Ecumenism with the LDS Church

[RebeccaJ]

I inherited from my Lutheran father (God rest his soul) his argumentative spirit. When I was young, we regularly had Mormons visit our house. Dad was always polite, even when he told Mormons they were wrong. I think doing this kind of dialogue is great. But, do remember however, that doing this over the Internet has its disadvantages. With regards to Mormon and Catholic leaders dialoguing that is up to them. I am unsure if I have ever been to a Mormon meeting-house (though I think I have). I do remember reading the Book of Mormon in a doctor’s office when I was very young. I also (lying around somewhere) have several copies of the Book of Mormon. I would just like to say to the Mormons I think the Book of Mormon is where you are going to have trouble finding common ground with traditional Christians, since we do not accept it as scripture. I would like to ask Mormons: What do you believe that is DIFFERENT than Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants?

…and their Pearl of Great Price. Plurality of gods, Kolob, etc. Mormons instinctively keep these beliefs on the low-down when in dialogue with “non-members”. There is an element of science fiction in Mormonism where Catholics, Orthodox and Protetants could only sit in polite silence.

 

[jane_doe]

…and their Pearl of Great Price. Plurality of gods, Kolob, etc. Mormons instinctively keep these beliefs on the low-down when in dialogue with “non-members”. There is an element of science fiction in Mormonism where Catholics, Orthodox and Protetants could only sit in polite silence.

FYI: calling someone’s dearly held beliefs “science fiction” is directly counter-productive to respectful honest dialogue.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Absolutely. I do it all the time.
The challenge that I find with Mormons (though again I do see a shift going on, esp., with the young), is that often times they see me as a potential convert.

I think if Mormons shifted from sharing their view of the Gospel with those who actually have an interest from what it has been, sharing it with even people are are not interested.

Again, I do see a generational shift happening. I have an acquaintanceship with a gentleman who is in his 70’s. He is LDS. We can’t have a conversation without him trying to prove to me the so-called great apostasy and bearing his testimony.

OY Vey!. He is a good man, but it’s his default position.

I don’t see the LDS church backing off on the “every member a missionary” approach, whether or not individual members are actively involved in missionary work may vary, but the church wants individuals to do so. Family’s are exhorted to have their own “missionary plan”.

Frankly it is hard to have a respectful conversation about religion with a person whose only aim is to convert you.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

…and their Pearl of Great Price. Plurality of gods, Kolob, etc. Mormons instinctively keep these beliefs on the low-down when in dialogue with “non-members”. There is an element of science fiction in Mormonism where Catholics, Orthodox and Protetants could only sit in polite silence.

If a Mormon won’t tell you they believe those things, don’t assume they actually do. And AGAIN, STICK TO THE OP PLEASE. Once these discussions pick up, they get very nasty.

 

[Marie5890]

Tis best for all of us to move forward with charity!

Jane, do you ever see your church shifting on how it fulfills the “proclaim the Gospel” call?

I wonder if it’s heavy prostylizing hand, and encouraging the membership at large to do this besides it’s official missionaries, makes it more of a challenge to dealing with ecumenism if the goal is conversion of others.

 

[Marie5890]

I don’t see the LDS church backing off on the “every member a missionary” approach, whether or not individual members are actively involved in missionary work may vary, but the church wants individuals to do so. Family’s are exhorted to have their own “missionary plan”.

Frankly it is hard to have a respectful conversation about religion with a person whose only aim is to convert you.

Yes, exactly, and that is a question I just posed to Jane.

The prostylizing is a HUGE obstacle to respectful dialogue.

If that doesn’t shift, that dialogue will be limited, very.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

Jane, do you ever see your church shifting on how it fulfills the “proclaim the Gospel” call?

I wonder if it’s heavy prostylizing hand, and encouraging the membership at large to do this besides it’s official missionaries, makes it more of a challenge to dealing with ecumenism if the goal is conversion of others.

I’m interested in getting Jane’s thoughts also.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That’s not the OP question.

The question is: are you willing to respect, dialogue, and work shoulder-to-shoulder with someone who is different than you?

If they are willing to respect, dialogue, and work shoulder-to-shoulder with someone and not try to convert them fine. If though they are viewing me as nothing more than a potential convert (yay someone interested in religion, they’ll be amenable to our message) that is not respect, it is a monologue not a dialogue and it fundamentally disrespects the beliefs and person of the one you aim to convert.

 

[RebeccaJ]

FYI: calling someone’s dearly held beliefs “science fiction” is directly counter-productive to respectful honest dialogue.

Well, that is why I’m not a diplomat. You have to remember I had those Mormon seminary and Gospel Doctrine teachers who were “out there”. Definitely, they mixed science fiction in with their religious beliefs. As a matter of fact.

Mormon/Catholic dialogue occurred here in Utah, when we had a Bishop. It isn’t ecumenism, as ecumenism for Catholics is well defined as between Catholics and our separate brethren. But anyway, it appeared to me as a one way street, that is, Mormon leaders were only interested when it suited their own objectives. Maybe that was not wholly what was going on, but that is what it looked like to me. It takes enormous patience to dialogue with Mormons for any length of time. There are Catholics who have that patience.

More, I see Catholics who are impressed by the Mormon monetary contributions to Catholic ministries. I think Mormons have a better “in” there, than in dialogue.

 

[jane_doe]

Jane, do you ever see your church shifting on how it fulfills the “proclaim the Gospel” call?

I wonder if it’s heavy prostylizing hand, and encouraging the membership at large to do this besides it’s official missionaries, makes it more of a challenge to dealing with ecumenism if the goal is conversion of others.

Honestly: I pity any church who abandons Christ call to preach His Gospel.

I don’t find someone trying to convert me as being offensive, but see it as them doing their best for fulfill Christ’s commands-- such as the JW which showed up at my door Sunday afternoon.

Now are some techniques less effective or even counter effective? Totally. But I think that would be best to talk about on another thread.

(Edited to fix typo)

 

[adamhovey1988]

That’s not the OP question.

The question is: are you willing to respect, dialogue, and work shoulder-to-shoulder with someone who is different than you?

The OP had to do with ecumenism with Mormonism that’s what I mentioned I stayed on topic I’m not sure why you are getting frustrated with me. I feel like I was respectful and I was not condescending and trust me I can be. If you would like to have a dialogue that is fine but don’t accuse me of going off topic when I was on topic

 

[jane_doe]

The OP had to do with ecumenism with Mormonism that’s what I mentioned I stayed on topic I’m not sure why you are getting frustrated with me. I feel like I was respectful and I was not condescending and trust me I can be. If you would like to have a dialogue that is fine but don’t accuse me of going off topic when I was on topic

I apologize if I came off frustrated- that was not my intention. I’m just trying to stay on topic (talking Ecumenism instead of different books of scripture), and respect the OP’s wishes. If you want to talk different books of scripture, I’d be happy to on a different thread.

To restate- I apologize for coming off rough, and assure you I’m not frustrated with you-- I am actually quite enjoying this thread.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

Honestly: I pity any church who abandons Christ call to preach His Gospel.

I just find someone trying to convert me as being offensive, but see it as them doing their best for fulfill Christ’s commands-- such as the JW which showed up at my door Sunday afternoon.

Now are some techniques less effective or even counter effective? Totally. But I think that would be best to talk about on another thread.

As a Catholic, of course I want people to know Christ’s Church, but I would say that they ought to come into the light of truth in their own time. Perhaps part of respecting the aim of good dialogue between our two groups would be engaging each other at levels each of us can relate to. For example, when a Latter-day Saint wants to engage specific Catholic doctrine like the Trinity (and this is not an invite to argue over the Trinity), but doesn’t replace the “false” teaching with a specific doctrine of his/her own, which has been given the same level of philosophical and theological rigor, that’s where our dialogue would break down.

Maybe none of this makes sense. Am I being clear?

 

[jane_doe]

As a Catholic, of course I want people to know Christ’s Church, but I would say that they ought to come into the light of truth in their own time. Perhaps part of respecting the aim of good dialogue between our two groups would be engaging each other at levels each of us can relate to. For example, when a Latter-day Saint wants to engage specific Catholic doctrine like the Trinity (and this is not an invite to argue over the Trinity), but doesn’t replace the “false” teaching with a specific doctrine of his/her own, which has been given the same level of philosophical and theological rigor, that’s where our dialogue would break down.

Maybe none of this makes sense. Am I being clear?

(Aside: I noticed a typo in my original post. I meant to say I do NOT find it offensive when someone tries to convert me).

I totally agree with you when talking about a particular belief set (such as the Trinity) it is best for both parties to respectfully bring both to the table and talk about them. Share your light and Goodness, instead of aiming to destroy another person’s faith.

I’m also going to point out that rigor and strength of an view is accessed differently between different people/cultures.

 

[Petaro]

From a world view, I believe many in America over estimate the influence of Mormons. It is not seen by the majority of the world’s Christians. as anything more than the fables of its founder with historical questions as to his credibility open to anyone with eyes to see.
No the Church appears more interested in overcoming the great East West divide than dealing with a small sect who pose as Christians yet cannot be identified as such given their belief we can all become Gods.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

(Aside: I noticed a typo in my original post. I meant to say I do NOT find it offensive when someone tries to convert me).

I totally agree with you when talking about a particular belief set (such as the Trinity) it is best for both parties to respectfully bring both to the table and talk about them. Share your light and Goodness, instead of aiming to destroy another person’s faith.

I’m also going to point out that rigor and strength of an view is accessed differently between different people/cultures.

The typo certainly makes a difference. Haha. Sometimes a person’s desire to convert you is implicit. I don’t really mind that, as long as it’s genuine and actually concerned with the needs of the individual. It’s the explicit that turns me off. It comes off more as obsessive than compassionate.

 

[jane_doe]

The typo certainly makes a difference. Haha.

Yeah…

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

From a world view, I believe many in America over estimate the influence of Mormons. It is not seen by the majority of the world’s Christians. as anything more than the fables of its founder with historical questions as to his credibility open to anyone with eyes to see.
No the Church appears more interested in overcoming the great East West divide than dealing with a small sect who pose as Christians yet cannot be identified as such given their belief we can all become Gods.

That seems a bit condescending, don’t you think? Maybe it’s only a small percentage of the world, but they’re not robots with bad programming. They’re real people, and I should know.

Let me just share how polemics go both ways: Most smart and invested people can see that Catholicism is Jesus’ swan song hyped up by a few Jews in the first century, then used as a tool to control people once the idea took off. Now that we have science, this nonsense about miracles and prayer has been pretty much relegated to fancy fables employed as a means to feel good about death and suffering.

 

[Marie5890]

Honestly: I pity any church who abandons Christ call to preach His Gospel.

I don’t find someone trying to convert me as being offensive, but see it as them doing their best for fulfill Christ’s commands-- such as the JW which showed up at my door Sunday afternoon.

)

In what way do you pity them? (In what way are you using the word “pity”)

Interestingly, I see it the same way as I see getting telemarketing calls. Annoying. And I think that we have come to a point in our cultural where that kind of prostylizing is seen much in the same ways as telemarketing. Just my observations based on what I hear from others.

Infact the JW’s in my area, because I lived in a closed community, take to making phone calls and sending letters The letters never get opened and the phone # gets blocked. To the LDS missionaries credit, they don’t bother with our community, either by phone or letters.

That is where I see it as more as marketing.
I can evangelize the Gospel by how I live my life without opening my mouth.

 

[venite_adoremus]

Ecumenism, to be pursued, must consider the three realms of what constitutes faith. Would such pursuit be fruitful? Ecumenism necessitates a joining together, a subsuming of one by the other. Logically, it cannot happen.

(1) Governance. Two completely different systems prevail. Both claim apostolic succession. One is historical from the first century after Christ; the other is restored and historical only from the 19th century. Peter was appointed to be the rock upon which the Church would be built, by Christ himself. One system asserts the successors of Peter in his see alone were Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, and over a hundred and fifty others. The other system asserts succession from a visionary appearance of Peter, James, and John to ordain a totally new line (by the way, LDS friends, what is the exact date of this event?–on what date was the “Melchisedek priesthood” actually restored?–be specific, please). We can appreciate apples and oranges, but is combining them even possible? Ecumenism would fail here.

(2) Sacrament. Two completely different systems prevail. Let us consider, for the moment, the roots of the word “sacrament.” It comes from the French, which in turn comes from the Latin. Many words in the early Church had to be taken from common usage and given new meanings (much as we would invent words in our own time, such as “bit” and “byte” for computer data, “internet” for this marvel of communication, “astronaut” for someone who flew to the moon). When Christ instituted the sacraments, he introduced something new to human history. “Sacrament” acquired a working definition as “sacred means,” these new, saving, mystical avenues through which God gives grace and humans accept it by outward and visible signs. For Catholics, there are seven of these sacred means. For LDS, there is but one meaning for the word, the bread and water commemoration of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, LDS have ordinances, which are said in some cases to date back to Adam. They are not the same thing.

(3) Creed. There are significant insurmountable issues here separating the two systems, starting from the very words to be used in framing the discussion. Words like: apostasy, scripture, Sacred Tradition, redemption, atonement, grace, conceived by the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sins, original sin, salvation, exaltation, correct translation, and so forth. Even using the Apostles’ Creed, rather than the Athanasian Creed (and all its incomprehensibility as so often quoted in LDS literature as a “clear statement”), as the baseline for discussion of what Catholic Christians believe, there is no comparison with the LDS Articles of Faith.

We can be friends. We cannot be united. Enjoy the conversation.