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

[Canadiandude2]

I’ve seen far too many uninformed, non-Mormon Christians attempt to proselytize or engage in their own apologetics to have much patience for the exercise.

A problem with far too many religions is the unfounded superiority they feel regarding their own truth claims relative to other faith traditions making more, and similar (or sometimes even fewer, and much more humble) claims regarding the validity and reliability of their beliefs.

[huckelberry]

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.

canadiandude, You propose I need to establish things I did not propose in the first place. I did not claim all those youth believed the trinity or that they all have good reason to believe. I certainly did not claim it is true because many people think it is. Many people do not think it is.

I am a Trinitarian and think it is a coherent view but that does not mean I think it is the only possible view people could think of. I am familiar with bIblical criticism, it hardly makes me squirm.

[Canadiandude2]

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.

canadiandude, You propose I need to establish things I did not propose in the first place. I did not claim all those youth believed the trinity or that they all have good reason to believe. I certainly did not claim it is true because many people think it is. Many people do not think it is.

I am a Trinitarian and think it is a coherent view but that does not mean I think it is the only possible view people could think of. I am familiar with bIblical criticism, it hardly makes me squirm.

You said:

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.

Establish this. Explain its relevance- and how you are certain they ‘understand’ the creeds due to its simplicity as opposed to just accepting it like many youth accept many other kinds of religious social constructs, regardless as to their coherence, simplicity, or any other kind of superiority to faulty Mormon constructs.

If you cannot- then be more clear and circumspect in what you claim you are saying. I’m not convinced a person can claim real understanding of a thing if they cannot understand its incoherencies- and yes, of which the Trinity has plenty. Throwing these into some kinda ‘black box’ of a ‘mystery’ doesn’t cut it for me. Are there incoherencies in secular claims as through methodological naturalism? Sure. Are there assumptions? Sure. But how severe and many are these relative to those made by religionists? Even trinitarians such as yourself. You are welcome to compare yourself to Mormonism but I’m not convinced ya’ll are any better at establishing the validity and reliability of your truth claims. I’m also doubtful ya’ll are careful to teach your youth the strengths and weaknesses of your claims relative to others in a transparent fashion.

The whole trinity thing is just an arbitrary, agreed-upon social construct by which you declare who is or is not Christian.

[Kishkumen]

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 can see where all of this is coming from, and I think that in a sense you are right, but at the same time this seems to me to be an unnecessarily dark take on Mormonism. My understanding is that in Mormonism salvation and exaltation are different things. Mormonism provides access to exaltation or theosis (of a kind). All people have access to the saving power of Christ. Obviously Mormons think they have something better to offer than run-of-the-mill Christian churches. Most groups that engage in missionary efforts do. Characterizing this as predatory is silly in my view.

[huckelberry]

canadiandude, You propose I need to establish things I did not propose in the first place. I did not claim all those youth believed the trinity or that they all have good reason to believe. I certainly did not claim it is true because many people think it is. Many people do not think it is.

I am a Trinitarian and think it is a coherent view but that does not mean I think it is the only possible view people could think of. I am familiar with bIblical criticism, it hardly makes me squirm.

You said:

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.

Establish this. Explain its relevance- and how you are certain they ‘understand’ the creeds due to its simplicity as opposed to just accepting it like many youth accept many other kinds of religious social constructs, regardless as to their coherence, simplicity, or any other kind of superiority to faulty Mormon constructs.

If you cannot- then be more clear and circumspect in what you claim you are saying. I’m not convinced a person can claim real understanding of a thing if they cannot understand its incoherencies- and yes, of which the Trinity has plenty. Throwing these into some kinda ‘black box’ of a ‘mystery’ doesn’t cut it for me. Are there incoherencies in secular claims as through methodological naturalism? Sure. Are there assumptions? Sure. But how severe and many are these relative to those made by religionists? Even trinitarians such as yourself. You are welcome to compare yourself to Mormonism but I’m not convinced ya’ll are any better at establishing the validity and reliability of your truth claims. I’m also doubtful ya’ll are careful to teach your youth the strengths and weaknesses of your claims relative to others in a transparent fashion.

The whole trinity thing is just an arbitrary, agreed-upon social construct by which you declare who is or is not Christian.

Canadiandude, I would expect that of those youth who accept upon instruction the idea of the Trinity all or nearly all accept it only due to social construction or tradition. To dig into the process that formed that tradition, the reasons behind the development of that social construction is not simple.

One might spend a lifetime aiming to understand the strengths and weakness of different claims. I think thought about such things is a good thing but I do not expect a church to undertake an extensive comparative religion study. Individuals need to shoulder responsibility themselves for most of that.

Addition, O.K. I'll bite, what are you thinking of? You said, "I’m not convinced a person can claim real understanding of a thing if they cannot understand its incoherencies- and yes, of which the Trinity has plenty. Throwing these into some kinda ‘black box’ of a ‘mystery’ doesn’t cut it for me."

What sort of incoherence are you thinking of?

[bill4long]

Sure, just like Donald Trump can hold up a Bible, the Mormon Leaders can hold up a cross. There's no law against it.

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

Kish, don't be stupid. I know quite a few Evangelicals. Not a single one falls all over him/herself to worship Trump. To a person, it's a "hold your nose and vote" situation. The commucrats and RINO republitards have only themselves to blame for the existence of Trump as president. (I am not a Trumpist.)

[bill4long]

I also have to laugh over this idea that Mormons identifying as Christians is some kind of bait and switch tactic, when it should more properly be called a refusal to accept marginalization due to widespread bigotry.

Naaaa. Kish, don't be stupid. It's more about Mormonism using New Testament words and pouring meaning into them that are obviously at variance with the biblical evidence (and beyond) and pretending to have the true Christianity and asserting that all the other creeds (interpretations) are an abomination. Strong words. The Mormonites started it.

Sometimes bigotry is well placed. This is one of those cases. The Mormonites are trying to shift ground and downplay the very radical differences in Mormon theology with the rest of New Testament Christianity (and Judaism). Yes, their have been, and still are, fights within the rest of Christiandom, but Mormon theology is quite radical by comparison, right down the line. Surely you know this.

(I am neither New Testament believer nor Mormon)

[Moksha]

The whole trinity thing is just an arbitrary, agreed-upon social construct by which you declare who is or is not Christian.

What about Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva from Hinduism, or Vivec, Almalexia, and Sotha Sil from Morrowind? Gods sometimes run in threes.

ByTW, BYU apologists should feel free to use this Morrowind example of three separate Gods who are unified in one purpose. Just credit Bethesda Software in your notes.

[Physics Guy]

The Trinity is important in mainstream Christianity because something like the Trinity is just the only way to have both Theism and the Atonement.

The Atonement is Jesus dying for the sins of the world. For his death to do any good in that way, Jesus has to be someone much more than human. Mormonism makes Jesus into a junior deity, in a universe with a potentially infinite hierarchy of more and less senior gods. That's not Theism, though. Once you've really gotten the idea of Theism, giving much attention to lesser beings than the ultimate God just seems stupid and wrong, no matter how much bigger than humans those beings might be supposed to be. Theists can believe in all kinds of superhuman entities, but they can't get into worshipping any of them, except the ultimate God.

I suppose that logically you could still have a theistic religion in which some kind of big angel atoned for humanity, but then that atonement would have to be a minor side issue in that religion, because centre stage is reserved just for God, because Theism. If you want to your whole religion to be mainly about both Atonement and Theism, you're stuck with making your Atoner actually be the one ultimate God. And if you're furthermore stuck for historical reasons with making your Atoner be Jesus of Nazareth, you're stuck with making one particular historical human somehow be the theists' ultimate God.

The details of what exactly that means may be post-Biblical revelation; they may be incomprehensible mysteries; they may be philosophical kludge. The Deity of Christ, though, with a capital D that's going to require something much like the Trinity however the details work, is definitely not just an arbitrary shibboleth concocted by mainstream Christians to exclude outsiders. It really is a core component of the religion, without which you just don't have a Theism that focuses on an Atonement by Christ.

Anyway, that's what's really at stake when mainstream Christians say that Mormonism isn't really Christian because it's not Trinitarian. Mormonism is not theistic like mainstream Christianity, and if Mormons think that this is no big deal, that's just confirming that they do not get Theism. I think that the Mormon focus on the Atonement may also be significantly less intense than the mainstream Christian focus on the Atonement. The Mormon emphases on ordinances and priesthood seem to me to dilute the traditional Christian insistence on Jesus's sacrifice as the be-all and end-all of everything. These aren't peripheral differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity.

[Kishkumen]

Kish, don't be stupid. I know quite a few Evangelicals. Not a single one falls all over him/herself to worship Trump. To a person, it's a "hold your nose and vote" situation. The commucrats and RINO republitards have only themselves to blame for the existence of Trump as president. (I am not a Trumpist.)

I know some . . . .

Don’t be stupid.