When Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard called on members of the LDS Church to defend their faith on the Internet, I immediately thought to myself that this will probably end up badly. It seems that I am not the only one who has noticed.
In December 2007, Ballard bemoaned what he saw as an abundance of outsiders defining what the LDS Church teaches. He called on members to no longer “stand on the sidelines” and urged them to join in the conversation by using what he called “the modern printing press,” the Internet. As faithful followers, many have done so, and in many cases it hasn’t been pretty.
Ballard’s marching orders came with a set of “things to avoid,” but sadly, many Latter-day Saints have ignored his counsel. Instead of utilizing the admonition of Proverbs 15:1, many Mormons have responded with personal attacks against those who question Mormonism’s truth claims.
In a commentary published in the February 27, 2009 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune, Ken Kuykendall writes how “Mormons have taken the mandate to new heights, commenting on every possible story. All too often, they forget Ballard’s advice about civility. At times, LDS commenters on sites such as The Salt Lake Tribune’s can be shrill, self-righteous, dismissive and downright insulting. They egg on the critics, rather than persuade them. Even with strong opinions on controversial topics, it doesn’t have to be that way.” I concur with Kuykendall’s assessment. You can be firm and passionate about your position and still convey it with a respectful tone.
I’ve seen Kuykendall’s example expressed too many times on Mormon Coffee. This site is meant to be a forum for an intellectual exchange of ideas around the subject of Mormonism. I am amazed at how many (certainly not all) Mormons respond when their faith is challenged. I personally view Mormon Coffee as a type of house where participants are invited guests. People who understand this concept should also appreciate the fact that there should be a certain level of decorum that demonstrates appreciation for the invitation. I am not at all against pithy comments or tongue-in-cheek remarks, but outright name calling and innuendo regarding a person’s intelligence level have no place here. We have tried to curtail this by implementing rules and even reproof to offenders, but it appears that some see no problem in being bad houseguests.
Please know that I am not defending or ignoring similar conduct by non-Mormons. This is certainly not a one-sided problem. I understand we are all human and prone to let our emotions get the best of us. Sadly, because blog responses are usually done in a rapid-fire manner, many participants don’t let their rebuttal cool off as they might with a regular letter or email. I know I am not completely innocent of this. In fact, as I write this the Holy Spirit is reminding me of when I have been less than careful in how I express myself.
From now on we are going to “raise the bar,” an expression of which I am sure Mormons and non-Mormons are very familiar. We are going to continue to assume commenters are mature enough to police themselves; however, if someone wishes to disrespect their invitation by using ad-hominem on other participants, their entire comment will be removed and they will not be allowed to post for seven days. After three infractions your invitation will be revoked and you will no longer be welcome to participate at all. Now some will say, won’t this be rather subjective? Yes it will. So the best advice I can give is keep it as civil as possible, and you won’t notice a thing.
So please, come share your thoughts, but let us do so in a manner that honors what we claim to be.
Cool, Bill.
I’ve had a nice break from the coffee house, but I’m also glad to see it up and running again. 🙂
I’m glad for the new rules, but can I offer a suggestion? Instead of banning someone after 3 strikes, how about ban them for 2 months, then before allowing them to post, ask them in private if they have moved on or would like to come back.
If they want to come back after a 2 month period, then let them, but let it be known, 1 problem, then they will be banned again for 2 months. I know on both sides people can be a pain, but yet at the same time, some of these people who can be pains can also defend their position.
It really would be sad to lose someone forever even if they had 3 strikes. I say this since Jesus does punish even His own, yet He also did say forgive 70X70 times A DAY. I’m all for giving out a stern rebuke or punishment, yet lets also leave some room for grace, A two month period. What are your thoughts? Rick b
Excellent words, Bill. I don’t see this problem as being exclusively Mormon, nonMormon, or Mormon Coffee. Our whole cultural exchange has gotten quite shrill, demeaning, sarcastic, and even threatening. I applaud your efforts to still allow us posters to police ourselves, and I also see your warnings and admonishments as appropriate and the punishment of partial or full banishment as reasonable. I hope it doesn’t come to that, because I like the give and take.
At a risk of requesting too much transparency, how do you rate the topics of the last week. Do you guys in hindsight think you might have crossed some lines? I am not the best self critic, and while nothing stands out from my perspective, and I found them valuable to my own understanding, I could learn from your wealth of experiences and perceptions.
Thanks for all your efforts. I flew through the airport earlier today, and wished I could have stopped and seen you. Take care and God bless!
Rick, I’ll take your suggestion under advisement. But I admit I am a bit wearied by all this.
Ward, If you are referring to the articles themselves I wouldn’t say we crossed any lines although we did push some thought-provoking envelopes.
Again, we are not saying participants can’t be passionate, but let us all do so without letting sinful emotions get the best of us.
Bill,
I don’t think I’ve ever had to sit on the MC Naughty Chair, but I will admit, I do have a way of getting under the skin of our Mormon posters by pushing the envelope about as far as I can. You should see what I delete from my writing. I have a general rule not to get into a “back-and-forth” with Mormon posters because that’s when things get personal and competiveness sets-in. As an aging athlete, I get this.
But MC has given me an opportunity to do a lot of study and research and also to learn about the emotion/psychological mindset of Mormons. I try to write to get the Mormon lurkers’ attention and maybe provoke them in a way that’s motivating for them to do some research themselves.
Finally, to be honest, I really didn’t think things had gotten that bad on MC as far as the comments go the past week or so. Maybe I’ve got thick skin or can easily dismiss what I judge as rude remarks that really have nothing to do with the topic but has more to do with trying to put another poster in his place. But I think for those of us for whom this blog has become a community, I think we need to police it ourselves. I do this by planned ignoring hoping that extinction will set in (see B.F.Skinner).
Hey Bill,
I do understand you and maybe a few others are getting weary, but I figure if you boot someone for two months, Then they either will simply get weary of waiting and go away, Or if they are really serious about staying they will I believe stay and wait, then be better behaved. Just a thought, Rick b
Bill said “I personally view Mormon Coffee as a type of house where participants are invited guests”
…not unlike the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, perhaps? (Rev 19:19, see also Luke 14:8)
When I read these passages I think that if I start to consider myself as deserving my “seat”, I’ve lost the plot. I am, and always will be, an invited guest at God’s table.
Wow,
This really answers the question I asked recently to LDS members. “Why do you come to MC?” given that it appeared to be in conflict with one of the temple worthiness questions.
I say if you aren’t enjoying the conversation, you don’t need to do it. When I was involved with the LDS faith, the leaders always challenged members to share the faith, invite people to church or read the BOM. They always made that seem so easy. I remember doing that, and more than 99% of the time it did not go well. Most responses were like “oh not that again” or “I already believe in x,y or z”, or that they just aren’t interested. But its kind of strange just how much of an impression that made on people. I haven’t attended LDS services for more than 20 years, but people still refer to me as a ‘mormon’.
I was so suprised, because as first it sounded like such a criticism. But in fact it was said with a large degree of respect, all the while maintaining a certain distance due to differences in opinion and belief. I was the most suprised when my best friends parents made so much fun of the LDS faith. That was so difficult for me as a teenager. But many years later they said that I was the only person that was a good influence on their son, everyone else he made friends with took advantage of him, or got him involved with things which were not good for him.
The internet is a bit different because I don’t have to see you face to face if I don’t want to, or talk to you on the phone, or be friends. I guess thats always been the truth even before the internet, but that more removed aspect can potentially lead to more abuse. There have been cases of people committing suicide after having been exposed to abusive language in a blog, and because it was a minor, it did lead to a court case. So, its pretty real to recognize that there is some emotional damage that might happen. This could happen even with the best intentions.
I am glad for the time out and notice to reconsider attitudes on this site. Certainly, I have had my moments of disrespect, and reached a cresendo just last week. It is difficult in such a forum and discussing such a topic to keep everying on the up and up all the time, though. This presents a real problem for those who run it because in an attempt to put forth their ideas must contend with not only a public with whom they know little (even if most who post here have been here for sometime) about but two sides that are vehemently opposed in their beliefs.
It is a very difficult thing to tell someone their faith, and their lives, are based on something that we see as horribly wrong, and it must be very difficult to hear it. I can only imagine what it is like to believe in something so much and so strongly that you base your entire life on it, and your wife’s and kids’ and family’s rely to some degree on your faith in this system. That’s a heavy load, and to see it spoken of in the way it is here must be tough.
Believe me, I am sensitive to that. However, truth is the truth, and it must be told. That said, how it is told makes a huge difference in how it is received. And for that we must respect the other persons reliance on faith. But respecting the reliance on the faith does not mean we must allow the actual faith to go unchallenged.
It is this balance that must be sought– seeking after the truth while delivering it in a way that is not offensive.
So, it must then be asked– how is that achieved with a group who thinks anything contrary to what they’ve been taught is a misrepresentation? In all honesty, I’d love to hear a Mormon respond to that question: how can your faith be presented in a way that is not, in your mind, misrepresenting what you believe? (Keep in mind that when I ask this that we have access to the same sources of information.)
St. Crispin,
If I dare, can I ask you the question I just posed? How can we describe what we honestly see in your faith to you without being accused of misrepresenting your faith?
I also ask you to review your post and see the emotion frought within in it.
I am not trying to be mean spirited here, but I do ask that you look inward and really consider what it is we are trying to do. You seem to think it is out of malice and hatred for you, but that is not it at all, at least for me.
I really do have a passion for my faith, and I hope that you can experience the same passion I see in my own faith. I also see your faith as off base, and hope to teach you in why this is. I do not hate you, nor do I hate Mormons.
In fact, I have several good Mormon friends our here in the real world. Have I discussed some of these issues in person? Yes, but I do not force anything down their throat. There is absolutely a level of cordiality between us and our faiths.
The point of that is to suggest to you that we are not evil here or hell bent on proving you wrong. Rather, we are here to show to you that another way of viewing your faith exists.
I understand that accepting that very simple notion can be difficult because in this forum it is your faith under fire. But is there anything wrong with this attitude? I don’t think so. I don’t think so because there is nothing wrong with telling others what you think, and there are other forums offering different points of view. I also don’t think there is anything wrong with it because you do not have to accept what we say. We may get forceful, but think about how you affect that forcefulness. In other words, do you ratchet up the rhetoric, or do you keep it civil? Why or why not? In the same way you accuse us, how do you expect us to react when you accuse us?
Feel free to answer these or not on this forum, but I do hope you consider these thoughts.
MichaelP,
I think the main point of this present article is the ad hominem attacks on people or a group of people. Like calling someone (or a group) an idiot, fool, dumb, etc. Or the off-hand snide remarks about a person’s capabilities.
To show some examples this was Aaron’s last comment on the last blog –
To tell someone they believe in a lie is not the problem. We have 2 parties (sometimes 3) that have strong opinions on what is correct and what is not. There is no way around it, and if someone does not like being told that they believe the wrong thing then they should not be here.
As far as misrepresenting our beliefs, if you listen to what we say and accept it, instead of trying to push what you think the ‘underlying doctrine’ is, then things would be a lot easier. As I keep saying, the underlying doctrine of salvation through faith despite works means that once one accepts Jesus they can do what ever they like, even murder, rape, etc and they will still be saved. Now I know that is not what you believe nor do you teach, but if we go to the underlying doctrine, that is how it is interpreted.
Case in point, the ‘Min = LDS God’ that was presented is a misrepresentation. I have given an explanation about this using evidence and the fact we have never taught nor acknowledged Min as our God on ‘BoA part 2’ and ‘Coats of Skin’. But especially given the last points, for someone to claim that they have done much research into the LDS faith, but then to go and claim this is true is a gross misrepresentation of the LDS church.
Michael P,
“How can we describe what we honestly see in your faith to you without being accused of misrepresenting your faith?”
That might be very, very difficult. How one views ones personal belief can be something very different from how another views those same beliefs. I will give MC some credit. I feel more engaged in a discussion here than at a ProLDS blog I once posted to. I never really felt like I was engaged in a discussion. It also was ‘ok’ on that site to make personal attacks on people who disagreed with LDS doctrine. Of course there probably is an official rule against it, but what constitutes a personal attack is pretty objective to a particular blog.
“It is a very difficult thing to tell someone their faith, and their lives, are based on something that we see as horribly wrong, and it must be very difficult to hear it.”
When I was an active LDS member I honestly didn’t even understand what a fundementalist christian was even saying, let alone be able to objectively review it. I think I am more able at this time, but there are a lot of things which I just simply do not get at all.
LDS church teachings are infused with particular terminology which can make an objective discussion difficult or impossible. Fundementalist christians have their own terms as well, which can be difficult to understand. Some examples: I never understood the part about ‘accepting jesus’, when I was LDS that was a given. Being ‘saved’ is generally not used, instead members talk about ‘receiving t
My experience being raised LDS was filled with paranoia, everyone was out to get anyone LDS. These were the ‘later days’ after all, and the enemy was active in promoting the destruction of the Church and its values. That was a blanket concept that applied to anyone and everyone outside of the church. I honestly could not tell the difference between a fundementalist christian telling me it was wrong, and a ‘stoner’ criticizing me. Emotionally it felt the same to me.
cont…
Being ‘saved’ is generally not used, but instead members generally talk about their ‘testimony’. I never really made the connection that was sort of ‘equal’ for mormons to being saved until I actually was not active. Its a different concept for sure because mormons don’t really believe that one is instantly saved.
Backsliding? the equal is ‘inactive’. Hell? generally not mentioned unless someone is doing something really bad, then it is brought forward.
Being told you have been believing something false most of your life? That is something difficult for sure. Have you ever had someone really pin you down on something you held sacred, and you thought you knew for sure?
Ralph,
I was going to post this a few days ago before the blog was shut down so I’ll just have to post it here since you again made reference to my article.
You mentioned my logic. Why? We ought to be talking about Joseph Smith’s logic or the lack thereof since he obviously didn’t use any nor good common sense when he decided to “wing it” on his descriptions/explanations of the figures in the BoA facsimiles. If he was a prophet of God he would have known what the real meanings were and it would have also been revealed to him that one day his blunders would be known by all the world in 1967. Is the Mormon god in the business of making mistakes and then telling Mormon leaders in 1880 to make the Pearl of Great Price scripture? It’s all about Amos 3:7, right Ralph?
Ralph, I think you need to give my article another read-through. I know that the Mormons don’t call Min their god – directly or intentionally. I made that point again in part 4 where I said:
“When Mormons enter their temple to do temple ordinances, are they worshiping the Egyptian gods found in their own scriptures? Joseph Smith’s pagan god is an exalted man. If Mormons follow the god that Joseph Smith revealed to the world in the King Follet Discourse, then they are offering up their prayers to a god that is an idol…a false god.”
What you don’t know is that in the pre-edited version of that 4 part series I went into detail listing out the connections and similarities that Mormons would use in the facsimiles to show relevance to LDS meanings. The editors decided to not include that.
Ralph,
I was fine with the staff at MRM doing the editing. They did a great job. You and the other devout Mormons have no idea how sensitive the staff at MRM is to your concerns and how the material was going to be presented. Like I said, many people looked over this long before it went out. Do you think this would have been put forward if it had not been a fair presentation of the material based on researchable facts? Please, use your own logic here and give the rest of us some credit for not willfully presenting something that was a load of crap to make ourselves look like fools and the laughing stock of the Christian world. I’m not using a screen name here either so I’m putting my integrity on the line.
With that said, one of the LDS bishops here in my hometown read the article. He knows me and he quickly contacted me to discuss the material. Needless to say, he wasn’t happy reading it, but he did tell me:
“I read your posts regarding the Book of Abraham on Mormon Coffee. As is typical for you, the article was carefully researched and passionately argued. I can’t say I “enjoyed” reading it–the suggestion that the God I have loved and worshiped is Min is not an altogether welcomed one–but I always appreciate your forthrightness.”
Needless to say, this has caused quite a stir here locally for me so I’ve been busy. I don’t hide behind a screen name so I’m putting it out there. Again, I know that Mormons aren’t praying to Min. The point I was making in that series was this:
1. Joseph Smith incorrectly identified the characters in the facsimiles
2. He also filled in with his own drawings incorrect pictures
3. He didn’t know what he was doing
4. He said that figure 7 “represented God” and that figure is an Egyptian pagan deity who likes sitting around with his junk hanging out. For me, that is blasphemous to even think it – much less say it.
5. The parchments bought from Chandler aren’t the writings of Abraham
What does all of this talk about Min have to do with the Mormon god? Is there any similarity? Mormonism teaches that their god is united in celestial marriage to a “mother in heaven”:
God the Father is married and there is a Mother God (Answers to Gospel Questions, Joseph Fielding Smith, Vol. 3, pp. 143-144)
If Mormons are to believe former Mormon apostles such as Orson Pratt among others than their god is also a polygamist. After all, plural marriage as outlined in D&C 132 will begin in the Millennium according to Mormon beliefs because exaltation is not possible by not engaging in this “holy practice”.
“Obviously the holy practice [plural marriage] will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578)
“We have now clearly shown that GOD THE FATHER HAD A PLURALITY OF WIVES, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as his only Begotten in this world.” (Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 172)
The Mormon god resides on/near Kolob (Facsimile No.2, Figure 1 explanation). There with his wife/wives he is sexually active constantly procreating the spirit children to be born on the earth. Min is sexually active all the time too so that is the common link between the two of them. Mormonism must draw some comparison for it to be relevant. Mormon intellectuals fully realize the underlying message being delivered here, but the common LDS ward attendee hasn’t a clue about what is being said in this portrayal.
Ralph, this is just one connection. The LDS bishop that I know here in town gave me even more unbelievable statements as he tried to show relevance even from the Bible to justify Joseph Smith’s calling figure 7 who is an Egyptian god on Egyptian Viagra a “representation of God”. It really boggles the mind the desperation!
Ralph,
I’ll give you another connection and this one is from me and not the local LDS bishop. I know you’re going to love/hate this one. If you recall reading about the background in Egyptian paganism on Min, then you remember that Min was constantly filled with lust and wanted sex all the time even if it meant incest. You might say that this god’s god was sex. That’s kind of a brain twister I know. Anyway, the Mormon god and his wife (mother in heaven) procreated all the spirit children of the earth, correct? Correct! The Virgin Mary was supposedly one of them. Uh oh…do you mean? Yep!
“The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph HAD ANOTHER HUSBAND.” (Brigham Young, JOD, Vol.11:266)
“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been ASSOCIATED TOGETHER IN THE CAPACITY OF HUSBAND AND WIFE; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the LAWFUL WIFE OF GOD THE FATHER; we use the term lawful wife, because it would have been blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF HUSBAND, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another, for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct.” (Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 158)
Incest – another similarity between Min and the Mormon god. You okay with that, Ralph? Are you still willing to risk your eternal destiny on this kind of “theology”?
Ralph,
You know what I find amazing? It’s what you said in reference to Acts 17:22-23. It’s almost word-for-word what the bishop here in my town said. I would go look up where the two of you got this line, but I’ve run out of time for one night. I’m betting it comes from McConkie’s New Testament Commentary. In our offline discussions you found out that the LDS Church is not telling you the truth about the history of the doctrine of the Trinity because you read the writings of the Christian church Fathers prior to A.D. 325 for yourself! My point? Thanks for asking…you can’t believe what you hear at the ward or at Conference and don’t let somebody else do your thinking for you. The Mormon First Presidency and Apostles don’t have a clue about the Bible. They have no formal training or education on the Bible. Their secular jobs taught them about banking, law, medicine and flying commercial jets.
What was Paul saying in Acts 17:22-23? Paul understood that within Greek paganism the Greeks were superstitious so much so that the Greeks had an unknown god, who covered for any god that may have been neglected or even mentioned. This unknown God Paul then declared to them to be the Creator, Savior and Judge of the world. Paul was announcing to them that he knew the real God who was unknown to the Greeks in spite of their outward form of religion which was blatantly false.
The Mormon god is a false god/idol – a figment of Joseph Smith’s magically crazed mind. Joseph Smith couldn’t control his sexual urges so his created god will follow suit. That’s Joseph Smith’s logic. I strongly urge you to take a look at that logic – not mine. I didn’t create a religion. I’m only trying to expose the heresy of this religious travesty so you don’t spend eternity in the lake of fire with Joseph Smith. I can only hope that you and other Mormons haven’t seared their conscience too far in that they can’t be reached. All I can do is pray your LDS blinders be removed from your eyes.
Good job Andy. I’m glad you had an opportunity to do some clarification here regarding the excellent four part article you wrote. I know the Mormons don’t worship Min, but the mention of it should at least get them thinking about Joseph Smith’s abilities, spiritual or otherwise, to translate ancient documents. I really laugh when I hear some of JS pronouncements thinking to myself what a blow-hard this guy was. He’d just shoot off his mouth with great confidence and the true believers would suck it all up. The guy was a real snake oil salesman.
Really what we are talking about here on MC is the power of persuasion. We see in Acts where Paul would always go to the Jews first and if they rejected the message, then he’d go to the gentiles. I’m often struck by the verse somewhere in Acts where it says “….and all who were appointed to eternal life were saved.” Can I really persuade anyone?
I know it doesn’t help the cause of Christ when we aren’t somewhat polite but there is a place for pointed and targeted arguments in defense of the Gospel. But really, I can’t imagine wanting to believe something so bad that I’d surrender my integrity to keep the ruse going in my own mind.
I’m really glad to see this issue brought up. I posted on here quite often last year, but have stayed away partly because I got tired of angry snide remarks between the both sides. I do still lurk on occasion though.
Ralph,
I am not sure you understand my points. I know that ad hominem is an issue here, and I do not support that But I also think there is a line that is very unclear as to what is acceptable to Mormons in how we present your faith. And some, when it is perceived that we are speaking malisciously, lash out with attacks of their own. (The problem is not one sided.)
But that line that I speak of, if I can give my own interpretation of what you said is this: we are to accept what you say explaining your faith without question. When we see inconsistencies we cannot bring them out because that will be misrepresenting your faith?
That, in an honest debate, cannot exist because it is not debate. I know you don’t see it that way, but it is really a way to shut down questions and to discourage truth seeking. It is a heavy handed way to stop people from questioning without sounding so heavy handed.
Again, I do not mean to sound harsh with that. As to my side, you can question it all day and as harshly as you want– and I will continually support it. I will not tell you to stop misrepresenting my faith if you see it in the way you do. That’s because if you see it that way, you are not misrepresenting my faith; rather, you are describing what you see. What you see may not be true, but it is not an intentional misrepresentation. Do you see this difference between what I have decsribed?
Enki, thanks for the thoughts. To answer your last question/point first, yes I have been engaged with those who belittle my faith. Its no fun, so yes, I can relate.
And I agree about the terminology point, and I try to be careful to be sure we talk about the same things when we talk. “Saved” is one of those terms, as is grace, mercy, and Trinity along with a host of others. But it is interesting how Mormons use the line that if you want to undersand a faith, ask someone of that faith what it means but rarely apply that to traditional Christianity.
Enki, I think it is difficult to ascertain the line as to what is acceptable to discuss and what is not. Ralph gave an answer, and I appreciate that answer, but in an open discourse, I am not sure it helps.
Andy, I hope your dscription clarifies what was intended and meant. I hope LDS accept it for what it is, and that they do not lash out.
OK Andy,
I did read the full series but missed the section in part 4. However, I also didn’t mention names. Because of your article series, another person is saying outright that we LDS worship Min. This person is another one I am addressing my comments towards.
Believe it or not, but I came up with that explanation myself about comparing what Paul said with what is in the BoA. I have not seen or read it anywhere else, so if you know where I can find a better version please tell me so I can use it at a different time.
I disagree with your interpretation of the quotes you gave but then again you know that. You most likely know the arguments I will use and have not accepted them so I will not waste your time.
Falcon,
So do you believe in destiny? That all things have been determined by God before this earth was created, including who will be saved and who wont? I know many Christians who believe this way. Or do you believe that we have our choice and that we, not God, determine which path we follow? I just want to know what you believe after that comment you made.
Michael said
I cannot respect a faith that leads millions to hell and eternal death, Also when many people say, we need to speak in such a way that we do not offend, That can at times be next to impossible.
Jesus spoke the truth and never sinned in speaking the truth, yet people were offended. Jesus made a whip of Cords and spanked people as it were yet never sinned, yet if I did that today, People on all sides would freak.
I believe in many ways we can speak the tough truth that needs to be spoken with out using ad hominem, but yet in some ways, even believers dont not want us to speak the truth in the way that it needs to be done, lest they get offended.
I really believe to many believers care more about what others think, then what needs to be said, and then they attack the other believer.
It’s been said many times, Christians shoot their own. My pastor says, I would rather be rude enough to get someone into heaven, that polite enough to let them go to hell.
Now I know some believers are going to mis-understand me here, so let me say again, I’m not saying lets use ad hominem attacks, But lets not hold back on speaking the truth either, simply because someone might get offended.
I also want to add, many LDS say we Christians are misrepresenting their faith. To some degree you guys bring that upon yourselves.
Many Ex mormons here and Christians tell stories of speaking with LDS leaders or MM’s who say, Our church teaches, X-Y or Z, yet then other LDS come here and say, No we dont. Cont.
Cont,
Lots of Christians are just going by what LDS have told us, so it seems in many cases you guys do not agree with each other. Rick b
As a former Mormon, I have often thought about the question of whether or not I was praying to a false god all my life. I have concluded that I was praying to the True and Living God despite the fact that my perception of Him was wrong because of the teachings and theology of the LDS Church. When I cried out to God and confessed that I did not know anything with regard to my Mormon testimony, the True and Living God responded. I had never heard of Min and, therefore, never prayed to such a false god. The issue is that I viewed God through faulty lenses, and that God was patiently waiting for me to respond to His grace in my life that brought me to my knees and to the point of confessing that I did not know if JS was a prophet, etc. Confession is a good thing, because it is the response of a broken soul who realizes his utter nothingness in the presence of a holy and powerful God who can do as He so pleases because of His Sovereignty. We are blessed in that He wants us to know Him in an intimate relationship. He wants us to know the truth about Him–and yet, in this life, there will always be mystery about Him. JS taught a lot of fallacies regarding the history of God and His character. God wants to bring the world to the truth about Him, and that is what we try to do here in an evangelistic effort to reach the Mormons. I would say that anyone who didn’t care about the Mormons wouldn’t be on this site so passionately trying to reach them. Unfortunately, our passion often leads to tactics that misrepresent our heart. Also, for those who are not former Mormons, it’s difficult to grasp fully the process of admitting to believing lies, finding yourself not trusting anyone because of the lies you have believed, and then coming to the realization that you have ultimately lost your trust in God. I have been away for a while, because I have decided that I have become too attacking, which means my passion has begun to rob me of my compassion. Peace and blessings to you all.
Ralph,
If I may rephrase your question, I think what you are asking is if I believe in predestination or election. Let me say that I don’t have a clue about predestination or election as to it’s explanation of how people come to Christ. I see it mainly as an interesting intellectual exercise. What someone believes about it doesn’t determine if they are somewhere within the orthodox circle of Christianity, in my view. It’s one of those topics that I’ve studied quite thoroughly and shrugged my shoulders and said “Who knows?”.
In the early part of the 19th century, Charles Finney caused quite a stir by what was called “new measures”. Basically Finney would preach and in the front of the church was something called the anxious bench. That’s where people would sit during Finney’s preaching if they were feeling uneasy about the status of their souls. The staunch Calvinists were quite critical of Finney because he was basically having people come forward in the meeting and receive Christ as their Savior.
Quite interestingly Finney, who I believe came from roughly the same geographic location and time as Joseph Smith, also had gone to a little grove of trees and had Christ revealed to him. He said it was like a river of liquid love pouring over him. Unlike Joseph Smith, Finney became a great preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ while Smith became the founder of an aberrant cult. Finney followed Christ, Smith invented a new Christ, a new god, and a different Gospel. One led folks to eternal life, the other eternal damnation. What role does election play in the lives of these two polar opposites, I don’t know. But it’s interesting to ponder.
Rick, I agree with most of what you say. However, I think there is a line to be crossed where on the other side your audience is lost.
In the quote you posted by me, I say this: the truth must be told! In fact, I begin with that declaration. I do follow that with questions about the delivery, not the message. These two ideas need to be separated– the truth cannot be changed, but the message can be.
In delivering the message, it is important to realize your audience. Your audience matters. Not only that, but the audience is made up of individual people with a lot riding on their ideas. It is these people to whom you are talking to and to whom you must be aware of. They place their lives on their ideas, and if you blow off any respect for the people themselves, you’ve lost them.
This does not mean that you respect their ideas. Again, the person and the ideas, while tightly intertwined, are still separate. If you attack the person, you are more likely to lose them, but if you stay focused on the ideas, they may just listen.
This is hard to do, since these ideas are so strong in a person’s life. But it is not impossible. Telling someone who has a picture and a certificate stating he and his wife are eternally wed in a prominent place on their wall that they are not eternally wed does get to the heart of their relationship and their dreams. It is indeed personal, and that is why I think it better to move forward with caution rather than abandon in such a situation.
As a long time lurker on this blog, I’m glad to see this issue addressed. Hopefully, we can continue to debate in a passionate and compassionate way. I might even join in with a comment or two now!
Grace and Peace!
Andy,
“God the Father is married and there is a Mother God (Answers to Gospel Questions, Joseph Fielding Smith, Vol. 3, pp. 143-144)”
Mormons dodge statements about things like that because they are just opinions of a person. Apparently church leaders sometimes speak their own opinions, and sometimes speak actual doctrines that the church should adopt. It doesn’t make sense to me. Some members accept that statement and belief, but say that there isn’t any statement about heavenly mother in any scripture out of respect. I don’t think you will find a reference to it direcly in any LDS scripture, but its implied by lds teachings about eternal progression and marriage being necessary for salvation. (godhood)
NonLDS christians have concepts which may be their own opinion also, which may not represent a universally held belief. Here is a statement from Martin from brisbane. Apparently there is a belief that god is ‘married’ to the physical universe.
“I suggest that God is “bound” to His creation, though He is ontologically separate from it. Better still, He is “cleaved” to His creation as a husband is “cleaved” to His wife.”
There is also the marriage of christ to the church, and catholic nuns are married to jesus. So, this person has a number of various wives! I also know of a bible version which alternates between ‘god’ and ‘godess’, or uses ‘the god and godess’. Some have criticized this as attempting to weave in the wicca religion into christianity.
The term ‘shekina’ for some reason is refered to in the feminine.
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_shekina.htm
“The Shekhinah is held by some to represent the feminine attributes of the presence of God (shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew), based especially on readings of the Talmud.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah
I don’t know if this misrepresents anything about jewish or christian belief.
Stuart – It seems to me that the moderators are leading by example. They have obviously talked things over and have made decisions which effect all of us. Many posters have commented, and even lurkers. I guess you are looking for something more.
Michael,
Here is my thoughts. I see many of the stupid bumper stickers that say, COEXIST, Sadly to many Believers feel this can happen, not saying thats anyone here, but to many believe that, and according to Jesus we cannot coexist, Remember about Wheat and tares, and Jesus even rebuking religious leaders.
Everyone is used by God in different ways, I can understand not calling names, but yet I feel you can be in your face and come across very hard and still be able to be effective.
The problem is, or so it seems to me, is if your style or any believer for example is a real softy and is offended by anything hard, then you want all believers to be like that.
Same goes for people like me, I want everyone to be in your face tough. We need to be able to allow room for both sides. Before being saved, I did not receive from believers that seemed wishy washy and offended by everything, I learned and listened to the believers that were no nonsense and refused to give in to the weak.
I really believe we see Jesus coming across as the tough no nonsense kinda guy, but to many want to wussafy him. We see to many modern pictures of Jesus with the lamb around His neck, that Jesus looks weak and like he should have eaten that lamb.
The Man Jesus was a carpenter, He was strong and rugged, not wimpy and femmy. We read Paul and Jude and others telling about the Hell and judgment and vengeance to come. I like to give the entire Gospel, Grace and Vengeance to come, not one side. Again, I’m not saying this is you, but I find to many Christians that are LUKE WARM, Jesus said, Be Hot or Cold. I believe I’m hot, not cold. Just my thoughts, Rick b
I’m almost fully checked out on this board.
I generally can’t tolerate the high-mindedness, bigotry, & hatred typical of here for very long, even though the subject matter & the liberality of the forum are sometimes quite attractive.
I know tht the administrators of this board have taken some heat from me in the past, & I’ve probably come close through innuendo of over-stepping the line of decency. Though I have not yet been carded, I have perhaps pushed the envolop, & have certainly crossed my own standards of decency, & wish to take the time now to “repent”; but more importantly, to ask forgiveness.
Aaron, I’m sorry for so vehemently calling you out as a deceiver. I at least once used uncouth innuendo to summarize you and your online community here, but the truth is I only satisfy and nourish the bigotry and hatred among living, breathing people when I do this. And for tht I am truly sorry.
Mormon faith, like all faiths, is an experience involving real people. And I know that the Mormon experience has been a negative and very difficult one for more than a few on this board, & they have my ultimate condolences and true sympathy. It hasn’t always been a bed of roses for me either. And if it had been, tht alone would hopefully cause me to wonder if I were indeed in the right faith tradition. After all, Jesus’ faith, like biblical faith generally, was never intended to be a neat, convenient faith to uphold.
If I do nothing more, I hope my contributions in forums like this testify to the strength of the Mormon faith to answer the demands of highly critical, liberal thinkers. Like I hope I am understood.
People here have often demanded of me sources, and when I provide some tidbit of knowledge that is regarded as something obscure or maverick by academic standards, then I’ll do just that. But I am no credentialed scholar, & I honestly haven’t yet provided anything tht wouldn’t be regarded as common knowledge outside of insulated, Bible-belt academia,
…or, to be fair, in LDS seminaries in institutes.
If anyone here really wanted to qualify him or herself to answer any of my questions & criticisms they would only have to critically explore their own Evangelical faith, just as I have my Mormon faith. Believe it or not, in the academic world both roads go rather neatly right back to the same sources. (And this despite the claim of some that Mormonism is rightly more Hindu than “Christian.” Thank you, Mrs. Tanner.) In my experience, EV critics of my faith bag on Mormons for not having an academically vibrant hold on their faith (implied: a vibrant hold on its controversies & shortcomings). They also accuse Mormons of having no more academic learning than is conveniently provided by their apologetic proponents. But not only are EVs typically guilty of the very same sort of ignorance and biased education of their own faith, Evangelical criticism of Mormon apologetics often runs no deeper than the “scholarship” provided by the Evangelical counter-critics of Mormon apologetics! In other words, if the Mormons need to be critiqued for their ignorance & bias in regards to their faith (& I very strongly believe tht they do), EVs are the very last people who should be providing the criticism. Yet, for some strange reason, they are always the first and the loudest to do so. What is more, because Evangelicals are typically entirely ignorant of their dynamic history w/in the Protestant tradition, they are in fact FAR MORE ignorant than their Mormon counterparts, who at least know their basic 180 yr history quite well. In fact, if I were an EV, the most glaring concern for me would be that too many of my people know the last two centuries of Mormon faith far, far better than they know the same of their own faith. And tht’s sadly not an exaggeration. Really, a worthy online board would be one devoted to fixing tht appalling dilemma. Please don’t let a Mormon first one to do just that. I’m actually quite tempted.
But outside the world of intellectual criticism is the world of respect. And in that regard this board scores very low grades towards Mormon faith in a way that is all too typical of Evangelical polemics. That some of you pride yourself in editing out the strength of your feelings before posting, this is just a confession of how dark your souls have really become in this regard. Though I’ve unfortunately heard, seen, & experienced worse, the feelings and mockery quite commonly expressed on this board by bloggers and responders alike are far uglier than anything that I’ve personally witnessed in any Mormon community towards those of any other faith tradition. And I say this in the same breath of confession that I am quite often sadly ashamed by the close-mindedness, bigotry, & ungrounded suspicions that I find commonly expressed and exhibited among my fellow Mormons. I am strongly convinced that both the New Testament & Book of Mormon plainly declare that Jesus Christ would (& will) have much, much, much better.
Though I rarely praise or even back the comments of my fellow believing Mormons in venues such as this, I must confess to St. Crispin my utter respect for his candidness and humanity. Many on this board unfortunately aren’t in a place to fully appreciate how fortunate they are to dine with a person such as you. Even if it is only online that they do so. And Mr. McKeever, I hope you & your associates are really internalizing the wisdom & insight St. Crispin has offered. If you are truly unimpressed w/ the crop tht is growing here, I think you need first start by questioning what has been sown here, & how it’s been done.
Sincerely, mutu.
Rick, I 100% agree that it is sometimes necessary to be up front and in your face. I also 100% agree that we cannot coexist as the bumper sticker wishes. Believe me, Rick, I fully believe that it is necessary to soemtimes be loud and proud, but sometimes it is also better to be meeker.
Paul told us to be everything to everyone, and part of that exhortation, I think, is a flexibility to see what that person needs. He also (I think it was him) said that not everyone can sow the seeds. Sometimes, it is just as important to plant and water them.
What do I take from these? That sometimes it is more important to be sure that you are understood and that the other person gets what you are saying, even if they don’t believe it right then and there.
I also think the what God told Moses holds true to us today: that God will give us the words we need when we need them.
In short, its not an all or nothing proposition. Sometimes, we must be forceful, and other times we must be more meek. If we are paying attention to what God says, we’ll know the difference.
Hope that makes more sense…
Mutu,
You posted a lot, but the protestant tradition is long, deep, and complicated, and I am not sure to be an expert (or close) help understand faith in Jesus. It is helpful to understand what Calvin and Luther and Wesley and so many others added to our faith, but I don’t think its necessary to bring us closer to God. Why do I state this? Because you seem to suggest that Mormons are better than us because of your knowledge of your own history. I don’t think it really matters. The differences are differences in degree, and the conflict arising from the differences go much deeper than the religious faith behind them, ie there was much politics in play as well.
So, if you wish to plump up your faithful because of their knowledge of your past, great. Just be careful that does not come solely out of pride, because I am not sure there’s much to it.
Michael,
Pride in my knowledge is something I will confess to stuggling with. And thankfully I’m smart enough to struggle with it. Knowledgeable people are very often the dumbest people out there, & again I openly confess with Paul that my knowledge has often proven utter foolishness to me. And this has often led to painful repentence.
But with Alma I will strive to always remember the sufferings and deliverance of all my fathers in the faith of the Lord. And with Mormon, I will pray to be more wise than those who have preceded me in the faith. And I also realize that the clearest examples of my faith are not the ones that lived 2000 years ago. They’re the ones God has called and continues to call in the last few centuries. The real people who have not yet been reduced to a pasturized story.
Sincerely,
mutu.
Michael, I agree that we at times need to be meek, but meekness does not equal weakness.
I have a saying printed on a t-shirt, A good friend of Bruce lee said this, Do not mistake kindness for weakness. The bigger point I guess I am trying to make is, Many times people like me say some tuff truth, then weak believers or LDS get offended and cry about it. Then you said God will give us the words to say, while I agree, people need to remember, God will speak through us, but it will be in the style we tend to speak.
Like for example, God is not going to speak through me, yet it sounds like Aaron is speaking, and what I mean by Aaron speaking is, Big college type words or even just big words that I could not pronounce or maybe even spell correctly.
Mutu, I know you believe your faith is true, but boy what a bummer when people like you or JW’S or Jim Jones types die and stand before God and are told they believed lies and lead others to hell. Then your going to say, I cannot believe Rick, or Falcon or Andy or the others were correct all along. Then besides being tossed into the lake of fire, your going to remember for all of eternity how you so hard fought the truth and rejected it. Rick b
Rick B,
Right now I’m thinking “what a bummer” to share the faith of someone like st. crispin. Someone whose well-composed and humane thoughts are apparently not at all welcome in an “open” forum of people who claim Jesus Christ as LORD.
Where have you gone, st. crispin???
Sincerely, your friend in Jesus,
mutu.
Mutu,
I am honestly not sure what to say in regards to your comment to me.
Rick, you have no argument from me– meekness should not equal weakness. Actually, I remember a sermon by an old pastor addressing that issue. Meakness by no means equals weakness, but rather a reliance on God and your place in his plan. Many mistakenly state meakness for mildness and timidness, but that is decidedly not the case.
Mutu,
It really amazes me how little of your own belief you guys don’t know or follow. LDS of old, like BY or JS told it like it was, and said stuff like we need to confront you if your wrong, or that we need to expose JS as a fraud, But yet you either know of this teaching and ignore it, or you really dont bother to understand your church.
Then the bible is full of accounts of Jesus, Peter, Paul, Jude and other telling us to expose False prophets, teachers and wolves.
Paul even said wolves will come from our own. Then I see LDS as not following the bible in the sense of, The Bible tells us to pull sinners from the fire and to turn sinners from the error of their ways. We as Christians try doing this since the bible teaches it. Yet you guys instead of saying, no were the true church, we will explain why, you guys simply do not do as the bible says and then simply say, were attacking you.
Were doing as the bible says, yet LDS are not. If LDS believe we are in error, I do not see you guys doing as the bible teaches and confront us and tell us were wrong and why. Just the opposite, You guys say, we would never criticize your church.
While your trying to be polite, your leaders of old did attack us and criticize us, then your also not doing as the bible teaches and trying to share the truth with us, pull us from the fire and if were wrong show us how and why. If LDS loved us like they say, then they would share the truth with us, instead of not speaking to us and excusing it by saying, we will not listen anyway. Rick b
Rick,
I like your response to Mutu. I agree that we are called to expose false teachings and not give them lip service…
Michael,
The problem with LDS as you know is they take great pride in not sharing the gospel with us. They will say they do because they send out MM’s door to door, then they teach and believe we are the ones with a false gospel. Yet they wont stick around to show us from scripture how were wrong and expose our false gospel to us.
Instead of showing us they claim we attack them and they cry, were being persecuted. I wish they would read the bible and do as it says. I wish all the more they would show us since they claim to follow the commands and claim to know the bible. Rick b
In Christianity, especially in what has come to be known as evangelical Christianity, we speak of knowing God in a personal way. Having a sense of piety or morality isn’t knowing God in a personal way. God reveals Himself through Jesus Christ in the Bible. That’s where someone learns about who God is. If a person gets God wrong, then all the piety and morality in the world won’t save their souls nor will religious rituals or any amount of good works.
Here’s the problem I see with Mormonism. The Mormon church takes on greater meaning in the life and testimony of Mormons than does God or Jesus Christ. The institution of Mormonism becomes that with which Mormons have a personal relationship. My observation is that for Mormons it’s all about the Mormon culture, traditions, rituals and leaders.
In an interview with Grant Palmer author of “An Insiders View of Mormon Origins”, I heard him report about how he had gone through the rotation of the lessons taught within a year in the Mormon church. He said the amount of time devoted to Jesus was miniscule compared to other topics. If a Mormon were so bold as to say that they were going to take some time off from the church and use it to seek study and get to know God in a more personal way and dump the callings and all the religious trappings of Mormonism, it would not go over well. It’s all about the institution in my view.
Jesus is God. Not one of a million or billion other gods. If someone doesn’t know who Jesus is, there is no hope for them.
Falcon said
I pointed this out once before, Read the book of Job. God rebukes Job’s friends for not getting their facts correct.
Like Falcon said, we need to get it right or God will hold us accountable and He wont let our error slide. Rick b
Rick, there, as you know, are many problems with Mormonism. Not sharing the gospel is one, and Falcon gives another. But also included are such issues as their history (which and whose story to believe, since they believe in direct revelation and authority; not to mention the questionable revelations re polygamy and the Seed of Cain), a questionable adherence to the Bible (or any book, really), and a lifestyle and doctrine that does not encourage experiencing life outside what the leadership says.
I expect these points to be called into question, but I’ll give a quick summary as to why I include these three. 1) Despite following a group who is led by god, there have been a surprisingly few number of revelations, and within those revelations are one to gain statehood and one in the midst of one of the biggest cultural movements in our nations history. Further, you can’t even quote those who supposedly have the closest access to god for their doctrine because all to often all they offer is their opinion, which may or may not mean a thing. 2) Despite words that state a conviction to follow the Bible and the other LDS scripture, there is enough evidence to suggest they don’t take any of them too seriously. Instead, the strength of their faith is found in revelation. 3) Despite the words to the contrary, the LDS faithful seem to have very little understanding of the world of faith around them. Any effort to research the past outside of what the leadership says is OK is really frowned upon. I won’t go so far as to say it is disallowed, but I am comfortable in saying it is far from encouraged.
First, I want to thank Bill for calling us to a higher standard of discourse. The apostle Peter reminds us in 1 Peter 3:13-17,
Now I don’t for a second believe that we are in any danger from our LDS antogonists, and to call ridicule “persecution” would be laughable. But when reviled we are not to revile in return and we should not let any of our conduct be construed as evil. I am looking in a mirror as I write this and am not pointing fingers.
We should, however, give a strong defense of our faith and an even stronger witness to the biblical tests that JS has failed, both in regards to Deut 13, and 18, and also Matthew 7:15-19. The desired end result always being the salvation of the lost and not the display of our intelect.
Michael P,
Those are some pretty good points. I would agree that LDS people generally don’t like to read up on critical information about their religion. Does anyone really? They want to read things to support their faith, not tear it down. There is a scary part for mormons, if the LDS faith is not true, then what?
Skepticism for the faith isn’t a value promoted by the the Church, its not in the mission statement. Thats a little too obvious. Its not what bible literalists believe, but LDS services are fellowship.
Don’t forget that loosing ones ‘testimony’ for a Mormon is equal to no longer being on track to the celestial kingdom, or being ‘saved’. The worst of all is to become a ‘son of perdition’, which the LDS leadership says is often the condition of apostate members. Being a critic, and devoting ones life to destroying the church is worse than being a murderer, adulterer or anything you can think of. So, these are a few reasons why there can be such heated emotions in debating the LDS faith. Given all of the above, can you see how emotional and irrational things can become?
RickB,
If everyone can’t COEXIST, then what is the alternative? On the radio I heard someone speaking about Muslims praying for the destruction of the non-believer. Thats everyone and anyone that isn’t a devoted Muslim. Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, atheists etc…That struck me as being not especially enlightened, and actually a sign of weakness.
Jesus eating a lamb? Many years ago a seventh-day adventist pointed out to me that the ‘lords supper’ was really the feast of the passover, minus THE LAMB. He was giving a dual message that he was the lamb, but also something about vegetarianism.
Some vegans like to point out ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’. The meek meaning the kind and gentle, as in vegetarian. They firmly believe that ones immune system is stronger on such a diet, and that its healthier. I have some personal problems with that, as I haven’t had such great results on such a diet, but I think its genetic, as my ancestors ate a lot of meat. But some people do better on a vegetarian diet.
Leonardo da Vinci was vegetarian, and some even suggested fruitarian. He was very intelligent, and strong. Its not a sign of weakness.
Hinduism and Jainism have ahimsa (non-violence)as a central concern. Contrast that with the abrahamic faiths, which have violations of gods law (sin)as the major issue. Its a subtle distinction, but I tend to believe that can lead to more abusive language, prejudice, and emotional harm to others. Its especially bad when that is combined with a law centered approach to salvation.
Hello Mantis Mutu,
Thank you for your kind words.
I have posted two commentaries concerning the call to “Raise the Bar” both of which have been removed by the moderators after being on the board for short period of time. Curious.
I will say no more about that otherwise they will probably remove this posting. So much for a free exchange of ideas.
Regards,
Stuart