Jan Shipps argues that most of the tension between the two groups is inherent in the different names, "The same principle holds for religion. Names matter. They matter a lot." (Shipps, 341) Names matter because they give people a short hand for categorizing. Names have also deepened the separation between members of the LDS faith and Evangelicals. Members of the LDS faith embraced the term Mormon because it set them apart (in their minds and the minds of the country at large). To LDS members "Mormon" meant someone who followed the true church of Christ. To outsiders the name historically meant someone that practiced polygamy, created trouble where they went, and should be converted back to Protestant Christianity. In his introduction Robinson raises an interesting point concerning the Mormons' desire to be called Mormons :"The statement is sometimes made that Latter-day saints now want to be known as Christian when in the past we did not" (Robinson, 19). This distinction could be one of the reasons that Protestant and Evangelical Christians so often refuse to recognize Mormons as Christians.
Despite all the superficial differences (those based in the different names and stereotypes), Mormons and Evangelicals share many of the same socially and politically conservative values. Jan Shipps notes this in her chapter (354), Moral Majority and Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell noticed this and invited the Mormons to join the Moral Majority, and Richard Mouw recognizes the similarities and apologizes for the harsh and quick judgments of past Evangelical leaders. Yet there is still a tension between everyday Mormons and everyday Evangelicals.
1. Why are there still conflicts and prejudices between Mormons and Evangelicals? Is it due to faulty definitions provided by each party (the LDS missionaries often do not know what they are talking about and television preachers are seen as portraits for all Evangelicals) or is it due to the historical differences between the two groups (the Evangelical persecution of the polygamous and cult like Mormons)?
2. What importance does the proselytizing nature of each religion play in their conflicts? Should Mormons continue to try and convince Evangelicals (and vice versa) that they are wrong or should both groups just accept each other as they are, recognize each other as fellow Christians and focus on non-believers? Is it even possible for either group to accept the other or will there always be the desire to convert the other?
I think that "faulty" definitions is part of the reason why conflicts still exist. Although different words or terminology can mean the same thing, it can still cause issues. For example, different parts of the United States use different terminology for day to day objects such as carbonated drinks. Some people call it coke, others call it pop, and people call it soda. Because of different terms, there are people who debate about which term is the correct term. Although this example is not as important as the topic of religion, it still shows that using different words for the same thing can cause conflict, even in such a petty topic. As well, another component of the conflict is due to historical differences. They may have somewhat remedied their problems, but their history can remain unchanged. Evangelicals' disagreement with polygamy will still hold value. Like, in any social setting, person A may start a rumor about person B. Years later, person A apologizes. But, regardless, person B will still remember the past and be wary of their relationship with person A. Again, although this example does not capture the importance of the religion, it still shows how past events can still cause problems. I don't think that there is just one main reason for the conflicts, rather it's a culmination of reasons.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the issue of “sheep stealing” is a fascinating commentary on the relationship between Mormonism and evangelical Protestant denominations (Shipps 348). I don’t think the main issue is whether or not the two groups will continue the practice (they will) but to what extent will they continue to be successful. When either group is successful in securing a conversion, the convert is tacitly asserting one faith over another. As the lines of demarcation continue to become blurred in the public perception between Mormonism and evangelical Protestantism, I believe that both groups will become progressively less successful in their proselytizing efforts. Potential converts who already belong to a Christian assemblage will simply identify the party that is recruiting them as advertising another form of Christianity. The conversion from Christianity to Christianity is redundant and will translate to Mormons and evangelical Protestants failing to steal the other’s sheep.
ReplyDeleteI think that the conflicts and prejudices between Mormons and Evangelicals are due mostly to historical differences. Robinson mentions that the memory of the evangelicals driving out the Mormons is still a raw wound for many Latter Day Saints. Historical differences have manifested into the two sides not speaking to each other directly after the Mormons isolated themselves in Utah. Thus the Latter Day Saints grew up learning the Mormon version of the evil Evangelical and the Evangelicals were raised being taught about the cult like Mormons. The cycle seemed to continue with subsequent generations. Robinson and Blomberg address the issue that for example Evangelicals believe that the Mormons believe what the Mormons do not actually believe. This is because the Evangelicals have not bothered to ask Mormons about their beliefs. The same can be said with the roles reversed. In summary, I believe that the conflicts exist because for example Mormons are taught to believe the Mormon interpretation on what it is to be Evangelical, and not the Evangelical understanding of being Evangelical.
ReplyDeleteI feel like historical differences and stereotypes carried over to present day are the main causes of separation between Mormons and Evangelicals. Their turbulent past did not end at the Evangelical persecution of Mormons as a cult. The Tabernacle apology by Mouw was fairly recent, and that goes to show how deep the divide between the two are. The effort to reconcile the two sects is still in progress, which means that the results are not yet apparent in most of the individuals involved. I think terminology is an extremely important issue as well. Blomberg wrote, "these very conservative Protestants continue to apply the term fundamentalist to themselves despite its almost uniformly pejorative use by the media." (Blomberg, 28) Similarly, the term "Evangelists" still invokes imagery of pulpit preachers shouting on cable TV. The Evangelists are aware of their negative media image, but they do not rename themselves because of the stereotypes. To do so would be conceding their religion to public pressure, and most importatnly they know that the stereotypes aren't true. With labels come stereotypes, and as a nation we still use stereotypes extensively to make inferences about individuals we meet in our lives. However, once individuals take pride in their identity, religious or otherwise, negative publicity and all, it would prove to become the most effective weapon in destroying the stereotype as their attackers realize the futility of that strategy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both religious groups will continue to try to convert the other because they believe that their way of thinking is the right way. They both want to follow the mandate to go and preach the gospel and bring new souls to Christ. I don't think they will ever really accept each other as they are because their theology, while similar, is different, "and some of these [differences] are matters of eternal significance", such as the creation story and afterlife beliefs (Mouw, 2). Also, if they firmly believe that their way of Christianity is the right way, they will not easily accept another way of thinking as being valid as well. For example, Mormons "insist thatall all Christian baptisms are null and void except those performed by properly ordained holders of LDS priesthood (shipps, 347). Furthermore, most ordinary members of Mormonism and Evangelicals do not have close contact with each other and are unable to have deep discussions or intense academic study like Richard Mouw and the other authors. They gain their information from biased or fanatic sources and not from direct conversation and research(Blomberg, 22). Today, they may respect each other and do not resort to violence as in the past, but still those differences will remain and continue to cause debate.
ReplyDelete