Rev. Dr. Bobby W. Leggett is not a Mormon. He's the pastor of a small Lutheran church in Blanco, TX. Yet he spends the whole article telling us what Mormons believe, in unflattering terms. Would he approve of an article, written by a Mormon, telling him what Lutherans believe? Would he find it at all convincing?
Scripture says to give a reason for the hope that lies within us, but to do so with gentleness and reverence. The "reason for the hope that lies within us" is not "the beliefs of that other guy over there are so stupid -- let me tell you myself about all the foolishness he believes".
There's a cultic group where I live that rejects the Trinity. Their whole apologetic against the Trinity, posted on their website, consists of refutations against strawman misrepresentations of what Trinitarians actually believe. They would be much more persuasive and impressive if they stuck to either (a) defining their own beliefs and defending them from the Scriptures; or (b) [at least] quoting what actual, knowledgeable Trinitarians say about their faith and then responding to that.
Theirs is the kind of apologetic behavior Christians should avoid, IMO. Our faith simply deserves a better defense.
So only Mormons can describe their faith accurately? (I don't think so...That's like saying only a leper can accurately diagnose leprosy)
Yet he spends the whole article telling us what Mormons believe, in unflattering terms...The "reason for the hope that lies within us" is not "the beliefs of that other guy over there are so stupid
He does (spend the WHOLE article telling...what Mormons believe in unflattering terms)?
* Paragraph 1: References Lds as "neighbors" (wow! highly unflattering)
* Graph 2: Labels Smith as a "founder" (many apologists go right to the point & label him a "fraud").
* Graph 3: He describes the so-called "appearance" of the "Angel Moroni" and Smith finding "gold plates" and "ancient Native American authors" in very Mormon-like generous terms -- as if it happened. (Why do you deem that "unflattering" when he presents that from the Mormon point of view?)
* Graphs 4 & 6: Let me return to these two below.
* Graph 5: If you -- or any reader -- deems this as "unflattering" in describing Mormon beliefs, well, guess what? All the author is dealing with here is simple math. I mean if you think this is "unflattering," then you must also think historians are "unflattering" in their presentation of 19th century Lds polygamists just by mentioning that they embraced more than one wife!
Now...I agree this author's presentation of Mormons in graphs 4 & 6 were not intended to "flatter." But so what? Since when do we have to duck truth & reality?
Would he approve of an article, written by a Mormon, telling him what Lutherans believe? Would he find it at all convincing?
It all depends. Is it accurate? I read five graphs of your post here...and not once did you lament what he wrote as inaccurate? Therefore, if a Mormon wrote accurately what Lutherans or Evangelicals believe, why is that a problem to you?
Scripture says to give a reason for the hope that lies within us, but to do so with gentleness and reverence. The "reason for the hope that lies within us" is not "the beliefs of that other guy over there are so stupid -- let me tell you myself about all the foolishness he believes".
By this critique of yours -- do you apply it equally to how Jesus dealt with the legalists of His day (the Pharisees?) Was Jesus labeling them as...
...hypocrites...(see Matt. 23:13-15, 23)
...children of Satan (see John 8)
..."blind guides" (Matt 23:16, 24)
...greedy & self-indulgent (Matt 23:25)
..."blind fools" (Matt 23:17)
..."whitewashed tombs" (Matt 23:27)
..."snakes" and "brood of vipers" (Matt 23:33)...
...all terms of reverent endearment?
The author didn't even come close to utilizing this kind of vocabulary! If somebody believes something foolish, and you shine a light on that, doesn't equate to them lacking "gentleness" -- especially given the gentle kid-glove treatment this author did give Mormon beliefs in paragraph 3!!!
Our faith simply deserves a better defense.
You know, your only salient point in your post was when you said: There's a cultic group where I live that rejects the Trinity. Their whole apologetic against the Trinity, posted on their website, consists of refutations against strawman misrepresentations of what Trinitarians actually believe. They would be much more persuasive and impressive if they stuck to either (a) defining their own beliefs and defending them from the Scriptures; or (b) [at least] quoting what actual, knowledgeable Trinitarians say about their faith and then responding to that.
But even then, that's perhaps more of a priority & "style" question...or a mild critique where this could have been improved in a specific way.
If this was some "apologetics guy" coming up with something, and you critiqued him by saying, "Our faith simply deserves a better defense," I might agree with you in some ways. Given this was a pastor, my response is: Hey, I like what this pastor was doing in this area than what most pastors don't do in this area!
Overall, Campion, you've contributed some pretty good posts through the years. Most of this one was way out of line.
There are 52,000 who are willing to come to your home and explain a little of what MORMONs believe in very flattering terms.
Will that make things ok?