Men on a Mission
A Business Wire press release dated September 10, 2007 announces an interesting new product that its creators hope will become the “must-have stocking stuffer of the year.” Mormons Exposed is producing and selling
“a steamy 2008 calendar featuring twelve handsome returned Mormon missionaries who have dared to pose bare-chested in the first-ever Men on a Mission calendar. Usually seen riding their bicycles and preaching door-to-door, the sexy new calendar celebrates the great looks, beautiful bodies and amazing stories of service of these deeply spiritual men.”
Returned LDS missionary Chad Hardy is the calendar’s producer and co-founder of Mormons Exposed. Having been raised in a sixth generation Mormon family and having lived in Utah for eight years, Mr. Hardy understands Mormonism and Mormons. Therefore, according to the FAQ page on the Mormons Exposed web site,
“The fact that twelve young returned missionaries are posing shirtless will certainly raise eyebrows, but may also help to sort out some common misconceptions about Mormons…
“Since the veil surrounding the Mormon religion can be difficult for outsiders to permeate or to understand, the humor of the calendar is intended to help debunk common misperceptions and dispel some myths about the Mormon religion — encouraging people of every belief system to be more tolerant of one another.”
The Mormons Exposed web site contains a couple of myth-busting options. One is a Men on a Mission fan club page, which asks,
“Do you have a secret missionary crush? Or do you think one of our guys is a total stud? Simply click on the box of your favorite missionary, enter your email address and click ‘vote.’ Once you vote, you’ll start receiving our newsletter and updates on your favorite guy! (Your information will be kept strictly confidential.)”
Another is an audition page which allows men (or women?) to fill out an application for consideration to be included in a future calendar:
“We are looking for fit, great-looking returned missionaries with amazing stories to tell for the 2009 calendar. Only 12 finalists will be chosen. Do you have what it takes?”
I have to admit, the Men on a Mission calendar certainly challenges some of my perceptions regarding Mormon missionaries. I’ll bet it challenges the perceptions of the folks at the Church Administration Building, too. But an aspect of it seems like a worthy endeavor; the calendar will generate money for charities (a portion of the proceeds will be donated), and will put a fresh, lighthearted face on misperceived-as-stodgy Mormonism. These are things LDS Church leadership would certainly support.
Hey — I wonder if all the members of the Quorum of the Twelve are returned missionaries…
—
Update July 14, 2008: On July 13, 2008 Chad Hardy, creator of the calendar, appeared before a Church disciplinary council. After Mr. Hardy explained his vision and purpose for the Men on a Mission calendars, the Church council ‘’still felt the calendar is inappropriate and not the image that the church wants to have,” Mr. Hardy said. After 45 minutes of deliberation, the LDS Church council decided to excommunicate Mr. Hardy.
Woah! Looks like I need to hop on a bike and ride it for a couple years!
I can just see it now. Biking all day, then going back to the tiny apartment, sitting on the bed, reading the Book of Mormon in one hand and a 30 pound barbell in the other doing curls..
awesome!
The iron rod is going to PUMP YOU UP.
Personally, I’m waiting for the “Relief Society Gone Wild” 2008 calendar.
Jeff said, reading the Book of Mormon in one hand and a 30 pound barbell in the other doing curls..
Jeff after a few curls you can move up to bench pressing the Golden plates. And Since JS was able to carry them under one arm as if they were nothing, he could spot you and maybe even bust a pose for the calender. LOL, Rick b
Certainly has changed my impression of Mormon missionaries. What would that guy…..Sigmund Freud….is that his name say about this? Supressed something…..exhibitionsim…identity confusion. These are troubled young men!
Freud was troubled. He was a sick man, I cannot believe people look to him as having sound advice. Rick b
i thought this site was meant for missionary work? last time i checked the bible, Jesus loved, and led…not made fun of. but there i go, forgetting that the Jesus i believe in, is different than your Jesus..my bad
with that said, you can’t possibly take this website seriously, or this calendar…its obviously disgusting and a bit of a joke. now, you might have a point if it was put out by the church-this makes the admonition of the prophets to latter day saints (to be a light on a hill, a good example) even more relevant—these people apparently didn’t heed counsel-shame on them.
aside from that, you guys are making it extremely easy to dismiss this site as pure gossip for bible-bashing evangelicals. how can one elevate the discussion on a superficial foundation?
did my last comment get deleted for some reason? If so, I would like to know why so I don’t unkowingly say something offensive. I myself thought it was hilarious, but I understand if it wasnt so for the rest of this community.
Rick B
Lighten-up, the Freud comment was a joke! As a token of my friendship I’m going to send you a copy of Freud’s dream interpretation book.
so… my first thought, as a woman, is what would the creator (of this men on a mission) think of a calendar featuring sister missionaries in the same style? this would be my litmus test as to the “good nature” of its mission. my guess is there would be a double standard instituted.
i get the light-heartedness and tongue-in-cheek of mormons and they don’t have to compromise their values. this product really seems to compromise a lot of the belief system of the lds religion, ie. modesty, lustful thoughts, etc.
oh, and as a psychotherapist, the freud thing is just toooooooo easy. there’s so much more going on there that i see as one of the proofs this religion is not the truth. let’s raise the bar, folks. compassion for someone who so desperately desires to be liked (that they compromise their supposedly sacred value system) is sometimes harder to give than sarcasm and mockery.
as a christian, i don’t desire for people to understand my beliefs but to know God. when someone truly knows God, whether or not someone likes/accepts him or her becomes irrelevant because he/she has already been accepted and loved beyond earthly comprehension. hallelujah!
mare
Mare,
Come on, don’t leave me dangling here. Do the Freud Thing.
Jeff said, “Personally, I’m waiting for the “Relief Society Gone Wild” 2008 calendar.”
Thank you for sharing this absolutely hysterical thought.
Wait a second here…
So, you’re telling me that LDS/Non-LDS women (and probably a few “guys”) are going to look at these 12 missionaries flaunting their six packs and immediately think of how great these people are for giving away two years of their lives to the Church?
By the looks of the calendar, it seems that these returned missionaries (rm’s) are hoping to target a teenageC audience. Could someone with half of a brain kindly remind me what happens to a girl’s sexual desires when she reaches puberty? Ah… I get it… (Raging Hormones) (Sexy RM’s) = (Better understanding and “tolerance” of Mormons).
It really is brilliant… use sexuality (potent and powerful of a tool that it is) to get teenage girls to drool over these heart-throbs, then couple that with tons of positive information relating to the missionaries (in order to show that the missionaries are “just like you and me”), and it’s not hard to see how being a Mormon would seem immediately appealing:
“They take pride in doing wonderful things for people, they have wonderful family lives for the most part, and… they smile… A LOT… so they MUST be happy people all around. AND they claim that their religion is to blame for all of this? Hmm… I want to be happy and have a wonderful family life too! Sign me up!”
And what about all of those Mormon guys who aren’t interested in looking like underwear models, anyway? Seems that this calendar discriminates against people with flabby abs, chunky faces, etc. (”you must look THIS good in order to have the honor to be next year’s ‘January’”). But I digress…
mare makes a good point when bringing up how this compromises existing values among mormons… I guess the next logical step is to OK sleeveless shirts for women (oh no… not bare shoulders!!)
Oh, and one more thing, mare… I’m all ears to “the Freud Thing” as well
thank you for your interest in the analysis. my point was more about as a christian to have compassion for the people who are involved in this very seductive (no pun intended… well, maybe a little) religion.
think about God’s perfect plan of marriage and family… what happens when a daughter does not have a father role model? she goes “looking for daddy” so to speak. a son acts out and is ineffective in his presence as a man. i would apply this to the members of the lds church: i have experienced them like children without a strong enough (authentic) father figure. what happens when an individual lacks this security is they typically go searching desperately for approval. this is evidenced by changing doctrine (God’s word is unchanging and timeless) as well as this calendar.
i truly love these people and want most to understand where they are coming from and love on them the way Christ has loved me. i have rarely met another contingent so large and so desirous of a relationship with God. however, i can only respect and honor where someone is at in their walk with God. i have never found mockery to be an effective persuasive devise in dialogue. i would imagine that this calendar could be seriously offensive to a lot of moromons and no laughing matter.
i cannot “save” someone- that’s between them and the Holy Spirit. i do share my experience of God with others not just through my specific moment of clarity with Him, as well through my words and actions. i only hope that the spirit of love and grace comes through those and not a tone of judgement or condemnation.
mare
I didn’t find this post to be very mocking. Perhaps you are just afraid that these men will be mocked when people see their project?
And I’m new here, so I was shocked at this comment from Amanda:
“bible bashing evangelicals”
what on earth? As a bible-believing Christian, I’ve never seen those two terms paired together. And it seems so strange to me coming from a Mormon ( i presume?) who believes that the Bible is not accurate. I’ve been reading here only recently but it’s like swimming in a pond - everything is topsy turvy…Jesus is Lucifer’s brother? Joseph Smith got his revelations from some golden plates that vanished? (not clear on that one, btw)
I’ve just been swimming in this weirdness for a few days, because I was curious after meeting a Mormon and having her say some pretty strange things to me. So I decided to dig a little deeper, since she kept harping on how she was a persecuted Mormon and how she was really “a Christian too”.
So far everything I’ve read totally lines up with what I’m seeing from her. How would she feel if I said to her “I’m a Mormon”. And let her think I was her sister in Christ, only to reveal to her later that I think Joseph Smith was a fake and the BoM is blasphemy? Wouldn’t she be offended if I kept insisting “BUT I’M A MORMON TOO”???
sorry for the rambling…like I said I’ve been swimming in this weirdness and had nowhere to vent about it!
Lets be honest, the makers of this calendar are using the LDS religion, or “God’s true church” as a springboard to selling calendars. That is sad. Because honestly, the calendar wouldn’t be half as successful if these were just ordinary “ripped” fella’s. There’s plenty of no-name guys with their shirts off on calendars. “Ooh, but we can make some money from the ‘ooh, naughty missionary’ angle.”
That’s just sad. I really doubt any LDS/Non-LDS people look at this and think about the calendars supposed “statement” they are making and fall into some deep thought about it.
all of you are making a HUGE logical flaw…this calendar has NOTHING to do with the church. it’s some mormon guy who is, like jeff said, using this angle to sell calendars. it’s cheap, disgusting and FAR from what the church teaches…the church doesn’t control everything every member does, we can do what we please and still call ourselves mormon.
i don’t even really know what else to say other than i thought you all were more intelligent than that.
The YouTube video for all this is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavwkKdWa-c
Yuck.
I had to chuckle at the comment about the barbell curls.
Also, about Joseph Smith with the golden plates under his arm running home.
Has anyone thought of what these plates weighed?
Given the density of gold, and size of the plates…they’d be between 185 and 230 lbs! Depending on how you understand the sheets and their thickness, etc.
That a 15 year old boy ran with the weight of a grown man under one arm, at full speed all of the way home is not even possible!
Any of the Mormons on this site wanna tackle that question?
[Part of comment trimmed by moderator. Please stick to the issues and refrain from making uncharitable comments about others who also comment here. Thanks.] I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I try daily to come unto Christ. The church that I belong to is centered upon faith in Jesus Christ…hence the name. The individuals who are responsible for the calendar have made a sad error in judgement by declaring that they represent “mormon men” the way that they really are…they represent themselves only in this. They are trying to justify what they have done in the name of Charity, and removing stereotypes. Whatever. They can spin it however they want to, if that is how they are able to sleep at night. It’s wrong, and they know it. I am really wondering how you are able to be so sure that the teachings of the LDS church are wrong? Did the Lord appear to you and tell you that the LDS church is not true? Where did you get your proof? You said earlier that this instance is just one of the many proofs that this is not the true church…so what are the other things that PROVE this in not the true church?
lillym said How would she feel if I said to her “I’m a Mormon”. And let her think I was her sister in Christ, only to reveal to her later that I think Joseph Smith was a fake and the BoM is blasphemy? Wouldn’t she be offended if I kept insisting “BUT I’M A MORMON TOO”???
Funny you should say that, I did a topic called (WHAT IF) On my blog. Pretty much I said, What if I put on a elder badge, dressed the part, went door to door and said, Hello, I am from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints, but then told the Gospel I believe.
Bible only, Jesus is God, always has been eternal, not the brother of Lucifer, grace alone, bible only, one God only, not Millions, we cannot become Gods, one heaven only, not three, Etc.
Would the Mormons like me doing that? One mormon was not happy about my topic, yet LDS claim their Christians, yet clearly believe a different gospel, but they get mad when we point out the difference, they claim were hateful and attacking them.
But I would bet my life if I did what I said in my What If idea, the LDS would be furious and ask me to stop right away. Any LDS care to reply as to if I am correct, would you be ok with me doing that? Rick b
Robert,
I’m not Mormon myself, but the most common explanation that I’ve heard from Mormons for Joseph Smith’s ability to heave those plates home under his arm is simply this: God worked a miracle.
Of course, Moroni “took the plates back,” so all we have is JS’s word as to how he was able to move the plates the way he did. Last time I checked, there wasn’t any mention by Joseph Smith regarding a miracle happening relating to making the plates “lighter” or easier to carry; I guess that much is implied. (And isn’t it also a miracle that Moroni was able to take them off the planet? Lots of miracles happening here without much mention of miraculousness…)
Aaron — After watching that video, I’m unable to hold back my laughter. Funny thing it is when members of a church that is so intolerant to homosexuality decide to promote a product in such a way that would attract those very people. (And the music in the background… whoa.)
Amanda — This calendar might not ever get promotion from the LDS Church, but saying that the calendar has “NOTHING to do with the church” is a pretty bold statement considering that these *AHEM* “12 returned missionaries” are making quite an effort to show their “mormon-ness” (via pictures with them wearing their uniforms, talking quite a bit about how the church has helped them to live better lives,etc.).
I’m VERY curious to see what the Church has to say about the calendar in the future… that is, if they do happen to release a statement of some sort on it. I don’t see them making any public mention of this calendar if they disapprove of it though — that would only serve to create tension amongst the missionaries and the Church (and unwanted attention for sure).
Another thing real quick…
mjc976 (a commenter on the YouTube site) had this to say:
“These aren’t good Mormons. Missionaries teach people to respect their bodies as temples and as a gift from God, not to sell pictures of them. I was a missionary, we teach people to be modest, to not draw attention to their bodies in a sexual way. This runs totally against what Mormon missionaries teach.”
Yeah… that sounds about right.
(And if you have ANY doubt about the missionaries’ intent to “draw attention to their bodies in a sexual way,” look no further than the lyrics of the music in the background, found at the artist’s website: http://www.perrytwinsmusic.com/lyrics.html
Here’s an example for all of you curious fellows:
“Can you activate my body?
Can you turn up the noise?
Wanna see the sweat drip’pin’
Off of all you naughty boys.”)
ROBERT, i’ll tackle your silly question. first of all, you should read joseph smiths account of his early history. he didn’t receive the plates till he was 18 or 23 or something like that…anyway, not 15—you’re cute though.
ALEX– release a statement on the calendar? haha, are you joking?
i don’t care if there were 78 returned missionaries alex, what they are doing is a mockery of their missionary mantle. because people IN the church make bad decisions and show serious lack of judgement, does not in ANY way demote Christ’s gospel. that’s like saying, well judas betrayed Christ even though he had a testimony of Him, that must mean that Jesus wasn’t really the Savior.
should i list the millions of evangelicals who do even WORSE things then go to church on sunday, and somehow draw a conclusion that your beliefs are therefore false? that’s completely idiotic. if you don’t get that, then there is truly no hope for you.
i’m glad though, alex, that i can now confidently guess your age to be at about 11–? in all seriousness, your logic is worse than a 6th grader.
[Please stop the belittling comments. This moderator is just about out of patience on this. -S.]
I have read all of your posts, and I posted myself, part of which was deleted for being “uncharitable.” That is really surprising since most of what I have read here is pretty uncharitable. From what I can tell, people come onto this site to bash Mormons and their beliefs. Christ taught us to love one another. To do good to those who despitefully use and persecute you. To those who would smite us on the cheek, turn to him the other also. We have all gotten lost in the quest to have our religion validated by others. I think what our common religion is here is a belief in and a deep and abiding love for Jesus Christ. Why don’t we just agree on that, and agree to disagree about how Joseph was able to carry the plates back to his home, and about whether or not “mormons” are Christians, because clearly, we are. We declare our belief in Christ in the name of our church. We say we believe in Christ, we have a giant statue of Christ in each of our Temple Vistor’s centers, which all the world are welcome to visit, and by golly, please for the love of Him, stop insisting that we are not Christian, because WE ARE!!!
Robert, The question about the weight of the plates has a reasonable answer (if you wish to accept it) on the FAIRLDS website and I believe that Jeff Lindsay also has an answer. From their calculations, the plates would have weighed between 40 and 100 lbs (around 18 - 45 kg). They also have some quotes from witnesses saying that the plates were approx 70 lb (32 kg). These are realistic weights for carrying. But as you said, another answer was that God assisted him. He was given the promise that if he did all that he could to conceal the plates and keep them away from others that God would sustain him.
Now I know most would say “That’s a cop-out” but when we look in the Bible there are many examples of God doing just that. Moses was on the mount getting the 10 commandments and he fasted for 40 days and nights. Jesus also fasted 40 days and nights before the devil tempted Him. Medically this is impossible - it takes about a week (little more) to die from lack of food, and depending on conditions 3 - 5 days to die from lack of water. Then there was Samson who brought the house down by pushing the 2 main support pillars apart - this is a superhuman feat. And a final example is the logistics of the Exodus. On one web page it states that for drinking water alone, the Israelites needed a train 1800 miles long per day, and they were there for 40 years (godonthe.net/passover/logistics.html).
Yes I know you don’t believe in the LDS church, but we can use the answer that God has helped Joseph Smith to carry the plates because it is within Biblical parameters as well as the parameters of our faith.
As for the calender - its just a publicity stunt for the creators of it. Its sad to see someone of the faith cheapen it this way.
I don’t know….
I did lose a lot of weight on my mission. You look at pictures of me at the beginning of my mission and I’ve still got a bit of that high school baby fat - rounder face, etc.
You look at pictures of me one and a half years into my mission and I’m a lot thinner.
But I think “gaunt” would be a more accurate word. Dark circles under the eyes, rather tired and hungry looking. We subsisted on free bread crusts, rice, and ramen mostly and free mini oranges when we could get em.
But man, I could bike 50 miles in a day, up and down hills, on that kind of low nutrition and not even notice. Days on end.
I was a lot tougher then than I am now. More wiry.
But I don’t think I looked anywhere approaching the pampered and sculpted look these guys are pulling. Missionaries are typically too malnourished, overworked, stressed, and lacking in leisure gym time to look like the calendar guys here. I’m pretty darn certain a foreign-serving missionary could never pull this look off, and I doubt even a stateside serving missionary could.
Hey Seth-These guys have been home from their missions for who knows how long…I am sure they have been hitting the gym! Curious though-what is your take on the whole calendar thing?
I’ve got better things to get worked up over. Sure, it’s probably inappropriate. But it’s nothing really earth-shattering and mostly merely amusing.
I don’t know if I speak for all evangelicals on here, but I understand that the actions of these 12 men are not and will not be supported by the authority of the LDS church. That to me is a no-brainer. I know what standards you guys try and hold up to.
The sad part is that who knows what kind of image those guys portrayed to the people they “taught the gospel” to. What would you think if you heard something “Godly” from a young man and later found out he was a chippendales dancer. (even though chippendales shows more than what these guys wear).
And Lisa, there are some hard-hitting confrontations on here that one might take as “bashing”, especially Rick B’s. From his words, he is a no-nonsense, no sugar-coating type of guy. Honestly, I find that refreshing though. And he doesn’t build his argument on sand. All I’ve seen was him quoting what YOUR scripture states and what YOUR prophets say/have said, and show the contradiction. Stuff that makes someone outside of the box of Mormonism start to raise their eyebrow.
Just remember my LDS friends. It’s not you personally that’s being “attacked” on here, its largely your leadership and theology. And if you don’t like that, maybe you should go to lds.org read some information that would be “comfortable”.
“Would the Mormons like me doing that? One mormon was not happy about my topic, yet LDS claim their Christians, yet clearly believe a different gospel, but they get mad when we point out the difference, they claim were hateful and attacking them.”
Key difference Rick. We don’t go around saying we’re Lutherans. It’s right there on the name tag: “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and we usually identified ourselves as the better-known “Mormons” from hello.
Seth said Key difference Rick. We don’t go around saying we’re Lutherans. It’s right there on the name tag: “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and we usually identified ourselves as the better-known “Mormons” from hello.
Seth, you make no sense and do not understand the so called denomonations.
You claim your a Christian, I claim I am a Christian, we preach a different gospel than you, the differences have been laid out hundreds of times. When ever a Christin Comes on here, he never states I am a Lutheran Christian, or 7 day Christian or whatever. We might have different demonations, but so do you. LDS have the RLDS, or the FLDS or other off shoot groups.
The difference with us, it is a matter of Minor points. I did a topic to cover that all here:
http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/06/church-denominations.html
So again, if I were to say I am LDS dress the part with an Elder badge and Teach my Gospel which is different from your, how would that be any different from you guys claiming to be Christian? Rick b
I read this last night:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/12/1296_When_Unclothed_Is_Unfitting/
And thought it was relevant to the topic at hand. Although I understand men and women think differently (I know, I am married *chuckle*), I still think this applies generally.
Rick, you have a monopoly on your denomination. But not on Christ, or the Bible.
How is your portrayal of Mormon missionaries as fiendish mimics of true messengers any different from what the Catholic Church was undoubtedly saying about Martin Luther? You think they considered him an impostor? You bet they did!
Seth said Rick, you have a monopoly on your denomination. But not on Christ, or the Bible.
I never claimed to have a monopoly on anything. but as I said before, your gospel is different than the one I believe, do we have to keep pointing those differences out? I guess so.
LDS TEACH,
Lucifer and Jesus are brothers, Millions of Gods, 3 God form the Godhead, You can be Gods, Works after Grace, Bible is not good enough, need more Scriptures Etc.
Christians deny all of that, even the Bible denys what you believe, Bible teaches Jesus is God eternal, Bible teaches One God, no others were or will be, Grace only, Lucifer was created Jesus was not.
So again, the one verse LDS REFUSE to answer is Gal 1:8-9, if we both teach a different Gospel, who was Paul speaking to about a different Gospel and if Paul says they will be Damned and LDS admit, JW’s, Muslim, Catholic and others do not teach the same Gospel as LDS, What happens to them according to Paul in Gal 1:8-9.
Then with the Differences I laid out between us, If you call your self a Christian and Get mad at us for saying your Not, why cannot I call my self LDS and preach the Gospel I believe that is clearly not the one you believe? You seem to beet around the bush and not give me a straight forward answer to that question. Why? Is it because then you must admit we have different Gospels?
And then you will need to admit we both cannot be Christian, or am I simply missing something here, If so please fill me in to what I am missing.
Jeff said especially Rick B’s. From his words, he is a no-nonsense, no sugar-coating type of guy. Honestly, I find that refreshing though. And he doesn’t build his argument on sand. All I’ve seen was him quoting what YOUR scripture states and what YOUR prophets say/have said, and show the contradiction.
Thanks Jeff, sadly to many Christians want to be men pleasers and beat around the Bush, and give a wimpy gospel, Not me. Rick B
Just a question for everyone out there:
I’m not to familiar with the many denominations of Christendom, but are there any that disagree on the major doctrine? (i.e. Only one God, saved by grace only, men do not become God’s)
And please, don’t list off minor things that only really apply to our life on earth such as women pastors and what not.
Lisa:
you are not Christians. Here’s another good example:
Let’s say that I believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the Book of Mormon was divinely inspired.
Then let’s say that I *also* believe that Joseph Smith was a space alien, and that he married Mary and had children with her, and these children are the ancestors of the Mormons.
Now, if I went around calling myself a Mormon, and not pointing out to people that I believe Smith was a space alien who had children with Mary, would you be offended?
Or would you concede that YES, I am a Mormon, although I have gained extra revelation concerning Smith that the other Mormons have not.
Do you see?
“even the Bible denys what you believe”
Says you.
I’ve heard people go the rounds on Biblical proof texting before. You’ve got nothing there as far as I can tell. But it seems tedious to me to rehash it. Especially since the question is entirely tangential to the original post.
“Now, if I went around calling myself a Mormon, and not pointing out to people that I believe Smith was a space alien who had children with Mary, would you be offended?”
The question wasn’t addressed to me, but I’ll answer it anyway.
No.
All clear?
lillym, I see where you’re coming from.
It’s highly offensive for some traditional Christians to hear of some other religion claiming to be apart of their “realm of faith” yet completely rejecting the core doctrines of traditional Christianity.
An analogy might be: How would you feel if you and millions of other people started up a company and agreed on the major policy’s that the company should have, and then a small group of people that got hired into the company start taking over and completely reject what was founded years and years and YEARS ago. What if you felt the other people’s new policy’s were full of false information and bad business practice, and they even manage to “make it look like” the original policy’s in place but with “addendums”.
Thats how I think “Christians” look at Mormons when they try and call themselves Christians. I can see why a smaller group of people would want to leech off a big/established company.
So yeah, flip it around, my LDS friends, how do you feel about the FLDS or RLDS? Arent they also Latter-day Saints? If they put on the badges that just say “church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and went around preaching THEIR version of the Gospel, wouldn’t that irk you? You wouldn’t want their set of doctrine being confused with your own, would you?
“So yeah, flip it around, my LDS friends, how do you feel about the FLDS or RLDS? Arent they also Latter-day Saints? If they put on the badges that just say “church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and went around preaching THEIR version of the Gospel, wouldn’t that irk you? You wouldn’t want their set of doctrine being confused with your own, would you?”
I don’t care if they want to call themselves “Mormons.” That angle doesn’t work with me.
But your playing fast and loose the the distinction between a DENOMINATION and an actual RELIGION or religious tradition. Of course they shouldn’t represent that they are LDS. That’s because they are FLDS, not LDS. But if they want to claim to be Mormons, fine by me.
denomination = people within the same faith who have disagreements about details within the same scripture
religion - set of basic tenets
this is why muslims are not christians, too. Muslims may believe that Jesus was a great teacher, but Mohammed is their prophet and the Koran is their authority.
same with mormons. mormons and muslims seem to have several things in common, the more I read here. They both created large bodies of laws to subject themselves to, after rejecting Jesus’s gift of salvation by grace.
LDS and Mormon arent the same thing?
Lillym,
I knew someon who did not believe that the prophets from Willford Woodruff onwards were real prophets. When it came to sustaining the General Authorities at conferences he would always put his hand up in the negative. He also had a book called “The Second Book of Commandments” which comes from a splinter group of the LDS church. He was still allowed to remain a member as long as he did not teach his ideas from the book in an official church setting or tell people that they were doctrine. He did have limits - like he was not allowed the Priesthood or to go to the temple or to have a calling, but he could still say prayers and participate in classes. Its the same with other friends of mine who have joined the church later in life and have a smoking problem or cannot give up the social drinking. They can still remain members, just miss out on a few responsibilities/blessings. So the answer to your question is ‘Yes’ you could still be a member.
Jeff,
From my understanding ‘Mormon’ was the name given to those who believed in the Book of Mormon, back when the church was first forming. So if the RLDSand FLDS (and other off-shoots) believe in the Book of Mormon then they can be called Mormon. This is why the church PR system have on the website that the church prefers to be called/refered to as ‘LDS’ or its full name to distinguish it from the others. The members have been asked to do the same which is why, if you read my posts, I try and do it.
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification Ralph.
Let me ask a question of ya though. With your friend that you were talking about. Let’s say he did start teaching from that “second book of commandments”, and he still called himself a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. Obviously, as you said, if he did that then there would be consequences, perhaps ex-communication I assume because he is adding what the LDS deem is false doctrine. Now imagine he cloned himself 2 million times and now, him and all of his clones are teaching that doctrine from that “second book”. Would it at all, personally, irk you a little bit that the 2 million people are calling themselves CJCLDS faithfuls? Let me ask that question to all LDS reading this, give an honest answer please.
That’s how I believe a lot of traditional Christians feel when there is all this extra-biblical doctrine being taught, from a second/third/fourth book, by people who call themselves Christian. I personally like my faith to be distinct, but the LDS church is continually trying to erase the line between a Mormon and Christian.
Jeff,
I don’t usually argue the Christian/non-Christian subject, mainly because its irrelevant to me. I believe in Jesus, that’s all anyone should know. Yes my ideology about Him and His teachings is different to yours, and when I talk to people I should delineate this, but I still believe in Jesus Christ. But I can see your point. Thing is, the word Christian in the Bible was first used by non-believers to denote those who believed in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. And still to this day, the non-believer community (ie the original definers of the word) define ‘Mormonism’ as Christian (albiet a sect or off-shoot) because we believe in Jesus Christ. It is the Traditional Christian community which has ‘changed’ the meaning of Christian to denote those who believe in the Trinity. So either way - it doesn’t bother me, its just a ‘tag’.
As for your question about the CJCLDS (btw what does CJC mean?), if they refer to themselves as that or Mormon, and not LDS, then I will have no problem. Just as long as the difference is delineated. Yes it would irk me a bit, but they have their freedom to believe what they wish and I what I wish.
Just a quick question about one of your earlier comments. You said that most Christendom agree on the major doctrine - do you consider those who believe in Modalism Christian? If so then there is a major difference in the doctrine of the character and being of God right there. If not, what would you ‘classify’ them as, because they still believe the Bible, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit?
CJCLDS = Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I guess I could have used LDS for short, heh. Thank you for your honest answer. I feel that its sometimes necessary to put yourself into another persons shoes to feel what they feel. For an evangelical to just say “LDS aren’t Christians!” could come off rude. The real thing that should be discussed is “why” Christians say that.
As for your question, my personal belief is that the Holy Trinity is 0 truth coming from the Bible itself. If one doesn’t believe in it, I would have a hard time calling them Christian. I honestly don’t have an answer as to what they should be classified as. I would prefer that they call themselves something different so as not to create any misconceptions within the membership of their church.
Well Jeff,
I guess we can call Christianity (your definition) the God Squad and the calender boys in this blog are the Bod Squad, then that leaves us with the Modalists as the Mod Squad - but what does that make the LDS?
Moderators,
i realize you try your best to control the tone on this site-as one-sided as it may be. that is completely your prerogative, obviously.
with that said, don’t be surprised at the response you get to your queries and accusations—it is merely the fruit of the tree you planted.
so bleep what people say, sure…but please don’t be surprised that you fostered such a reaction to begin with. if you desire a cute little club that mormon-haters can join, log in, and chat it up with all their other mormon-hating friends..then do that…but don’t allow us to post under false pretense that we are moderated under the same rules as the true “Christians”–then bleep what we say like we’re a bunch of swearing inbreds. just a thought
grace and peace in Christ II, or number III (sorry, i forgot, are we II and jehova’s are III?–you need to have some kind of manual on this)
So how does this calendar fit with the Mormon underwear requirement?
Craig,
Plain and simple - it doesn’t really unless they are preparing to go for a swim, or play a sport. But the wearing of the garments is left to our own conscience and between us and God.
Ralph, I would say LDS is the “odd squad.” lol, just pokin’ fun. Mormonism is mainstream now so I guess that term would only have applied during its beginnings in the 1800’s.
Amanda, could you put down a couple references where someone on this blog “hated” on you? It’s like your playing the victim card here. You even said it yourself that we are “mormon-haters”. I haven’t seen any personalized contention for any LDS on this blog. If you want to say that we are “MormonISM-challengers”, that would be a more correct term to explain what goes on in this blog. Never once has anyone degraded you and said your beliefs are stupid. People are simply just challenging your belief. Like it or not, in here, your beliefs are opposed and you will be questioned on them if you’re posting on here. We are throwing different pitches here and its up to you if you want to step up to the plate and swing at them, no one is holding your arm.
Hey Amanda, you claim we hate you and attack your beliefes, That simply is not true. So let me ask you this, would it make you happy if I were to tell you I was listing to the LDS prophets and for once really doing as the commanded?
Well let me make you day if you said yes to that Question, For once I am doing as the LDS prophet has said, a non-LDS person following an LDS prophets advice.
J.F.S. Said and I quote Read pg 188 of Doct of Salvation vol 1.
I quote Joseph F Smith. “CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH. MORMONISM, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. Their is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed: his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false”.
I’m doing just as he said, and your mad at me, thats lame, I bet you did not even know your prophet taught that, and if you say, yes I did, then why are you mad at me for doing what he said and not telling everyone what he said. Rick b
I’ll put in a plug for the blog. I’m a committed Mormon - born and raised in the faith.
I think this blog is, for the most part, rather civil. In every conversation I’ve seen him in, both here, and elsewhere in the Mormon blogging community, Aaron has been quite polite.
Amanda, from what I’ve seen of her participation, has been a bit overwhelmed from all sides. As far as I can tell, she’s been one of the few pro-Mormon voices here and that can get burdensome for one person. I know - I’ve been before the firing squad in other online forums, and it can be hard to keep your composure, especially when you don’t have anyone in your corner.
So I totally understand it if she occasionally gets short with people.
Seth said So I totally understand it if she occasionally gets short with people.
Here is the problem, she claims were hateful mean and angry, yet it’s ok for her to get short with us, Makes tons of sense.
Then I have seen a large number of questions posed to the LDS that go ignored like they were never asked, yet the LDS claim they have the truth and the true church. So if you really have the truth, why ignore the hard questions? I could understand if you admited you noticed the question but have no answer, yet many questions get ignored like they were never asked, to me that is a problem. Rick b
Rick, you’ve pointed out Gal 1:8-9 right?
Is that the “question” you are referring to? Because to me it doesn’t look so much like a question as an assertion.
I’ll also repeat that debating that scripture, or the general truthfulness of the LDS faith here, would be a threadjack. It really doesn’t have much to do with the original post.
I’m sure Aaron will provide a later opportunity to discuss this specific issue, given what this blog is about. But I see little need to get into it now.
Yeah Jeff,
I was thinking about it after I asked the question and came up with Odd Squad.
But I also came up with Cod Squad - because someone writing on one of these blogs accused the LDS church of throwing in red herrings.
Then I thought about a comment made by Mark Twain about the Book of Mormon - he called it chloroform in print. There is also the book of Ether in the Book of Mormon, so I came up with the Nod Squad.
Now back to a ’serious’ note for me. Some of the writers have made comments that the LDS church seem to like to point and say persecution when someone challenges their beliefs. I have seen it myself in my life as I was growing up. I believe that its because in some way the church encourages (unknowingly) this type of mentality by the way it teaches its history and beliefs.
As a teenager I went through seminary (programme for 14-18 yr olds) and for one of those years we are taught an ‘in depth’ history of the church (yes I know we don’t get the full story according to the Mormon critics). It discusses in some detail the horrors that went on with the mobs and the driving of the saints from place to place and the terrible trek from east to west, etc. We are taught that Satan is real and he is against the church and will do all he can to persecute it in order to destroy it. And there are other things like that. Some of these things are taught in less detail while we are younger (ie between 8 and 14). Now teaching those things to young ones can do one of two things - depending how they are taught and our teachers are not properly qualified teachers. I know it scared me thinking about what happened to the saints in the past and so I was careful about telling people about my church as I was growing up so I wouldn’t be ridiculed and persecuted. And I know that most of my peer group from church were the same. Its not until we are 16-18 yrs old that we are encouraged to really get out there and discuss the church. By then we have overcome the ‘childish’ fear of persecution and ridicule, but in the back of the mind if someone does confront our religion it brings out the persecution complex and so the LDS member goes into defensive mode.
Just a thought from my experiences and what I have seen going on with my LDS friends. I have reached the stage where it no longer bothers me to have someone say something confronting about my religion
Ralph, if only my wife was a more like you… except without the (possibly) hairy body, deeper voice, and uh, so on.. lol
But seriously, no matter what angle I try to talk to my wife about her religion, it always comes down to her getting REALLY upset with me. I even try to make it as nice and as third-person as possible and it still comes down to her saying “I DONT WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE!”..
In my own thoughts, I start to think of reasons why she gets upset. One might possibly be that because I have done days of research into Mormonism and she hasn’t, she might feel threatened or afraid that I can reference stuff she has never even heard of about her very own religion. I get pretty flabbergasted when she didn’t even know about JS’s multiple wives. I come to realize though, in my 3 years of attending a ward every Sunday that that is something never even talked about, so I can understand how in the past 21 years of her life she hasn’t heard anything either.
I also start to think that if someone isn’t very secure in what they believe, they tend to stop conversation as to not abandon their faith that they have been told was truth ever since they were a child. I hope it’s not this one because that leads into a person choosing to remain ignorant to save face.
Anywho, just rambling..
Seth said I’ll also repeat that debating that scripture, or the general truthfulness of the LDS faith here, would be a threadjack. It really doesn’t have much to do with the original post.
Seth, that was one of many that was avoided, but you say to answer it would be a thread highjack. Let me fill you in on something, and if you do not believe me you can spend all the time you want searching the threads to prove me wrong. Whenever I ask a question that comes across as a off topic question, it is always in responce to something an LDS member said first.
I do not simply by pass the question and say, here is an off topic question for you all. One thing people need to understand is, topics to some degree will get off topic simply in debate. One person will say something, another will reply, but that reply will be open to many questions that can simply get us going off topic. Rick b
Hi, I’m new to posting here but am familiar with the site.
Personally, I don’t find it helpful to state to a Mormon that “Mormonism isn’t Christianity”. I find it puts them immediately on the defensive. It might be more helpful to talk about the “Great Apostasy”, and that if Joseph Smith was right, none of the rest of us are Christians. Put another way: Either “mainstream Christianity” is true Christianity, or LDS is true Christianity. They are mutually exclusive; ie, both cannot be right.
As to the person discussing Modalism and other such arguments: Jesus Christ knows who is in His church, who is part of His body. No one else does. Scripture is full of warnings against those who claim to follow Him but do not do so in actuality. Sadly, mainstream Christians cannot even agree on what constitutes “essential doctrine”. However, the oneness of God, the divinity of Christ (incidentally, these two together help define the Trinity!), the inspiration of the scriptures, etc. are basically agreed to. Subjectivity only works so far; musicologists may debate whether Mozart’s or Verdi’s requiem is a better piece but you won’t find one that thinks the one I wrote is better than both!
Tom Said Personally, I don’t find it helpful to state to a Mormon that “Mormonism isn’t Christianity”. I find it puts them immediately on the defensive.
But It’s ok for the LDS to say this about Christians? Sounds to me like they are saying LDS are not Christians, Tom what do you think.
Read 1 Nephi 14:10 “behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the lamb of god, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of god belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.”
I quote B Young: “with a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called christian world” (Journal of Discourses 8:199).
I quote 3rd president John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr Taylor) “Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell, the eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and kicked onto the earth” (j.o.d 6:176).
I quote Heber c. Kimball “christians-those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth” (j.o.d 5:89).
Rick b
You don’t hear LDS leadership talking about it much anymore in reference to specific religions.
Bruce R. McConkie specifically fingered the Catholic Church as the “Whore of Babylon” in “Mormon Doctrine,” but he was told to take it out of his next edition by the other Church leaders.
I don’t think the upcoming crop of Mormons have a widespread identification of other church’s as “the Great and Abominable Church.” I think it’s understood today that it is simply a metaphor for Babylon and it may encompass elements of many modern institutions such as governments, businesses, and yes, churches.
That’s how I read the verse anyway.
To me, the prophets in the past KNEW their religion wasn’t at ALL like traditional Christianity, and they were happy about it. (Read Rick B’s post on the quotes).. But now, the current LDS leadership understands that in order to attract new members, they have to white-washed their words and sound MORE like traditional Christianity. Lol, imagine Hinckley being like the founding prophets and saying something like “All church’s other than the LDS church is full of whoremasters. They are an abomination!”.. Imagine the field day the press would have on that statement. This is the issue I have with Mormonism. They come across as “traditional Christians” to the people that don’t know much about theology, and then when they get their foot inside their door and their prophets mouth inside their minds, they inject doctrine that absolutely is a slap in the face on traditional Christianity.. Pretty much like feeding a pill to a child with applesauce..
MMMM! this apple sauce tastes delicious to me! It makes me FEEL so good I don’t even CARE whats in it.
Tom, could you please reference the “essential” doctrine that mainstream Christianity doesn’t agree on. I’m unaware of any major doctrinal differences.
“They come across as “traditional Christians” to the people that don’t know much about theology, and then when they get their foot inside their door and their prophets mouth inside their minds, they inject doctrine that absolutely is a slap in the face on traditional Christianity.. Pretty much like feeding a pill to a child with applesauce..”
Problem is Jeff, not everyone dislikes the pill.
I’ve heard plenty of Mormon missionaries relate how they presented doctrines like “Christ is our elder brother” or “we can become gods” or “the Bible isn’t perfect” (all stuff that is presented right up front to new investigators, by the way) and we get simple matter of fact agreement with the statement.
“Yeah… that makes sense to me.”
“Well of course God has a body! Duh! What do you mean my pastor doesn’t think God has a body?!”
“A lot of people frankly find the Mormon goal of becoming gods to be inspiring and exciting.”
And a lot of these people are from traditional Christian backgrounds. They aren’t always being tricked. They’re eagerly embracing the whole thing. Believe it or not, we actually still emphasize the “heresies” that make our religion unique in the first few missionary discussions. And a lot of people are pretty cool with that. Not all, by any stretch. But more than you’d think.
Perhaps mainline Christians should be doing a better job minding the store. Because there are a lot of Christians out there who aren’t buying what you are selling.
I’ll repeat, we aren’t shy about proclaiming our unique heresies (as some would term them) and a lot of people like the heresies. Not everyone is a dupe. Some of them just don’t like your message - just as some of them don’t like the Mormon message.
I’m worried that calling Mormonism a big fraud, its faithful as brainwashed, and it’s converts deceived is simply an excuse for avoiding dealing with some real inadequacies in the traditional Christian message.
Mormons do the same kind of dismissive, condescending stuff. And the motivations are the same - to avoid dealing with our inherent problems.
Jeff,
ok, i’ll be the first to admit that the word “hate” was a strong word to use in that sentence…but you can’t dismiss what i said out of poor word choice. (you guys will soon get to know me enough that you will be able to decipher my colorful word choices for what they are–it’s something i inherited from my mothers side) regardless, jeff, there are disrespectful things said on this site all the time thrown at mormons…and we are the most moderated and bleeped…
i was responding to the disbelief on all of YOUR (collective) parts for the response you are getting to your abrasive “mormonism-challengers” approach…that was the basis of my remark…it had nothing to do with whether or not i feel sorry for myself. if i wanted to feel sorry for myself, i have many other reasons to do so—and not because a few evang. christians on a blog try to meagerly dismantle the restored gospel.
Problem is Seth, is that the child rarely knows what is in the pill. And from the standpoint of traditional Christianity, the “pill” of Mormonism is full of stuff thats bad (false).
If you sugar-coat the pill with lines like “Families can be together forever! You can become Gods!”, then of course people will FEEL like that pill is good for them, cuz after all, its got sugar alllll over it.
Now don’t take this wrong. I believe all who choose to receive the gift God gives to us that we are all adopted children of his and that we will ALL be together in Heaven FOR the glory of God. Do I think God would split everyone up? Not even parents do that on earth. “Hey son, you ACTED a lot better than your brother, so you can’t be around her anymore, she isn’t going to hang out in our celestial living room upstairs anymore, we are putting her in the basement.”
Seth, I think the evangelicals on this site have posed many “inadequacies” with Mormonism. We have referenced material and so forth. If you feel there is an inadequacy in traditional Christianity for you, then reference it and ask about it. I for one feel nothing is lacking with what God’s word (the Bible) has given us. He gave a clear message on how to obtain salvation and his love for us. Thats all I need.
Seth wrote:
I want to relate a personal experience, for whatever it’s worth. Before I really knew anything about Mormonism a close relative (who was also a good friend) began investigating the LDS Church. As she met with missionaries, I read about Mormonism as described by Christian authors. I learned about the Mormon doctrine of exaltation (men becoming Gods) and brought that bit of information to my investigating friend. She was shocked and dismayed, and so asked the missionaries about it the next time they met. As she related the resulting conversation to me, the missionaries said, “Oh, no, we don’t believe that. We believe people can become more godlike. Every religion teaches that.” The missionaries switched the doctrine of exaltation for the Christian doctrine of sanctification.
A short time after my friend’s baptism I was browsing through her copy of Gospel Principles. There on page 290 I read, “We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.” (Note: the word ‘Gods’ in this sentence has been removed from subsequent printings of Gospel Principles.)
I showed this to my friend, who said merely, “Hmm. I’ll have the ask the missionaries about that.” But I never heard if she did, or how they explained the deceptive way they answered her direct question before she joined the Church.
At any rate, in my personal experience (which is not limited to this one instance) Mormon missionaries might freely share with investigators about Christ being our elder brother and the imperfections of the Bible, but they do not present right up front that Mormonism teaches (and claims to enable) people to become Gods.
Hmmm…
You might be right Sharon. I do know that missionaries themselves are a bit of a mixed bag. You get all kinds and it’s hard to predict how they are going to go about their business of proselyting.
Certainly, I knew missionaries on my own mission whose personal style I didn’t care for at all.
But I’ll have to double-check the actual text of the standardized missionary discussions.
I hope it’s okay to revive some of the discussion from a few days ago (I’m a new poster and as I read through this thread, some thoughts came to mind).
My first question goes to those (undoubtedly most) of you who think it is important to distinguish those of the LDS faith from Christians: Why is this so important to you?
Secondly, Seth R. stated that groups have a monopoly on their denomination, but not on Christ or the Bible. In response Rick simply stated that he never claimed to have a monopoly on anything, then proceeding to point out differences between his beliefs and the LDS faith.
Rick, I would be interested to see you apologize your assertion that LDS are not Christians with the fact that you do not have a monopoly on Christ. If you have no such monopoly on Him, who gave you the authority to determine who is, or is not, a true believer?
(For the record, I am LDS, served a mission, and am a staunch believer.)
Undeterred. Instead of us explaining why Christians have a problem with LDS calling themselves Christians. Let me help you put on our shoes..
What if the FLDS, RLDS, JW’s, or even Catholics claim that they are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Would you have any issue with that? If so, what would be your reasons? Perhaps one of them might be that because they teach a CLEARLY different set of doctrine that absolutely contradicts the teachings of the LDS church as you and they know it?
There’s your reason. But heck, don’t just take your own point of view for it, take Mr. Kimball’s..
Heber c. Kimball “christians-those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth” (j.o.d 5:89).
Now after Heber C. Kimball said that, do you think he would have said. “Yup, I’m a Christian!” To do that would be him calling himself one of the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth.
Or, maybe take Brigham’s point of view for it?
B Young: “with a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called christian world” (Journal of Discourses 8:199).
Apples grow on an apple tree and oranges grow on an orange tree. Those seeking an apple, shouldn’t have to be confused about which tree to pick from. It’s like the oranges are saying, well, I’m an apple to! No.. you’re not.
Rick doesn’t have to apologize, he simply stated that what he believes is true, and if it is true, then you’re faith is false. The exact same thing you say about us. Either you guys are right, or we are right, OR we could both be wrong and JW’s are right, heh
Undeterred said Rick, I would be interested to see you apologize your assertion that LDS are not Christians with the fact that you do not have a monopoly on Christ. If you have no such monopoly on Him, who gave you the authority to determine who is, or is not, a true believer?
How do you reply to Gal 1:8-9. Not One LDS has given a good answer to my question on that, It goes ignored. Who Gave Paul the authority to Say that? If LDS feel Muslam, JW’s Christian Science and Other Groups are not preaching the LDS gospel, then How does Gal 1:8-9 fit into them?
What If I called my self a LDS member, dressed as a missionary but Preached my Gospel, which is vastly Different than Yours, would you as an LDS member call me an LDS member? If not Why. Lastly read my Blog topic about LDS not being Christian, found here,
http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/09/are-mormons-christians.html
(Interesting… is it chance that the first two responses are vitriolic?)
Jeff, you have me concerned. Clearly the LDS denomination has a right to determine the status of individuals claiming membership to it, just as any denomination. It is an imperfect analogy to compare the relationship between LDS and RLDS with LDS and Christianity. LDS is to RLDS what LDS is to Lutheranism, not Christianity. This issue goes to my concern over your claim to a monopoly over the label of “Christian.”
As for the helpful quotes, I’ll be very upfront about the fact that I dislike taking my time to respond to out-of-context quotes taken from mormonwiki, or wherever. The brethren were not distancing themselves from the religion of Christianity generally, but from Christianity as practiced by those priests who preached for money and influence and persecuted the Saints.
Also, please refer yourself to a dictionary for the various uses of the word “apology.” I did not call for Rick to say he was sorry, but rather to take two disparate views and bring them together in a way that is logically consistent.
Rick, you have quite the habit of not answering the questions as posed to you!
Either you claim you have the authority to determine who is a true Christian or you don’t. If you do not claim to have a monopoly on Christ, then you do not have the authority to determine who truly believes in him. There is a distinction (beyond a semantic one) between a religion or religious system and a denomination. You may have a monopoly over your various denominations, but you do not speak for Christ.
As for Galations 1:8-9, I will gladly respond. However, before I do, what is your definition of a “good answer”? I promise that I will respond–I would just like to do so in a way that you feel is fitting. (I won’t hide the ball here… if you’re definition of a “good answer” is one that you agree with, rather than one that is logical, I fear this will be a useless exercise.
Sorry to be a board-hog, but I have to add something else. This primarily goes to Jeff and his posting earlier today in discussion with Seth.
I think I’m beginning to see why it is so important for many of you that members of the LDS faith not be called Christians. And, I give my word that I don’t say this just to be offensive, I believe it comes down to three things: 1) you need a common enemy or you’ll turn on each other again (as you did in early American history); 2) if there were no other faiths to criticize, you would be compelled to focus on faults in your own doctrine (like a paid clergy); and, 3) the business your pastors’ are running depends on retention of its members and the LDS church threatens their bottom line.
This blog is supposedly about outreach… so reach out. Show me what you have to offer! Start with explaining why I should join a church where the religious teachers are compensated with filthy lucre–explain how that does not corrupt the doctrine by finding those ideas that most satisfy my itching ears in order to retain me as a patron of your business.
You want some logic? Here it is. We will use a definition that we should both be able to agree on. I take these from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
What is a Christian?
1 a : one who professes belief in the TEACHINGS of Jesus Christ
What is a Gospel?
3 : the message or TEACHINGS of a religious teacher
What is Doctrine?
2 a : something that is TAUGHT (i.e. Teachings)
Okay, so a true Christian is one who professes belief in the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
Would you agree with me that the LDS church has different doctrine than traditional Christianity?
I’m sure your answer is yes. So, we can split up the two different teachings/doctrine of the LDS church and Trad. Christians.
We will call the LDS teachings “Doctrine A” and we will call the Trad. Christian’s teachings “Doctrine B”
Now, if one is right, the other is wrong, because Doc. A and Doc. B both contradict each other.
So now, this is what it comes down to. Either Jesus Christ taught doctrine A, or he taught doctrine B.
So now if one of us is believing in doctrine NOT taught by Christ, then one of us IS NOT Christian. They simply THINK they are believing in the truth.
That work for logic?
And I don’t know about other evangelicals on here, but I could care less about man-made institutions/organizations. Paid clergy isn’t a fault in the Gospel of Christ because thats not even a teaching of Christ. My faith isn’t supported by a building or an organization, its supported by my love for God who sent his son to die for my sins. My salvation doesn’t depend on rituals performed in a building, only from my humble acceptance of God’s beautiful gift of which I will never deserve.
Jeff, there’s no need to be so defensive. I think your logic is sound. However, I disagree with the assumptions you’ve chosen to make. Namely, I disagree with your assumption that “if one is right, the other is wrong because… [they] contradict each other.” It’s not all or nothing. Applying that assumption elsewhere leads to similarly unsupportable results, e.g. because the doctrine of Presbyterians and Baptists contradict one another on some points, one of them cannot be called Christian.
It is not a simple 0 or 1 in the Christianity column. We have varying levels of understanding and practice in our daily lives of seeking to follow Christ’s example. Would you say a homosexual who proclaims himself a Christian is, in fact, not a Christian if he agrees with you in every way except as to gay marriage? His doctrine differs from yours, doesn’t it?
In fact, a natural consequence of your logical structure is that there is only ONE doctrine whose adherents may be properly called Christians, as any difference from that doctrine causes those adherents to no longer be Christian. Are you suggesting that all Christian denominations but one are wrong?
(I would also like to point out that, under the Merriam-Webster definition, I am a Christian. It does not define “Christian” as “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ as taught by apostate groups of self-proclaimed teachers and scholars.”)
Also, I wholeheartedly agree that even if a given denomination pays its clergy, the true Gospel of Christ remains the same. However, my contention is that if your clergy is paid, then it throws doubt on whether or not they are teaching the true Gospel of Christ.
Undeterred,
I didn’t think I was “defensive”. I understand where your coming from.
I classify the “teachings” of Jesus Christ to be ONLY the important parts of his Gospel, i.e. the identity of God, Jesus, and holy spirit, the “requirements” on the path to Salvation (baptism/rituals).. I really don’t believe God cares so much about man-made squabbles such as women pastors and so forth. He gave one simple commandment for Salvation. I should have shown this in my post, because I know of “minor” differences among the different denominations.
Luke 10:25-28
25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
As far as the gay fellow you speak of..
If he says that the Gospel says homosexuality is okay, then he is not Christian, plain and simple.
If someone teaches or professes a belief in something that’s not taught in the true Gospel, then he/she is not a true Christian.
To be honest, I don’t know if there is any denomination that is completely true, I just believe that my current faith is true. Just as you do. However, you say you “know” from how you felt from praying, but that is a whole ‘nother topic.
As far as paid clergy. We don’t hold the pastors as the mouth piece of God. The Bible is His mouth-piece. If something doesn’t match up with whats found in the Bible, the “clergy” should be questioned.
Sorry for identifying you as defensive… it’s very hard to tell without body language to read.
As far as your interpretation of Luke 10 is concerned, I think you’ve made another faulty assumption. While he did give us “one simple commandment for Salvation,” it does not follow that this commandment is the ONLY one. In fact, love of God means obedience. To what? To the other requirements He has of us. God does not sit by and let his followers idle by… He gives us instruction. He commands us and expects things of us. To love god is to obey Him, and vice versa.
At no point does Christ say, “Love God, love your neighbor, and you’re all done.” He calls these the greatest commandments because adherence to them inevitably leads to full obedience… to seeking God’s will over our own. While we may differ over much else, I don’t know that any sensible individual can read the Bible and not see that we have been commanded to be baptized. Love is not the beginning… it is the end. Obedience to God’s commandments is the way we show we love him, not just by wholly-internalized devotion.
This goes to everyone, not just Jeff: In all honesty, if God told you to join the LDS church, would you?
If God told me to do something, yes I would.
Granted, this whole “Saved by grace or grace works” is and has been an entirely different topic of discussion so I wont comment further on it than the following.
Deterred - “Love is not the beginning… it is the end.”
This I disagree with in some ways. God decided to give us the FREE gift of Grace/Salvation as long as we hold our faith in him. I view His love much like himself (Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end).
God had love for His people so he sent his Son. Did we deserve his Son, no way! Human kind is and has been horribly sinful.
So first, at the start, he gave us His Love and his Grace accepting it through faith that he will deliver his promises, then after, not before, we receive that grace, and our EVIDENCE of our faith is done by the natural outpouring of the love thats inside of us.
For example. For a woman to GIVE life to another human being, she herself has to receive life from her mother. God has created us, gave us a gift, and we show our appreciation and acknowledgment of that gift through being obedient.
to throw out my own quote, here it is.
“God’s love had a beginning, when he created us, and it will NEVER end.”
I can say that I agree with nearly everything you just posted, Jeff.
I think we have to be careful when using the word “free” because it is open to many interpretations. You yourself indicate that it is conditional (”as long as we hold our faith in him”). I think we agree that there are conditions to receiving salvation, it’s just a question of what those conditions are.
As far as my comments on love are concerned, I think we’re just having a difference of approach to the issue. I do not disagree one bit that God gave (and continues to give) His love to us from the beginning. My comments were only intended to communicate the idea that the way we show the love Christ commanded of us is to be obedient. With my parents, I can tell them I love them all I want, but I show them I love them by doing what they ask of me.
Remember Christ’s parable about the two sons, where one said he’d go and did not, but the other said he would not but did. As Christ explained, what separated the pharisees from the harlots was that the harlots ACTED upon the commandment to repent. Action is required of us.
What I mean by “free” is that we don’t have to any physical works to receive it. I don’t consider faith a physical work. I do consider baptism and temple marriage/sealing and the like as works.
It seems that our debate is ending. It was good fighting with you.. lol, just kidding. It was good conversing with you, undeterred.
Undeterred, I am not go to play games or word games with you. Either answer the question on Gal 1:8-9 or dont. As my point about no one replying with a Good answer, the only answer I got so far was, Paul was speaking to people in his day about Doctrine, no Scripture or evidence to support that view, it was more a matter of, “I BELIEVE” that was what Paul meant, to me thats not a Good answer.
As Far as if a homosexual believes he /she can live that life sty