After reading some of the Google news alerts that came across my desk in the past couple of weeks I was left pondering several questions. For instance…
On August 27th this headline appeared: “Huckabee Denies Mormon Slur.” The story was actually a transcript from a Rush Limbaugh radio interview with former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. At issue was the comment Mr. Huckabee made during his campaign when, responding to a reporter’s question, he asked, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” Mr. Huckabee explained to Mr. Limbaugh,
“It was a question that I actually asked of the New York Times Magazine writer, because he knew a lot more about Mormonism than I did. It appeared as 11 words in about a 10,000-word story, and that got all the play.”
The question I ponder from this story is this: Since Mormonism teaches (and hence Mormons believe) that Jesus and the devil (Lucifer) are brothers, why was Mr. Huckabee’s comment labeled a “slur”? Would it have been a slur if Mr. Huckabee had said, “Mormons believe in baptism for the dead, don’t they?” Or, “Mormons believe God appeared to a farm boy in upstate New York, don’t they?” Or, “Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, don’t they?”
On September 3rd the Salt Lake Tribune ran a story titled, “Utah Democrats back off religion-based attack on Palin.” The article reported,
“The Utah Democratic Party charged this week that Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a ‘devout member of an anti-Mormon denomination’ and questioned whether LDS faithful should vote for her.”
As it turned out, the charge against Mrs. Palin by the Utah Democratic Party had no basis in fact:
“Palin is not a member of the church the Democrats are referencing, that church denies it is anti-Mormon and there’s no evidence of any anti-Mormon rhetoric from its pulpit.”
The Democratic Party has backed off and now says they have no plans to make Mrs. Palin’s religion an issue in the election. But one question I have been asking myself since reading this article is this: If it is bigotry to not vote for a Mormon because of his religion, isn’t it also bigotry to not vote for a non-Mormon because of her religion?
Someone who appears to be LDS (identified as ne1410s) left a comment about the Salt Lake Tribune story that included this:
The Utah Democrats have nothing to be ashamed of. Stan Lockhart’s phony righteous indignation doesn’t change the fact that the Assemblies of God [the denomination in question] are indeed anti-mormon. This is from their official web site:
http://www.ag.org/Pentecostal-Evangel/Articles2002/4579_spencer.cfm
The link provided by ne1410s does indeed go to the Assemblies of God web site, to an article which appeared in its denominational magazine Pentecostal Evangel in 2002. Written by former Mormon Jim Spencer, the article, titled “Is Mormonism Christian?” begins,
“Notice that the title of this article is not ‘Are Mormons Christians?’ That is a somewhat different question. No one can see into the human heart but God. No one but God is qualified to judge hearts. But, does Mormonism teach a consistent biblical doctrine — a Christian doctrine? That is an important question because we can judge the teachings of an organization. And we must do so if we are to faithfully discharge our responsibilities as Christ’s disciples.”
What follows in Mr. Spencer’s article is a look at several key doctrines (i.e., the nature of God, priesthood, grace, scripture, etc.) and how the LDS understanding of these doctrines differs from that of historic (biblical) Christianity.
My question: If it is “anti-Mormon” for a non-LDS organization to delineate some major differences between Mormonism and historic Christianity, is it also anti-Mormon when the LDS Church does the same? Or, if it has to do with the perspective of the author, should the LDS explanation of how Mormonism differs from other religions be deemed anti-evangelical? Or anti-non-Mormon? Based on the distinctions listed and explained on the LDS web site, is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints an anti-[fill-in-the-blank] denomination?
On September 4th the East Valley Tribune (Arizona) ran “Group uses billboards to reach out to ex-Mormons,” a story about PostMormon.org. The article described a recent billboard ad sponsored by the group:
“It features a generic smiling family of eight, a Post-It note that reads ‘You are not alone!’ and the Web site address: www.PostMormon.org.
The article went on to interview and record the stories of former Mormons and the feelings of loneliness they experienced after leaving the LDS Church. The article quoted an LDS spokesman in Arizona:
“I think it is another instance of people who have decided to leave the church. Generally, what we find is that oftentimes people who leave the church don’t leave quietly. [They sometimes] leave bitterly and want to make some sort of a statement.”
One Mormon (lmoll4) commented:
“Whether or not you believe what the church represents you should out of respect for other people who do believe, just leave it alone. Because you have left the church I am not going to attack you so I would hope that you would do the same. In this country we have freedo[m] of religion. Please be respectful of that.
This story raises yet more questions in my mind. If it is true that those who leave Mormonism and talk about it, that those who make statements about it are bitter and disrespectful, is it true that people who talk about having left another religion for Mormonism are also bitter and disrespectful? Are people who talk about their spiritual journeys into Mormonism attacking those who have not made the same journey? Are they infringing on the Constitutional rights of others to freely practice their own religions?
Just wondering…
Friends, as you engage in discussion please be aware of the Mormon Coffee profanity filter that removes the Mormon N-word from comments.
I suppose if a person is against something the “anti” tag can be applied. I don’t believe in abortion so am I “prolife” or “antiabortion”? If someone believes that abortion is an OK deal are they “prochoice” or “proabortion” or “antilife”? See, what people in different camps attempt to do is define their opposition. It’s, in the broadest sense of the word”, a political tactic to present yourself in the best possible light and those who oppose your views in the worst possible light.
Mormonism has a high bar to get over to gain acceptance in the mainstream of Christian religion. In fact, I don’t think they can do it. This began in earnest in 1890 when Mormons basically made an unspoken pact with protestantism to change their basic doctrine in exchange for religious acceptability. It all came about because of the drive for Utah to become a state and for Reed Smoot to be seated in the U.S. senate. The senate hearings, which went on for a couple of years, saw even the prophet of the LDS church equivacate regarding such a fundamental doctrine as the prophet receiving messages from God.
In order to keep the persecution complex fed, Mormons have to label anyone who argues against their claims of being in the Christian religion as “antithem”. I guess we could label Mormons antiChristian because they oppose the basic doctrines of the Faith and send out missionaries to make the point that Christianity is in apostasy and they have the truth. But we don’t call Mormons “antiChristian” we call them Mormons. We don’t even label any of their beliefs “anti”, we just point out the differences. But remember, labeling someone anti, in addition to making them look bad, is also a subtle attempt to get them to shutup.
To all: it seems the “anti” thing does, or tries to do, at least 3 things.
1)preferred outcome- shut up the opponent, shame them into thinking that such strident opposition is somehow “not Christ like” and not representative of what the gospel is all about. This is best case scenario: get the voice to go away totally (best case) or be muted.
2)if they won’ go away, at least they will have to wear the ‘anti’ label in a culture that does not REALLY understand religious freedoms and limits . Consider Robyns charge that I would be the kind of person to drag women and children out of their homes in the dead of winter. If the voice WILL NOT go away: make them seem extreme, unfeeling, intolerant, and cruel. The media is big on the words “extemist” and “fundamentalist” . Paint your opposition in as unflattering as light as possible. As often as the christians take shots at JS and BY, this will just look like ‘fair is fair’ to the untrained eye.
3) The “anti” thing helps rally the troops, helps underscore the us versus the world mentality that can be useful and even energize the faithful. There is a large measure of truth to this, because there IS in fact a battle going on, the nature of which you only understand AFTER you come out of the LDS (or Watchtower, or Scientology, etc..) The rampant persectution complex can be put to use, hopefully no one will catch wind of the real fight, and the real cause (the saving gospel that hasn’t left the earth since we were given it by the ONE who can well protect it), Sharon: good thread; I loved the early history one, also, too bad that didn’t go far enough. Not your fault, that’s for sure. GERMIT
Well said germit. All just tactics to shut up the opposition. I remember a Mormon on this blog saying that most ex-mormons have left because they couldn’t live up to the standard and more than likely guilty of some grievous sexual sin. I have heard this over and over from Mormons who don’t even care enough about the person to find out what the real reason is. I can just imagine the sewing circle at relief society talking about my wife when she left the church.
I would say that there are those “screechers” that do more harm than good, but at least they aren’t completely silent as lay members wish they would be.
I think there are more subtle ways to reveal some of the history/doctrine of the Mormon church without leaving a trail of bodies.
Perhaps Christians should learn a little something about subtly getting their points across.
Heres the deal. Mormons can’t completely disown Biblical Christianity because they need to attach the extra-biblical modern doctrine to it to be successful. On the other hand, Christians can completely disown Mormonism and still have the Christian faith.
Anti is anything you are opposed to. If you are pro-choice then you are anti-life. So it is just how Falcon and germit said – the word Anti paints you in a bad light, especially in regards to religion. And Mormons try desperately to lump together everyone who opposes Mormonism and try to make them feel shameful for it.
John P. Dehlin, an active Mormon, in his presentation “Why People Leave the LDS Church” addresses the points JEFFERY makes above. In fact he encourages Mormons to stretch their thinking and consider perhaps these “leavers” have good reasons for leaving the Mormon church. Typically these folks find out that there is a story different from what they’ve been told regarding Mormon history, doctrine and practices. They get mad, especially if they’ve been investing heavily with their emotions, time and treasure to the “cause”. Then they take their anger and get passionate in expressing their views especially if they think they’ve been lied to and duped either by ommission or commission by the LDS authorities. So these passionate folks get the label “anti” and get accused of not being able to cut it with the life style or accused of being involved in serious sin. Who’s the guy……help me…..last name is Quinn first name is Michael???? Anything he says can be discounted because of his…….look it up for yourself. Fawn Brodie, I don’t think the LDS bunch have ever gotten over her. People like Grant Palmer who aren’t afraid of the truth and will write about it as he did in “An Outsiders View of Mormonism” get disfellowshiped. He still attends by the way. So the label “anti” is a good one to keep LDS folks in the program and away from anything that might cause them to question the religion.
John P. Dehlin’s presentation can be found at:
http://mormonstories.org/?p=50
Brother am I losing it or what? Grant Palmer’s book is titled “An Insiders View of Mormon Origins”. I got bit by a dog yesterday when I was out riding my bike and I must be experiencing delayed shock or something.
I especially like to hear interviews with Grant Palmer because the guy is so refreshing to listen to. He just basically tells it like it is and I’m sure he has earned the label “anti” by some LDS. But what I like about the guy is that he is just so honest. I can see why a person like him would get the anti label. He talks about when he was teaching in some LDS position in California how he used to have Christian apologist Walter Martin come to the class he was teaching and present his views. That was his whole point; open honest debate with respect and without fear. It’s kind of sad that the LDS authorities wapped Grant Palmer.
So this is really the point of the anti label as I see it in the LDS church; to stifle open honest debate. I wonder what these folks are afraid of? Just lay it all out there I say. Actually I think there is a small movement going on in the LDS church to inoculate members from what they are finding on “anti” websites.
To answer the questions posed, yes I think Mormons essentially do the same. They are an anti-group. Though, in their quest for “openness” and inclusiveness, they will deny the charge. As a tactic, they ridicule Christians for being too exclusive in their use of the word Christian, while not acknowledging that they don’t think we follow Jesus at all and are thus not true Christians. We have seen this in the last few posts.
The trouble is, as Aaron pointed out, they suck you in before you find out that this is the case. Believe whatever you want, as long as you have prayed the prayer and gotten the appropriate result, and we’ll feed you the milk to get to the meat. And the meat suggests only one thing: only they are the true followers of Christ and everyone else is apostate.
Logically, this is anti-everything else.
One of the unfortunate parts of being a Mormon on a anti-Mormon site is that you are subject to getting the post “shut down” on you at the discretion of the moderator.
I continue to find it dumbfounding how good Christian people can down play the importance of baptism. Just to answer Berean’s question from the other post which I unfortunately wasn’t given the opportunity to answer there. I think a Christian who comes to the conclusion that we have been commanded to express our faith in Christ through baptism is on very stable ground both in the New Testament as well as the Book of Mormon. Anything can be argued- which seems to be the preferred conduct for some, but to suggest that a Christian who comes to the conclusion that baptism is necessary is insane for doing so is not consistent with scripture.
Just to be nice, I’ll accept the many invitations to “move on” for the time being- not because I believe my point is mute, but because I feel I have very clearly articulated it. Anyone who wants an honest account of a born again Christian who found the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints most consistent with accepting Christ as his personal Savior can read about it in my other posts.
[Born Again Mormon, what you have written above has no place on this thread. Though I could justifiably delete it, I will not this time; but please henceforth stick with the rules of our comment policy. Thanks. –Mod]
As for this post, it is the classic he said she said debate. Quite frankly, it exposes what is wrong with both sides of the debate. Most people in this debate are much more committed to their social ties within their churches than they are with the truth. This is true of both sides.
Yes Mormons try to teach other Christians about their church believing their church has something to offer. Yes this can be offensive to some because sometimes it is implied that we are questioning others commitment to Christ. It is my opinion that when we do this, we do this in err. We should not be demeaning others faith in Christ. What we have to offer is an organizational structure consistent with the first century church by providing the ordinances which compliment faith in Christ as cont
This is a great post, Sharon. You bring up great points, especially the issue of something good for the goose is not good for the gander. We can have new members talk about how they left Evangelical Christianity, but how dare a former member express their spiritual journey. Also, I really appreciated Jim Spencer’s words. As a former LDS, I feel that when I am labeled the word we can’t use here that it means I am against people. I am not against people, so I think the label shoud end with an “ism.” I am against a system that teaches false teachings about the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, I think when Mormons use the label they set up camps: me against you. If I didn’t care about the Mormon people, I would not spend any time trying to preach the gospel of grace to them. So, I am against the system of Mormonism that teaches a group of people who truly want to be in relationship with Christ a false doctrine than adversely impacts the understanding of what that relationship looks like. I hope this is simple enough.
BaM, here you assume that the LDS indeed represents that of the the 1st century church.
I believe it was you who said that it was baptism that led you to believe that Mormonism is true, because of all the differing opinions on it within the denominations.
I actually asked you a question on that: do you view the differences in mode as prime, or the reason for baptism as prime? The two adress different topics, and what mode is used does not mean that the purpose is different.
We can also throw communion in this discussion, because the modes are all very different, but the meanings need to be explored to get an idea of what the different denominations believe.
So, in your assumption that the Mormon belief in baptism is the best answer, because in large part, all others are different, can you readilly describe what the meanings of baptism are to these other faiths?
And we can take this a step further, given your answer, can you then assume, with the confidence you have (disregard your testimony for a moment), that the Mormon church is the only right way?
I am curious your response.
[Sorry, Michael. The thread for the discussion of Mormonism and 1st century Christianity has been closed. Please take your questions for BaM to a different forum. Thanks. -Mod]
cont.
described in the scriptures. We do so exclusively because the first century church did so exclusively- they did not accept ordinances done by those not authorized by church leaders. This is not politically correct, but it is doctrinally correct.
Interestingly, other Christian churches make some of the same mistakes we make. Instead of focusing on what they believe they have to offer, they end up demeaning others faith in Christ. It is obvious that there are a lot of misconceptions out there about what others believe. I don’t criticize others for criticizing what they believe to be in error. If done honestly, the debate actually can contribute to the discovery of truth. The unfortunate reality is that there are those on both sides who are willing to sacrifice integrity to “win” a debate.
The issue of people who leave one religion or the other is really a mute point. Yes there are people who leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and its possible they feel shunned for doing so. But there are also those who leave the other Christian religions in favor of Mormonism, and I have first hand experience that they can be shunned as well. To imply that other Christians just smile and say “I’m glad you found something that you believe in” when one of their own leaves for the Mormon church is a fallacy. The fact that neither side seems to be able to be happy for someone when they find something they believe in is a discredit to all. My personal opinion is that true conversion is of the soul, and that if someone is not being fed by where they are at, we should be happy for them when they find something that brings that peace to their soul.
My purpose in being on this site is to share my experiences that have brought this peace to my soul. I know not everyone agrees with me, but if my experiences can help someone else find the peace I have found, it is worth it to me.
I was just going to burn my last post for the day to correct my error in using the “[filtered profanity or slur]” word. I am still working on updating my list of words that are considered inappropriate on this site. Let me just assure you that the word is not a word that would be filtered on many sites with high standards. With that said, I still apologize, because if it is offensive to the people on this site, I respect that.
[The remainder of this comment has been deleted — off topic. -Mod]
My understanding of the article describes something that tied very closely to stereotypes. Unfortunately, in this day and age we often times create stereotypical thoughts in our own minds, and these thoughts are based on a few, isolated experiences that we may have had personally. More specific to the article (and I’ll start with the first question and go through them), I don’t believe that Huckbee’s comment was a “slur”. We all know that it was a comment that he made in a public forum to try and stir up conversation and controversy about his opponent’s religion, but definitely not a slur. Some people may have called it a slur, but the whole LDS religion did not coin it as a “slur”. My advice to Mr. Huckabee would be to ask an authority from the church those questions, and not a NY Times reporter… aka, when your tooth hurts, don’t go to a foot doctor, go to the dentist.
The second topic centered around Palin is an interesting one. First, it would be some degree of bigotry if you denied a candidate your vote solely due to their religion. Whoever brings relition into politics, and makes ones religious beliefs a negative against them, I believe is also guilty of bigotry (apparently the Democratic Mormons would be an example of this). Bigotry is the cousin of prejudice, and exists in people of all religions that proclaim to be right…
The article also posed the question about the Jim Spencer article, and anti-whatever feelings. Once again, one member of the LDS Church may have coined Mr. Spencer’s comments as Anti-, but that doesn’t mean they were. Unfortunately, so much of religion is based on interpretation, “opinion”, faith, and very few “facts” are available. Mr. Spencer specified what he believes to be the LDS beliefs, and compared them to historic christianity. I think it was a great article, but left out many points. I don’t think that anything becomes “anti” until false accusations are made and lies are told. In addition, as “christians”
BornAgainMormon said “We do so exclusively because the first century church did so exclusively- they did not accept ordinances done by those not authorized by church leaders.”
Honest question – I am unaware of where in the NT it shows instances of ordinances either performed or attempted to be performed in which the one performing them was accused of not having the authority to do so. This is an honest question because I do not honestly know. Do you have any specific references, BAM?
we understand that it is not only what we say and do, but it is also our intentions and feelings. (The higher law). I’m of the belief that Mr. Spencer should focus on whether or not he is a christian, and not attempt to pass judgement on another faith on their belief in Christ. We all could pose that same question, “Is (blank for emphasis) christian?” , about any religion, and have valid and open ended arguments. But, what is Mr. Spencer’s intent in doing that? What is Sharon’s intent in writing this article and posing these questions in the first place? What is my intent in responding to this thread? That is where Anti-whatever will truly be determined.
Finally, man members of the LDS faith have left the church because of the described above, and others haven’t. Many may be bitter and disrespectful, and many may not be. Does that matter? I believe that someone within the LDS church that creates lies about someone leaving the church will be judged just as the Anti-whatever individual will be judged for malintent. As a young high-school student, i worked for a copy center. One of my biggest customers was a gentleman who truly was anti-lds. He published documents that told outright lies, and told stories that were fabricated for the sole purpose of devaluing the LDS faith. He was brilliant, but wrong. I was also acquainted with an LDS Bishop who made me feel like less of a person because of my family situation. He made comments that were offensive to me at a young age, and offensive to others as well. If i were to make assumptions and judgements about groups of people based on these two individuals, i would be wrong, and you all would agree with me being wrong. i would caution us all to avoid making judgements based on what a few people may say.
I have a question about this website… what is Mormon Coffee referring to? And what is the purpose of this website? Just curious… Thanks everyone! I’m LDS and I love open discussion.
IMO, the @nti word does much more than “rally the troops.” If an individual or group can be classified as such, then the LDS are free to lock the offenders into a sound-proof box, (behind, as one LDS person put it to me, her “brick wall of testimony”) to be safely and soundly ignored and/or written off as a nut job. Combine this with relegation to the category of “apostate,” (the only type of person in mormon theology worthy of mormon hell, aka outer darkness, and which category I’m proud to occupy), and anything you say is not only not true (judged largely to be so because, well, it just makes the LDS feel so icky) but it is to be avoided at all cost. I’ve literally seen eyes glaze over and the mantra begin (“…I have a testimony…I know the church is true…”) at the mere mention of the fraud of the BOA. This is a well-taught technique of brainwash maintenance. I’ve actually had the LDS say that now that they know the BOA is a fraud, they actually believe JS to be a prophet more than ever—that their testimony is even stronger now that they’ve heard what Missus@nti had to say. No matter how true, how factually supported, how doctrinally sound your information, if you can be put in to the @nti box, you have been eradicated as a potential source of truth. That term–referred to here as the mormon n-word–is one of the most powerful ender in mormon culture.
missusslats, you are right on. We apostate fo-mo’s need to stick together! The phrase is used to stop discussion, in fact it was part of the temple recommend interview when we were mormons, asking us if we were associating with any @nti groups. For mormon leaders, that is the get out of a question free card. Whenever anyone asks a cutting question, the easy response is to dismisss it as being @nti and move on in another direction. The book of abraham is a perfect example, the overwhelming evidence, including the papyri themselves and the facsimiles in mormon scriptures scream out that it made up, but mormons have to cling to it because if they don’t the house of cards falls.
I love the comment Sharon quotes about leaving mormonism alone. Sure, mormons send out thousands of missionaries to deceive people but Christians are supposed to just leave mormonism alone. Sorry, but the Bible doesn’t give us permission to ignore false teaching and false teachers.
I am not bitter at all, but I am committed to showing others the truth of Jesus Christ that I have found, and if it is God’s will to open their eyes as he opened mine, then praise Him for a soul saved.
robyn, if you are reading this, I hope you check into the Book of Abraham if you havent already. There is a video on the main page of mrm.org
Arthur… The one big difference between what you’re doing and what missionaries do is simple… Missionaries teach about their own beliefs, they don’t teach about others. You should spend your time (like you said) showing others the truth of Jesus Christ. You should not be spending your time criticizing temple recommend questions and LDS scriptures. If you’ve had a bad experience with the LDS church, then I honestly feel bad for you. But that gives you no right to turn around and bad talk the LDS church. I was spit on by a hispanic boy as a child… should I turn around and criticize a whole race? If I was bitter (not Christ-like), I probably would. I worked for a very successful Jewish man who was very hard on his employees… should I criticize all Jewish professionals? If I was bitter, I probably would. If I had a bad experience with members of my ward and I don’t agree with them on many issues, should I criticize ever member of every ward for their beliefs? If I was bitter… (sound familiar), I probably would.
A few thoughts.
First, my apologies for digressing.
Second, those who say they shouldn’t vote or can’t vote based on religion are wrong, especially Mormons. Look at the numbers of Mormons who voted for Romney, and then compare to any other candidate and those in his/her faith, including Huckabee (a former Baptis pastor). They can say it is because they believed in his positions most, but when 80% of Utah votes for him, something else is amiss… I actually think this is natural, as one’s faith is an integral part of who he is.
Third, I think Mormon’s get lost in their quest for “openness”. They miss the forest through the trees. It is one thing to be open and understand another’s point of view, yet another altogether to excuse others when those others are polar opposite of your own. In other words, it is good to be nice, but dangerous to not acknowledge the distinct differences that exist. Put yet a third way, we have to be patient and kind in our delivery, but stand firm in what we believe and expose the fallacy of the opposing argument. Mormons don’t do this. They deny anything contrary to them with various techniques, the use of the @nti label is but one. This technique basically puts up a wall that is difficult to get past. Its unfortunate.
Reggie, don’t mormons teach that God declared all Christian denominations as an “abomination”? Your whole claim of “just telling people what we believe” is such a red herring. Mormons spend countless hours and dollars knocking on doors and telling people that the Baptist church down the street is an apostate church. They may sugar coat the language but that is the story they are telling. They also don’t tell people about the real doctrines of mormonism, they save that for the temple and then forbid anyone to speak of it outside of the temple.
What I and others seek to do IS talk about our beliefs and compare them with what mormonism teaches. Our faiths don’t exist in a vacuum, and the mormon missionary lessons focus on the alleged great apostasy, the need for prophets to correct errors in the Bible and Christian teaching, the need for a Restoration, etc. What I had was not a “bad experience”, that is like saying Paul had a “bad experience” with being a Pharisee. What I did was live in a lie, propagated by men who KNOW it is a lie but are so invested in it that they cannot or will not let it go. No one was mean to me, or offended me. I didn’t have an unconfessed sin. I was shown the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I saw that mormonism was “another gospel”. I would encourage to follow the link from my name and read my testimony, if you are truly interested in my “bad experience”, because quite the contrary, being saved from mormonism was the greatest experience of my life, one I am thankful for!
I can no sooner leave a mormon alone in his false belief than I could an atheist or a muslim. The great commission doesn’t say to preach the Gospel to all creatures (except for mormons, ’cause they are just nice people and want to be left alone) When I preach in my church, I preach the Gospel to everyone, to repent and turn to Christ because it is a message for everyone to hear. Mormons aren’t exempt because they put the name of the Son of God on their churches.
An online dictionary defines ‘anti’ as – ”a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc”. In saying that, it means that literally this site and all who write against the LDS church on this (and other) sites are ‘anti’.
Now in these PC days, the word ‘anti’ more often than not has a stronger/harsher meaning, so I can understand why you do not want to have that label on your head. Which then brings us back to the question posed a few years ago about what word to use instead of the ‘MC n-word’?
Other prefixes that mean opposed to are ‘contra-‘, as in contraband, contrary, contravening; then there is ‘a-‘, as in asexual, asymmetrical, asymptomatic. So you could have contra-LDS or a-LDS.
But should we extend this to include other things? Like contra-clockwise or a-clockwise? I think you make too much of this sometimes. Why don’t you do what the early Christians did – the term Christian, thanks to RickB, Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary – Christian The name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were “brethren,” “the faithful,” “elect,” “saints,” “believers.” But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name “Christian” came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). They took the ‘derogatory’ term and used it with ‘pride’ (for want of a better word) for themselves. So take the terminology as a badge and proudly wear it to show who you are and what you stand for.
Ralph and others: it really doesn’t matter a ton what you or other LDS call me, although titles DO make a difference. How willing do you think the LDS would be to accept anti-modern christian, anti-orthodox christian, or ant-traditional christian. YOU might not care much, but do you think Utah would sign off on that?? I doubt it. Aunt-eye mormon doesn’t quite describe us anyway, because trust me, I’m every bit as much anti-JW or anti-Eckhart Tolle as I am anti-LDS. I spend more time on Mormon Coffee, but that might just be for a season, and the fact that there is just one of me. I wage war on whatever stands opposed to the faith handed over to the faithful, your group is just one that stands against that.
Reggie: teaching you salvation IS teaching against ours: they are both not simultaneously true, and they use the same exact vocabulary with radically different meanings: again, you do not understand the inherently confrontational nature of your own truth claims, or perhaps you do and just don’t want to admit that, not sure which.
If someone came out of Koresh’s group or Jim Jones and spoke ill of those leaders, are they necessarily speaking only from bitterness? Could there not be another motive? As an aside, I’d say you can hardly see inside their hearts, seems a tad presumptuous to me. Actions and words we can know, motives get a little slippery to know.
GERMIT
I think the common usage of the term “slur” is one of disrespect. If a term is used to stereotypically label a person or a group of people into an undesirable position, then it is a slur.
When Huckabee chose to use the most repugnant, undesirable reference possible to describe us (Mormons) he chose to mention the one belief that is most commonly misunderstood and difficult to defend. I think that qualifies as a slur. It was designed to be disrespectful and derogatory.
When Mormons use the term a-m, we are describing the behavior and belief structure of a certian qroup of people. That behavior is repugnant and undesirable, but our use of the term is not intended in most cases to show disrespect.
Only those Mormons who are uncertian of their own beliefs (don’t have a real testimony) will be afraid of a-ms and try to avoid them. The same is true of fo-mos.
A select few of us just love the debate and like to keep an open mind. We are secure in our testimony because God has answered our prayers on these matters in the affirmative. We can be patient until the rest of the world comes around to our way of thinking.
BorMorm said: “One of the unfortunate parts of being a Mormon on a &#@*site is that you are subject to getting the post ‘shut down’ on you at the discretion of the moderator.”
I think the statement could be re-stated again to say:
“One of the fortunate parts of being a Mormon on this pro-Mormon site is that the moderator allows Mormons great liberties that are not allowed Christians on Mormon sites/blogs.”
With motivated Mormons taking the charge given by the LDS leadership in the July 2008 issue of the Ensign to take the Mormon gospel to the internet, more Mormons than ever are doing this and creating their own blogs. I’ve already had the distinct pleasure of being kicked off an LDS blog because I asked serious questions and quoted LDS references right out of the book. One thread topic was entitled “I’ve Had Enough With the &$%@-Mormons” by a Mormon named “Clean Cut”. The Mormons there were cozy and engaging in “kissy-face” until I asked them some questions that made them think. Some teachings they had never heard of and were clueless. They had their own form of Mormonism. They heard the words of their prophets and apostles stated to them and now I am the problem and an &$%@-Mormon? I’m against them and attacking them for asking and stating the hard data? It’s an attack in the eyes of the Mormon if they have to move out of their comfort zone.
Christianity didn’t ask for this debate. Joseph Smith did when he wiped out Christianity in one verse (JS History 1:19). Mormons say that they are the only true church (D&C 1:30) and that Christians are “fools” for relying in the Bible completely (2 Nephi 29:3-4,6,10) and that we are the church of the devil (1 Nephi 14:10), but those statements aren’t anti-Christian? Christians have no choice but to rise up and defend the faith against false teachers. The Apostle Paul didn’t sit on his can and ignore the Jews and others in their false teachings throughout the book of Acts. The gospel is offensive to sinners.
So what is an @ mormon statement or activity? My sister-in-law ran into a woman she hadn’t seen in several months and asked her what she’d been up to. The woman told her she was taking the “lessons” from the MM. I gave my sister-in-law Jim Spencer’s book “Beyond Mormonism” and told her to have the woman read it. The woman got through half of the book and told the MMs to forget about it.
Now was that an @ activity? Jim’s book lays out his journey into and out of Mormonism. Actually his story is quite familar and has many of the same elements common to exMos. For example, learning after he had joined the program that these folks planned to become gods (that little detail was withheld from him), seeing the hypocracy in the organization, realizing that the “true” church has a lot of different sects all claiming to be the real restored church, and finding out all of the information regarding Joseph Smith history, the history of the church, the dubious claims and most importantly the major differences in the doctrines between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity. Is it @ for exMos to tell their stories?
If I know someone who is considering joining the Mormon church and I set them down and go through the history, doctrine and practices of the Mormon church, am I participating in @ activities? We are told several places in the Bible, most notably Jude to contend for the faith. Paul tells Timothy to confront men who are teaching strange doctrines.
As I’ve stated before, if Mormons weren’t trying to pass themselves off as the First Baptist Church, we Christians wouldn’t have to be pointing out what Mormonism is really all about. So if this is @, I’ll wear the label proudly.
Again, I don’t get it.
How many times have I tried to convey to my LDS colleagues my interested if someone were to come to me and discuss the historical validity of Jesus? I wouldn’t be offended if their Jesus looked different from mine, and I would be curious to understand why they thought so. The last thing I want is to have put my faith in a fantastic creation of my own imagination, and checking in with the critics can be a good tonic, if only to remind myself that he’s not ‘my’ Jesus at all.
However, I’ve always got that polite-but-not-interested look when I’ve tried to discuss JS and co.
The most adverse reaction I got was when I publicly quoted Brigham Young (something about “a man cannot become a god unless he enters into polygamy”). I speculate that it was at that point that my LDS boss decided that his other employees (who were mostly LDS members of his ward) should not be exposed to my “anti” comments any further. Afterwards, it seemed that no one would talk to me about these matters, though in all other respects it was business as usual.
I apologized for my blunder- I honestly had no idea how hurtful my comments were, though I might have conveyed too much frustration at my colleagues’ apathy in engaging with me. I thought that they devoutly believed BY. I thought they might welcome some robust discussion about what he said.
I was also concerned at how the LDS belief system might impact on equal opportunities at work, and being a minority shareholder in the business, it was my prerogative to find out. I hasten to add that I saw no evidence of discrimination, but when I heard my colleagues interpret Gen 1:27 as “God has a (male) body”, I thought “does that mean that women are not created in his image?” Or the salvation/polygamy thing – are women mere accessories in a man’s world? I had to enquire further, but I didn’t get far.
A couple of weeks later I was invited to look for work elsewhere, so I did.
Those of you who are contributing to this thread with views opposed to Mormonism may be right about one thing. We Mormons should be more vocal about the differences between our faith and others. We truly are completely different. Our views are very different. Our origins are different. Our doctrines are different. As I read the comments of the opposition I sit there with my mouth hanging open wondering where you get all of this stuff. Because I know it is wrong. The problem is that it is very hard for us to debate our view with others. The reason is that when we hear your views and accusations we know that there are answers that would explain our views. Because of your rhetoric we feel like we are just treading water and someone keeps dunking us under. You all are coming from a background that is based on misunderstandings about our religion. There are many answers. They are complex but easy to understand if given a chance. We really don’t believe in arguing about religion. Discussing is fine, but in a discussion there must be respect for the other people with differing views. That would mean no demeaning of what they hold sacred. You disagree, but you don’t malign. Obviously the Mormon church is based on the story of a revelation to a boy of 14 who prayed to know which church to join. We all know he was told to join none of the churches that existed. They were wrong and their doctrine off course (my words). Continued
Because this is the basis of the Mormon church, it bothered a lot of people back then and still does today. But what else would one expect? Noone likes to be told that what they believe is not right. We don’t like it, and you don’t like it. Who has the right to authoritatively make such judgements? Only God. And this is what we believe He did. You all come up with many reasons that seem to you to show that our church is not true. You are basing these things on misunderstandings. I know this because I understand the Mormon church. If you were right, Mormonism would have died off long ago. To us, our church is the only one that fulfills the prophesies about the Lords church. We have found that it doesn’t do any good to argue about our beliefs. We don’t teach anyone that way. People are not converted this way and noone is helped this way. Everyone usually comes away with bad feelings. So, we do care very much about others and would like to share the gospel in it’s fullness with everyone. But there are times to share and times to be patient and wait for a better opportunity. Our article of faith states “We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may.” This does not mean that we want to be separated from other people, and let them do what they want and we do what we want. We believe in our responsibility of teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ as it was restored, to everyone we can. But we do not want to put down others beliefs. For example, if I wrote an article calling the pope some sarcastic name, that would be disrespectful to Catholic beliefs, and wrong. If you want an honest discussion from Mormons, you need to be more respectful of what we hold sacred. We revere Joseph Smith as God’s mouthpiece to restore the Church of Christ. Sarcastic things you say about our sacred things will never engender openness.
If you can discuss our religion with respect to us, though you dislike our religion, we might have a good talk. State the problems you see without sarcasm and cutting words. We should do the same and Mormons who use these techniques are wrong. I’m sure I’ve let myself do it at times and it’s my mistake. Thanks for listening to all of this.
As I’ve stated before, if Mormons weren’t trying to pass themselves off as the First Baptist Church, we Christians wouldn’t have to be pointing out what Mormonism is really all about. So if this is @, I’ll wear the label proudly.
And that Mr.Falcon is a ‘tape-job’ home run. That, to me is exactly the point. I didn’t get off my couch to prepare for months to respond to Eckhart Tolle’s brand of watered down Zen-lite until it became obvious that he just HAD to drag Jesus and christianity into the mix, had to claim that only he,and he alone understood what Jesus REALLY meant by what he said, etc… and so with Mormonism, it presents and sells itself as the only true christianity, and all the other christianities out there, including mine, are FASLE (tho they will steer clear of that kind of clarity unless pushed, prodded, and provoked)
Not only is their message a “knock-off”, the weirdest parts are kept as tucked away as possible (milk before meat) as so we put an ‘edge’ to our questions out of necessity: HINCKLEY isn’t about to tell us (or the world at large) about eternal progression, so we have to drag the statement out of others unyielding lipstick covered lips. Shouldn’t be that way, but there it is. Nice job Falcon, must be the new guy (Rodgers) rubbing off on you. GERMIT
ROBYN: I respect PEOPLE, not necessarily views or beliefs, esp. when I’ve decided that they are both false and not life producing. JS was no different: the “abomination and corrupt” thing. Hopefully I disagree in a way that honors my claim to be a christian, I can’t recall maligning ANY of the posters here at MC. Maligning your leaders, past and present, is a different category altogether, and that will take a separate post to explain, but I’ll point out that MANY individuals are ‘maligned’ in the NT, for the purposes of pointing out serious error. THANK YOU FOR STILL JOINING US AT MC
Robyn,
I know this is going away from the topic at hand, but I know there are many of us here who would be forever in your debt if you could tell us how we are getting it wrong about Mormonism. I’m serious. What is it that the falcon is wrong about? Where would you like to start? I think you are relatively new here and by the way, very welcomed, but I have yet to have a Mormon tell me where I am wrong on Mormonism. I’ve invited Mormons over the months that I have been here to straighten me out. You know what? Their responses indicate that I do have it right they just don’t like a nonMormon saying it. So I’m sincere, please enumerate where the Christians who post here are getting it wrong on Mormonism.
According to Robyn, we’ve got it all wrong about Mormonism. She stated:
“We are completely different. Our views are very different. Our origins are different. OUR DOCTRINES ARE DIFFERENT.”
I appreciate the honesty because that is the truth. However, Christians aren’t supposed to react to those statements with stern words of rebuke in light of docrines that are very different than our own which are based on the teachings of the Bible instead of the teachings of Joseph Smith and his imaginary Jesus?
A Mormon on here sometime ago said that we should “love the Mormons BACK into the faith”. That “back” is the key word. Mormons have left the traditional teachings of Christianity. The LDS Church acknowledges that its teachings are very different than that of traditional Christianity. How are we supposed to love Mormons back into the faith without strong words of rebuke and critical analysis of the claims of Mormonism without somehow coming across as offensive? Was Jesus showing words of love and being non-offensive in Matthew 23:13-33 where he constantly used the words:
“Woe unto you…Ye fools and blind…blind Pharisee…ye are like unto whited sepulchres…are within full of dead men’s bones…Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
That is the Savior talking. Mormons don’t know their doctrines as was the thread on here in the past. What the average Mormon gets at the ward is “milk” (to use their favorite term). I’ve been studying the LDS manuals and scriptures for years. Somehow when I read from those manuals and scriptures to a Mormon I am an &$%!-Mormon, but if that Mormon reads them to me it’s not anti-Christian. Talk about hypocrisy (Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:27)! If it’s out of my mouth it’s wrong. If it’s out of the Mormon’s mouth it’s correct.
Doesn’t make sense to me. To quote the famous astronaut: “Houston, we’ve got a problem.”
This word “anti” is nothing new to the followers of Christ. I’m not seeing what is so offensive about the prefix. The Gospel tells us that there will be “anti-Christs” and that is what they are called. Those are the people that will come and pervert the Gospel of Christ. That term has been used for almost 2000 years now. It is used to show opposition to. I guess the “pro” prefix should be used instead, which someone will take offense to it. When discussing issues, it is not an easy task to nto offend someone. They are often offended just by their views, let alone if they feel they are labeled. You can’t make all of the people happy all of the time. Feelings get hurt, that is why we are to show love, when “discipline”(correction) is needed. Jesus Christ brought us a sword to use. We are to correct the errors, not just agree to disagree. Feelings are going to be hurt, that is part of the correction. Sorry if someone is offended, but part of being a disciple IS to teach the correct lesson for whom you are following. If you follow Christ, than it is HIS teaching that you spread, if it someone elses teaching, than you are his disciple. If your “teachers guide” is incorrect, than you are not teaching your students the truth. To teach that Christ is the only means of salvation, is “Pro-Christ”, if you merely use it to get your foot in the door, than you should expect to get the prefix “anti” brought to your attention. He fulfilled the Law for all of us, because we suck at it. W/LOVE
Robyn, would it change your understanding if a group fell out of Mormonsim, stating that they had received new revelation that the SLC temple was wrong and had itself gone apostate, introduced new doctrine, and continued to call itself the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Wouldn’t you a) take offense to their taking of your name b) be more concerned with the distortion (or what you view as distortion) of your beliefs c) strive to differentiate yourself out of truth and love for those who might wonder?
I bet you would.
Such is the case with Mormons taking the mantra of Christian, unapolgetically and without second thought and our subsequent reaction. It is about the name, but it is more about the beliefs behind the name. Just as in my hypothetical, using the same name does not necessitate holding the same beliefs. And for those who might be seeking, they may not be able to tell the difference.
Now why would the difference be important? If we are talking about the importance of God, and of eternal salvation, and if those seeking get the wrong information, they will be forever affected into eternity.
This works the same in the hypothetical.
See, to me, its about truth in advertising. While you may believe in Christ, by labeling yourself as Christian its as if you’re trying to sell someone a Ford by advertising a Chevy. Both are cars, but are not the same cars. So it is here: both are “Christ”, but they are different Christ’s.
Wanting to protect the identity of our God is hardly something that is unreasonable. Rather, it goes to the integrity of our faith to protect who is our Savior.
If the shoe were on the other foot, perhaps you would see the argument.
I asked Robyn on another thread to demonstrate specifically where we had “misunderstood” things about the LDS. So far she just keeps the repeating the accusation.
I tried a non-anti approach with a mishy on the phone last nite. I just said that if I prayed and believed the Book of Mormon was true I’d never join the Mormon church because it doesn’t teach Mormonism. I went to Alma 11 and my buddy Zeezrom and his questions. From the answers you only get ONE God and a triune understanding!! Not to mention all the other things (priesthoods, temples, work for the dead, eternal progression, preexistence, etc.) which are taught NOWHERE in the book. I said why don’t you give out the Doctrines and Covenants instead? The mishy said my point was good…so I gave him the true gospel and said I’m going to stick with that thank you very much.
However, Robyn, if your point about dying off is valid, why are the Community of Christ, Church of Christ Temple Lot, Strangites, FLDS, and all the other competing BoM believers still around if they are all false?
There’s an old saying in sales and marketing that goes “If I say it you can doubt me, but if you say it, it’s true.” I think that’s the problem and why we get labeled @nti when we make accurate statements about Mormonism. BEREAN related how he had two MMs over to his house and an older man they brought along for backup. BEREAN asked the man about progression to godhood. The man got infuriated and insisted the Mormon church taught no such thing. Finally, BEREAN confronted one of the MMs and the mishy had to give it up. Now does that make BEREAN @nti? The late great Mormon prophet GBH couldn’t even tell it straight on Larry King about the god progression doctrine. Was GBH @nti? I think the problem is that Mormons don’t like us to confront them with this stuff because it’s embarrassing and punches holes in the fantasy. It’s a lot more fun to believe that a kid of 14 went out into a grove of trees and had this visitation from God. When it’s questioned, you’re an @nti and have no testimony. If you’d just pray about it, so the story goes, you’d get confirmation that the whole program is true. When a long list of proofs are given regarding the BoM being bogus, you’re an @nti. The Mormon church gets all upset when the DNA evidence shows that Indians aren’t descendents of Jews. They come up with the most ridiculous explanations and then end up changing the introduction to the BoM. They must be @nti for doing it but since they’re doing it, it’s true. The bottom line is, Mormons believe it because they want to.
I’d be more than happy to answer genuine questions about our religion, but I don’t believe I have found any genuine questions on this website. Unfortunately, I get the sense that I am defending my beliefs from some pretty intense criticism. Germit- you mentioned that despite using similar vocabulary, our beliefs are very different. You’re right! And the reason why so many religions exist today is because of the different interpretations. HOw many different religions use the Bible, yet believe completely different things? (just an example). Also, i don’t think any of us would be enjoy being the victim of a suicide bomber, despite religious motives. Although your motives may be driven by your belief in preaching salvation to others… I think there are more attacks and attempts to disprove on this website, then there are to teach and share. You may claim otherwise, but as the one who is being attacked/criticized/questioned/etc., I think there is a different way you could go about “teaching the truth”.
One individual mentioned that Robyn (I agreed with her comments) wouldn’t answer the questions posed to her on another thread. I have asked questions on this thread that haven’t been answered, so I guess we’re all in the same boat. Maybe my questions were based on unimportant rhetoric or insignificant principles…
I would like to know what religion/sect/church falcon, germit, mike p, berean and ldsstitanic are a part of. I’d like to know more about your religions, and less about what you think about my religion.
Thanks guys…
regwoodyll: thanks for the ‘ping-back’. Have you noticed that I have said exactly nothing about my current religius practice except that I’m an ev. christian and (I’m hoping) orthodox?? Reg, that is as much as you are going to get out of me (unless God shows me otherwise) about my affiliation, because it’s NOT ABOUT MY SPECIFIC DENOMINATION. Specifically NOT talking about my group and my pastor drives that point home, in contradistinction to LDS, where the specific group, and specific men with specific offices and positions are the big deal. If you want to know WHY I don’t except your set up, I’d be glad to fill that in. I am adamant in presenting the orthodox alternative, but that does NOT mean that someone would have to fellowship where I do to be walking faithfully with God.
No genuine questions ??? Were you sick or out of town when we wanted reasons to believe from scripture or ancient history that the alleged restoration was exactly that?? Or do you think that kind of evidence gathering is just ‘the wisdom of men’ and ‘useless disputing’ or something like that?? As an aside, I know for myself I have often asked questions of the LDS here that got little or no response, but I’ve been guilty of the same sometimes, though I try. That ‘history channel’ thread is now closed, by the way, so save up the evidence or artifacts of your early church practices, that is a theme that will resurface.
As to different religions: we now have, I believe 110 offshoots of Mormonism, and counting. When your church is as old as orthodoxy, we could expect 1,100 different “mormon” churches, at the present rate. So welcome to the club, the differing religion thing proves what….??
I don’t know what the ‘suicide bomber ‘ comment is meant to show, there are crazies and whackos associated with quite literally every group of every flavor. Christianity has and will, have many strange folks doing things “in the name of God”. God allows that, we can take that up with HIM when we see HIM
reggie…here is a genuine question about your religion…why do the missionaries continue handing out the Book of Mormon when it does NOT teach Mormonism?
I have been asking this alot lately and getting no answers. The Book of Mormon teaches ONE God (Alma 11). Is there more than one God? NO!! That isn’t Mormonism. You also don’t find preexistence, eternal progression, temples, eternal marriage, Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthoods, etc. So why do they keep handing out a book that doesn’t have the “restored” stuff in it?
According to your prophet my religion is corrupt and my creeds are an abomination…so of what interest is my church affiliation? Another serious question…Blessings!
I’m sorry, i guess i didn’t do a good job in saying that I (and many other LDS faithful) will answer GENUINE questions. Germit, none of your questions were genuine… they were more like the pharisees, trying to stir up contention and argument. I’ll respond, you’ll refute, i’ll respond again, you’ll refute. Nothing genuine there my friend. Why have you chosen the LDS chrch to refute so vehemetly, and not some other? And please, no need to be abrasive and sarcastic with your responses. Thanks brother!
LDSSTITANIC- possibly more genuine, but you know my answer… The BofM teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ, not mormonism. Mormon’s (as they are popularly coined these days) follow the gospel of Jesus Christ. I guess that’s where some of your confusion is driven. So, the BofM teaches the gospel of christ and that’s why missionaries hand it out. If you have futher questions about that, i’d be happy to continue. I would also love to forward you a talk given by an authority of our church that will describe the “ONE God” issue. We believe that we have one God/Father in Heaven. I know where this is headed, but I’ll let you ask. Also, Preex, progression, temples, etc. are all a part of the gospel, and given the different accounts (Bible, BofM, Doctrine and Covenants and continuous revelation… yes, we believe that God still directs his people today by giving revelations to a prophet), you should be able to find ample explanations for all of them.
Last, of what interest is your church affiliation? A mere curiosity of mine. If i understood more about your beliefs, I could understand your questions more fully. Also, I wonder if you and the others share the same religious beliefs, or if a hatred/unhappiness/disagreement with the “mormon” faith is what has brought you all together to this website. This is my last post for the day, but I welcome genuine continuances to these questions and others.
Reggie,
Nice try.
In all sincerity, I think the motives of why you don’t criticize other faiths is in good faith. I just happen to think it is dishonest. Why? Because you think there is but one way to reach heaven (the highest heaven, of course, the CK) and that is through the restored Aaronic priesthood as taught by early Mormonism. Anything else is insufficient and the idea you present is “Close, but no cigar.” So, everything else is close, but wrong. Notice the wrong in that.
Also, while it is good to be respectful of other people, (and Paul says we must be all things to all people, meaning in part, to be respectful to all), we should never back away from talking the truth to be nice. Do you need a list of scripture where Jesus was nothing short of confrontational? What of Paul, or Peter? Standing up for the truth, and not saying nice things to draw people in (is there another reason why you aren’t more emphatic besides this that stands up solidly?) is what the Bible teaches. Being respectful is not the same thing, and we should not forget that.
I think many Mormons rest on the assumption that its better to be nice than to shout to the rooftops what it is they believe. I think if you were to get to know me, you would see I am not the type to shout, but I will be firm in what I believe and expose those that are wrong.
Finally, this site is critical of Mormonism. It raises questions about the faith. But it is very fair in its approach. You have a voice here to defend your faith, but don’t forget where you are.
If I were to go to a Mormon blog, would I not find myself outnumbered and perhaps feeling the same as you? Maybe, but I would not question the integrity of the site, rather I would acknowledge the majority of those who posted there.
BTW– my background? I just moved away from DC where I went to Mclean Bible Church, an independant but large and Bible based church). Personally, I follow Christ and not organizations.
to Robyn –
Yes, please share what exactly we misunderstand. Instead of making a blanket statement, how about you pick one specific example and we can all discuss it. Just saying “You don’t understand my religion so all your talk is false” is useless to dialogue.
I’ve attended a LDS ward for 5 years straight (all 3 meetings), so don’t think I know less than a kid in primary about the LDS faith. The sad thing is that in one day of reading historical LDS sources, I learned more about the deep doctrine that is hid inside the LDS closet, then I have learned in the countless hours I experienced in Gospel Doctrine. I even had a calling in 2 of the wards I attended (Activities committee). The average doctrinal/historical knowledge of a born and raised lay member is limited (from personal experience with aquaintences and those I am in some form of relationship with).
Robyn said “But we do not want to put down others beliefs.”
You are a bigger person than most of your founding prophets then. For some reason the phrase “they (Modern Christians and leaders) are some of the biggest whoremasters on the face of the earth” comes to mind.
Oops, I better be careful quoting your prophets, that anti activity right there.
Put yourselves in the shoes of someone who gets cut in line or replaced, saying “you are not good enough so I’m taking your spot.” Would you feel bad if you were the person cut and told that? Answer this question honestly.
That is how Orthodox Christianity feels about Mormonism. Joseph Smith claims that Modern Christianity isn’t good enough, or isn’t what truly saves. So are we to speak out and “contend earnestly for the faith” as the Bible commands? Or should we just back off to make people happy? It’s not about pleasing people. The truth doesn’t always feel good.
(continued…)
Orthodox Christianity will continue to contend. Joseph Smith started this fight, and God will finish it.
I know for a fact that Mormonism will continue to spread and continue to blur the line between what is taught in God’s Word and what is taught at the pulpit at General Conference. The LDS quite possibly are fulfilling the prophecy of the end times, in which there will be a famine of God’s true word.
I’m not going to fool myself into thinking Christianity will spread like wild fire and the earth will be one big happy Christian family, because that isn’t what the prophecies found in Scripture tell us. All this while, the LDS people think they are spreading God’s word, but in turn are vessels of deceit by Satan. This is not to say you are bad people, but I believe that you have been deceived.
What better way for Satan to steal the souls of men? Do you really think the ultimate deceiver would be straight forward in his attacks? He is much more cunning than we give him credit for. He will inject a poisonous gospel, denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, covering it in little bits of truth to make it go down easy.
reggie…I currently hold membership in a church which is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. However, I also attend a non-denominational inductive Bible study every week at a huge Southern Baptist church which has Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, you name it. I am a member of the Body of Christ and I profess the historic Christian faith…thats much larger than church buildings my friend.
Secondly…slow your roll…for now I’m ONLY asking about the BoM. According to the original edition of the Book of Commandments Joseph’s only gift from God was to translate that book. It claims to be the fulness of the everlasting Gospel and isn’t missing plain and precious truths like the Bible right? So why does it teach only ONE God. Not plurality (Smith said three personages…three Gods). Alma 11 says the Son IS the very Eternal Father…Smith says they are separate. I challenge you to find the word Elohim anywhere in the BoM. Where is baptism for the dead taught? Where is the celestial/telestial/terestrial kingdoms? Show me eternal marriage. Show me Jesus ordaining anyone to a priesthood. You don’t find Mormon distinctives in the Book of Mormon dude…that’s a problem in my mind. Right from the start the Three Witnesses say “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.” Gosh…that’s the trinity.
Here is the Book of Commandments…chapter 4, verse 24:2 “And now, behold this shall you say unto him:–I the Lord am God, and I have given these things unto my servant Joseph, and I have commanded him that he should stand as a witness of these things, nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me, that he should not show them except I command him and he has no power over them except I grant it unto him; and he has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.”
I remember quoting a Mormon prophet directly to a Mormon and was later told I was **** for simply reading that person’s words and asking questions about it. I checked my tone and words to make sure I wasn’t simply being contentious. Perhaps, instead of being angry over this lack of civil discussion, perhaps I can provide an example of a friendship I have with a Mormon:
I was reading a newsweek article: “Mormons and Evangelicals: How wide the divide?” and it had a small chart comparing Christian and Mormon beliefs. I showed it to my Mormon friend and asked her if these statements about the Mormon faith were true. She acknowledged that they were, though she pointed out a couple of errors in the article (for example, she said that Mormons don’t believe in a Trinitarian understanding of God at all, rather than having a different “take” on the Trinity). Overall, it was candid, honest, and forthright. Not wanting to lose the opportunity, I began to ask her other questions about other issues, like exaltation, and a heavenly mother. She was very honest, talking about exaltation in a very detailed way, and also explaining as detailed as she knew about a heavenly mother. Though she several times said that I should refer to Mormons as Christians, she was very honest about where we differed. It was a very open discussion, and the tone was uncontentious and comfortable. I also had the opportunity to explain why I didn’t believe what she believed, and she listened respectfully as I explained why I didn’t like the Mormon “n-word”, and she respectfully refrains (most of the time) from using the word. We’ve both also had our share all-out “conversion discussions”, where we both present impassioned, loving, polite appeals for our faiths, and we remain good friends. I thank God He’s set up such a good relationship between us, and I pray that He will use it to show her the error of her beliefs.
Sorry if that came across as bragging or something. I thought an example might help here.
To Nathan16
Congrats on having a civil discussion with your friend. I wish you more success than me.
Try as I might to do otherwise, I sincerely think my ex-colleagues think of me as an “anti”, therefore someone to avoid all engagement with. However, I cannot think of any way to talk about Mormonism without creating a sense of offence, especially as the worst thing I could do was to publicly quote BY.
I could weigh into the apologetics (Berean’s doing a great job in carrying that load), but I cannot bring myself away from the central issue that Mormonism is not what the LDS claim it to be. I have profound difficulties in squaring this with what I read in the Bible. I read 1 John this morning, “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you:God is light, in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 5). How do you square that the with secrets and misrespresentations of modern Mormonism?
My problem is that I can’t talk to my Mormon colleagues because I am an “anti”.
Moderator,
I was impressed with your fairness about my post, probably more than required in your comment policy. Underneath all of the controversy on both sides, I believe there are very good people on both sides of this issue. We are passionate, yes, but mostly sincere.
Not a lot of time. Hopefully more tommorrow.
Thanks again,
BornagainMormon
Reggie: Welcome to MC, if I haven’t said that already. I look forward to our interaction, knowing that if you want to respond to someone else, that’s your call, I’m not into manipulation or arm-twisting. I hope you find your time here well spent.
Why Mormonism for my focus?? I don’t have a snappy answer for that, but my first thot is that I’m not at all ‘locked onto’ the LDS: I’ve taught sunday school classes about (and AGAINST) various new agers including Debbie Ford and recently Eckhart Tolle. I’ve got my radar on the Oprah channel, she will assuredly churn out more false prophets, and I will likely do a class entirely on Oprah sometime this winter or next spring. Your group is large, growing, organized, vocal, and thoroughly against orthodoxy; that’s all the reason I need. I have no relatives , that I know of , in the LDS faith, except by marriage, and that person (a cousin , many miles away) is not part of my life and interaction. So, no sad LDS history here at all, and no sad new age history either, I approach this more on the worldview vs. worldview level. Sorry if this disappoints. Also, I have no official or denominational connection to anyone here at MC that I’m aware of. So our ‘partnership’ is purely born of the Spirit, or perhaps from the OTHER SIDE, if ours is the wrong message and direction. Nothing talked out, mapped out, or orchestrated, if that was your direction.
I hope you stay and find something useful here at MC, I would give you a nickel’s worth of counsel: you might want to grow a thicker skin (not a harder heart, I hope you know what I mean), because as Berean noted, we aren’t doing kid’s stuff here, so bring your A game, and expect to be challenged strongly. Hope this arrangement agrees with you. GERMIT
Germit-
Thanks for your thoughts. Just a quick note on them… First, I’m glad to hear you haven’t had a sad LDS story. This pleases me. Second, my curiosity about denominational connection was simply that… curiosity. I wondered what brought people (non LDS people) to this website. You say purely born of the spirit or from the other side. I’m sure our opinions differ on that standpoint, but once again, it was just a curiosity. I find it interesting that some many people from denominations that teach different things (not only different from LDS… but different from each other) come together to refute our religion, instead of battling out their own differences. I’m sure my suggestion is far from possible in your minds, but just an honest, logical thought. However, i did not assume that you all were orchestrated… unless by the “other side” 🙂
The reason why i am here is to clarify and defend what i believe to be true, not to argue and contend. IT’s not a competition for me, but i do get offended when people create lies about me and my belief system. THere will always be things that people don’t understand and don’t agree with, and that’s just fine. My skin will remain thick and I’ll continue to add (subtract) as much as i can to your website. Oh, and since you aren’t doing kids stuff, i’ll leave my legos at home. Thanks for the advice.
Michael P- Very nice part of the country, and a good group of LDS folks out there. I’d love to introduce you to a couple that would also be willing to have open conversations with you. No silly, not the missionaries…
…oh, and I’ll try to remember where I am. Thank you for your advice.
Now for my advice… i would advise other’s to be cautious of false accusations and ill intentions. Before you post something in reference to another’s beliefs… dig deep, and really think about where that is coming from, and why you’re sying what your saying.
Robyn,
It was with great interest and sadness that I read your long post. It’s not an issue of being nice, respected or liked; it’s an issue of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified on the cross for your sins, and that you would be justified by your faith alone if you truly believed in the saving grace of Jesus Christ. It is not an issue of whether or not we like Mormons or even Mormonism for that matter, but it’s an issue of obeying the great commission to make disciples of all people, and that entails preaching against heretical doctrines, which is the basis for the New Testament. Initially, I was going to react to your blatant statement that the Christian beliefs posted here are wrong. I wonder if you truly wanted to know what it meant to be saved by grace. You see, our works are filthy rags, and we are only righteous because Jesus imputes His righteousness onto us. Unfortunately, I would have to say that Mormons do their fair share of arguing, debating, whatever word you want to use, but ultimately can only fall back onto a testimony that is not undergirded by the truth of the scriptures, but by feelings and experiences that generally fall into the category of folk theology. These words might be tough to stomach for Mormons, but these words need to be said. The truth is that Jesus Christ came to the earth and died for you, and all you have to do is believe it. After that, any works of righteousness done through you as a vessel of God’s grace is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit–not because of you. You cannot make yourself worthy by doing good works and through obedience; they only show evidence as fruits of the Spirit that you are a genuine believer. Sadly, JS et al have you believing that your works will indeed merit you something. This is anti-biblical teaching. That’s what we fight against. Unfortunately, your leaders are in the path of this war that Paul describes in Ephesians 10:12 because they are false prophets.