Dialog…

I am finishing up on question 6 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, but I wanted to make a couple of general observations.  I am questioning the reasonableness of engaging in theological discussions online with Mormons.  There are a number of reasons for this.  I would like to flesh a couple of these out, to help in my thinking.

 

First Mormon religious studies are a morass of contradictions and equivocations that defy clear and precise definitions making the use of theological language difficult.  Many Mormons do not seem to hold themselves to a standard of belief and will use any argument available to disprove Christian beliefs no matter the implications these arguments have on there own beliefs. 

Second, the Mormon religion itself is ahistorical in the belief of the great apostasy and the Book of Mormon among other issues.  Mormons as far as I can see have no concept of the redemptive historical nature of mans interaction with our Maker.  This can also be seen in their use of historical documents, especially of the early church, but also of archaeology and contemporary religious scholarship.  They feel pretty free to make it up as they go along and when confronted with a historical error claim, “that’s just your interpretation.” as if there is a possibility for two sets of truth.

Third, I have bored with the trend in comments, both Mormons and non-Mormons, to go negative when a conversation goes against them.  This is burdensome.  Can’t people just let a conversation die before they have to insult the other person?  Is scoring internet points so necessary that we need to toss comment grenades?  There is a difference between spirited debate on important doctrinal issues and personal attack.

Fourth, Mormons do not have a confession of faith and feel pretty free to act as their own prophet when coming up with doctrine.  This is surprising from a religion that places so much emphasis on having a living prophet.  This puts the confessional Protestant at a distinct disadvantage with the Mormon who can simply make it up as they go along.  The common, “that was just his opinion” when referring to prophets past is bizarre.

Fifth, some “evangelicals” present heterodox doctrine in debates with Mormons.  I do not know how to deal with things like the denial of the Trinity, as confessed in the ecumenical creeds, rejection of the usefulness of the law, denial of the necessity of church membership, corporate worship and participation in the sacraments, etc.  I understand that confessional Protestants are the minority and I readily acknowledge that I am participating in a dialog where doctrinal purity and agreement is impossible but if someone is going to deny the 2 natures of Christ or the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity it causes me to question if I should be associated, even peripherally, with them.

~ by gundek on June 27, 2009.