I've been thinking a lot about this topic over the past few weeks, especially while reading through various threads here, and I wanted to jot some thoughts down into writing. Forgive the lack of much coherent organization throughout the post, as I have little intention of stringing particular reflections together in any sort of comprehensive whole. Then I figured, why not do it here? Apologies if I misrepresent anything from either side--call me out on it, please.

The first thought on my mind is something that I definitely see as a problem in evangelical 'countercult' ministries today: a deeply entrenched tendency to avoid interaction with real LDS apologetics at times, and also a heavy reliance on statements by LDS prophets (I use this term here as a reference for all presidents of the LDS Church, past and present). With that said, I think one can draft a sort of taxonomy here:

• Category 1: Canon. This includes, on the LDS side, the material in the Bible--at least as understood by Latter-day Saints--the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and D&C. This, clearly, has the highest authority.
• Category 2: Leadership. In other words, the statements and writings of influential past leaders. The LDS side of this includes perhaps a privileged subsection--let's refer to the statements of the prophets themselves as (2.1), so that (2.2) can include, e.g., the contents of books like Mormon Doctrine, since Bruce McConkie never served at a level above that of Apostle. We might make a further distinction within (2.1), such that (2.1.1) refers to those statements by prophets that are regarded, either by the prophets themselves or by the Church as a whole, as being specially inspired.
• Category 3: Apologists and Scholars. This is, by its very nature, a rather diverse category, and so has to be treated as such. It consists of the statements, writings, arguments, and perspectives of various LDS intellectuals--B. H. Roberts, Sterling McMurrin, Hugh Nibley, Stephen Robinson, the FARMS folk, Blake Ostler, etc., etc. (and, on the lesser end, folks like Jeff Lindsay).
• Category 4: Laymen and Laywomen. The views of the rank-and-file faithful.

These categories obviously have some overlap in the content of what they espouse--for example, some form of theism must obviously be common to (LDS1)-(LDS4)--but there can also be drastic differences. While (LDS2) may imply a broad geography for events described in the Book of Mormon, a limited geography is the more common postulate of (LDS3). What may be commonplace in certain subsets of (LDS2) may be utterly foreign to (LDS4), and vice versa.

A similar taxonomy can be applied to the other side as well. For evangelicals, we might suggest that (evangelical1) includes the Bible and only the Bible; (evangelical2) includes, among others, the Church Fathers, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, etc., etc.--your mileage may vary depending on your particular theological tradition, and to that extent, so will the weighting of particular thinkers in terms of importance. We might select a subset here, (evangelical2.1) as with the others, for materials such as the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno-Constantipolitan Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, the Quicumque vult (= Athanasian Creed), and so forth. (evangelical3) and (evangelical4) have rather obvious parallels in (LDS3) and (LDS4) respectively, without a doubt. And, just as above, these categories have significant overlaps--again, consider theism as one common denominator in (evangelical1)-(evangelical4)--as well as divergences. The theology of an evangelical layman (or laywoman) may have little in common with that of Athanasius, Martin Luther, or John Wesley, for example.

One problem that I see with a lot of 'countercult' materials--and others have said this very forcefully before me--is that there is an almost meticulous avoidance of in-depth interaction with (LDS3). The typical pattern is to mine (LDS2) for data, give it the authority of (LDS1), and portray it as though it were (LDS4). This has got to stop. As someone said, it's time to compare our best with your best, and that largely amounts to pitting (evangelical3) against (LDS3). I think I once ran across a defense of this practice on the part of many 'countercult' ministries to the effect that their goal is to reach the average Latter-day Saint, and so their focus is on (LDS4), not (LDS3). Focusing on (LDS3) would not be as evangelistically useful, or so the argument goes. (Can't find that article now, but if I do, I'll let you know.) Personally I find this somewhat problematic. First of all, as said above, in practice (LDS4) is virtually disregarded in favor of (LDS2); and second, why not try treatments of (LDS1)-(LDS4) together? Why not do it all? Yes, it's certainly more challenging, but let's not wimp out here. (LDS3) is being sorely neglected, and that's simply intolerable. (After all, atheists routinely ignore (evangelical3) in their critiques of Christianity, often dismissing it as mere hand-waving without any sort of effort to engage it. The result, quite naturally, is an abysmal mess of ARG--"already refuted garbage". How can we be so smugly confident that a similar practice of ignoring (LDS3) won't result in the same? Maybe it would, or maybe the situation is different in some relevant way--but the best course of action seems to be to seriously engage (LDS3) so as to remove all doubt.)

I think that one frequent stumbling block in dialogue enters because of the LDS Church's claim to prophetic and apostolic leadership. Evangelicals frequently expect that (LDS2.1.1), and to some extent (LDS2.1) as a whole, will be held to have higher authority than Latter-day Saints generally do. I think the undergirding assumption here is that, even when a prophet is not directly delivering an inspired message, they will generally teach accurate theology--in other words, a low margin of error, however we might happen to set the bar for "low". Moreover, there is also the general belief among evangelicals that being a prophet and being a heretic are generally mutually exclusive, and so when we note statements in (LDS2.1), we naturally assume that they will be within the bounds of LDS orthodoxy. (It is a fairly simple leap from there to assuming that those statements will be anywhere close to mainstream within LDS orthodoxy, but this is a leap we make all-too-readily in many cases where we probably shouldn't. Please keep us accountable on this point.) There's the further matter of some confusion between what needs to be classified in (LDS2.1.1) vs. (LDS2.1.2) with regards to Brigham Young's discourses--one particular infamous statement of his has often been taken by evangelicals to mean that his discourses must all be classified, not only as (LDS2.1.1), but that this subsection of (LDS2.1.1) should be placed on par with (LDS1) in terms of inspiration and authority. Maybe we're right in understanding him that way, maybe not. I'm just saying that it's what often happens, and if Latter-day Saints disagree, then please help us to understand why.

Another thought: in discussions of the Trinity--and I hope that Nick's thread will be of some help in clearing this up--one common problem is that many Latter-day Saints often ask whether, in evangelical thought (which is, at its core and at its best, thoroughly and unequivocally Trinitarian), Jesus and the Father are "separate and distinct". The problem with this is that, while those terms are similar and often taken to be synonymous, many evangelicals consider them to have different connotations. "Separate" seems to imply a degree of separability and independence that, for evangelicals, we cannot in good faith affirm; and so some of us wary of this apparent implication, eschew the word "separate" in favor of "distinct". We want to affirm "distinct" very strongly so that no one will mistake us for modalists, but we do not want to affirm "separate" because we want to maintain our emphasis on the unity of Father and Son. So the routine coupling of "separate and distinct" puts us in quite a bind, because no simple answer can be given without extreme risk of misunderstanding. LDS folks, please understand that some of us really do use those terms differently, and so I ask for some more care when phrasing questions or considering our position.

Another issue that I've seen is a persistent use of a "literal"/"figurative" dichotomy. LDS ask evangelicals whether Jesus and the Father are "literally" one or "figuratively" one, and whether Jesus is "literally" the Father's Son or "figuratively" the Father's Son. And sometimes, maybe LDS get frustrated with the outcome of these questions. But the problem lies in the phrasing of the questions themselves. I can perhaps speak only for myself, but I don't know if these questions make any more sense than asking whether something is literally or figuratively red. Rather, to take it one at a time, there is a different spectrum to be used. Let's suggest that for "oneness", the distinction is not literal vs. non-literal, but strict vs. loose senses of "oneness", which admits of a broader range than two options. The strictest sense of "one", I might imagine, is the solitary unity of absolute identification: Father = Son in terms of absolute identity. This would have to be some ridiculously intense form of modalism. So, too, with slightly looser modalist usage: the Father and Son being one person, but distinguishable as modes of being. Another type of modalism, with the 'Father' being the divine nature of Christ and the 'Son' being the human nature of Christ, seems to be looser still--as well as rather strange, but that's beside the point here. Further out on the spectrum is the Trinitarian understanding--one being, but distinct persons. Still further out is another position, perhaps: the Father and Son are two beings of the same rare kind-essence. This can be tightened by emphasizing (complete) unity of purpose; a bare unity of purpose, without reference to essence at all, would be still further out, and I'm not sure whether there's anything beyond it. The third position from the loosest end of the spectrum--that of unity of purpose and the same kind-essence--appears to be, with suitable adjustments for the LDS stance that humans, angels, and Gods are of a common kind-essence (as I understand it), an appropriate way of summarizing the (or merely "an"?) LDS view of the matter. So here we can see how to chart evangelical and LDS views of "oneness", without any reference to metaphor, literalness, figures of speech, etc. And maybe it's just me, but while this seems more complex and nuanced, it also seems to be a lot clearer and more conducive to substantive discussion.

Turning to the issue of the Sonship of the Son, again I have to say that I don't think the matter of "literalness" is all that helpful. For example, I know what biological sonship is; I know what creative sonship is; I know what sonship by adoption is; and I have a sense for what (many) evangelicals believe about the eternal generation of the Son--a relation of hypostatic origin that constitutes an eternal filial relationship between two and only two persons (Begetter and Begotten) of the same kind-essence (and perhaps even the same individual-essence?), and so a relation deemed analogous in spirit if not in detail to biological sonship. Some evangelicals might even say that biological generation (as in humans in particular) is analogous to the eternal generation because it is patterned after the eternal generation, with suitable modification for temporality and the involvement of sexual reproductions. (Note that we have now developed technology that allows for sexual reproduction without sexual intercourse, but that it is nonetheless sexual reproduction. Note also that I'm not really sure why I'm noting this.) But I don't know that I'd call any of these four more "literal" than the others, which is why I personally have trouble interpreting LDS references to the "literalness" of the Sonship of Christ. Many evangelicals understand this to mean biological sonship in both pre-mortality and mortality (see both side-notes below), and so infer the involvement of sexual intercourse in both cases. I've often seen LDS object to this inference, but without much clarity on what "literalness" means. Perhaps this is one area where we can further discussion by abandoning the "literal"/"figurative" divide, although this diverges from established LDS usage.

(As a side note, it is also my understanding that both physical birth in mortality and "spirit-birth" in mainstream LDS thought are subsumed under the category of, more or less, "biological generation", though I am open to correction if this is wrong. I say "mainstream LDS thought" because I know that some LDS thinkers reject the idea of "spirit-birth" and instead contend that the relationship between our spirits and the Father in pre-mortality is perhaps one of adoption. This is an appropriate place to note that the passages in the Bible interpreted in LDS circles as indicative of "spirit-birth" or "spirit-adoption" are often understood by evangelicals to be examples of creative sonship--as with the angels as "sons of Elohim", Malachi's reference of "one Father" (though this may have shades of the corporate adoption of Israel), and talk of God as "Father of spirits" in Hebrews.)

(As a second side note, I think I've seen LDS occasionally believe that evangelicals believe that the Son was begotten by the Holy Spirit on Mary. Allow me to take this moment to say that I know of no evangelical thinker who affirms that the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus. Rather, when evangelicals speak of the begetting of Christ by the Father, we mean something that happened in eternity and had no reference to Mary; Christ's birth from Mary involved the Holy Spirit as an active participant, but the Holy Spirit was not an active participant in the eternal generation of the Son--and this holds for both sides of the debate about the filioque clause, except for certain ecumenical theologians who'd like to even things out by saying that the Son is begotten ex patre spirituque, which is obviously wrong. As I understand it, in LDS thought the reason the Son is "only-begotten" is that this has reference to birth in mortality, and as such, the Son would not have been "only-begotten" prior to conception in Mary's womb. But for evangelicals, the Son is eternally the "only-begotten" of the Father, which has nothing to do with human birth later on.)

Just a couple more reflections now. (Rejoice, for this post neareth its end!) I remember a thread in which the complaint was made that LDS missionaries seem unable to ably defend their beliefs. The fact of the matter is that this is commonplace among both lay Latter-day Saints and lay evangelicals, and even among evangelical clergy. Neither side gets off scot-free here, and we could both afford to do a whole heckuva lot better at training our folks to defend their beliefs, answer questions, and understand the other position(s). However, it also seems that some form of fideism is more prominent in LDS circles than in evangelical circles. That's not to say that it's necessarily more common, but that it's endorsed more regularly, even encouraged and commended. Often this seems to tie in to a reliance on religious experience for generating testimonies. Now, again, evangelicals do this too. A lot. (And as a personal note, it bugs the heck outta me.) In my opinion, there's nothing inherently wrong with religious experience, or even its pivotal role in confirming religious beliefs, or even (perhaps) a role in creating certain beliefs. However, that said, here's the crucial caveat: there are unequivocal experiences, and there are equivocal experiences. The latter can be readily interpreted as more than one kind of phenomenon. (One could argue that virtually all experience is technically the latter, since any sensory experience could be interpreted as veridical or as deception by a Cartesian demon, but that's why I said "readily", as the former is almost universally held to be vastly more probable than the latter.) For the latter kind of religious experiences, we have to submit it to Scripture and allow any experience-derived religious beliefs to be contested by argument. If the arguments lean sufficiently against those beliefs, then it may be time to reinterpret the confirming (or founding) experience. This is something that I often don't see Latter-day Saints expressing a willingness to do (and the same is quite true for many evangelicals, I'll add). Whenever a critic points out that one can have a "testimony" for, e.g., Islam that is apparently indistiguishable from that for Mormonism, the underlying point being made is, I think, precisely that experience (and/or its apparent implications) must be subject to reinterpretation and re-evaluation when the situation calls for it, because such experience is insufficient, in and of itself, to be a guarantor of truth. (If it were a guarantor of truth, after all, then both Islam and Mormonism would be rendered true by their respective experiential bases, and unless we want to adopt a patently insufficient notion of truth, that just doesn't work.)

Finally, there's the matter of forthrightness. This has also been a matter of discussion and perhaps contention between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints, at least here at TheologyWeb. One criticism of LDS practice is that there is an unwillingness to be fully forthright with what they believe, whereas this is sometimes defended with an appeal to the milk vs. meat distinction in Hebrews, and other assorted texts. I'm not going to get into the details of interpreting and applying that passage, except to say that I doubt very much that, if someone were to have asked the author a question about some theological point, I think the answer would have been more helpful than, "You're not ready to learn that yet. But here are some answers to questions you didn't ask but I think you probably should have." I'm leaning more towards thinking that the author would've actually answered the question, even if the answer were tailored to the level of the questioner and even if some extra background teaching were required. Now, I should also note that some evangelicals have forthrightness problems as well, but the fact remains that there are certainly evangelicals who are willing to take a stab at any question regarding evangelical belief, at least so long as it's an honest question (and also frequently when we know it isn't). There are also Latter-day Saints who would do the same, mutatis mutandis. Both sides need to work on being more honest and forthright. I hope that we can all agree on that.

I think I've rambled long enough now, and so I'd really like to hear some further reflections on both sides of the aisle. I'm not looking for this to turn into another bitter debate thread, so please try to keep it constructive for a change. I'm certainly not looking for a repeat of the atrocity that was perpetrated on the "3 Things You Like about Mormonism?" thread. But I'm confident that if we try, we can avoid letting yet another thread degenerate into debate about now this topic, now that one, etc., etc.

I know you people are out there.

Originally posted by JB

With that said, I think one can draft a sort of taxonomy here:

• Category 1: Canon. This includes, on the LDS side, the material in the Bible--at least as understood by Latter-day Saints--the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and D&C. This, clearly, has the highest authority.
• Category 2: Leadership. In other words, the statements and writings of influential past leaders. The LDS side of this includes perhaps a privileged subsection--let's refer to the statements of the prophets themselves as (2.1), so that (2.2) can include, e.g., the contents of books like Mormon Doctrine, since Bruce McConkie never served at a level above that of Apostle. We might make a further distinction within (2.1), such that (2.1.1) refers to those statements by prophets that are regarded, either by the prophets themselves or by the Church as a whole, as being specially inspired.
• Category 3: Apologists and Scholars. This is, by its very nature, a rather diverse category, and so has to be treated as such. It consists of the statements, writings, arguments, and perspectives of various LDS intellectuals--B. H. Roberts, Sterling McMurrin, Hugh Nibley, Stephen Robinson, the FARMS folk, Blake Ostler, etc., etc. (and, on the lesser end, folks like Jeff Lindsay).
• Category 4: Laymen and Laywomen. The views of the rank-and-file faithful.

These categories obviously have some overlap in the content of what they espouse--for example, some form of theism must obviously be common to (LDS1)-(LDS4)--but there can also be drastic differences. While (LDS2) may imply a broad geography for events described in the Book of Mormon, a limited geography is the more common postulate of (LDS3). What may be commonplace in certain subsets of (LDS2) may be utterly foreign to (LDS4), and vice versa.

A similar taxonomy can be applied to the other side as well...

While I cannot give the time to give your post the treatment it deserves, I think that you have a made a very good point. Whether you intended to or not, you seem to have stumbled on what is often called the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral." It closely parallels, down to a pretty much 1 to 1 correspondence, what you've described here.

1. Scripture - the highest authority. Usually interpreted along the "historical/critical" hermeneutic. There is an assumption that scripture is at least infallible, though many people at my school are not inerrantists. There is an affirmation that miracles are possible and the Bible records them accurately.
2. Tradition - What other, earlier Christians, believed. It is usually assumed that scripture can correct tradition, but not in a way that tradition should be stifled. It is important to keep in mind that the Holy Spirit revealed quite a bit to other people.
3. Reason - Appeals to philosophy and universal reason. Let it be known that John Wesley was far from ignorant about the enlightenment philosophy of his time. Reason interacts with tradition and informs interpretation of scripture. Though scripture can supersede many secular conclusions of philosophy.
4. Experience - Cultures and the common person's understanding/concerns/questions. Experience is important because it reminds any theologian that they are also products of their time and their culture. We're are never as objective as we think we are, and it is important to keep that in mind.

Two more important things can be said about this:

1. Not all evangelicals believe in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Many counter-cult ministries do not. When in utah on a missions trip, I explained to a group of evangelical students from "Unnamed Rival University" why our approach was not the street preaching style they endorsed. I explained the Wesleyan Quad to them and they accused me of appealing to "natural theology" and that I should go be Catholic. I hold to this day that they have a poor definition of both natural theology and protestantism.

2. While both the LDS and evangelicals have their "quads" every point is equivocated. One might say "we both have the Bible" but this does not mean very much when the Bible is interpreted so profoundly differently thanks to the (also equivocated) points 2 and 3 (tradition/reason).

Point 4 is about the only place I think that common ground can be found. That is because "experience" is subjective. I think I have an easier time finding common ground with LDS when I talk about growing up religion, serving in church, being a 20-something, etc than I do trying to discuss what Jesus meant when he said, "I and the Father are one" or if how I should understand something like "I believe in the holy catholic church" when I recite it before I pray.

I'd like to add something, but I don't think I have much worth adding!

I think you did a pretty good job with that post. I'd like to see some LDS people's thought, though...

Originally posted by JB

...

Finally, there's the matter of forthrightness. This has also been a matter of discussion and perhaps contention between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints, at least here at TheologyWeb. One criticism of LDS practice is that there is an unwillingness to be fully forthright with what they believe, whereas this is sometimes defended with an appeal to the milk vs. meat distinction in Hebrews, and other assorted texts. I'm not going to get into the details of interpreting and applying that passage, except to say that I doubt very much that, if someone were to have asked the author a question about some theological point, I think the answer would have been more helpful than, "You're not ready to learn that yet. But here are some answers to questions you didn't ask but I think you probably should have." I'm leaning more towards thinking that the author would've actually answered the question, even if the answer were tailored to the level of the questioner and even if some extra background teaching were required. Now, I should also note that some evangelicals have forthrightness problems as well, but the fact remains that there are certainly evangelicals who are willing to take a stab at any question regarding evangelical belief, at least so long as it's an honest question (and also frequently when we know it isn't). There are also Latter-day Saints who would do the same, mutatis mutandis. Both sides need to work on being more honest and forthright. I hope that we can all agree on that.

That was a Loooooooong post, JB. I don't have the time or patience to address so many topics so I'll choose one for now. The matter of forthrightness.

I think there is legitimacy to your comment, however, if I might present something from the other perspective:

LDS believe that Gospel understanding is built line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little and there a little. For example, it really is a disservice IMO to the questioner who has no grasp (or belief) in the foundational principles of justice and mercy , sin, repentance, and forgiveness, to answer his questions regarding what it means to be saved.

Those questions could be answered without a foundation, but it would leave the questioner lost.

I honestly try to answer all questions put to me, but frankly, on forums such as these, the questions are often (but not always) crafted so as to indicate that the questioner only wishes to use the answer against the one answering the question.

Imagine what Jesus could have taught if all questions put to him were sincere, and not meant as traps?

Other questions are posed which simply cannot be answered in the same way I would answer someone who was already a believer who had asked the question.

Hope this makes sense.

Bye for now.

Originally posted by Jin-Roh

While I cannot give the time to give your post the treatment it deserves, I think that you have a made a very good point. Whether you intended to or not, you seem to have stumbled on what is often called the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral." It closely parallels, down to a pretty much 1 to 1 correspondence, what you've described here.

1. Scripture - the highest authority. Usually interpreted along the "historical/critical" hermeneutic. There is an assumption that scripture is at least infallible, though many people at my school are not inerrantists. There is an affirmation that miracles are possible and the Bible records them accurately.
2. Tradition - What other, earlier Christians, believed. It is usually assumed that scripture can correct tradition, but not in a way that tradition should be stifled. It is important to keep in mind that the Holy Spirit revealed quite a bit to other people.
3. Reason - Appeals to philosophy and universal reason. Let it be known that John Wesley was far from ignorant about the enlightenment philosophy of his time. Reason interacts with tradition and informs interpretation of scripture. Though scripture can supersede many secular conclusions of philosophy.
4. Experience - Cultures and the common person's understanding/concerns/questions. Experience is important because it reminds any theologian that they are also products of their time and their culture. We're are never as objective as we think we are, and it is important to keep that in mind.

Two more important things can be said about this:

1. Not all evangelicals believe in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Many counter-cult ministries do not. When in utah on a missions trip, I explained to a group of evangelical students from "Unnamed Rival University" why our approach was not the street preaching style they endorsed. I explained the Wesleyan Quad to them and they accused me of appealing to "natural theology" and that I should go be Catholic. I hold to this day that they have a poor definition of both natural theology and protestantism.

2. While both the LDS and evangelicals have their "quads" every point is equivocated. One might say "we both have the Bible" but this does not mean very much when the Bible is interpreted so profoundly differently thanks to the (also equivocated) points 2 and 3 (tradition/reason).

Point 4 is about the only place I think that common ground can be found. That is because "experience" is subjective. I think I have an easier time finding common ground with LDS when I talk about growing up religion, serving in church, being a 20-something, etc than I do trying to discuss what Jesus meant when he said, "I and the Father are one" or if how I should understand something like "I believe in the holy catholic church" when I recite it before I pray.

Good points, Jin-Roh. I wasn't thinking about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral when I came up with the classification, but you're right, there are certain parallels, though fairly loosely drawn.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

That was a Loooooooong post, JB. I don't have the time or patience to address so many topics so I'll choose one for now.

I can't blame you. I look forward to hearing some of your reflections on the other material later, if you have the chance.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

I think there is legitimacy to your comment, however, if I might present something from the other perspective:

LDS believe that Gospel understanding is built line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little and there a little. For example, it really is a disservice IMO to the questioner who has no grasp (or belief) in the foundational principles of justice and mercy , sin, repentance, and forgiveness, to answer his questions regarding what it means to be saved.

Those questions could be answered without a foundation, but it would leave the questioner lost.

I honestly try to answer all questions put to me, but frankly, on forums such as these, the questions are often (but not always) crafted so as to indicate that the questioner only wishes to use the answer against the one answering the question.

Imagine what Jesus could have taught if all questions put to him were sincere, and not meant as traps?

Other questions are posed which simply cannot be answered in the same way I would answer someone who was already a believer who had asked the question.

Hope this makes sense.

Bye for now.

I largely agree with most everything above. You're right to say that there are simply certain ideas that are required to understand others, and when asked about the latter, to simply dive in without offering any background would, at least in many cases, do a disservice to the questioner. I'm not entirely sure that bare issues of salvation are one of those topics--consider Acts 16:29-33, wherein Paul and Silas offer a quite short and sweet initial answer that is direct and to the point, and then offer further explanation at greater length. I think this is a good model for helping us approach questioners.

So what I try to do is first evaluate (1) my best estimation of the standpoint of the questioner, and (2) my best estimation of the capacity of the questioner. For an honest, humble questioner of high capacity to understand--and I think this really is the case for most TWebbers in this area--all things should be given as forthrightly and articulately as possible. For an honest, humble questioner with less background or capacity, we should answer forthrightly but simply, without getting more bogged down in the details than necessary; but at the same time, the answer must be forthright and genuinely honest. If more background is necessary, it can be given before or after the direct portion of the answer, so long as that answer really is given. That, I think, is the truly important part. For a questioner of less honesty or humility, my personal approach depends on how abusive they are. Obvious trolls, I typically just ignore. But those are few and far between (except for most of the non-believers who visit the Tektonics section of TWeb... ). For those offering very slanted questions, I'll frequently do what I can to correct the slant--making very clear that that's what I'm doing--and subsequently answer the question to the best of my capacity in much the same way I would for the first or second sort of questioner. For those asking questions with the intent of catching me in contradiction or absurdity--hey, I say bring it on! If I'm in the wrong, I'll learn from being caught on it; if I'm right, then I trust that I'll be able to muster arguments strong enough to bust through any trap set out for me. It's never just about winning an argument, but about grasping new facets of the truth.

In watching the interactions between Latter-day Saints and evangelicals here at TheologyWeb, one thing that troubles me is that some of the LDS posters--and to my recollection, OtherCheek, you aren't one of the ones guilty of this to any great degree, and I think that everyone is generally guilty of it to some degree--either too quickly assume that their opponents are dishonest or seeking to trap them, or else only ready for 'milk' rather than 'meat', or both. This, I think, is one of the problems we sometimes encounter in dialogue. Now, I'm not saying the evangelicals never do this either. I don't recall having seen it, but I readily admit that I might just notice it on the "other side" more easily. The best thing we can probably do in many cases is give the other party 130% of the credit we think they deserve and work from there.

A further thought on traps, though. You said that some posters here might put questions that are "crafted so as to indicate that the questioner only wishes to use the answer against the one answering the question". I'd dispute the "only" in most cases, but I think that in large part, that's probably true. And there's good precedent, because one could argue that Jesus did that as well! In Matthew 21, Jesus springs on the priests and elders a clever question regarding the authority that sanctioned John's baptism--not because he doesn't know, of course, but with the explicit purpose of catching his opponents in a conundrum and defeating their challenge to his honor. The purpose at TheologyWeb of those who use similar tactics is slightly different and perhaps a bit less centered around challenges of honor, but many of the underlying principles are the same. I think it's a perfectly valid method of discussion in the right context. Socrates and Jesus both did plenty of it, and when used properly it's a wonderful tool for getting deeper to the heart of a matter. We just need to be more careful about how we come across while doing it.

One further question, I have, though: could you expand upon your statement that the same question coming from a believer and a non-believer might have to be answered differently? I think I have a sense for what you're getting at here, but I want to make sure and hear more of your thoughts on the matter.

And before I forget, I want to thank you for your cordial reply. I enjoyed reading it, and it gave good occasion for pondering some fundamental issues at the heart of dialogue.


--------------------------

Also, before I forget, there is one other thing I want to qualify regarding my initial post. I made a fairly general statement regarding evangelical perception of what it means for Jesus to be the Son of the Father, and I neglected to note that there are evangelicals who back off considerably from the church's traditional statement on the matter. Some, such as Walter Martin, go so far as to say that any idea of "eternal generation" is an error derived from Origen and utterly incorrect, and that the filial relationship of the Son to the Father is a matter purely of function in time, rather than anything deeper or anything pertaining to eternity. (I can provide a quote or two from Kingdom of the Cults for anyone interested in documentation.) I see no way to square this accurately with Christian doctrine as articulated at Nicaea and accepted by the church ever afterwards. (It would be interesting to explore the issue of whether or not, since that creed serves as the plumbline of orthodox Christianity, this matter classifies Walter Martin as a heretic. But that's perhaps a controversy for another time. ) But it needs to be said that the view is out there... even if I also think it's rather out there, if my emphasis conveys my insinuations accurately.

Originally posted by JB

I'm not entirely sure that bare issues of salvation are one of those topics--consider Acts 16:29-33, wherein Paul and Silas offer a quite short and sweet initial answer that is direct and to the point, and then offer further explanation at greater length. I think this is a good model for helping us approach questioners.

Even in those verses, though, it says:

31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

As I see it, v. 32 includes much more than just an invitation to believe, and then leave the guy hanging. When we teach the Gospel, there is a starting point. As we teach, we learn what the person already understands, and then build upon that, using analogies to the things that personal already knows and is experienced with. Gradually, understanding and knowledge grows, bringing greater gospel light and edifying the hearer of the word to a greater and greater degree.

Originally posted by JB

So what I try to do is first evaluate (1) my best estimation of the standpoint of the questioner, and (2) my best estimation of the capacity of the questioner.

ditto.

Originally posted by JB

In watching the interactions between Latter-day Saints and evangelicals here at TheologyWeb, one thing that troubles me is that some of the LDS posters--and to my recollection, OtherCheek, you aren't one of the ones guilty of this to any great degree, and I think that everyone is generally guilty of it to some degree--either too quickly assume that their opponents are dishonest or seeking to trap them, or else only ready for 'milk' rather than 'meat', or both. This, I think, is one of the problems we sometimes encounter in dialogue. Now, I'm not saying the evangelicals never do this either. I don't recall having seen it, but I readily admit that I might just notice it on the "other side" more easily. The best thing we can probably do in many cases is give the other party 130% of the credit we think they deserve and work from there.

A further thought on traps, though. You said that some posters here might put questions that are "crafted so as to indicate that the questioner only wishes to use the answer against the one answering the question". I'd dispute the "only" in most cases, but I think that in large part, that's probably true. And there's good precedent, because one could argue that Jesus did that as well! In Matthew 21, Jesus springs on the priests and elders a clever question regarding the authority that sanctioned John's baptism--not because he doesn't know, of course, but with the explicit purpose of catching his opponents in a conundrum and defeating their challenge to his honor. The purpose at TheologyWeb of those who use similar tactics is slightly different and perhaps a bit less centered around challenges of honor, but many of the underlying principles are the same. I think it's a perfectly valid method of discussion in the right context. Socrates and Jesus both did plenty of it, and when used properly it's a wonderful tool for getting deeper to the heart of a matter. We just need to be more careful about how we come across while doing it.

I think in a debate forum, like this is, it is easy for both sides to only look at what the other person said as "a move" that must be countered. And real consideration and pondering never takes place on a level where learning and understanding occurs. I usually get the impression from Evangelicals,. that they are convinced that there is NOTHING they can learn from a 'Mormon'. I can say that I usually try to evaluate comments from Evangelicals and honestly determine what they are saying, and see from their perspective, and see if there is merit to what they are saying. But, I'm sure that Evangelicals also have the impression that we Mormons think that the Evangelicals have nothing they can teach us.

So it works both ways. Such is the natural result of arguing matters of the Spirit.

Originally posted by JB

One further question, I have, though: could you expand upon your statement that the same question coming from a believer and a non-believer might have to be answered differently? I think I have a sense for what you're getting at here, but I want to make sure and hear more of your thoughts on the matter.

Sure,

If, for example, an LDS person who has been in the faith for a time, asks me a question concerning baptism for the dead, I can refer to what Joseph Smith said, and expect the person will understand the answer and say thank you.

If a non-LDS arguer asks the same question, I cannot refer to what Joseph Smith said because they will go off on some tirade about the Prophet being a false prophet, and how they will only accept answers from the Bible, as if they were looking for a Bible-only origin for our belief.

So, I have to stick with things like a few Bible verses that we believe allude to the doctrine, and an appeal to the intuitive fairness of God's nature. But I can't touch on Joseph Smith, or LDS additional scripture, because clearly, the intent to learn what we believe for the sake of learning is not present with the questioner, while the intent to argue is clearly there.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

As I see it, v. 32 includes much more than just an invitation to believe, and then leave the guy hanging. When we teach the Gospel, there is a starting point. As we teach, we learn what the person already understands, and then build upon that, using analogies to the things that personal already knows and is experienced with. Gradually, understanding and knowledge grows, bringing greater gospel light and edifying the hearer of the word to a greater and greater degree.

I think that's more or less what I was trying to get at. Paul and Silas said more than the sentence recorded; Luke also writes that they did extensive explanation, after they had given the short and simple answer. The response should always be tailored, to the extent possible, to the needs of the audience.

I think one obstacle I've seen on TheologyWeb in dialogue is that evangelicals frequently perceive--and I think there's some legitimacy to this perception--that some LDS posters, at times, decline to actually answer questions as straightforwardly as Paul and Silas did, but rather obfuscate heavily without actually engaging what was asked. And I don't think that's conducive to honest dialogue, no matter which side is doing it. I'm sure there are times when evangelicals do it as well, and probably even times when I've done it. I think all parties need to be kept accountable on that point.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

I think in a debate forum, like this is, it is easy for both sides to only look at what the other person said as "a move" that must be countered. And real consideration and pondering never takes place on a level where learning and understanding occurs. I usually get the impression from Evangelicals, that they are convinced that there is NOTHING they can learn from a 'Mormon'. I can say that I usually try to evaluate comments from Evangelicals and honestly determine what they are saying, and see from their perspective, and see if there is merit to what they are saying. But, I'm sure that Evangelicals also have the impression that we Mormons think that the Evangelicals have nothing they can teach us.

Spot-on, I think. For my part, I know that there's plenty I can learn from Latter-day Saints. There are some very fascinating traditions within the LDS Church that interest me a lot, and I hope that over the coming years I have a chance to learn a lot more about LDS history and theology. (Besides, earlier this year I learned that I'm a ninth cousin twice removed of Ezra Taft Benson, so I figure it's only right to see what my kin's been up to, theologically speaking. )

Originally posted by OtherCheek

Sure,

If, for example, an LDS person who has been in the faith for a time, asks me a question concerning baptism for the dead, I can refer to what Joseph Smith said, and expect the person will understand the answer and say thank you.

If a non-LDS arguer asks the same question, I cannot refer to what Joseph Smith said because they will go off on some tirade about the Prophet being a false prophet, and how they will only accept answers from the Bible, as if they were looking for a Bible-only origin for our belief.

So, I have to stick with things like a few Bible verses that we believe allude to the doctrine, and an appeal to the intuitive fairness of God's nature. But I can't touch on Joseph Smith, or LDS additional scripture, because clearly, the intent to learn what we believe for the sake of learning is not present with the questioner, while the intent to argue is clearly there.

I think I understand. Although I think you could probably get away in most cases with following up by saying, "And as a Latter-day Saint, I find additional confirmation for this belief in the teachings of my own religious community..." and then adding a few remarks about LDS scripture and the teachings of the Church.