The Evangelical Problem, a top ten

[_msnobody]

As an evangelical, I would say that many of our churches seem to have forgotten the power of God and His word, fearing that it would be offensive. I don't think, however, it is a consequence of doctrine. in my opinion, we can often think we are trusting in God, but instead, we are asking him to bless our own efforts.

[_JCNowandForever]

What do you think of this comment by Dr. Richard Mouws (a leader in the Evangelical community)?

"I am now convinced that we Evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening [2004]: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe." "Indeed, we have even on occasion demonized you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is "really" trying to accomplish in the world."

This may apply to any denominations (Evangelicals or not) who continue to sin against Mormons by mis-representing/mis-characterizing LDS views, isn't it?

Read the complete speech: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christi ... z23kMrdWxc

[_sheryl]

If God exists and if one accepts a God who is not a liar or a respecter of persons "only true Church" is the only rational and logical conclusion.

If God tells one group of people something about His nature and requirements for salvation and tells a different group something different about those, then God is a liar and a respecter of persons. There is only one true Church or no legitimate church at all.

Since the LDS Church teaches that it is the only true and living Church on the face of the whole (D&C 1:30), one cannot possibly be a TBM if one does not accept this scripture and doctrine.

Has anyone considered that these different groups of people have not heard God clearly, or are not interpreting what they are hearing accurately? And so they hear and speak and act according to a message that is erroneously exclusive, and even bigoted and racist, because, according to the evolution of their souls, that is what they hear.

So perhaps the 'problem' rests not with God, but with people?

Do we think this is why we are warned to not listen or follow the letter, which is the literal interpretation - the isolating, limiting, exclusionary, theologies and creeds, but instead seek the Spirit behind the letter, which is infinite and actually inclusive, not a respecter of persons or people, race or gender?

Shalom!

[_Sethbag]

Has anyone considered that these different groups of people have not heard God clearly, or are not interpreting what they are hearing accurately?

Interesting that it's always others who aren't hearing God clearly, or interpreting what he said accurately. It's funny to me that there are many thousands, if not millions of people out there convinced that everyone else just doesn't "get it" about God, but they, of all people, do.

Someone really needs to invent a Dunning-Kruger analog in the religious sphere and coin a name for it. We really, really need this.

So perhaps the 'problem' rests not with God, but with people?

Since God is a human invention, whatever problem exists with God, by definition exists with people.

But it's never your God with whom there's a problem, isn't it? It's always someone else's. Or even everyone else's.

Regarding the top ten list of Evangelical Problems from the OP, I read through that whole list, and what stuck out to me was that it could be reformulated thusly, without losing any of its original content or meaning:

1) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
2) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
3) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
4) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
5) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
6) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
7) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
8) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
9) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
10) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.

[_subgenius]

It's funny to me that there are many thousands, if not millions of people out there convinced that everyone else just doesn't "get it" about God, but they, of all people, do.

people "not getting it" is not a difficult or even absurd concept, and it certainly seems to be validated by your posts.
so, why is the concept "funny to you"? is it somehow unfathomable and irreconcilable in your mind that millions of people are convinced that you don't get it?
exactly what has left you so humored?

Someone really needs to invent a Dunning-Kruger analog in the religious sphere and coin a name for it. We really, really need this.

off-handed insults hardly give merit to your position....but your own confidence is certainly reassuring, and likely means you are not eastern/asian (for which the DK effect was opposite)

Since God is a human invention.

nice speculation, to bad you can not prove it

But it's never your God with whom there's a problem, isn't it? It's always someone else's. Or even everyone else's.

sez you.

Regarding the top ten list of Evangelical Problems from the OP, I read through that whole list, and what stuck out to me was that it could be reformulated thusly, without losing any of its original content or meaning:

1) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
2) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
3) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
4) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
5) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
6) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
7) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
8) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
9) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.
10) They don't believe what Subgenius believes.

aside from your alarming grasp of what was surely a given and was blatantly obvious, there seems to be little more you are capable of offering.
but thanks for the concession and for the heads up that you require a somewhat milder milk due to your obvious digestion issues.

[_Sethbag]

Subgenius, I've known dozens of Evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, various non-denominational Christians, and so forth who have read the Bible before. Not just read it, but studied it, researched it, lived it, and made it central in their lives. These are honest, good-faith attempts to understand the message of the Bible, the message they believe God is delivering to them through the Bible, etc.

And they don't agree with you on what the Bible means, or says. For that matter, most of them wouldn't agree with each other either, hence my earlier comments.

If you wouldn't mind, could you take each of your Top Ten list and explain why it doesn't all just boil down to a difference of opinion between you and millions of other people who also read the Bible, and also attempt to discern its true meaning and implications?

I mean, if it's all so obvious, perhaps you can give these millions of people the argument that will convince them all that they've just misinterpreted the Bible this whole time, and help them understand it correctly, as you do?

[_subgenius]

Subgenius, I've known dozens of Evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, various non-denominational Christians, and so forth who have read the Bible before. Not just read it, but studied it, researched it, lived it, and made it central in their lives. These are honest, good-faith attempts to understand the message of the Bible, the message they believe God is delivering to them through the Bible, etc.

your fallacy is here

And they don't agree with you on what the Bible means, or says. For that matter, most of them wouldn't agree with each other either, hence my earlier comments.

and hence mine....thanks for catching us up

If you wouldn't mind, could you take each of your Top Ten list and explain why it doesn't all just boil down to a difference of opinion between you and millions of other people who also read the Bible, and also attempt to discern its true meaning and implications?

it is not a matter of "opinion"...for example: (EC=evangelical church(es))
1. Evangelical churches emphasis audience as opposed to membership. - this is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. The structure, tradition, and practice of evangelical churches emphasize audience via the pastor congregation relationship as it exists during "services".
2. Scriptures being gradually replaced by technology and entertainment (which has lead to an increase in Evangelical Bible illiteracy) - this is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact (or perhaps a reasonable conclusion)
3. Diminished reverence by placating the temporal desire to appear in casual attire. this is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. The encouragement of casual attire is popular among EC and is admittedly an appeal to the temporal desires of the congregation to "be more comfortable".
4. Inability to accept Bible interpretation as provisional or to even comprehend what that means. - this is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. Look at the posts on this forum from the resident and lurking evangelicals.
5. Inaccurate concept of the character and/or nature of God (in more of a day to day sense) - this is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. Review posts by LilNipper, Mittens, etc.. just to see the contrary nature in their own characterizations.
6. Tangible success equates to spiritual maturity this is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. See Joel Osteen for example.
7. Lack of desire toward ecumenismthis is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. This one has been discussed in previous posts here.
8. The idea that Bible inerrancy must certainly equate to infallible.this is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. need i really prove this?
9. Correct translation of the scriptures (see also Bible illiteracy)this is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. Ever read a modern Bible that has been "dumbed down" to appeal to the least common denominator?
10. no real foundation of ecclesiologythis is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. Ecclesiology usually refers to the theological study of the Christian Church, which does not occur in the EC, and if it occurs at all, it is in "Preacher School" and for that see list item #1 above.

Furthermore, i clearly stated in the OP "but i consider the list to be consequences of deliberate evangelical church doctrines", so your revelation of "we believe differently" is hardly a scathing criticism, and more of a redundancy, or rather a "thank you captain obvious".

I mean, if it's all so obvious, perhaps you can give these millions of people the argument that will convince them all that they've just misinterpreted the Bible this whole time, and help them understand it correctly, as you do?

i am afraid that things do not always work that way, but i do understand why you would hope that it would be that easy.

[_Sethbag]

Subgenius, I've known dozens of Evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, various non-denominational Christians, and so forth who have read the Bible before. Not just read it, but studied it, researched it, lived it, and made it central in their lives. These are honest, good-faith attempts to understand the message of the Bible, the message they believe God is delivering to them through the Bible, etc.

your fallacy is here

Try again. I was not proving anything by reference to anecdotes. I was pointing out that there are people in this world (probably hundreds of millions or even billions) who read the Bible, as you do, and don't agree with you on what it means.

Or were you relying on other than the Bible for your "ingredients found in a Not True Church"?

If you wouldn't mind, could you take each of your Top Ten list and explain why it doesn't all just boil down to a difference of opinion between you and millions of other people who also read the Bible, and also attempt to discern its true meaning and implications?

it is not a matter of "opinion"...for example: (EC=evangelical church(es))
1. Evangelical churches emphasis audience as opposed to membership. - this is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact. The structure, tradition, and practice of evangelical churches emphasize audience via the pastor congregation relationship as it exists during "services".
[and so forth - Sethbag]

Where are you getting your list of "ingredients found in a Not True Church"?

Now, why should anyone believe that this list of yours is really authoritative? In other words, why should anyone believe that churches containing these ingredients really are "Not True", other than that you say so?

Furthermore, i clearly stated in the OP "but i consider the list to be consequences of deliberate evangelical church doctrines", so your revelation of "we believe differently" is hardly a scathing criticism, and more of a redundancy, or rather a "thank you captain obvious".

What? Are you saying that Evangelicals really know that their beliefs are taking them off the "True Church" path, but decided to adopt them anyway?

I'm saying that these Evangelicals read the Bible too, and they think you're full of crap. Tell me why they're wrong.

I mean, if it's all so obvious, perhaps you can give these millions of people the argument that will convince them all that they've just misinterpreted the Bible this whole time, and help them understand it correctly, as you do?

i am afraid that things do not always work that way, but i do understand why you would hope that it would be that easy.

I guess there must be opposition in all things, right? Too bad for those billion or two other Christians in the world, whose religions were created by the Devil just to divert people away from the Mormons. Or maybe they really know the Mormons are right, but choose their doctrines the way they do because they're not strong enough to live the Mormon version of the gospel. Either way, it sucks to be them.