The title compels me to ask two weighty questions:
1) What authentically characterizes the actions and beliefs of an individual for awarding him or her with the title – “Anti-Mormon”?
2) What are the fundamental components of genuine “Interfaith Dialogue”?
Certainly, there has been quite a bit of Jewish/Christian dialogue taking place. One author champions this cause. In the book, The Misunderstood Jew (2006), Amy-Jill Levine (the E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School) writes:
“I do not envision Jews and Christians standing over a wide chasm and reciting the Lord’s Prayer or the Kaddish or singing ‘Kumbaya.’ Conversations across religions need not, and should not, end with all participants proclaiming an ultimate unity of belief. Such an exercise only waters down both traditions into a bland universalism that, in an attempt to be inoffensive, winds up offending everyone.
“Understanding of and appreciation for our neighbor’s tradition are not the same thing as agreement with it. Jews and Christians will disagree. Jews will also disagree with other Jews, and Christians with other Christians. The day that Jews and Christians agree on everything is the day the messiah comes, or comes back. The point of interfaith conversation is not to convert the person across the table, but it is also not to abdicate one’s own theology for the sake of reaching agreement. Put another way: there is no reason for Jews and Christians to sacrifice their particular beliefs on the altar of interfaith sensitivity. The former bishop of Sweden and dean of Harvard Divinity School Krister Stendahl speaks appropriately of ‘holy envy,’ that is, the appreciation of the beliefs and practices of another.
“ . . . Those who study the text for spiritual reasons will find a Jesus who speaks to them personally. As my students sometimes say, ‘I read the text, and the Holy Spirit guides me.’ Yet even more can be done, or, as I am wont to reply, ‘Give the Holy Spirit something to work with.’
“In particular, I think the Spirit would appreciate a bit of historical investigation. Today Jesus’s words are too familiar, too domesticated, too stripped of their initial edginess and urgency. Only when heard through first-century Jewish ears can their original edginess and urgency be recovered. Consequently, to understand the man from Nazareth, it is necessary to understand Judaism. More, it is necessary to see Jesus as firmly within Judaism rather than as standing apart from it, and it is essential that the picture of Judaism not be distorted through the filter of centuries of Christian stereotypes; a distorted picture of first-century Judaism inevitably leads to a distorted picture of Jesus. Just as bad: if we get Judaism wrong, we’ll wind up perpetuating anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic teachings, and thus the mission of the church—to spread a gospel of love rather than a gospel of hate—will be undermined. For Christians, this concern for historical setting should have theological import as well. If one take the incarnation—that is, the claim that the ‘Word became flesh and lived among us’ (John 1:14)—seriously, then one should take seriously the time when, place where, and people among whom this event occurred” (6-7, emphasis mine).
Pondering the second question
Now, I quote Amy-Jill with rather lengthy quotes in order to ask my LDS friends if they would agree ultimately to this statement: “The point of interfaith conversation is not to convert the person across the table.”
Levine posits this as one of the rudimentary principles for any religious discussion. There must be no missionary agenda. Once you have crossed those lines in your conversation, you have committed an anathema for civil, public discourse—such action is contra to a gospel of love. For Levine, a gospel of love is always robust but non-proselytizing chit-chats. You must never pray that through an exclusive gospel the Spirit lovingly captures the heart of your friend. Even worse, don’t ever project verbally to your friends whom you care about that you are trying to change their non-acceptance or different interpretational posturing towards certain scriptural passages. You must not seek to change someone’s mental perceptions or heart responses to God. Egads! Pursuing and pressuring repentance or change of mind/heart in someone else is forbidden. This would never work for anyone desiring scholarship credentials and a life of prestigious interfaith conversation. Striving for conversion is the cardinal sin for anyone holding to Levine’s religious fundamentals for interfaith conversation.
OK. I can understand where purposeful, malicious distortion of any religious culture can impede on interfaith dialogue. But it seems hollow to lift up mutual understanding as the ultimate goal for religious conversation. Eventually, it is nothing more than a mockery of the charge given to Christians by Jesus Christ in Scripture.
Why should anyone allow this prevalent idea by Amy-Jill Levine and other prominent scholars to dictate what is genuine interfaith dialogue? I importune you to look at the models of conversation set forth by the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ for what is true spiritual conversation. There is a famine in America for real heart-to-heart talk because we are afraid of being labeled “anti” by our friends in other religions or castigated as “ignorant” by the scholars. Maybe in just trying to steer clear from those who are mean and nastiness incarnate, we are in the ditch over on the other side of the road. I encourage you to pull yourself out. It is time to talk.
Zeroing in on the first question
If one seeks to convert another person in interfaith conversation, why must the Christian missionary be immediately slapped with the label of “Anti-Muslim” or “Anti-Jew” or “Anti-Mormon”? It does not cease to amaze me that I am continually labeled as an “Anti” when sometimes I am posting on HI4LDS with a half dozen LDS missionaries in a computer room. They are instructed not to read what I have to say and yet members of my church are kindly allowing these kids in homes when they knock.
Regularly, the young LDS missionaries encourage members of my church family that all they want to do is simply add to what is already believed. “Please cherish what you believe, only add a little more.” Young LDS missionaries are the smiling, friendly heroes on the streets in the community because they solicit individuals of sundry faiths with, “Just add to your faith with modern revelation,” while I am the “anti” for encouraging all to get back to the Scriptures.
In my life-long experiences here in the intermountain West, the cries of “anti” stack upward in bizarre, subjective, topsy-turvy piles of verbal and nonverbal expression.
Maybe I should look on the bright side of things. If LDS, whether in person or through internet, quickly categorize as “anti” anyone who sincerely pleads the sufficiency of Scripture for the complete God-conversion of a sinful heart, my heart can only respect the “anti”. Oftentimes the “anti,” rather than being the purported one masquerading around with a pack of lies, he or she actually is the one most interested in real “interfaith conversation” and demonstrating that with transparent love.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Todd,
I can understand why people in Idaho might think you are anti-Mormon. I think it comes from that fact that most people don’t like challenges to their faith. They don’t like things to be complex. The simplest thing to do is “follow the prophet”. If they had to question everything that every prophet said it would make them responsible for their own journey to God. If they do what their told, they can always point the finger back at their leader (Not really, I know God holds us responsible for our own actions).
When someone challenges their faith by making them think about what they are doing it can be painful because they have to actually consider if they are wrong. In many instances this may mean going against years of beliefs and traditions. If family is involved it may become even more complicated.
In short, I think the term anti-Mormon is used loosely to anyone that challenges a Mormons long held faith. The real “anti-Mormon” is someone that viciously degrades and attacks someone’s religion while fostering a feeling of hostility in the dialog they use. If someone of a different faith really cares about Mormons they will be their friend and share their beliefs with them in an atmosphere of love. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been presented with information about the Mormon Church and rejected the messenger because of their condescending demeanor. Truth is truth and it will prevail in the end all anyone can do is proclaim God’s truth and hope that their friends will listen, but even if they don’t continue to fellowship them.
> What authentically characterizes the actions and beliefs of an individual for awarding him or her with the title – “Anti-Mormon”?
A person who affirmatively and actively opposes the LDS Church.
> Now, I quote Amy-Jill with rather lengthy quotes in order to ask my LDS friends if they would agree ultimately to this statement: “The point of interfaith conversation is not to convert the person across the table.”
That depends, I suppose, on the point and purpose of the “interfaith conversation.”
> Levine posits this as one of the rudimentary principles for any religious discussion. There must be no missionary agenda.
I disagree. Protestants go to non-Christian countries and evangelize non-Christians. Evangelism necessarily entails “interfaith conversation” (a Protestant speaking with a Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, etc.). So clearly *some* interfaith discussions have a “missionary agenda.”
> Once you have crossed those lines in your conversation, you have committed an anathema for civil, public discourse—such action is contra to a gospel of love.
I disagree. The Great Commission *requires* what you are suggesting is “contra to a gospel of love.” There is nothing intrinsically uncivil with sharing your faith and inviting others to join you in it.
There are, of course, many situations in which interfaith dialogue is intended to facilitate mutual understanding and respect (and not evangelism). There’s nothing wrong with that. But there are many other situations where interfaith dialogue is intended to facilitate nothing *but* evangelism. And there’s nothing wrong with that, either.
> If one seeks to convert another person in interfaith conversation, why must the Christian missionary be immediately slapped with the label of “Anti-Muslim” or “Anti-Jew” or “Anti-Mormon”
That depends, I suppose, on the method of evangelism used by that Protestant missionary. If he seeks to convert others by sharing his faith, then he’s certainly not “anti-Muslim,” “anti-Jew,” etc. But if he seeks to convert others principally by denigrating and assaulting their faith, then he is no longer a proponent of his own faith, but rather an enemy and critic of the faith of others.
> In my life-long experiences here in the intermountain West, the cries of “anti” stack upward in bizarre, subjective, topsy-turvy piles of verbal and nonverbal expression.
I concede that the term “anti-Mormon” is susceptible to over-use and abuse.
-Smac
Hi Jay,
You are right. No one enjoys, claps their hands with glee, over challenges to their own personal faith. It is often intense, searing pain when someone starts meddling and poking around at the protective layers of your heart. But it happens secretly all the time in families. And it shouldn’t be something that anyone runs from. We run because we don’t like to think about theology, to be humiliated over our lack of understanding, to be discouraged over how far short we fall from God’s glory, to be vulnerable and exposed, to experience community disapproval, to be rejected by family whom we love, to lose our business contacts, to be considered mentally unstable, etc. and etc.
People have enough personal struggles, both inwardly and outwardly. So some feel the solution is to stay busy and not compound the problems by listening to an “anti”. How can an “anti” in challenging you, be a genuine source of hope? Right? I mean Levine would try to convince everyone that “a gospel of love” should never allow for you to tell the fallible, struggling person across the table that he is a sinner (like yourself) and desperately in need of the Savior’s perfect righteousness. Such actions would destroy all our clever “interfaith dialogue” that we have worked so hard to obtain. Yet I ask myself, how would Isaiah or John the Baptist (700 years later) even be able to communicate under the limitations of Levine’s rules and regulations for proper dialogue?
But very importantly, like you said, communication must be in love. If you punch someone in the nose, how can they smell the rose of Sharon offered to them? I need my LDS friends to call me on the carpet when they perceive I am attacking them rather than the theology, being flippant rather than kind, spouting proudly and stupidly instead of questioning and sharing humbly. I pray that God in His grace will help me not to palliate any person on HI4LDS. Thankfully, God is at work in my life. And in His marvelous, infinite ways, the ones who are most vocal in calling me “ANTI” are the best instruments of God in helping me see the wicked, juvenile reactions of my own sinful nature.
Hi Spencer,
Two questions.
If people within the LDS Church “affirmatively and actively oppose” aspects within traditional Christianity, does that make them “anti’s” too?
I am glad that you and I disagree in many ways with Levine, but are you saying that an OT prophet, a NT apostle, or even a Christian missionary living in 2007 can never criticize basic tenets of any religion?
There is a lot of “denigrating and assaulting” in the prophetical books. Yet called by God “to convert others principally” through this means gets really heavy and troublesome rather quickly. No wonder the Bible calls them “burdens”.
Personally, I love to teach joyful truths rather than spend time critiquing spiritual half-truths. Honestly, I wish I didn’t have to do the latter.
Hi,
I was wondering if you could send me some more information about your church and the children’s ministry there. We are considering possibly a move and am researching churches in the area as this will be a top priority for us.
Thank You,
Lori
Lori, email me at elonwood@juno.com
During the school year, kindergarten through early elementary ages are invited to our Patch the Pirate club every Wednesday night at 6:30 p.m. This is a fun evening combination of learning new worship music, hearing Bible stories and modern Christian adventures, memorizing large Scriptural passages, playing games, and building crafts.
The kids will sing in nursing homes and from time to time before our church family.
For our Sunday School program and junior church program, I believe each one of our teachers for the various age groups are gifted and well-suited. Various activities for the children (also including the whole family) are held spontaneously throughout the year.
Several young couples minister to the teen group through serious Bible study, YACs (Youth After Church fellowships), and activities.
My central focus in relation to the teens and kids is strengthening the parents in Christ.
As your family considers Idaho Falls, I warn you that I am biased. I absolutely love it.