Why is quality interfaith dialogue so rare?


Recommended Posts

We often have great strings here.  Several here, including myself, have enjoyed the book "How Wide the Divide"--a published conversation between an LDS professor and an Evangelical one.  Bob MIllet (BYU) and Greg Johnson (evangelical pastor) engage in public dialogues from time to time. 

 

Then there is this:  http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/05/22/mormons-and-evangelicals-answering-the-hardball-questions-about-our-faith/

 

These are great to see.  Yet, I'm guessing most here who have engaged in religious discussions with those of other faiths would describe the encounters as awkward, defensive, angry, unkind, or, at least, unpleasant.  We could spiritualize the descriptions by saying there was a spirit of contention, or that the other person's demeanor was un-Christ-like. 

 

Why is quality interfaith dialogue so rare and so difficult--especially in person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is due to extremes. All religions have extremes in dogma (at least as perceived by other faiths) and have believers who act to the extreme. Too often it is the extremes of two faiths juxtaposed against each other. If we were to concentrate on common ground with an attitude of tolerance, we'd have more prolonged discussions.

 

Unfortunately, I have found that even in this forum, the use of the word "tolerance" isn't tolerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason [quality interfaith dialogue is so rare and so difficult] is that our religion is an integral part of how we see everything else in life.  Most dislike having their worldview challenged, or worse, dismantled.  Take the contention that often arises about whether or not Mormons are Christians.  The only One who could settle that issue conclusively is of course our Savior.  But if I focus on what I perceive to be the essence of being a Christian and my brother finds that another aspect is instead essential, then practically by definition our difference threatens our respective world views.  One or both of us must budge in the context we find ourselves, or else contention will over-ride.  Perhaps what I've described is simply unrighteous pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you my honest answer. 

 

Growing up most Christian religions I encountered openly proseytized against the church, showing movies like "The Godmakers" and catagorizing my faith as a cult and not Christian. Spreading lies and deceiving others about our faith was the least of the problems. A group of kids at my school led by an evangelical kid got drunk and urniated all over the inside of my LDS friends car. That's just one of a long list of experiences which led me to believe that non-LDS Christians encourage the idea of "infidel' where it's either encouraged or simply allowed to persecute and mistreat members of the LDS Church. I was struggling with a young family and just started working in the computer industry for a small reseller. They were Christian and we opened our day each day with prayer which I thought was great. The week of Christmas it came out that I was LDS and I was fired the next day. Coincidence?..Not in my experience. My Dad supported our family for 14 years where his boss used to purposely smoke and blow it in his face. So LDS learn to take these things in stride. 

 

While these experiences are difficult, they are easily forgivable, and I have many friends that are evangelical, some are very active in Young Life one is the founder of a Christian clothing line. But in my experience, it does not make much of discussion when someone is more interested in telling you what you believe then hearing what you believe. When I state this is what I believe, I often get the feeling that they think I'm lying and they are waiting for the real truth to come out. A close evangelical friend ended our discussion by quoting "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves". LOL..So I just don't think we can be taken at face value.

 

Anyway those are my thoughts. 

 

You are rare in my experience PC, a great representative for Christianity and a relief. 

Edited by Windseeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

 

 

Why is quality interfaith dialogue so rare and so difficult--especially in person?

 Because you are dealing with religion, by far the most loaded and emotional topic out there. There is a reason mom told you never to talk about religion and politics in public. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is due to extremes. All religions have extremes in dogma (at least as perceived by other faiths) and have believers who act to the extreme. Too often it is the extremes of two faiths juxtaposed against each other. If we were to concentrate on common ground with an attitude of tolerance, we'd have more prolonged discussions.

 

Unfortunately, I have found that even in this forum, the use of the word "tolerance" isn't tolerated.

 

Just for fun, I decided to try Omegle.  I indicated I liked to talk about religion and politics.  The fellow I was matched with was from Turkey, and was secular.  I had to explain to him that the "God Hates F**s" people were a tiny one-family church, and that I would have no problem with secular, left-leaning landlords not wanting to rent out to me (we were discussing the possibility that the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision may force religious schools to provide housing for same-sex couples).  He ended up agreeing with me and respecting my tolerant attitude.  The discussion lasted about an hour.

 

So, it is possible.  Not easy, but often worthwhile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'll give you my honest answer. 
 
Growing up most Christian religions I encountered openly proseytized against the church, showing movies like "The Godmakers" and catagorizing my faith as a cult and not Christian. Spreading lies and deceiving others about our faith was the least of the problems. A group of kids at my school led by an evangelical kid got drunk and urniated all over the inside of my LDS friends car. That's just one of a long list of experiences which led me to believe that non-LDS Christians encourage the idea of "infidel' where it's either encouraged or simply allowed to persecute and mistreat members of the LDS Church. I was struggling with a young family and just started working in the computer industry for a small reseller. They were Christian and we opened our day each day with prayer which I thought was great. The week of Christmas it came out that I was LDS and I was fired the next day. Coincidence?..Not in my experience. My Dad supported our family for 14 years where his boss used to purposely smoke and blow it in his face. So LDS learn to take these things in stride. 
 
While these experiences are difficult, they are easily forgivable, and I have many friends that are evangelical, some are very active in Young Life one is the founder of a Christian clothing line. But in my experience, it does not make much of discussion when someone is more interested in telling you what you believe then hearing what you believe. When I state this is what I believe, I often get the feeling that they think I'm lying and they are waiting for the real truth to come out. A close evangelical friend ended our discussion by quoting "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves". LOL..So I just don't think we can be taken at face value.
 
Anyway those are my thoughts. 
 
You are rare in my experience PC, a great representative for Christianity and a relief. 

 

 

I've watched the Godmakers--though I do not believe it was in a church setting.  My guess is that the film has gone the way of Chick Tracts (inflammatory in-your-face kind of cartoon booklets, meant for evangelism).  Today's generation has little tolerance for negative presentations of other religions.  While there was too much of that in the past, today people are sometimes so sensitive, that they prefer not to discuss doctrine at all.  I'm not sure which error is worse.

 

As for the mean acts, there is no excuse.  Bad behavior, in the name of Jesus, doubles-down on the sin.  It's easy to understand why those who experience this kind of spiritual bullying would be reluctant to engage others in the kind of discussions that leave one vulnerable to attack.

 

As for the last comment, how sad.  I appreciate your kind words toward me, but find it disheartening that so few seem willing to discuss Christ in a Christ-like manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Because you are dealing with religion, by far the most loaded and emotional topic out there. There is a reason mom told you never to talk about religion and politics in public. 

 

To press my question a bit, how about discussion of doctrine amongst LDS members?  Do we also find it hard to have such discussions within our household of faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

To press my question a bit, how about discussion of doctrine amongst LDS members?  Do we also find it hard to have such discussions within our household of faith?

Simply put, yes. 

I'm a member of the church but I'm also a convert-so I can see things a little differently than a lifelong member can. 

I've noticed that many LDS sometimes don't know about their own history so that's an issue in itself. The other troubling thing is that many members flat out refuse to read anything that could be considered anti-LDS. So, forget about what the opposing side is going to say, we've got some in house problems that need to be addressed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To press my question a bit, how about discussion of doctrine amongst LDS members?  Do we also find it hard to have such discussions within our household of faith?

I'm not understanding your question. Do you mean to dicuss here what others teach against us? I thought we did have those discussions. I've never shy away from a discussion when someone brings up anti-Mormon doctrine and I frankly don't know any Mormons that do. Most of it is so comical that we find it humorous. We still here new ones every now and then that defy any reason how such a myth could be perpetuated.

 

Edited based on Gator's comments that posted same time as mine. I NEVER seek out anti-Mormon lit, as I know he does. But I wouldn't avoid a conversation about it.

Edited by pkstpaul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

. I've never shy away from a discussion when someone brings up anti-Mormon doctrine and I frankly don't know any Mormons that do. Most of it is so comical that we find it humorous. We still here new ones every now and then that defy any reason how such a myth could be perpetuated.

Interesting. Just in my experience it's been the complete opposite. Just my experience, not pejorative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why is quality interfaith dialogue so rare and so difficult--especially in person?

 

To understand someone's faith is touching at the very core of who they are.  You cannot look through your own eyes and understand anyone else's faith: rather you have to see the world through THIER eyes.  This involves starting at the very foundation: what is "good", what is "bad", what is "important", and then working your way up to more complex topics.  

 

If at anytime you say "that's not correct! 2+2 doesn't equal 9!" then you've failed because you're looking through YOUR eyes and not THIERS.  The quest of interfaith dialogue is not to judge whether or not the answers are "correct", but to understand why a person believes in their answer.  People really really struggle with that distinction.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Because you are dealing with religion, by far the most loaded and emotional topic out there. There is a reason mom told you never to talk about religion and politics in public. 

 

I find this anti-religion taboo absolutely tragic and plague like in it predominance.  Faith is something to be shared and rejoice in, not shoved under a bushel.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts:

 

1) One comment in Jana Riess's article about Br. Millet's presentation said, "he wasn't there to convert them or convince them of his POV". How much of the difficulty of interfaith dialog is tied up in the "is he trying to share his beliefs or is he trying to convince me of them? LDS are mostly missionary minded, and evangelicals also seem to have a mind toward "evangelizing" those of us not in their fold. I think some of the friction comes from the perception that we are trying to "convert" someone or someone is trying to convert us.

 

2) The one real difficult dialog I had was with an Evangelical who was really adamant about telling me what I believed. I was fairly young and unacquainted with apologetics, so I had no good responses to anything he claimed that I believed. I recall that this discussion both solidified my own beliefs as I examined why I was so bothered by his claims. In addition to other conclusions I came to in response, one was how much it bothered me that he would not accept my own statements of belief, preferring to tell me what I believed as a Mormon. I'm not sure how we as LDS do the same thing, but I am sure that we can find examples where we as LDS try to tell others (Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, or whoever) what they believe.

 

3) Perhaps along the same lines, but it might be somewhat important to allow for "variations" in what people really believe. Not every Protestant believes in "once saved always saved" kind of doctrines. Not all LDS are thrilled by the historic practice of polygamy. Recognize that any given dialog will be between "two" people, and that each of those will have their own perspective on what their "church" believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To press my question a bit, how about discussion of doctrine amongst LDS members?  Do we also find it hard to have such discussions within our household of faith?

 

A dispassionate observer in any of the Sunday meetings structured for discussion could identify obstacles to discussion of doctrine.  I'm confident such obstacles are not unique.  Not so unlike interfaith differences there are intra-faith differences in interpretation stemming from culture, education level, personal experiences (careers, politics, etc.), and personal struggles.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We often have great strings here.  Several here, including myself, have enjoyed the book "How Wide the Divide"--a published conversation between an LDS professor and an Evangelical one.  Bob MIllet (BYU) and Greg Johnson (evangelical pastor) engage in public dialogues from time to time. 

 

Then there is this:  http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/05/22/mormons-and-evangelicals-answering-the-hardball-questions-about-our-faith/

 

These are great to see.  Yet, I'm guessing most here who have engaged in religious discussions with those of other faiths would describe the encounters as awkward, defensive, angry, unkind, or, at least, unpleasant.  We could spiritualize the descriptions by saying there was a spirit of contention, or that the other person's demeanor was un-Christ-like. 

 

Why is quality interfaith dialogue so rare and so difficult--especially in person?

 

Because we approach each other from unequal levels. It's never a conversation of equals, and we can't even agree on who's above whom.

 

With only a few exceptions, my interfaith dialogues have begun with my conversation partner approaching me from the unconscious (or sometimes conscious) perspective of one who knew better than me, who had the truth to light up my benighted intellect, who spoke for God where I spoke for Satan. Given such an attitude, it is anything but surprising that conversation should be awkward and tend toward hostility and intolerance.

 

This is by no means unidirectional. Latter-day Saints, myself doubtless included, have often approached such conversations with a like attitude: We have God's direct, revealed truth, whereas my poor ignorant friend knows only his traditions and faulty interpretations of scripture. In fact, this very idea is explicitly reinforced in the Lord's revealed word to the elders (which, in our context, probably means the missionaries): "Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit" (D&C 43:15).

 

So what is the solution? From the LDS side, I think a little humility goes a long way. Yes, we do have a "fulness of truth", including truths others do not have; but a "fulness of truth" does not mean "all truth". Our non-LDS brothers and sisters can and often do have perfectly valid insights and experiences with God. These should be acknowledged. Their doctrinal ideas, even when mistaken (from our viewpoint), should nevertheless be respected. We would do well to remember that our own "superior" knowledge is incomplete and finite, and that when it comes to doctrinal specifics, we do not know or understand nearly as much as we sometimes think.

 

From the non-LDS side, I don't know the answer. From my perspective, a dollop of charity and true tolerance would go a long way. But when the equation "Mormonism = Satanism" forms an essential part of one's religious beliefs, I do not know how to go about circumventing that. The belief itself stands in the way, and must be set aside or no real communication can take place. That's my view, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not understanding your question. Do you mean to dicuss here what others teach against us? 

 

No, I have more in mind things like application of the WoW, whether to tithe on the gross or the net, (I'm trying to imagine examples), watching The Passion of the Christ--many of the kind of issues that get discussed here.  Are they easy to talk about in ward hallways, or casually, and functions?  Or, do people get prickly pretty quickly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I find this anti-religion taboo absolutely tragic and plague like in it predominance.  Faith is something to be shared and rejoice in, not shoved under a bushel.  

 Yup, so do I. Totally agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... But when the equation "Mormonism = Satanism" forms an essential part of one's religious beliefs, I do not know how to go about circumventing that. The belief itself stands in the way, and must be set aside or no real communication can take place. ...

 

And this tendency, i.e. equations based upon (insert "ism" here) = Satan, Satanism, etc. seems to be the default setting for many of us when we attempt any kind of discussion.  Perhaps it is merely a manifestation of a basic mode of thinking that causes us to oppose the person instead of the position, labeling it (them) in extreme forms, misrepresentation, or (false) dichotomy, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I have more in mind things like application of the WoW, whether to tithe on the gross or the net, (I'm trying to imagine examples), watching The Passion of the Christ--many of the kind of issues that get discussed here.  Are they easy to talk about in ward hallways, or casually, and functions?  Or, do people get prickly pretty quickly?

 

Are these behaviors simply demonstrations or case-studies related to our Savior's admonitions against so-called mote-beam sickness, thinking like a Pharisee more than a disciple, etc.?  It seems that there is nothing new under the Sun. 

Edited by UT.starscoper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

 

Why is quality interfaith dialogue so rare and so difficult--especially in person?

 

PC and others,

 

I am going to paint myself in a corner and perhaps draw some ire.  I think there are in essence two main problems with religious discussions.  Although such problems are not unique to the religious – I believe both problems are more pronounced and critical among the religious. 

 

The first problem I will call the selfish pride syndrome.   It is my observation (including myself) that religious individuals easily tend towards  ”I” problems of me, my rewards, my relationship with G-d, my revelations, my enlightenment and my salvation.  We come to think that these mooring links of self to the divine are necessary as a basis for all things religious and we just will not let such lines loose let alone let such things go.  Like a monkey trap we will not loosen or grip even if it is our only chance to be set free (know the truth).  We cannot explorer other ideas that threaten our grip of what we think is our hope of salvation.  Even looking on what we think may be heresy threatens our fragile hope and leaves us condemned before G-d, kith and kin – so we contend.

 

The second problem is that we tend to think religious notions are void of empirical evidence and rhetorical logic.  G-d thoughts are not our thoughts – so we ready to swallow a notion that if it makes sense it is not of G-d --  thus our defense of our beliefs do not have to be sustained by any actual verifiable witness or logic.  If someone should produce any empirical evidence or rhetorical logic – we will despise them for it and accuse them of arrogance, heresy or some other basic criminal or evil intension rather than attempt to employ any logic or reason ourselves.  In essence it is the achievement of a belief,  that is pointed only to the goal – not the means of discovery or “way” or “path” to the said goal.   I have found that very few want to discuss the means by which they arrived at whatever religious conclusion – mostly the conversation is something along the line or some variation of “G-d told me so”.  And then the idea that follows – “How dare you challenge what G-d tells ME?”  and suddenly we are back to the first problem I suggested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been involved in lots of interfaith dialogue and most of it has actually been pretty positive. A friend of mine is a very devout Presbyterian. He believes that Mormons are Christian but that Protestant doctrines are more correct (a very common viewpoint from what I have encountered, even among many evangelicals!) I love talking with him because I am genuinely interested in what he has to say and what he believes. Sure there are doctrinal things I disagree with him about but it really is OK to agree to disagree. There is no trace of contention in our discussions.

I think if you want a good religious dialogue, the key is taking contention out. As a Mormon I am genuinely interested in what other religions believe. I also have a superpower... A sixth sense, if you will... To detect if someone is approaching me in good faith or bad faith. If someone approaches me in good faith I am certainly willing to listen and who knows, I may learn something. If someone approaches full of contention I will pick up on it instantly and probably cut the conversation short. This goes double for anyone who presumes to judge my relationship with Christ or what is in my heart. I do this for the same reason I would cut short a conversation with someone trying to start a yelling match over politics: contention makes me feel icky, and no truth is going to sink in under such circumstances.

Fortunately though, most of my interfaith experiences have been really good.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only time religion and politics is well received is when both parties are willing to hear the other side, and not correct or put down the other side. There can't possibly be a civil dialogue if one or both parties are wanting to spout their opinions and spit on each other.

 

In my case, now an ex-Mormon, I tolerate degrees of religious discussion from family and some friends, just out of respect. I will rarely engage, which quickly fizzles the topic out, and just leads to a dead end conversation. I am not interested in debating religion or politics. I am not interested in changing my core beliefs and I am fine with them keeping theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be that interfaith conversations are harder when family are involved?  In a more neutral setting, I would guess many people would be interested in hearing the perspectives of one who grew up religious, and then left the faith.  Even in the evangelical world, an author wrote a book about the perspectives of people who had left.  "What we can learn from those who've left?" or something to that effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I have more in mind things like application of the WoW, whether to tithe on the gross or the net, (I'm trying to imagine examples), watching The Passion of the Christ--many of the kind of issues that get discussed here.  Are they easy to talk about in ward hallways, or casually, and functions?  Or, do people get prickly pretty quickly?

Thanks. Reading this and re-reading your question helped. I don't find discussion of the topics get "prickly" within our church settings. Certainly not as prickly as they do in this forum. I think the facelessness of the forum brings out some extremism. Even myself tend to be more liberal than I am in person just because some of the hard-liners in the forum bug me.

 

Your initial post is about "discussion" and I think I have only stated that discussion in a forum is different than in person. In person, we may have strong opinions but are less likely to be argumentative. We do allow more diversity of opinion to those who are active at church and with whom we interact. The reason being that we know that, while active at church, we are "exposed" to the truth and are "growing" in testimony. We are happy to state our opinion but not looking to convert within our own ranks. In a forum environment, we are more likely to take the time to formulate an argument and find evidence.

 

I personally don't intent to convert anyone with my arguments. They are stated as mine. I have an obligation to share my testimony with others but I'm more than happy to let them die in their sins (tongue in cheek).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share