s the side bombing children in Ukraine.

[Canadiandude2]

I know, but if you read up on the history of Christian theology and its relationship with Greek philosophy, then it looks a lot less arbitrary and impenetrable. Is it difficult yes? Is it completely understandable? No. Not for me, anyway. But it is not the caricature that is often made of it either, and I include LDS anti-Trinidadian propaganda among the bad misrepresentations.

Kishkumen,

My thought was that the basic ideas presented in the Nicene creed are fairly simple to understand and are understood by youth all over the world in some sort of instruction. On the other hand one can ask questions about it which lead to mystery as drumdude points out. One could study the history of the development of distinctions, how the Greek terminology was chosen and make an in depth study. There are after all thick gnarly tomes written about the trinity. I am sure many, almost all, perhaps all, of those youth I mentioned understanding the creed do not follow or understand all the various possible views and problems considered in such books.

I am sure it can be overcome but the basic concepts of divinity, personhood and history of God are so different in LDS teaching that if that is a persons starting point the idea of the trinity is pretty alien.

Eh. Is it simple though? Does it matter?

Its relative legitimacy remains also a stretch. Too many non-Mormon Christians like to pretend their ‘sh*t doesn’t smell’ relative to Mormonism.

The phrasing by non-Mormon Christian Apologists are similarly deliberately vague and lacking in reliability and validity. Use empirical evidence. Use reason. You need to establish first that the “youth all over the world” you’re referring to aren’t simply also ‘bowing their head and saying yes’ to similarly faulty ideas and contradictions within the Creeds- and this due to the same processes of social learning which supports many other social constructs as well.

Even still- it’s a fallacy to play the numbers game, as the number of adherents and their degree of confidence in their faith is independent of it being more or less internally coherent, evidential, and logically informed.

You want to watch a trinitarian squirm? Set a scholar like McClellan deploying biblical criticism on them. *the Creeds were developed in amidst a specific sociopolitical context, to reflect particular interests within society at that time. They are co-constitutional, and their significance has drifted like any other social construct passed down between people via actor and construct informing one another- relative of course to and alongside their developing relationships to other evolving agents and structures.

Mormonism ain’t special. The other forms of Christianity are also not special.

Edit: changed the language to be less confrontational and not assume anyone here is a trinitarian.

I just think it’s all incoherent. Sure, I like the pro-lgbtq and liberal churches more than conservative religious traditions. I think they generally tend to be more honest about the limitations of their truth claims. But I do think we need to examine how truth claims stack up relatively against each other. I’m a “thin” constructivist. I would argue that material reality exists but that our understanding of it is often greatly impacted by social constructs. The fewer and more circumspect the sky cranes needed to hoist up an argument- the better.