Ravi Zacharias is speaking at the LDS Tabernacle

[Trout]

An Evening of Friendship (http://lds.org/events/info/0,8197,726-1-483,00.html)

500

Event Description

Standing Together and the Richard L. Evans Chair of Religious Understanding at BYU will present An Evening of Friendship featuring Dr. Ravi Zacharias in the Tabernacle on Temple Square, Sunday, November 14, 2004, at 6:00 p.m.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias
500
Is Indian-born and grew up steeped in Hinduism. He is one of the first Christian apologists to come out of the Third World. His expertise on comparative religions has earned him audiences from Capitol Hill to Harvard. Dr. Zacharias will speak on "Who is the Truth? Defending Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Dates and Location

Sunday, November 14, 2004, 6:00 p.m.

Tabernacle

Tickets

Free tickets may be obtained by sending an e-mail to kim@standingtogether.org or robert_millet@byu.edu beginning September 7, 2004.

Special Considerations

* Tickets are required for this event. Those with tickets should be in their seats by 5:45 p.m. Standby seating is available on a first-come, first-served basis. The standby line forms at the flagpole located in the center of Temple Square.
* For this event, admission to the Tabernacle is limited to those ages 12 and older. No babies, please.
* Wheelchair seating is available. Patrons who require such seating should inform Guest Services when they arrive at the event.
* Best dress is requested.
* Those attending this event are advised that cameras, recording devices, backpacks, food, and beverages are not allowed in the Tabernacle.
* Those attending this event should plan to arrive early and should park only in designated parking areas.
* On the day of the event, the Tabernacle doors open at 5:00 p.m. The length of the event is approximately two hours.

Sounds like an interesting evening, anyone within a few hours drive ought to consider attending.

I'll make the journey, and I'm sure Leroy will be there as well.

. . .maybe John Powell will make an appearance?. . .

[Xavier]

Awesome... I envy your chance to see Ravi live...

He's one of my favorite speakers.

[Jin-Roh]

Same here. He's a great speaker.

[bar Jonah]

I've also heard he's quite good.

But why is he speaking on defending Christianity... to an audience that is primarily not Christian... in the temple of a false religion? :shrug:

[Xavier]

I've also heard he's quite good.

But why is he speaking on defending Christianity... to an audience that is primarily not Christian... in the temple of a false religion? :shrug:

My guess would be that he plans on presenting th material in such a way as to promote the Christian Worldview in the process. He is quite good at addressing to groups of people like that.

[bar Jonah]

One of the most basic and inviolable commandments of public speaking (or writing, for that matter) is that you must decide whether you are communicating to inform... or persuade. Which is it?

This appears to be an informative speech. That makes sense to a Christian audience - to inform (educate) them in how to effectivey defend their faith. (Christ Himself certainly doesn't need defending, so that also seems a tad troubling in the title. Christian apologists are careful to phrase it so that one is defending one's faith, defending Christianity, NOT defending Christ, Himself.)

But if he's trying to persuade the non-Christian audience of Mormons to the real gospel and the real Jesus Christ, then the stated topic of his speech makes no sense. So, I'm a bit baffled by this event. Are the Mormons really bringing in a Christian apologist for the purpose of his trying to persuade them out of the Church of LDS? I kinda doubt it!

So... what the heck?

[Xavier]

I trust Ravi... He knows exactly what he's doing... He even helped Martin edit his Kingdom of Cults books in which Mormonism is critiqued.

[bar Jonah]

I haven't said he's wrong. But I certainly am struggling to understand what he could possibly be thinking, because this just doesn't add up in any way, as far as I can tell. I'd like to trust Zacharias as well, and I have never had anything against the man, in the slightest. But nobody's perfect, and if we see what appears to be a problem, we should investigate. I hope we don't just trust blindly, as if he's a guru of some kind.

[bar Jonah]

More info, from the Deseret News (a Mormon publication):

http://www.standingtogether.org/index.php


Evangelist to speak at Tabernacle

September 11, 2004

By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret Morning News

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has opened its signature pulpit to an evangelical Christian preacher in what organizers see as a watershed event for promoting good will and discussion among Utahns of various faiths.

The event is two months away, but it is already generating discussion in the state's faith community.

Ravi Zacharias, an internationally known apologist, philosopher and author, will speak at the Tabernacle on Temple Square in November as part of a three-night speaking engagement in Utah. Some have compared Zacharias' style and tone to that of Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis. He has addressed audiences worldwide in international venues including the United Nations, the White House, Harvard, Cambridge and Princeton.

Zacharias is listed as an editor of the most recent version of a book called "The Kingdom of the Cults," which classifies the LDS Church as a cult along with Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahai and Jehovah's Witnesses. The book is widely regarded by evangelicals as "the authoritative reference work on major cult systems for nearly 40 years." Written by Walter Martin, it was first published in 1965.

The planned event has a few locals —both evangelicals and Latter-day Saints — wondering whether the other side is "using" its counterpart to try to smooth over what has in recent years been disputed territory as to whether Mormons are Christians.

The event is co-sponsored by Standing Together Ministries and the Richard L. Evans Chair for Religious Understanding at Brigham Young University. It is scheduled for 6 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 14, and is open to the public.

Word of the event has generated some discussion locally among both evangelicals and Latter-day Saints, according to Pastor Greg Johnson, who leads Standing Together Ministries. When Johnson asked Zacharias several months ago whether he would be willing to speak in the Tabernacle if it could be arranged, the two discussed some of the concerns such a visit might raise.

"I think some of our folks would think you're playing into the hands of the 'enemy' and that the Mormon Church is going to use you," Johnson remembers telling him. Zacharias is not only aware of the Mormons-as-Christians discussion but knows about the nationwide series of discussions that Johnson and Robert Millet, a BYU religion professor, have teamed up for in recent months over the relationship between Mormons and evangelical Christians.

They also discussed whether there might be an agenda on the part of some Latter-day Saints to use the event as a way to say to the evangelical community, "See, we're Christians, too."

Despite those questions, Johnson sought the Tabernacle pulpit as a venue for Zacharias in a letter earlier this year to the First Presidency of the LDS Church. He believes they agreed, in part, because of the press conference and quiet outreach campaign that local evangelicals staged outside the Conference Center last spring during LDS general conference, designed to counter attempts by self-proclaimed Christian preachers who have sought to antagonize Latter-day Saints.

After discussions with Millet, the First Presidency not only granted permission for Zacharias to speak in the Tabernacle, but they plan to meet with the evangelist personally during his visit to Utah. Johnson said he has discussed the editor role Zacharias played in the latest edition of "The Kingdom of the Cults" with the First Presidency's office — "basically, he agreed to lend his name to it, but he didn't write any of it" — and LDS leaders are "moving forward in great confidence." BYU and the First Presidency are "all informed and still moving forward."

Millet said he and Johnson met with Zacharias for several hours at his headquarters in Atlanta earlier this summer to discuss the evangelist's appearance in Salt Lake City.

As word of the event begins to get out, Millet said local pastors aren't the only ones asking questions. "A few have and will wonder what we're doing inviting someone like this to the Tabernacle.

"I think Latter-day Saints who have a bit of breadth in their soul would be fascinated by this. I contrast that with the littleness of soul" displayed by those who see it as an attempt by evangelicals to simply convince Mormons of their own views, he said.

Because the LDS Church is not a sponsor, it is not advertising the event. Millet said he's told some personal friends who are LDS stake presidents that are "outreach-minded," and they are eager to have their members participate.

"Those with an interest in building better relationships will be fascinated by it. I think they'll be touched by his message," he said.

"It represents tremendous graciousness on the part of the First Presidency in being willing to open the Tabernacle to a man of his stature who is of another faith. It's an effort to build goodwill and bridges of understanding between two vital faith communities," Millet said.

Both Johnson and Millet see it as a major step forward in creating a dialogue among faiths that share many moral values but differ markedly in theology and doctrine.

Johnson believes Zacharias' appearance in the Tabernacle is the first such event in at least a century. In researching whether any evangelical preacher had ever spoken there, Johnson said the last evidence he came up with was an address by Dwight L. Moody, founder of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Moody was apparently invited by Brigham Young to speak in the Tabernacle in 1871.

"If people like Ravi come and have a positive experience and go out to the world saying "something positive is happening in Utah," that will go a long way for what we want to have happen" between Latter-day Saints and the rest of the Christian world, Johnson said.

"I think it's going to be a fun thing. He's just a great soul," Millet said. "He's one of the most sought-after speakers in the Christian world. I wasn't quite sure what I would meet, but he was a very tenderhearted, guileless, brilliant philosopher by training and an apologist.

"He teaches and he shows logically why it makes sense to believe in God and absolute truths and why it makes really good sense to make Christ the center of your life," Millet said.

The topic Zacharias will address at the Tabernacle is "Who Is the Truth? Defending Jesus Christ as The Way, The Truth and The Life." Tickets are available by calling 801-474-1363 or by e-mail at kim@standingtogether.org.

Johnson and Millet have long been impressed with the moral values and commitment to Christ each has found in the members of other faiths but are concerned that theological differences stand in the way of cooperating on issues of interest to both. They are eager for the chance to bring Utahns together at the Tabernacle in the hope that new bridge-building can replace some of the historic religious animosity fostered in recent years by such issues as stringent state liquor laws and the controversy over the Main Street Plaza downtown.

"If we allow theological differences to prevent us from joining hands in facing some very challenging social crises, evil will win out in the end," Millet said.


For information, see www.standingtogether.org or www.rzim.org.



E-mail: carrie@desnews.com
.

[Amazing Rando]

I kinda doubt it'll end up being an "evening of friendship" as the LDS bill it as. Zacharias is an outspoken critic of the LDS, and I don't think he's going to back down from preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to them that day. I think it's more likely a riot will break out than an "evening of friendship."

[dizzle]

I am completely uncomfortable with this whole thing.

[Trout]

I know some secret information that I'm just DYING to blurt out about this Ravi deal. . . but I've been sworn to secrecy.

RI, you'll fully understand Ravi's motives if and when I can spill the beans. . .

. . .Leroy knows too. . .maybe he'll tell if he's having a weak moment. . .?

[Amazing Rando]

I know some secret information that I'm just DYING to blurt out about this Ravi deal. . . but I've been sworn to secrecy.

RI, you'll fully understand Ravi's motives if and when I can spill the beans. . .

. . .Leroy knows too. . .maybe he'll tell if he's having a weak moment. . .?

AAAAAAAAAAA! :bawl:

[Xavier]

Blast... You know there IS a PM system around here... And none of us (Rando or I) are exaclty "near" Utah.

[Amazing Rando]

Yeah! Gimmie the scoop, Trout! :trout:

[Leroy]

I know some secret information that I'm just DYING to blurt out about this Ravi deal. . . but I've been sworn to secrecy.

RI, you'll fully understand Ravi's motives if and when I can spill the beans. . .

. . .Leroy knows too. . .maybe he'll tell if he's having a weak moment. . .?

I would love to fill you all in, but as trout said, sworn to secrecy.

[Xavier]

BLAST!!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh.....

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

:xav:

[Trout]

I have one extra ticket if anyone is interested.

Let me know.

[Xavier]

*taps fingers patiently*

:ahem:

[Bill the Cat]

:bump:

[Lizard]

Well, I'm a big fan of Ravi, but I'm with Dee Dee, this whole thing makes me uncomfortable. Especially knowing how much some LDS want to be considered a part of Christianity.

But, I will hold off judgment until Trout can spill the beans (10 pearls if you spill it to me in PM today :deal: )

[Trout]

Well, I'm a big fan of Ravi, but I'm with Dee Dee, this whole thing makes me uncomfortable. Especially knowing how much some LDS want to be considered a part of Christianity.

But, I will hold off judgment until Trout can spill the beans (10 pearls if you spill it to me in PM today :deal: )

Wow Faramir, not only are you sucking up to Dee Dee, now you've stooped to bribery. . .

[Krusader]

I've also heard he's quite good.

But why is he speaking on defending Christianity... to an audience that is primarily not Christian... in the temple of a false religion? :shrug:
The same question crossed my mind exactly!

[Xavier]

Yeah... Still waiting on Trout to hear from the "Powers that Be"...

Date is the coming Sunday. Any Web-Based broadcasting planned?

[Bill the Cat]

Man, do I want the scoop on this :rant:

[Trout]

:hehe:

[geebob]

Mormons really bringing in a Christian apologist for the purpose of his trying to persuade them out of the Church of LDS? I kinda doubt it!

As a matter of fact, the mormons bring in many more orthodox type christian speakers and desire very much to dialogue with them.

Clark pinnock has spoken at brigam young. Also, some feminist theologians. I know the range is much larger. Mormons do want to keep up with the cutting edge in theology even amongst orthodoxy.

[Bill the Cat]

:hehe: 2 more days...

[markporter]

well, it's today isn't it? We have the european director guy of the zac trust (miachel ramsden) at our church and he came and did a brief slot in the service this morning so we were all praying for this thing...he mentioned that ravi agreed to do it on two conditions; that he could set the title of the talk, and that he could bring his own worship team, I can't remember the exact name of the person doing the worship, but I think it was someone 'card'....apparently I should have heard of them.

[Bill the Cat]

well, it's today isn't it? We have the european director guy of the zac trust (miachel ramsden) at our church and he came and did a brief slot in the service this morning so we were all praying for this thing...he mentioned that ravi agreed to do it on two conditions; that he could set the title of the talk, and that he could bring his own worship team, I can't remember the exact name of the person doing the worship, but I think it was someone 'card'....apparently I should have heard of them.

Ya mean Michael Card? I love that guy's music!!

[markporter]

yeah, I think that was the name

[Leroy]

Standing Together .org will have the DVDs or CDs available for all three discussions, I think the DVDs are 34.00 each and the CDs are 24.00 each.

Ravi's talk last night was 1 hour and 7 minutes long and the Q & A after was about 59 minutes.

[markporter]

Ooh....you were there???? If so do tell....

[Richbee]

I am completely uncomfortable with this whole thing.

Ravi Zacharias doesn't need your approval.

Ravi is famous for speaking to Muslim audiences and in many dangerous countries for Christians.

Bye.

[Bill the Cat]

OK boys... time's up!!! Dish or else!! :glare:

[geebob]

Ravi Zacharias doesn't need your approval.

Ravi is famous for speaking to Muslim audiences and in many dangerous countries for Christians.

Bye.

HA HAAA! ZINNNG!!!

[Leroy]

I was there, Ravi's lecture was good, it was the second of a three-part lecture of the need for truth and who is the truth.

The first portion was at the University of Utah Kingsbury hall, it was packed. In his first lecture he set the groundwork for the need for truth and the avoidance of pluralism, relativism, and privatism. The Q & A that followed was very good, and you could tell that Ravi loved to answer questions, and he was good at it.

Last night was a different story, although Ravi's lecture was good, he talked about who is Truth, and the importance of the cross. There was no Q & A after. The Tabernace was filled to capacity, and they overflowed into the other buildings on Temple Square. Michael Card also played some worship songs before and after Ravi's talk. There were 6 or 8 members of the LDS church, BYU professors and such behind the pulpit along with 6 or 8 Christian scholars and pastors, and Greg Johnson the founder and president of Standing Together Ministries.

Among others, Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw got up and made a statement that made me feel sick and made my jaw drop open, he said and I'm paraphrasing, When the LDS religion came into being, it was met with brutal opposition from the Christian community, the mormons were harassed and badgered, this practice still goes on to this day, we as christians need to apologize for our treatment of the LDS, we have sinned against them, back then and to this day. A few people got up and left at that point.

Craig Heasel (I'm not sure of the spelling) from Biola gave some final comments and a closing prayer, and stated (and I'm paraphrasing) that according to the bible when you ask for wisdom, God is faithful to give it to you, and when Joseph Smith was on his knees in the forest he asked God for wisdom, we as christians should listen to what Joseph Smith had to say.

The Deseret News, an LDS owned newspaper picked up on one of these points in there news article today,

But what many Utahns may remember most distinctly is the sermon that came before it.
Taking the pulpit to speak of the event's historic nature, Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw addressed a capacity crowd of several thousand, offering a stunningly candid apology to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and noting that "friendship has not come easily between our communities." He dubbed the evening "historic" and apologized that Evangelicals "have often misrepresented the faith and beliefs of the Latter-day Saints."
"Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you," he said, adding both camps have tended to marginalize and simplify the others' beliefs.."

for the full article go to:

Evangelical preaches at Salt Lake Tabernacle Deseret News.com (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595105580,00.html)

[Bill the Cat]

:no: I can't believe they would simply toss their ideals out the ol window like that... Seems like they were afraid to tackle the actual reason for the divide...

[Bill the Cat]

OK, after reading the article from Deseret, I think that they were dancing a serious jig... not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. I've never seen Ravi shy away from pointing out sin or deviance from Christian principles, so frankly I am surprised that he didn't go Walter Martin on them. Guess everyone has a soft spot... :nsm:

[bar Jonah]

:twitch:

[bar Jonah]

Ok, to clarify on Zacharias himself, are you saying that he taught things that validated what they believe, didn't teach anything that contradicted Mormonism, and then passed to torch to these liberal losers?

[Leroy]

Ok, to clarify on Zacharias himself, are you saying that he taught things that validated what they believe, didn't teach anything that contradicted Mormonism, and then passed to torch to these liberal losers?

Well, to a long time resident of Zion and after many discussions with LDS folks the first thing you need to do is to define your terminology. You can go on and on about biblical doctrine concerning Jesus and salvation and the Latter Day Saint will be in complete agreement with you and biblical doctrine. But, if first you define who Jesus is, and what he is not, and what is salvation and what it’s not, biblically, then and only then you will be able to properly explain the attributes of Jesus, the meaning of Truth and the gift an fullness of Salvation. Ravi has failed to do this. He uses examples of the difference in the meaning of karma between Hinduism and Buddhism, but he has failed to define the deference in the meaning of Jesus and salvation between Evangelicals and Mormons. Therefore you can comfortably set there as a mormon and completely agree with everything that he has said. I have a hard time believing that Ravi is so naïve. In a way he is validating what they believe, not in so many words. He has yet to teach anything that contradicts Mormonism.

One question asked by a young lady was something along the lines of, “as you know there is a prominent religion in this community, does this religion have conflicting doctrines with yours as an evangelical and are those doctrinal differences worth mentioning?” Ravi said (and I’m paraphrasing) “ you have to remember that I am a guest in this state and as a guest I must be very careful what I say, I have talked on many controversial topics with many groups, I know there are differences in our doctrines and some of the differences are very critical to salvation, but you just can’t come walking in with guns blazing saying Jesus loves you and has died for you, as you shoot the place up, and everyone runs for cover, you need to be able to enter into a dialog.”

That was the closest he came so far to stating something about the contradictions.

Ravi was surrounded be these Liberals as you call them; I would not call the LDS representatives as liberal, more along the lines of conniving, they want to be seen as more main stream Christian, this is very good for them it makes it real hard to reach a point of contention with a LDS and grind through it with Logic, you will be seen more as a divider and a trouble maker.

Standing Together Ministries, Greg Johnson and his gang of white washed vessels are trying to cultivate relationships with LDS people, they say things like lets don’t talk about our differences, if any, lets talk about the doctrines and morality that we have in common, lets become friends through not a this-or-that type of logic, but more of a this-and-that, after all we both love Jesus, we both are of high moral values. What they don’t understand is that although this is one way to witness to unbelievers, it is not the only way, to condemn all other ways of witnessing is mighty proud on there part. And while they are having a nice little happy relationship with all there mormon comrades not talking about the deference’s, there mormon friends are becoming more and more comfortable in there rebellion against the truth. Confident that they are in line with biblical teachings, pretty much, according to there new found Christian brother, (Greg Johnson actually calls Mormons his Christian brothers) little knowing that at any time the bus to the tolerance rally may run the mormon over, killing him, and the christian is left there to say, golly, I never got a chance to tell them some pretty critical stuff, and I shielded them from other christians that wanted to tell them some critical stuff.

Tonight will be the final night of this three part lecture, I only hope that Ravi puts the hammer down, goes Walter Martin on them as you say, and also kicks around the pluralists and privatists.

[Amazing Rando]

Among others, Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw got up and made a statement that made me feel sick and made my jaw drop open, he said and I'm paraphrasing, When the LDS religion came into being, it was met with brutal opposition from the Christian community, the mormons were harassed and badgered, this practice still goes on to this day, we as christians need to apologize for our treatment of the LDS, we have sinned against them, back then and to this day. A few people got up and left at that point.

I don't understand why it made you feel sick- the LDS church may be heretical, but its members are still human beings and deserve our respect and our love. What he said was true- at the outset of the Mormon movement, many of them were killed. Joseph Smith himself was killed by an angry mob. I think that apologizing for killing them is only appropriate.

[bar Jonah]

Well, to a long time resident of Zion and after many discussions with LDS folks the first thing you need to do is to define your terminology. You can go on and on about biblical doctrine concerning Jesus and salvation and the Latter Day Saint will be in complete agreement with you and biblical doctrine. But, if first you define who Jesus is, and what he is not, and what is salvation and what it’s not, biblically, then and only then you will be able to properly explain the attributes of Jesus, the meaning of Truth and the gift an fullness of Salvation. Ravi has failed to do this. He uses examples of the difference in the meaning of karma between Hinduism and Buddhism, but he has failed to define the deference in the meaning of Jesus and salvation between Evangelicals and Mormons. Therefore you can comfortably set there as a mormon and completely agree with everything that he has said. I have a hard time believing that Ravi is so naïve. In a way he is validating what they believe, not in so many words. He has yet to teach anything that contradicts Mormonism.

One question asked by a young lady was something along the lines of, “as you know there is a prominent religion in this community, does this religion have conflicting doctrines with yours as an evangelical and are those doctrinal differences worth mentioning?” Ravi said (and I’m paraphrasing) “ you have to remember that I am a guest in this state and as a guest I must be very careful what I say, I have talked on many controversial topics with many groups, I know there are differences in our doctrines and some of the differences are very critical to salvation, but you just can’t come walking in with guns blazing saying Jesus loves you and has died for you, as you shoot the place up, and everyone runs for cover, you need to be able to enter into a dialog.”

That was the closest he came so far to stating something about the contradictions.

Ravi was surrounded be these Liberals as you call them; I would not call the LDS representatives as liberal, more along the lines of conniving, they want to be seen as more main stream Christian, this is very good for them it makes it real hard to reach a point of contention with a LDS and grind through it with Logic, you will be seen more as a divider and a trouble maker.

Standing Together Ministries, Greg Johnson and his gang of white washed vessels are trying to cultivate relationships with LDS people, they say things like lets don’t talk about our differences, if any, lets talk about the doctrines and morality that we have in common, lets become friends through not a this-or-that type of logic, but more of a this-and-that, after all we both love Jesus, we both are of high moral values. What they don’t understand is that although this is one way to witness to unbelievers, it is not the only way, to condemn all other ways of witnessing is mighty proud on there part. And while they are having a nice little happy relationship with all there mormon comrades not talking about the deference’s, there mormon friends are becoming more and more comfortable in there rebellion against the truth. Confident that they are in line with biblical teachings, pretty much, according to there new found Christian brother, (Greg Johnson actually calls Mormons his Christian brothers) little knowing that at any time the bus to the tolerance rally may run the mormon over, killing him, and the christian is left there to say, golly, I never got a chance to tell them some pretty critical stuff, and I shielded them from other christians that wanted to tell them some critical stuff.

Tonight will be the final night of this three part lecture, I only hope that Ravi puts the hammer down, goes Walter Martin on them as you say, and also kicks around the pluralists and privatists.
A divider and a trouble-maker?

Like Christ, you mean? LOL

I certainly hope you're right! If he doesn't bring the hammer down seriously tonight, I may have to consider Zacharias anathema.

Yes, you don't go in screaming at people, consigning them to hell on your own judgement, acting self-righteous, etc. Of course not. But you do go in preaching an unapologetics gospel as given us by Paul, that Christ is the one true God and Creator, that the one gospel for the Body of Christ is salvation by faith alone, apart from works of the Law, rejecting the heresy that we can become gods of our own worlds, etc. Enter into a dialogue? What dialogue?

That's gotta be a heckuva dialogue tonight. I sure hope so, and I'm waiting for the final low-down. But at this point, I am highly skeptical of the entire matter. Still, waiting on the final score.

I don't understand why it made you feel sick- the LDS church may be heretical, but its members are still human beings and deserve our respect and our love. What he said was true- at the outset of the Mormon movement, many of them were killed. Joseph Smith himself was killed by an angry mob. I think that apologizing for killing them is only appropriate.
What makes us sick is the slandering of the gospel, not the presence of Mormons. A Mormon doesn't make me sick, and I doubt that would make anyone else here sick. But seeing a Christian apologist appearing to yoke himself to heresy and evil..... that ought to make the most theologically liberal Christian sick to his stomach.

[Leroy]

What he said was true- at the outset of the Mormon movement, many of them were killed. Joseph Smith himself was killed by an angry mob. I think that apologizing for killing them is only appropriate.

What he said was true? Where are you getting your facts Rando, the missionary lessons? Joseph Smith was charged and indicted by a grand jury on the crimes of "murder, treason, burglary, arson, larceny, theft, and stealing, Joseph Smith was killed in a gunfight after he was trying to escape out the window of the jail. Is this religious persecution?

Ever heard of the Danites? The Mormon army that would go around the farmlands and ask for Gods 10% from all people, believers and not, and when denied, the good ol Danites would burn there barns or fields?

Did the get persecuted for there religious beliefs or criminal behavior? and how many were killed?

[Amazing Rando]

I certainly hope you're right! If he doesn't bring the hammer down seriously tonight, I may have to consider Zacharias anathema.

Now don't you think that's jumping the gun? After all the amazing books he's written and the disciples he's led to Christ you're ready to completely give up on the man based on one second-hand report of questionable conduct on his part? Man, if that were criteria for anathematizing other Christians, there'd be none of us left in your scope of vision. There's no need to overreact like that, RI. C'mon, you know better.


What makes us sick is the slandering of the gospel, not the presence of Mormons. A Mormon doesn't make me sick, and I doubt that would make anyone else here sick. But seeing a Christian apologist appearing to yoke himself to heresy and evil..... that ought to make the most theologically liberal Christian sick to his stomach.

Sure, I can understand that part...

But Leroy said he was sick when the Fuller President offered an apology for the hatred and killing of the early Mormons, and that just made no sense to me. They were wronged and killed, etc. And that deserves an apology as surely as the brutalization of the American Indians does as well.

[Amazing Rando]

What he said was true? Where are you getting your facts Rando, the missionary lessons? Joseph Smith was charged and indicted by a grand jury on the crimes of "murder, treason, burglary, arson, larceny, theft, and stealing, Joseph Smith was killed in a gunfight after he was trying to escape out the window of the jail. Is this religious persecution?

Wikipedia says: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith#Smith.27s_death_in_Carthage)

Illinois Governor Ford proposed a trial in Carthage, the county seat, and guaranteed Smith's safety. Smith agreed and stayed in the Carthage Jail, under the Governor's promised protection. Ford agreed to stay in Carthage, but left not long after Smith went to stay at the jail. The unsympathetic "Carthage Greys", a local militia, were assigned to stay at the jail and protect Smith, who under the custody of the jailor, was given a comfortable room adjoining the jail cells on the second floor. Smith was joined there with his brother, Hyrum, Dr. Willard Richards and John Taylor.

Before a trial could be held, a mob of about 200 armed men (some painted as indians) stormed Carthage Jail. The Carthage Greys reportedly feigned defense of the jail by firing shots or blanks over the heads of the attackers, and some of the Greys reportedly joined the mob, who rushed up the stairs to Smith and his associates.

The mob fired shots through the door and attempted to push the door open to fire into the room. Smith attempted to defend himself and his associates with a small pistol that Cyrus Wheelock gave to Smith when he came to visit him at the jail; Quinn reports that Smith shot three men.

Ultimately, Hyrum Smith was shot multiple times and killed. John Taylor was shot in his hip and severely injured, but survived the attack with the Richards' aid. Smith was also shot several times as he attempted to escape the mob by jumping from the second story window of the jail.

When a mob of 200 armed men storms the jail he was being held at, I'd say there was something a little more than a simple criminal case against him.

Ever heard of the Danites? The Mormon army that would go around the farmlands and ask for Gods 10% from all people, believers and not, and when denied, the good ol Danites would burn there barns or fields?

No I haven't, but that needs to be apologized for as well.

[geebob]

I certainly hope you're right! If he doesn't bring the hammer down seriously tonight, I may have to consider Zacharias anathema.

Yes, when christians meet with those they disagree with, they must always, always, ALWAYS, bring up contention and disagreement and never build bridges and focus on what we do agree on. And this must be the way for every single christian. Every Christian should have the exact same focus, that is what they disagree upon.

[just Johnna]

Ever heard of the Danites? The Mormon army that would go around the farmlands and ask for Gods 10% from all people, believers and not, and when denied, the good ol Danites would burn there barns or fields?

What's your source here? Danites arose in Missouri, 1838. Tithing payment wasn't a regular feature until 1899. The Missouri saints were living with all things in common.

[Xmansmommy]

Leroy, honestly what did you expect? Did you expect him to go into a Mormon temple and start tearing down their doctrine? Honestly? Seriously, surely you didn't expect him to be so ungracious did you?

[Richbee]

Jesus and the Trinity contradicts Mormonism.

[Richbee]

How do we Truthfully Tolerate? (www.rzim.org/publications/today.php/635)

[Xmansmommy]

Appreciate the article rich, ty. :thumb:

[Richbee]

Appreciate the article rich, ty. :thumb:

The strategy and tactics of Ravi are very soft sell, and with the style of a Professor.

He also holds very carefully to his agreements, and his invitation may have asked or required that his topics be limited or certainly his time.

RZIM.org (www.rzim.org)

On another occassion, and with a different invitation, you may yet discover the Lion let out of his cage! [The Word of God is like a Lion.]

Re: Tolerance

Paul Copan, Ph. D. works with Ravi and has written an excellent article:

“Who are you to Judge Others? (www.gospelcom.net/rzim/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=9)

[geebob]

Ever heard of the Danites? The Mormon army that would go around the farmlands and ask for Gods 10% from all people, believers and not, and when denied, the good ol Danites would burn there barns or fields?

That makes it okay to persecute Mormons. Where did I read that in the gospel? I think it was something like "slap the other cheek." yes no?

[Bill the Cat]

That makes it okay to persecute Mormons. Where did I read that in the gospel? I think it was something like "slap the other cheek." yes no?

:hi: :geebob: I don't understand why you have made this comment. The whole point was that Mormons were not as innocent in the frontier days as they made themselves out to be. Look at the whole Mountain Meadows fiasco.

I don't think we as a Christian community owe apologies to the Mormons when we had nothing to do with it. Long dead Imbecils who hated the fact that Joseph Smith was "stealing" their young women and moving away were responsible. Will the Mormons formally apologize that Joseph killed 2 men in his jailhouse shootout? I think that apologizing to them is tantamount to victimizing them all over again. They were not entirely innocent, nor were the townies they encountered.

[geebob]

I don't understand why you have made this comment. The whole point was that Mormons were not as innocent in the frontier days as they made themselves out to be. Look at the whole Mountain Meadows fiasco.

I don't think we as a Christian community owe apologies to the Mormons when we had nothing to do with it. Long dead Imbecils who hated the fact that Joseph Smith was "stealing" their young women and moving away were responsible. Will the Mormons formally apologize that Joseph killed 2 men in his jailhouse shootout? I think that apologizing to them is tantamount to victimizing them all over again. They were not entirely innocent, nor were the townies they encountered.

I'm not really that familiar with the history of mormonism. And I don't know that the example brought up constitutes religious persecution. Did Joseph smith bring such violence upon himself? I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me if he did (which is not to say that the christian answer was to form a mob and kill him in a prison).

But I doubt the comments made by the president of fuller lack truth, that the mormons where persecuted by christians...as they have Jews, other christians and heterodox christians.

But of course we will insist that it wasn't the real body of christ. Or that they weren't christians when they commited these attrocities. And there is a truth to that, and yet, though Moses at one point interceding for israel says "forgive them", at another, he includes himself with the identity of the lapsed body and says "forgive us". Owning the errors and mistakes can be humiliating and the fact is, we in the west don't have a good grasp on what it is to accept responsibility, and that is just the way of following our savior who suffered humiliation and shame for our sakes identifying with us.

[just Johnna]

:hi: :geebob: I don't understand why you have made this comment. The whole point was that Mormons were not as innocent in the frontier days as they made themselves out to be. Look at the whole Mountain Meadows fiasco.

Mountain Meadows in 1857 in Utah. If you would like my apology for it, I can give it to you up and down the block. The mormons justified themselves after Haun's Mill, and the kidnappings, and the houses being looted and burned down, and the extermination order in Missouri, but now every saint today remembers Mountain Meadows with shame. In these days of Al-Quada terrorism, because of Mountain Meadows I am wary of retribution and how often it is visted on the innocent.

just Johnna

[Richbee]

Asked to speak on "Who is the Truth?" Zacharias was not expected to highlight many differences between historic Christian theology and Mormonism, but apparently he did mention them. The Deseret Morning News reports:

He spoke of the "exclusivity and sufficiency of Jesus Christ," noting that he asserted an exclusive truth claim in his declaration as "the Way, the Truth and the Life." While he acknowledged that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ in many of their views from historic Christianity, he emphasized much of what they share in reverence for a being both consider the divine Savior of mankind.

See RZIM.org (www.rzim.org)

The Salt Lake Tribune offers a similar summary, saying Zacharias

acknowledged there are doctrinal differences—including some that are deep—between traditional Christianity and the LDS faith.

His hour-long sermon emphasized aspects of Christian doctrine for which Mormons have a different understanding, such as sin, salvation through the Cross, and the Trinity.

But his overarching message—that Jesus Christ is the answer to the longing in all human hearts—was one that resonated with both evangelical Christians and Mormons … .

The sermon, which filled the Tabernacle to capacity with about 7,000 evangelical Protestants, Mormons, and others, received a standing ovation.

Christianity Today (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/146/11.0.html)

[Leroy]

Asked to speak on "Who is the Truth?" Zacharias was not expected to highlight many differences between historic Christian theology and Mormonism, but apparently he did mention them. The Deseret Morning News reports:

He spoke of the "exclusivity and sufficiency of Jesus Christ," noting that he asserted an exclusive truth claim in his declaration as "the Way, the Truth and the Life." While he acknowledged that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ in many of their views from historic Christianity, he emphasized much of what they share in reverence for a being both consider the divine Savior of mankind.

LDS will wholeheartedly agree with this statement.


The Salt Lake Tribune offers a similar summary, saying Zacharias

acknowledged there are doctrinal differences—including some that are deep—between traditional Christianity and the LDS faith.

LDS will wholeheartedly argee with this statement as well, you see, without going into the specific doctrinal differences the audience is left to assume whatever doctrine, peripheral and not central.


His hour-long sermon emphasized aspects of Christian doctrine for which Mormons have a different understanding, such as sin, salvation through the Cross, and the Trinity.

I was there, and after living in Zion for many years and presenting these Christian doctrines on sin, salvation through the cross and the trinity the way that Ravi did, I know that the LDS would agree with everything that he said. LDS believe in salvation through the Cross, but that only gets them to the lowest level of heaven, Ravi never touched on that fact.


But his overarching message—that Jesus Christ is the answer to the longing in all human hearts—was one that resonated with both evangelical Christians and Mormons …

The sermon, which filled the Tabernacle to capacity with about 7,000 evangelical Protestants, Mormons, and others, received a standing ovation.


Christianity Today

LDS people have a very deep and strong belief in Jesus, it’s just not the Jesus of the bible that they believe in, and Ravi failed to make that clear, therefore the standing ovation by the LDS was because of the affirmation of there twisted belief. They went home believing that they believe the same thing that Christians do. That saddens me.

Ravi had a chance to tell a bunch a folks the Truth, by exposing the lie, he had a chance to tell them how to tell the difference between these two bottles, both bottles are made to look the same but one bottle is poison and will lead them straight to hell and the other bottle is the True and Living Christ.

It’s like Ravi came to a hospital ward full of critically ill patients and he had the cure for their deadly disease in his back pocket, but instead of giving it to them, he preached on the importance of dental hygiene.

[bar Jonah]

LDS will wholeheartedly agree with this statement.



LDS will wholeheartedly argee with this statement as well, you see, without going into the specific doctrinal differences the audience is left to assume whatever doctrine, peripheral and not central.



I was there, and after living in Zion for many years and presenting these Christian doctrines on sin, salvation through the cross and the trinity the way that Ravi did, I know that the LDS would agree with everything that he said. LDS believe in salvation through the Cross, but that only gets them to the lowest level of heaven, Ravi never touched on that fact.



LDS people have a very deep and strong belief in Jesus, it’s just not the Jesus of the bible that they believe in, and Ravi failed to make that clear, therefore the standing ovation by the LDS was because of the affirmation of there twisted belief. They went home believing that they believe the same thing that Christians do. That saddens me.

Ravi had a chance to tell a bunch a folks the Truth, by exposing the lie, he had a chance to tell them how to tell the difference between these two bottles, both bottles are made to look the same but one bottle is poison and will lead them straight to hell and the other bottle is the True and Living Christ.

It’s like Ravi came to a hospital ward full of critically ill patients and he had the cure for their deadly disease in his back pocket, but instead of giving it to them, he preached on the importance of dental hygiene.
Your past paragraph pegged this so perfectly that someone's GOTTA give you pearls for that. And I don't know if anyone else will, so I'm makin' sure of it! I only regret I'm limited to giving five!

:rithumb:

[Xmansmommy]

LDS believe in salvation through the Cross, but that only gets them to the lowest level of heaven, Ravi never touched on that fact.

Since we know there is no "lowest level of heaven," isn't their belief that Jesus saves them, regardless of what "level" they'll be in, enough to consider them saved then? Is believing Jesus saves them what saves them, or is their understanding of heaven what saves them? If our understanding of heaven is necessary for salvation, I'd dare say, none of us are saved. :nsm:

[bar Jonah]

Since we know there is no "lowest level of heaven," isn't their belief that Jesus saves them, regardless of what "level" they'll be in, enough to consider them saved then? Is believing Jesus saves them what saves them, or is their understanding of heaven what saves them? If our understanding of heaven is necessary for salvation, I'd dare say, none of us are saved. :nsm:
What Jesus? There are hundreds of thousands of beings called "Jesus," quite literally. They're rather common especially in Latin/Hispanic cultures.

Some Jesus that is a created man who rose to godhood? Who is the brother of Satan? No.

The one and only God, Creator of the universe, eternally existant, eternally omnipotent, eternally God?

Yes. But that is not the god they worship.

Getting the name right doesn't get someone any brownie points. "Jesus" wasn't his name, anyway. Believing in some noble Spanish lord named "hay-zoos" who claimed to rise from the dead.... that won't do you any good, either. That's not the real God. And neither is this created man Jesus that they speak of. Just calling your god "Jesus" doesn't make it the real thing. We don't worship a name. We worship a Person.

[Xmansmommy]

That may be very well and true Jim, but they aren't worshipping some Jesus from any Latin/Hispanic cultures. Nor are they worshipping some guy down the street by the same name as Jesus. They happen to believe in the Jesus of the bible and worship Him. They may not have all of their beliefs about Him correct, but I can assure you that none of us as Christians do either. We may have a better biblical perspective of who He is, but I personally don't believe we're saved by having a complete biblical understanding on the nature and person of Jesus Christ. But our salvation is by grace through faith. Certainly this isn't the place to argue whether or not Mormons fit into the Orthodox mold, however. But my question to Leroy was a valid one I do believe. :smile:

[just Johnna]

What Jesus? There are hundreds of thousands of beings called "Jesus," quite literally. They're rather common especially in Latin/Hispanic cultures.

Some Jesus that is a created man who rose to godhood? Who is the brother of Satan? No.

The one and only God, Creator of the universe, eternally existant, eternally omnipotent, eternally God?

Yes. But that is not the god they worship.
You guys keep saying this, but I'm not getting it, since we do believe Jesus is creator of the universe, eternally existent. We believe God is omnipotent and has free will, so we can depend on him, I would say the universe hangs together moment by moment by God's continuing choice, and how dependable he is! We believe he was in the bosom of the Father from the beginning--that's reiterated in section 76 of our doctrine.

Why don't you and Leroy start a thread called "What Ravi should have said."
Getting the name right doesn't get someone any brownie points. "Jesus" wasn't his name, anyway. Believing in some noble Spanish lord named "hay-zoos" who claimed to rise from the dead.... that won't do you any good, either. That's not the real God. And neither is this created man Jesus that they speak of. Just calling your god "Jesus" doesn't make it the real thing. We don't worship a name. We worship a Person.
The "person" we worship was crucified around 30 AD, rose from the dead, redeemed the world from sin, and is exalted on the right hand of the Father. It's not that we think Christ is created, we don't.--it's that we think there is something about each of us humankind that is uncreated, and I think that must be what is driving you crazy. But none of us was with the Father from the beginning the way Christ is. None of us are the perfect representation of the Father; none of us are in perfect accord with him.

Johnna, just.

[geebob]

What Jesus? ...Some Jesus that is a created man who rose to godhood? Who is the brother of Satan? No.

Identity doesn't work that way. You can know someone while being mistaken about some aspects about them... even some very important aspects of who they are. Mormons are very mistaken about some aspects of who Jesus is and yet they know some very important aspects about him.

Jesus outlines who knows him in Matthew 25.

[bar Jonah]

Identity doesn't work that way. You can know someone while being mistaken about some aspects about them... even some very important aspects of who they are. Mormons are very mistaken about some aspects of who Jesus is and yet they know some very important aspects about him.

Jesus outlines who knows him in Matthew 25.
Mistaken about some aspects? It's a distinctly different being! This isn't an issue of whether he was black or had long hair or was born in 5 B.C. as opposed to 4 B.C. This is not about cosmetic or incidental differences. This is about the identity of Jesus, Himself! I can scarcely believe what I'm seeing from you guys, here. There's a reason why Mormonism is relegated to a separate area for non-Christian religions here at Tweb.

There was more than one man named Jesus crucified 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem. Does a Mormon believe in the charismatic, revolutionary leader named Jesus, the son of the Father, who was accused of crimes, presented to the crowd by Pilate, slated for crucifixion? I just described Barabbas, whose actual name was Yeshua (Jesus) bar Abbas -- "Yeshua the son of the father!" He himself came inches away from being crucified. A number of people named Yeshua were crucified in Jerusalem around that time. And all but one of them were not your God or mine.

Do Muslims worship our God, and are therefore saved? Hey, they "believe in Jesus." They hold Him up in high regard! They are referring to this guy 2,000 years ago who was this teacher and prophet who never sinned, etc! Sure, they disagree about some things, but they are talking about the same man, right?



Johnna, I'm surprised to hear you say such things, because if the church elders I've spoken to were here, they'd probably be correcting you all over the place. I've had sit-down meetings with LDS church elders who readily proclaimed that Jesus was once a mere created man like us, and became a god just as we can become gods of our own worlds. That this is true even of The Father, who was once a mere man in another world and rose to become a God! That's the whole foundation behind the teaching that we can also become gods of our own worlds just like Him. The same goes for the former LDS priest of the Order of Melchizadek who I met and spoke to about this, as well; he agreed this is what the LDS teaches! So, who am I to believe?

(Of course, Brigham Young prophecied that Adam in the Garden is God the Father and the only God with whom we have anything to do. But that's probably a separate issue. Heck, you can get excommunicated from the LDS for openly preaching that today, despite the fact that Young prophecied that any and every sermon he ever gave is equal to divinely inspired scripture.)

[Xmansmommy]

Again Jim, you fail to acknowledge that they do follow the biblical Jesus not Barabbas or the one of many other Jesus' alive at that time. They do read the bible and follow Him. As for this site dictating who is and is not worthy of posting in certain areas? They have that right as site owners. But in my own personal opinion, that's God's judgement call and I wouldn't want to try to make those judgments. I'll leave that for the only One who is worthy, who judges the thoughts and intents of the hearts rather than our perfect understanding of biblical doctrines.

[Trout]

Ravi speaks at the Mormon Tabernacle

At the invitation of over 50 churches and institutions under the banner of Standing Together, an evangelical ministry, Ravi Zacharias recently gave a three-part lectureship "In the Pursuit of Truth" at two universities in the Salt Lake City area and at the Mormon Tabernacle. The Salt Lake Tribune reported, "For the first time in 105 years, a preacher of another faith was at the pulpit of the Tabernacle on Temple Square on Sunday night, urging evangelical Christians and Mormons to turn to Jesus Christ." Dwight L. Moody was the last evangelical to speak there in 1899.

On November 14 Ravi spoke on "Who Is Jesus? Defending Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life" to over 7000 people who filled the Mormon Tabernacle and an overflow setting. His message was followed by a standing ovation. Ravi addressed the supremacy and sufficiency of Jesus Christ and noted that there are deep doctrinal differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Yet as the Tribune observed, "His hour-long sermon emphasized aspects of Christian doctrine for which Mormons have a different understanding, such as sin, salvation through the cross and the Trinity. But his overarching message—that Jesus Christ is the answer to the longing in all human hearts—was one that resonated with both evangelical Christians and Mormons."

The previous evening (November 13) Ravi addressed students at the University of Utah, where he spoke on "The Basis For Truth, Defending the Notion of Absolute Truth." He concluded his lectureship with "The Loss of Truth: The Crumbling Moral Foundation" on November 15 at Weber State University. Both forums were followed by standing ovations and a time of question and answer.

Further information on these events can be found on Christianity Today’s website at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/146/11.0.html

Check back for CDs and DVDs of this meetings, which will be available at a later date through our website.

I am not finished processing all the info, but it appears as though Ravi has included the LDS into Orthodox Christianity. That statement from his website is deeply troubling.

[Leroy]

Since we know there is no "lowest level of heaven," isn't their belief that Jesus saves them, regardless of what "level" they'll be in, enough to consider them saved then? Is believing Jesus saves them what saves them, or is their understanding of heaven what saves them? If our understanding of heaven is necessary for salvation, I'd dare say, none of us are saved.

But our salvation is by grace through faith. Certainly this isn't the place to argue whether or not Mormons fit into the Orthodox mold, however. But my question to Leroy was a valid one I do believe.

Your question assumes the LDS definition of salvation is biblical, there is no “I almost got it right level of heaven” where we can go to and finish our work, do the work that Joseph Smith have mandated that we do to receive full exaltation, become Gods ourselves and receive a planet that we can begin our reign as Gods ourselves. Biblical salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, not grace after all that we can do. God will not save a person that believes that "as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become”. The “I almost got it right level of the afterlife” is hell. The Lord says that there will be many people that stand before the judgment seat and say Lord, Lord, didn’t I prophecy in your name, and cast out devils and many other wonderful things, and the Lord will say get away from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity!

Belief that we are died in our trespasses and Christ’s salvation on the cross is our only passport out of hell, that all our works are as filthy rags and if we think that we can buy us a seat closer to the thrown with some of our filthy works, the Lord will say get away from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity.

So in answer to your question, “Is believing Jesus saves them what saves them, or is their understanding of heaven what saves them?” its both, if you believe Lucifer’s brother, a created being, and exalted man, will save you into a heaven that you can finish your work to exaltation and Godhood, according to the scriptures you will not be saved.

[geebob]

Mistaken about some aspects? It's a distinctly different being!

If a metaphysical understanding about God is necessary to knowing him then no one knows him. But this is not the way we know God. We know him relationally and personally and the requirements for identity will be different.

This is not about cosmetic or incidental differences.

You couldn't accuse me of saying they are insignificant differences. Yes they are very mistaken. You know, there are christians who say that some people are destined to reject God even before they were born, even as they are babies loved and adored and hoped for by there parents. It's such a wicked view. But these people are mistaken and some of them are better christians then either of us. In many ways, mormonism is not worse.

This is about the identity of Jesus, Himself!

yes, they are mistaken about much of it, and yet the description in matthew 25 of the sheep may apply to some of them.

There's a reason why Mormonism is relegated to a separate area for non-Christian religions here at Tweb.

yes. with good reason. And it doesn't mean that every exchange with them has to be one of conflict always focusing on differences any more than that should be the case when dialogueing with Jews.

There was more than one man named Jesus crucified 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem. Does a Mormon believe in the charismatic, revolutionary leader named Jesus, the son of the Father, who was accused of crimes, presented to the crowd by Pilate, slated for crucifixion? I just described Barabbas, whose actual name was Yeshua (Jesus) bar Abbas --

what does matthew 25 have to say (one of the most irrelevent scriptures as far as much of conservative protestantism is concerned)

He himself came inches away from being crucified. A number of people named Yeshua were crucified in Jerusalem around that time. And all but one of them were not your God or mine.

and none of that establishes their identity as the Jesus of the Mormons.

Do Muslims worship our God, and are therefore saved?

have you missed out on Clark Pinnock and John Sander's other big project of inclusivism?

Yes. why? because they believe in the "prophet" Jesus? Perhaps. More important is whether they respond to the grace that is available to them. And when everything they know about Christianity and the christian west is that they are the oppressors of Muslims (even as diluted as that may be), I can't say that they know of any gospel that conveys God's grace.

[Xmansmommy]

Your question assumes the LDS definition of salvation is biblical, there is no “I almost got it right level of heaven” where we can go to and finish our work, do the work that Joseph Smith have mandated that we do to receive full exaltation, become Gods ourselves and receive a planet that we can begin our reign as Gods ourselves.

No, my question assumes as I've stated, that none of us know or understand the nature of heaven so if they are wrong about what goes on in heaven, at least they have an explanation, albeit wrong in my opinion. Not because the bible explicitly tells us the nature of heaven or what we'll be doing there, but because the work they "start" here is not biblical. Huge difference.

Biblical salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, not grace after all that we can do.

I agree. However Mormons, though their definition is not correct, do believe that everyone will be resurrected (saved) by the work of Jesus Christ, since He overcame death for us. The "after all we can do" is not all that different than the Christian view of working for rewards in heaven is it?

God will not save a person that believes that "as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become”.

He told you this? :eh: I'm impressed!

The “I almost got it right level of the afterlife” is hell. The Lord says that there will be many people that stand before the judgment seat and say Lord, Lord, didn’t I prophecy in your name, and cast out devils and many other wonderful things, and the Lord will say get away from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity!

Belief that we are died in our trespasses and Christ’s salvation on the cross is our only passport out of hell, that all our works are as filthy rags and if we think that we can buy us a seat closer to the thrown with some of our filthy works, the Lord will say get away from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity.

Personally, it brings me great comfort to know that Jesus was referring to the fruit that a Christian produces rather than our understanding of doctrine. :whew:


So in answer to your question, “Is believing Jesus saves them what saves them, or is their understanding of heaven what saves them?” its both, if you believe Lucifer’s brother, a created being, and exalted man, will save you into a heaven that you can finish your work to exaltation and Godhood, according to the scriptures you will not be saved.

I'm honest and sincere when I ask this question trout. What biblical evidence do you have to suggest that a person who held bad doctrine was kept from heaven? Because if that is a biblical truth, I truly desire to fully embrace it as it's revealed to me. That comes from the heart. Thanks in advance!

[bar Jonah]

Linda, so you're saying that the Tweb leadership is wrong for dividing up sections for Christian and non-Christian forums because it's only God's job to decide who's saved and who isn't? Just asking you to go on record, here... All belief systems should be in one big category since we shouldn't judge who is and isn't saved, according to their belief system?


How about the Watchtower? Our "god" is the created being Michael the Archangel who went by the name Jesus at that time and died on a stake. Orthodox Christianity?

[Leroy]

No, my question assumes as I've stated, that none of us know or understand the nature of heaven so if they are wrong about what goes on in heaven, at least they have an explanation, albeit wrong in my opinion. Not because the bible explicitly tells us the nature of heaven or what we'll be doing there, but because the work they "start" here is not biblical. Huge difference.



I agree. However Mormons, though their definition is not correct, do believe that everyone will be resurrected (saved) by the work of Jesus Christ, since He overcame death for us. The "after all we can do" is not all that different than the Christian view of working for rewards in heaven is it?



He told you this? :eh: I'm impressed!



Personally, it brings me great comfort to know that Jesus was referring to the fruit that a Christian produces rather than our understanding of doctrine. :whew:




I'm honest and sincere when I ask this question trout. What biblical evidence do you have to suggest that a person who held bad doctrine was kept from heaven? Because if that is a biblical truth, I truly desire to fully embrace it as it's revealed to me. That comes from the heart. Thanks in advance!


So Xmansmommy, why did you leave the Mormon church, just church hopping?

[bar Jonah]

So Xmansmommy, why did you leave the Mormon church, just church hopping?
Leroy, I know you're as outraged as I am, but that kind of personal jab is very uncalled for. I think you owe Linda an apology. She is a sister in Christ. Please act like a brother in Christ.

[Xmansmommy]

Linda, so you're saying that the Tweb leadership is wrong for dividing up sections for Christian and non-Christian forums because it's only God's job to decide who's saved and who isn't?

Wrong? Hmmmmmm, in essence, yes, since they cannot know the thoughts and intents of the hearts and judge perfectly. Are they entitled to as the site owners? Absolutely!

Just asking you to go on record, here... All belief systems should be in one big category since we shouldn't judge who is and isn't saved, according to their belief system?

Satisfied? :eh: I don't own and run a Christian site Jim, nor would I. I wouldn't even begin to want the responsibility of deciding who is and who is not saved. Can you honestly say that you have the authority to judge other people's hearts based solely on what they profess about Jesus or doctrine?


How about the Watchtower? Our "god" is the created being Michael the Archangel who went by the name Jesus at that time and died on a stake. Orthodox Christianity?

Jim, I never claimed this was about Orthodoxy. Do I believe that there will be some Mormons, JWs, etc., in heaven? You bet! Despite their bad doctrine. Matter of fact, I'm sure I'll see you and you me, despite our bad doctrines as well. Praise God that the blood of Christ can also cover our lack of understanding! :bwoot:

[Xmansmommy]

So Xmansmommy, why did you leave the Mormon church, just church hopping?

I left because I found many of their doctrines to be unbiblical, and I desire truth. Have I found all truth since? Absolutely not! Am I any less saved because I don't know or understand every biblical doctrine there is? I don't think so. Your point?

[Leroy]

Leroy, I know you're as outraged as I am, but that kind of personal jab is very uncalled for. I think you owe Linda an apology. She is a sister in Christ. Please act like a brother in Christ.


I'm sorry Xmansmommy:flowers:

a lot of my friends, coworkers and family members, are LDS and my heart goes out to them, and when I here another christain telling them don't worry, you believe in the same Jesus, you will be saved, it bothers me.

[Leroy]

I left because I found many of their doctrines to be unbiblical, and I desire truth. Have I found all truth since? Absolutely not! Am I any less saved because I don't know or understand every biblical doctrine there is? I don't think so. Your point?


none, sorry!

[geebob]

Right Idea,

scroll up.



Lee Roy,
a lot of my friends, coworkers and family members, are LDS and my heart goes out to them, and when I here another christain telling them don't worry, you believe in the same Jesus, you will be saved, it bothers me.

Just because some mormons may be saved doesn't mean that they have assurance. I wouldn't tell them not to worry.

[Xmansmommy]

Trout, although I wasn't offended, you're forgiven. :smile: If you think I go around telling Mormons to believe the false doctrines they do, you're mistaken. I do witness to Mormons, but I don't do it in pride or arrogance. I do it in meekness and love as I'm called to do. Do I try to get them to see the truth about our salvation being in Christ alone? You bet I do! Not because I necessarily fear hell for them, but because I know the way understanding grace has changed my life and how being thankful has caused me to worship God out of love rather than fear. Truth be told, many Christians are only serving God out of fear as well. I don't see much distinction personally.

[Xmansmommy]

ust because some mormons may be saved doesn't mean that they have assurance.

Exactly geebob! :thumb:

[Trout]

I'm honest and sincere when I ask this question trout. What biblical evidence do you have to suggest that a person who held bad doctrine was kept from heaven? Because if that is a biblical truth, I truly desire to fully embrace it as it's revealed to me. That comes from the heart. Thanks in advance!

What Biblical evidence do you have to suggest that a person with incorrect doctrine was allowed into heaven?

[Xmansmommy]

I have none, so I suppose we are even. That's why I'm glad that God judges, not us. :smile:

[Trout]

Trout, although I wasn't offended, you're forgiven. :smile: If you think I go around telling Mormons to believe the false doctrines they do, you're mistaken. I do witness to Mormons, but I don't do it in pride or arrogance. I do it in meekness and love as I'm called to do. Do I try to get them to see the truth about our salvation being in Christ alone? You bet I do! Not because I necessarily fear hell for them, but because I know the way understanding grace has changed my life and how being thankful has caused me to worship God out of love rather than fear. Truth be told, many Christians are only serving God out of fear as well. I don't see much distinction personally.

Xmom,

I have no idea what this is in reference to.

Please clarify why you made this attack on me.

[Trout]

I have none, so I suppose we are even. That's why I'm glad that God judges, not us. :smile:


Right, so only those with correct doctrine enter the kingdom, I'm glad we're in agreement.

[Xmansmommy]

Xmom,

I have no idea what this is in reference to.

Please clarify why you made this attack on me.

Please forgive me if you view that as an attack. It was no attack on you whatsoever. I suggested that there was no offense and you are forgiven. The reasoning behind my next statement was your comments....

a lot of my friends, coworkers and family members, are LDS and my heart goes out to them, and when I here another christain telling them don't worry, you believe in the same Jesus, you will be saved, it bothers me.

I was simply sharing my mind on the subject. It was not an attack at all and I'm sorry you seen it that way. Looking at it, I can see why you would think it was a personal attack but I assure you it was not. I apologize if it came across that way.

[Trout]

Please forgive me if you view that as an attack. It was no attack on you whatsoever. I suggested that there was no offense and you are forgiven. The reasoning behind my next statement was your comments....



I was simply sharing my mind on the subject. It was not an attack at all and I'm sorry you seen it that way. Looking at it, I can see why you would think it was a personal attack but I assure you it was not. I apologize if it came across that way.

I didn't make that comment Xmom. Please re-read it.

[geebob]

What Biblical evidence do you have to suggest that a person with incorrect doctrine was allowed into heaven?

early Jews were monolotrysts (believed in many God's but one supreme God worthy of devotion) Note the accurate tranlation of the shema is "here O Israel, Yahweh is your God, Yahweh alone".

Naaman was an animist holding to a geographical view of gods evidenced by the soil he took home to pray before in the pagan temple.

None of the Jews were trinitarians

[Xmansmommy]

I'm sorry trout, my sincere apologies. Those comments should be for Leroy. :flowers:

[geebob]

this is my second post, scroll up


the author of ecclesiastes questioned that there would be life after death

[Trout]

early Jews were monolotrysts (believed in many God's but one supreme God worthy of devotion) Note the accurate tranlation of the shema is "here O Israel, Yahweh is your God, Yahweh alone".

Naaman was an animist holding to a geographical view of gods evidenced by the soil he took home to pray before in the pagan temple.

None of the Jews were trinitarians

geebob,

Please provide Biblical references for someone who is in heaven who holds incorrect doctrine.

[Trout]

I'm sorry trout, my sincere apologies. Those comments should be for Leroy. :flowers:

Thanks Xmom, I wondered what brought that on.

[Xmansmommy]

You're welcome trout. :hug: The comments still weren't meant to be offensive regardless of whom they were to. I do hope that Leroy and others reading do realize that. I was simply sharing my thoughts and they weren't directed toward anyone in particular. When I said, "I do witness to Mormons, but I don't do it in pride or arrogance. I do it in meekness and love as I'm called to do," I wasn't accusing anyone here of doing those things in that manner. Just for clarification.

[geebob]

Please provide Biblical references for someone who is in heaven who holds incorrect doctrine.

What's the relevence? No one in question is currently in heaven.

[Trout]

What's the relevence? No one in question is currently in heaven.

I'm glad to know we agree on this geebob.

[geebob]

uh, ok.

I was responding to your claim that only those who have the right doctrine enter the kingdom of heaven. That I don't agree with. But I see no reason to think anyone there remains in error.

[Trout]

Craig Hazen's report on the Mormon Tabernacle event

From the director of Biola University's Christian Apologetics program. An update on the effort to dialog with the Mormon leadership in SLC.

Dear Friends:

Those of us who were ministering in Mormon country last weekend are indescribably grateful for your prayers. I believe there was a spiritual earthquake on Sunday evening (November 14, 2004) in the LDS Temple Square and we will be feeling the aftershocks for many months if not years.

There were 7,000 tickets distributed for this event and every seat was filled. Many who came hoping to get into the Tabernacle or the overflow center were disappointed to have to be turned away. The event was covered by all of the print, radio, and television media in Salt Lake City and beyond.

Although the LDS prophet/president was not in attendance (at 94 he is not able to attend many events), there was top level LDS leadership in the hall as well as the senior religion faculty from Brigham Young University. Mormons and Evangelicals from all over Utah packed the venue. Some that I spoke to even flew in from other parts of the country for this historic event.

The speakers for the evening were, in order:
--Greg Johnson, Director of Standing Together Ministries in Utah (Greg is the amazing Utah pastor and former Mormon whose winsome relationship building efforts made this event possible)
--Joseph Tkach, Jr., Pastor General of the World Wide Church of God (now an Evangelical body)
--Robert L. Millet, Prolific LDS author and Senior Professor in the Religion Dept at BYU
--Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Seminary
--Ravi Zacharias, Christian Philosopher and Global Evangelist
--Craig Hazen, Professor of Christian Apologetics, Biola University and
--Michael Card, the Christian singer who performed five songs in the course of the evening.

After some introductory remarks from both the Mormon and Evangelical sides of the aisle, Michael Card led us all in some amazing worship songs. It was surreal to see Evangelicals worshiping in Spirit and Truth at the center of Mormon power and influence. It was a tremendous reminder that the Triune God of Scripture will ultimately triumph and that one day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Ravi Zacharias gave a dazzling message focusing on the person and work of Christ. I think it was the most effective thing he could have done. In my view the rank-and-file Mormons would not have found anything controversial in it. However, those LDS who had a more finely-tuned sense of theology (very rare among Mormons, even in their leadership) would have recognized some pointed challenges on sin, salvation, the nature of God, and the state of the human heart. Almost everyone in the audience clapped even when Ravi mentioned the Trinity--except for the BYU professors who knew it was not in concert with LDS teaching and sat more stoically at that point.

Nevertheless, Ravi received a long standing ovation from every person in attendance when he concluded.

I was the final speaker and took the opportunity to challenge the Mormon leaders to make this an annual event. I actually got a huge laugh when I turned to them on the platform and asked "Don't you all have a bigger place right across the street for next year?" (I was referring to their 21,000 seat Conference Center.) The newspapers picked up on that and mentioned this humorous challenge. The word on the street in Salt Lake City is that the wheels might already be turning for such a follow-up event.

I have little doubt that this will be an event featured prominently in history books 100 years from now.

It would take me hours to type out the fuller picture of what took place. It was truly extraordinary. I am so grateful for your prayer partnership in this effort. And I am so thankful to our faithful God and King who listens to our prayers and who longs for all to come to a saving knowledge of His Son.

I'd be honored if you'd continue to pray as I head off to San Antonio tomorrow to speak and to meet with another group of Mormon scholars and leaders.

I can't wait to see what God does next. Stay tuned . . .

Your co-laborer in the faith,

Craig Hazen

I think Hazen is saying that with the exception of a few learned LDS people, the LDS membership in general has a saving knowledge of Christ. :no:

[geebob]

I think Hazen is saying that with the exception of a few learned LDS people, the LDS membership in general has a saving knowledge of Christ.

I don't see that this is necessarily the case at all. It seems more to be the case that rank and file mormons didn't realize that their beliefs were challenged. But should they be at every meeting of mormons and evangelicals?

Your glass is half empty.

I expect that many will be drawn to Ravi's ministry and will desire to look deeper into these things and they will find these challenging issues.

That's what Ravi does. He inspires the quest.

[Trout]

I don't see that this is necessarily the case at all. It seems more to be the case that rank and file mormons didn't realize that their beliefs were challenged. But should they be at every meeting of mormons and evangelicals?

Your glass is half empty.

I expect that many will be drawn to Ravi's ministry and will desire to look deeper into these things and they will find these challenging issues.

That's what Ravi does. He inspires the quest.

And since Ravi hasn't said anything contrary to what the average LDS person believes, they'll be strengthened in their faith.

[geebob]

I hope there faith is strengthened in commonly held beliefs between orthodox christians and mormons.

And strengthened by who? Not a mormon.

And could some of them draw the conclusion based on some things Ravi said? Of course, just as wrong conclusions can be drawn from any set of truths. James after all had to correct a misconception that people gathered from Paul's teachings, that since we are saved by faith and not works, we just have to believe and nothing is expected, but no, to these misunderstandings from paul, he pointed out that faith without works is dead.

[bar Jonah]

I hope there faith is strengthened in commonly held beliefs between orthodox christians and mormons.

And strengthened by who? Not a mormon.

And could some of them draw the conclusion based on some things Ravi said? Of course, just as wrong conclusions can be drawn from any set of truths. James after all had to correct a misconception that people gathered from Paul's teachings, that since we are saved by faith and not works, we just have to believe and nothing is expected, but no, to these misunderstandings from paul, he pointed out that faith without works is dead.
I hope that their faith is weakened, even to the point of its destruction. Just as my faith was weakened unto its destruction 5 years ago this month. And thank God it was. Why would we want to make people better Mormons, better Muslims, better atheists .... better enemies of God? Equipping people to be better unrepentant sinners seems like madness to me.

Your glass is half empty.
My glass is all full. Their glass is completely empty.

I expect that many will be drawn to Ravi's ministry and will desire to look deeper into these things and they will find these challenging issues.

That's what Ravi does. He inspires the quest.
What quest? What reason to they have to find Christ... if they think they've already found Him? To make them think they are saved is actually worse than doing nothing at all. It becomes as huge wall between them and Christ. Benny Hinn has convinced people they were cured. They stopped taking their medication, and some of them died. Hinn didn't do them any favors by giving them that "good news." They needed to believe the bad news -- they still needed to be medically saved.

And so do these lost souls.

[geebob]

I hope that their faith is weakened, even to the point of its destruction. Just as my faith was weakened unto its destruction 5 years ago this month. And thank God it was. Why would we want to make people better Mormons, better Muslims, better atheists .... better enemies of God? Equipping people to be better unrepentant sinners seems like madness to me.

The journy isn't the same for everyone.

CS Lewis didn't start over from scratch.

I wager xmansmommy didn't either.


Progress happens when we affirm as good and true what others indeed know as good and true.

[bar Jonah]

The journy isn't the same for everyone.

CS Lewis didn't start over from scratch.

I wager xmansmommy didn't either.


Progress happens when we affirm as good and true what others indeed know as good and true.
You make it sound like you can be partly saved or something.

Salvation and being a new creation in Christ isn't a percentage thing. Heaven isn't a timeshare. It's an all-or-nothing thing.


Progress happens when they finally see that they have a problem with God, when they see that all is not well, that a solution is needed. If you don't think you're sick, it won't matter how great the Great Physician is.

[geebob]

You make it sound like you can be partly saved or something.

nope. I've explained the inclusivist view on salvation, but I think my posts are being missed here.

Salvation is about relationship and relationships have degrees.

It's an all-or-nothing thing.

it surely is. And yet, some salvific relations are better than others, and God always wants us to come closer and there is always a ways to go in that.

Progress happens when they finally see that they have a problem with God, when they see that all is not well, that a solution is needed. If you don't think you're sick, it won't matter how great the Great Physician is.

progress happens when they respond to the grace of God that is available to them that God has made available to their hearts.

[Richbee]

LDS will wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I was there, and after living in Zion for many years and presenting these Christian doctrines on sin, salvation through the cross and the trinity the way that Ravi did, I know that the LDS would agree with everything that he said. LDS believe in salvation through the Cross, but that only gets them to the lowest level of heaven, Ravi never touched on that fact.

Ah, lacking an appreciation for the gift of Salvation by Grace?

Workin' it to earn points to be redeemed in heaven, like coupons or free passes to imaginary planets or levels for new families, or kingdoms within the greater Kingdom?

With limited time, has Ravi scored the greater success of raising interest to click through to his site, and down load free messages or order tapes and CD's?

Also, I recall that Ravi generally speaks to bigger or the biggest issues between Christians, Hindus and Muslims.

Also, keep in mind as well, that Ravi often deates Atheists or Cosmic humanists, where scoring just one point of agreement is a big victory. (God just might exixt, and you cannot prove the nonexistance of God.)

LDS people have a very deep and strong belief in Jesus, it’s just not the Jesus of the bible that they believe in, and Ravi failed to make that clear, therefore the standing ovation by the LDS was because of the affirmation of there twisted belief. They went home believing that they believe the same thing that Christians do. That saddens me.

Interesting, and on a lighter note, no Jew ( or gentile) went home after listening to Jesus and slept well.

;-0)

It’s like Ravi came to a hospital ward full of critically ill patients and he had the cure for their deadly disease in his back pocket, but instead of giving it to them, he preached on the importance of dental hygiene.

Jesus was a Cardiologist and a Brain Surgeon!

So, what now? Tell them Mormons to TURN OR BURN?

[Richbee]

I would like to add a quick post designed to provoke deep thought and sober reflection for myself and any interested Christians....

And, I wonder, if Ravi's message will, in time, work itself through to the Mormon minds and hearts???

Quote:

We are now at home in a world where truth has been displaced by relevance and blurred by preference.

But we must remember that even relevance becomes irrelevant when it is not related to truth.

Jesus proclaimed boldly, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

When we know that truth is a person, when we see that truth has a face and eyes that look into our own, our response is no longer a matter of preference or interpretation. It is no longer a topic needing your formulated argument. It is a defining matter of your attitude toward a Person.

Jesus said, "I am the Truth."

He did not mean these words metaphorically, anymore than we ask life's most plaguing questions metaphorically. Is there meaning in life? Where did I come from? Where am I going? How do we know right from wrong? When you look at the Person of Christ, you find all those questions answered because He is the Truth. Truth is not a word to manipulate or a point to be argued. Truth is a Person, the only life perfectly lived, and death selflessly given to set you free. And He asks for your confidence. Consider your response, dear friend, knowing you are in His presence.

Truth is person reaching to all of us in Love, respect and in Lovingkindess. Who will deny the call of Jesus Christ? Click Here: More..... (www.rzim.org/publications/today.php/314)

[Trout]

I would like to add a quick post designed to provoke deep thought and sober reflection for myself and any interested Christians....

And, I wonder, if Ravi's message will, in time, work itself through to the Mormon minds and hearts???

Quote:

We are now at home in a world where truth has been displaced by relevance and blurred by preference.

But we must remember that even relevance becomes irrelevant when it is not related to truth.

Jesus proclaimed boldly, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

When we know that truth is a person, when we see that truth has a face and eyes that look into our own, our response is no longer a matter of preference or interpretation. It is no longer a topic needing your formulated argument. It is a defining matter of your attitude toward a Person.

Jesus said, "I am the Truth."

He did not mean these words metaphorically, anymore than we ask life's most plaguing questions metaphorically. Is there meaning in life? Where did I come from? Where am I going? How do we know right from wrong? When you look at the Person of Christ, you find all those questions answered because He is the Truth. Truth is not a word to manipulate or a point to be argued. Truth is a Person, the only life perfectly lived, and death selflessly given to set you free. And He asks for your confidence. Consider your response, dear friend, knowing you are in His presence.

Truth is person reaching to all of us in Love, respect and in Lovingkindess. Who will deny the call of Jesus Christ? Click Here: More..... (www.rzim.org/publications/today.php/314)


The LDS people would be in complete agreement with your quotations richbee. Why do you feel as though they are going to deeply affect those who already believe that they serve Christ?

[Xmansmommy]

How do we discern those that Jesus will say "Depart from me I never knew you" and those He said this about?....

But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

[Trout]

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?


Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

[Xmansmommy]

So who qualifies as workers of iniquity? Surely not those that Jesus mentions in Mark 9:39-41? I guess it's a bit confusing for me is all. :frown:

[geebob]

there is a significant difference in giving a thirsty man a cup of water and prophecying.

[Xmansmommy]

Well, I understand that geebob. But what I don't understand is Jesus' remarks in Mark 9 regarding someone doing a miracle in His name, and those in Matthew 7.

[Trout]

So who qualifies as workers of iniquity? Surely not those that Jesus mentions in Mark 9:39-41? I guess it's a bit confusing for me is all. :frown:

Those whos doctrine isn't correct.

[Xmansmommy]

Is that why Jesus speaks of the fruit in the prior verses? I've heard some teach that the fruit is doctrine. But I find that to be a tad lacking since the fruit of the Spirit are listed in Paul's epistles and it doesn't include doctrine as far as I can recall. :nsm:

[Bill the Cat]

Bruce McConkie, a Seventy, claimed, "Jesus kept the commandments of his Father and thereby worked out his own salvation, and also set an example as to the way and the means whereby all men may be saved" (The Mortal Messiah, Vol.4, p.434).

In the LDS tract entitled, What the Mormons Think of Christ (1973, pg. 22), it reads, "Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much that is believed and taught on this subject, however, is such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one's salvation. Many go so far, for instance, as to pretend, at least, to believe that if we confess Christ with our lips and avow that we accept Him as our personal Savior, we are thereby saved. His blood, without other act than mere belief, they say, makes us clean."

Why would McConkie accuse Christians of abasing "themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ" if he really thought we served the same Jesus? (Mormon Doctrine, pg.269).

Gal 1
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

[Trout]

Is that why Jesus speaks of the fruit in the prior verses? I've heard some teach that the fruit is doctrine. But I find that to be a tad lacking since the fruit of the Spirit are listed in Paul's epistles and it doesn't include doctrine as far as I can recall. :nsm:

OK :nsm: I guess you have the answer you're looking for.

[Xmansmommy]

Are you one who holds to fruit being doctrine? If so, how do you come to that conclusion biblically? btw, I have the answer that makes sense to me. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to learn where I may be wrong. :smile:

[t-rex]

Grace and peace from Utah,

I've scanned most of this thread, but not too thoroughly, so forgive any redundancy.

I was born and raised in Utah, and now pastor a Christian church here.

My take: I think Ravi's message was fine. I also agree that it simply reinforced what most Mormons already think they believe. Mormonism is intentionally an anti-intellectual culture. Belief is the only thing that matters....belief in the LDS church, not Christ.

Christ may be the Son of God, he may be the way to God, he may have died for our sins. Mormons will happily consent to all of that.

Underlying all of that, however, is the more foundational belief that Joseph Smith has introduced the true gospel and belief in the Mormon church is the only saving issue.


richbee said:
And, I wonder, if Ravi's message will, in time, work itself through to the Mormon minds and hearts???
No, I don't think Ravi's message will eventually sink in. I mean some few questioning Mormons may look into this Ravi guy or some such related thing. But the fact of the matter is most Christians don't absorb Ravi's material. They consent to it, it reaffirms what they believe, they've heard he's approved by people they trust; but most of his stuff is simply out of their league. Most Christians couldn't even re-iterate what he said, let only explain what they thought the implications of it was on their belief system or in contrast to other belief systems.

This is not meant as a slam against evangelical Christians. Ravi's message, and the related apologetics, is a purely intellectualized pursuit. In fact, I think that many evangelicals esteem too highly the intellectualization of their faith.

Getting around to my main point: Ravi's message was fine, but it is the Holy Spirit that convicts and draws all people. It is not my job (nor yours, nor Ravi's) to convict sinners or mormons of their wrong-doings or wrong beliefs. This is the express domain of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14-16). Ravi's efforts were a bridge-building efforts and they were important. They were not and should not be an opportunity to condemn.

I think that in grace and love we can/should/need to/obligated to point out where we differ with others, where Christ works differently in our lives. But we are living epistles of Christ; Ravi's message is not that living epistle. I don't believe we can ever "convince" people with a better "message". But we can open the door for the Holy Spirit to work, we can present people with an example of a life-changing relationship with Christ.

As an aside: While Ravi's message was fine, I think the Mouw's and the Biola guy's remark were entirely inappropriate. Gentleness, grace, and love are great and necessary...but not at the expense of truth. I think they did the Mormon's a great disservice by negating what Ravi was there to say.


t.rex

[Trout]

Are you one who holds to fruit being doctrine? If so, how do you come to that conclusion biblically? btw, I have the answer that makes sense to me. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to learn where I may be wrong. :smile:

I'm glad you have the answer that you're comfortable with Xmom.

[Xmansmommy]

I'll take that as a no, trout. And thanks, I'm always looking to understand scripture better. I know I have a long way to go, but that's where I am currently.

[Trout]

My take: I think Ravi's message was fine.

I also agree that it simply reinforced what most Mormons already think they believe.

How can Ravi's message be "fine" while at the same time reinforcing false doctrine?

Do you think that someone as gifted as Ravi could have made some more pointed contrasts between LDS doctrine and Biblical doctrine, while at the same time building a bridge?

[t-rex]

How can Ravi's message be "fine" while at the same time reinforcing false doctrine?

Do you think that someone as gifted as Ravi could have made some more pointed contrasts between LDS doctrine and Biblical doctrine, while at the same time building a bridge? Hi troutk13,

Ravi's message did not reinforce false doctrine. But what Mormon's heard simply reinforced what they already believed: Jesus is the only way to God. No problem.

For a religious system as encultured as Mormonism, they have long ago set up mental and spiritual filters to re-process incoming material.




If you tell them Jesus is God, died for our sins, better than Joseph Smith, the only way to God, etc...they will agree with you.


If you tell them they don't believe with you, even though they just did, they are confused.


If you try to explain to them what they believe, they take it as a personal attack.
Every way you go you are tuned out.

An irrational and utterly enculturated religion cannot be undermined with a mere rational and intellectual string of words. For a mormon to question or even intellectually inspect what they believe to tantamount to blasphemy. A true mormon does not question, ever.

To do so may hint at the fact a whole culture, everbody you know, your whole family, your spouse and kids, might be lying, duped, subject to demonic delusion, or in danger of blasphemy and damnation.

The possiblity of questioning the Church comes close to encountering a psychotic break. If your question right, everything else you know is wrong. And why would Christianity not be the same institutional lie as Mormonism?

As a mormon, having the wrong intellectual belief about something is the least of your problems.

So no, I don't think Ravi could have presented a more compelling or pointed argument.

Only prayer and the Holy Spirit can infiltrate here.

t.rex

[Trout]

Hi troutk13,

Ravi's message did not reinforce false doctrine. But what Mormon's heard simply reinforced what they already believed: Jesus is the only way to God. No problem.

But Ravi gave them no reason to believe that they were in serious error. It seems to me in that particular venue, he could have made a concerted effort not to reinforce, but to challenge.


t.rex:
For a religious system as encultured as Mormonism, they have long ago set up mental and spiritual filters to re-process incoming material.

Don't we all.


If you tell them Jesus is God, died for our sins, better than Joseph Smith, the only way to God, etc...they will agree with you.


If you tell them they don't believe with you, even though they just did, they are confused.


If you try to explain to them what they believe, they take it as a personal attack.
Every way you go you are tuned out.

So you think it's best to ignore the false doctrine and focus on terminology that we share with the LDS?


t.rex:
An irrational and utterly enculturated religion cannot be undermined with a mere rational and intellectual string of words. For a mormon to question or even intellectually inspect what they believe to tantamount to blasphemy. A true mormon does not question, ever.

To do so may hint at the fact a whole culture, everbody you know, your whole family, your spouse and kids, might be lying, duped, subject to demonic delusion, or in danger of blasphemy and damnation.

The possiblity of questioning the Church comes close to encountering a psychotic break. If your question right, everything else you know is wrong. And why would Christianity not be the same institutional lie as Mormonism?

I agree, it's equal to trying to convince someone that they are a different race or gender. But it is still very crucial that the challenge is made, however difficult the task.


t.rex:
As a mormon, having the wrong intellectual belief about something is the least of your problems.

So no, I don't think Ravi could have presented a more compelling or pointed argument.

Only prayer and the Holy Spirit can infiltrate here.

t.rex

But doesn't prayer and the Holy Spirit work through those willing to challenge LDS beliefs in the name of Truth?

[Richbee]

The LDS people would be in complete agreement with your quotations richbee. Why do you feel as though they are going to deeply affect those who already believe that they serve Christ?

Forgive my clumsy naivity, it seems to me, sitting on the East Coast, that the morons do not see Jesus as the Way, Life and the Truth.

It seems that they view the Book of Mormon as an additional "truth", if not a "way".

[Trout]

Forgive my clumsy naivity, it seems to me, sitting on the East Coast, that the morons do not see Jesus as the Way, Life and the Truth.

It seems that they view the Book of Mormon as an additional "truth", if not a "way".

Well, they do see Jesus as the Way, Truth and Life, and the Book of Mormon is said to be "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", however a careful definition of terms uncovers a vast difference in meaning.

I've heard it claimed that the LDS church finds the majority of their new converts in the USA in the Baptist churches. One of the tools that the LDS use with great effectiveness is to communicate using words like, Jesus, Salvation, Sin etc. with someone who has an a-priori understanding of them, and then slowly work in "additional truth".

[Richbee]

But Ravi gave them no reason to believe that they were in serious error.

I should have mentioned, that no doubt Ravi would be the same with some Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists and Seventh Day Adventists.

And, in the tradition of C.S. Lewis who preached or taught a unifying message in Christ, and side stepped the many differences between the sects or Prots Vs. RCC.

[Leroy]

I should have mentioned, that no doubt Ravi would be the same with some Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists and Seventh Day Adventists.



I don't think you could get that many JWs or Christian Scientists to come out of the closet and gather in one place.

[Richbee]

What is Ravi had just come out and said that there is a warning in the Bible, to add to the message of Jesus, or add book to the Bible?

Like, hint, hint.

TOSS THAT BOOK OF Mo' in the Great Salt Lake!!!!

[Leroy]

I hear that Gordon B. Hinckley the current LDS prophet, although he wasn't at the tabernacle lecture had the lecture transmited to his home so he could watch it Live. Would that have been something if Ravi would have layed down some of his God gifted logic in comparing LDS beliefs with reality, and it flicked on the switch in Hinckleys mind! Then the very next day he would get up and preach the truth to all the followers of Mormonism, wow that would be something!

[Trout]

What is Ravi had just come out and said that there is a warning in the Bible, to add to the message of Jesus, or add book to the Bible?

Like, hint, hint.

TOSS THAT BOOK OF Mo' in the Great Salt Lake!!!!

You know. . .I've read and listened to just about everything Ravi has made public and I have never seen him fail to address how wrong atheism is or how convoluted Hinduism is, or how wrong the Muslim concept of God is. But I have to think he failed to take on the wrongness of the LDS gospel, I'm deeply saddened at his performance, and how his website is reporting what happened.

I guess I had the notion that he'd expose the false gospel of Mormonism with the white hot light of the truth of Christ. In much the same manner as he dispatches truth in an atheistic setting, or a Buddhist setting.

I am beginning to believe that he compromised the gospel in order not to offend. Which certainly is the aim of Greg Johnson and his ilk. I guess since Greg Johnson and Standing Together brought this event to pass, it was only to be expected that the gospel would be muffled.

[Leroy]

I guess I had the notion that he'd expose the false gospel of Mormonism with the white hot light of the truth of Christ. In much the same manner as he dispatches truth in an atheistic setting, or a Buddhist setting.



Well said trout!

[Richbee]

You know. . .I've read and listened to just about everything Ravi has made public and I have never seen him fail to address how wrong atheism is or how convoluted Hinduism is, or how wrong the Muslim concept of God is. But I have to think he failed to take on the wrongness of the LDS gospel, I'm deeply saddened at his performance, and how his website is reporting what happened.

I do believe that Ravi is more is more comfortable confronting the Postmodern Nihistic Nietzschean fools.

Also, his book, "Jesus Among Other Gods", and in comparing Jesus to Buddha, Mohammed and Krishna, etc. He is very gentle in his sermons and that is why he gets invited to speak at Universities, even in the Muslim World, and he never says, but Jordan and Indonesia?

I guess I had the notion that he'd expose the false gospel of Mormonism with the white hot light of the truth of Christ. In much the same manner as he dispatches truth in an atheistic setting, or a Buddhist setting.
I am beginning to believe that he compromised the gospel in order not to offend. Which certainly is the aim of Greg Johnson and his ilk. I guess since Greg Johnson and Standing Together brought this event to pass, it was only to be expected that the gospel would be muffled.

I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, and what if a second invitation went out, and he visited again?

So, in conclusion, due to time constraints, he covered the basics and the common denominators for his audience, and built trust and opened doors of communication, to buld up to the EX-COMMICATION!?

Seriously, I don't see the benefit of a stranger going in to the Lion's den and poking it in the eye with a sharp stick first.

And, wasn't it Moody who said the Word of God is like a Lion in a cage, and all we have to do is let it out of it's cage?

So, if Ravi were asked to compare the Book of Mo', with our sacred God breated scriptures, might this then, force the heresy out like a Wabbit for the Lion?

[Trout]

For those following along, I posted an article that will provide some valuable insight into the discussion that were having (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=794028#post794028)

Take a read over it, and then say hello to our newest contributer, Rob Sivulka.

[geebob]

How can Ravi's message be "fine" while at the same time reinforcing false doctrine?

How can Paul's message be "fine" while at the same time reinforcing false doctrine? (I've already given the example).

How can Jesus' message be fine when it has also reinforced the wrong message? How can any scriptural message be fine. Just about any message from scripture has been used to reinforce false doctrine.

Trout, aren't you a calvinist? from my position, I could ask the same thing because reprobation (not to be confused with mere damnation) is a desperately wicked doctrine, and you could ask the vice versa of me.

there is almost always an interpretation issue.

But Ravi gave them no reason to believe that they were in serious error.

that isn't the case at all. someone posted here that the mormon scholars would find challenges. Why does a servant of God have to effect everyone in the same way. The fact is, it simply is not possible. Lets let the body of Christ have the diversity that God intends it to have. Ravi spoke to some of the errors of mormonism and mormons heard him. Whether it was all is not Ravi's concern. That's God's problem and he will do what he sees fit. Lets have faith in God's wisdom instead of sniping at his servants because they are not all things to all men. Only Jesus is that.

I guess I had the notion that he'd expose the false gospel of Mormonism with the white hot light of the truth of Christ. In much the same manner as he dispatches truth in an atheistic setting, or a Buddhist setting.

What if the truth is richer than that? What if there is more than one way to put it. The fact is, the Scriptures put the truth in many ways and to many people it is given with different emphasis.

Why should it always be a jolt? this sounds like a legalism of method.

I've read and listened to just about everything Ravi has made public and I have never seen him fail to address how wrong atheism is or how convoluted Hinduism is, or how wrong the Muslim concept of God is.

To Christian audiences.

I think you've failed to hear Ravi retelling his meeting with a prophesor who insisted that he critisize hinduism so that he could tear him apart and Ravi said that he wasn't into slinging mud. His approach is to explain Christianity and the nature of truth.

He does critisize other views and not often differently than what I've heard described. The mormon scholars heard challenges. And so what if Ravi is a missionary to the "intellectual". That's needed.

[Richbee]

I would like to have Ravi return and lecture at greater length on logic, philosophy and truth.

For mormons start with the Law of Identity.

Define God.

Jesus is GOD.

Not, Jesus is a god like you and me.

[Trout]

How can Paul's message be "fine" while at the same time reinforcing false doctrine? (I've already given the example).

How can Jesus' message be fine when it has also reinforced the wrong message? How can any scriptural message be fine. Just about any message from scripture has been used to reinforce false doctrine.

geebob,
Don't you think Ravi could have tailored his message to the LDS people in a way that would encourage them to re-think some of their false doctrines, instead of preaching a message that they agreed with completely?


geebob:
Trout, aren't you a calvinist? from my position, I could ask the same thing because reprobation (not to be confused with mere damnation) is a desperately wicked doctrine, and you could ask the vice versa of me.

there is almost always an interpretation issue.

:huh: geebob, if you have issues with Calvinism, take them to another thread please.


geebob:
that isn't the case at all. someone posted here that the mormon scholars would find challenges.

That was Craig Hazen's report of the evening. Since he was a participant, I'm sure he's trying to portray the happenings in the friendliest light possible.


geebob:
Why does a servant of God have to effect everyone in the same way. The fact is, it simply is not possible. Lets let the body of Christ have the diversity that God intends it to have.

Why would a servant of God choose to not address his target audience?


geebob:
Ravi spoke to some of the errors of mormonism and mormons heard him.

Which errors did Ravi address? This is the first I've heard of this.


geebob:
Whether it was all is not Ravi's concern. That's God's problem and he will do what he sees fit. Lets have faith in God's wisdom instead of sniping at his servants because they are not all things to all men. Only Jesus is that.

Why are you sniping at me then?


geebob:
What if the truth is richer than that? What if there is more than one way to put it. The fact is, the Scriptures put the truth in many ways and to many people it is given with different emphasis.

Why should it always be a jolt? this sounds like a legalism of method.

Why would it have to be a jolt?


geebob:
To Christian audiences.

I think you've failed to hear Ravi retelling his meeting with a prophesor who insisted that he critisize hinduism so that he could tear him apart and Ravi said that he wasn't into slinging mud. His approach is to explain Christianity and the nature of truth.

He does critisize other views and not often differently than what I've heard described. The mormon scholars heard challenges. And so what if Ravi is a missionary to the "intellectual". That's needed.

Do you think that it's at all possible that Ravi could have been more effective? Or do you think that Ravi is above criticism?

Craig Hazen said about Ravi's lecture, "In my view the rank-and-file Mormons would not have found anything controversial in it."

Do you think that was Ravi's goal?


But his overarching message—that Jesus Christ is the answer to the longing in all human hearts—was one that resonated with both evangelical Christians and Mormons."

Do you think that Mormons and Christians share the same faith in Christ?

[t-rex]

ARRRRRRGGGGG!!!! I just lost a whole post. It was beautiful, poetic, and moving. Now it's gone forever! Sigh...I'll try again - there's not as much love the second time you have to post....


But Ravi gave them no reason to believe that they were in serious error. It seems to me in that particular venue, he could have made a concerted effort not to reinforce, but to challenge. Hi troutk13,

First, on a simply practical note, Ravi was a guest in their house and at their invitation. I imagine he was trying to build a little trust with this new community, maybe lay a foundation for future talks. If Ravi had presented himself as a challenger/enemy, this would be the last opportunity. At venue like this you have the opportunity to build baby-step bridges - or instantly alienate an entire people.

The reality is mormons are challenged everyday, or at least weekly or monthly, by the utter non-sense they believe. Part of their faith is believing in spite of challenge. Ravi's appearance was not a do or die.


So you think it's best to ignore the false doctrine and focus on terminology that we share with the LDS?
No, I don't ever think its ok to participate in someone elses delusion. But as children of light and those led by the Spirit I do think we have more tools available to us than simply blunt instruments of evangelism. As ambassadors of Christ, we posses a unique authority, relationship to the king, and command of worldly politics. Thus while



"we are human, but we don't wage war with human plans and methods.
We use God's mighty weapons, not mere worldly weapons, to knock down the Devil's strongholds.
With these weapons we break down every proud argument that keeps people from knowing God.
With these weapons we conquer their rebellious ideas, and we teach [people] to obey Christ. (2 Cor 10, NLT)
I think this is mormonism: stronghold, proud arguments, rebellious ideas. I also think that too often our witnessing and challenging is a carnal weapon. That is, it is based on what we know and how well we present it.


But doesn't prayer and the Holy Spirit work through those willing to challenge LDS beliefs in the name of Truth?



NO...I don't think so. Working from what I said up top, I'd like to work on a few other ways to challenge and present the Truth.

Let's take the Pauline and St. Francis models of evangelism:

St. Francis of Assisi:



"Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words."
Paul:


For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom,
but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

One way to go about talking to mormons is relationship.

The absolute, impenetrable strength of mormonism is their blind faith, anti-intellectualism, denial, and their rewards based acceptance into the cultic community. However, their gaping hole in that wall and their weakness is relationship. Any mormon will drop whatever they are doing to help you, to bake cookies for you, comfort you, etc.

This how they suck people in. Most people find mormonism quite odd, but the relational aspect is too compelling and overrides the questions.

On the other hand, the great weakness of most evangelicals is also relationship. That is, they don't have any. Most of us have church on Sunday, not communities everyday of the week. We have bumper sticker and tract evangelism, figuring that once people are "confronted" with the truth of the gospel they are accountable for its contents.

Too often American, evangelicalism may be a life altering conversion, but it is not a life-style altering process - where we are willing to put in the necessary time and relationship building. A lot of witnessing boils down to the truism: "no one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care".


Second, I think individuals Christians need to spend a lot more time praying specifically for individual mormons. We don't witness to blocs and groups, we share life & Christ with individuals. Build a relationship with a mormon, pray with a mormon (even before they are "Christian"), let a mormon in on the transformative power that works in your life. Let the Spirit direct you in when to approach a mormon, how to approach them, etc.

Truth is a person, not an intellectual concept.


Those are a few of my thoughts on mormonism and evangelism. I tried to keep it concise (but in so doing may have left something things out).

t.rex

[Trout]

ARRRRRRGGGGG!!!! I just lost a whole post. It was beautiful, poetic, and moving. Now it's gone forever! Sigh...I'll try again - there's not as much love the second time you have to post....

I hate it when that happens!


t-rex:
Hi troutk13,

First, on a simply practical note, Ravi was a guest in their house and at their invitation. I imagine he was trying to build a little trust with this new community, maybe lay a foundation for future talks. If Ravi had presented himself as a challenger/enemy, this would be the last opportunity. At venue like this you have the opportunity to build baby-step bridges - or instantly alienate an entire people.

So he had better not show himself as a challenger/enemy the next time around or he will alienate an entire community.


t-rex:
The reality is mormons are challenged everyday, or at least weekly or monthly, by the utter non-sense they believe. Part of their faith is believing in spite of challenge. Ravi's appearance was not a do or die.

Would you consider Ravi's appearance to be favorable to Mormonism as a whole? It certainly seems to me that what happened served to give the LDS church a more orthodox status. I mean after all, one of the Christian church's premier apologists came to the HQ of a large non-Christian organization and said nothing that was controversial to the rank and file membership.


t-rex:
No, I don't ever think its ok to participate in someone elses delusion. But as children of light and those led by the Spirit I do think we have more tools available to us than simply blunt instruments of evangelism. As ambassadors of Christ, we posses a unique authority, relationship to the king, and command of worldly politics. Thus while


"we are human, but we don't wage war with human plans and methods.
We use God's mighty weapons, not mere worldly weapons, to knock down the Devil's strongholds.
With these weapons we break down every proud argument that keeps people from knowing God.
With these weapons we conquer their rebellious ideas, and we teach [people] to obey Christ. (2 Cor 10, NLT)
I think this is mormonism: stronghold, proud arguments, rebellious ideas. I also think that too often our witnessing and challenging is a carnal weapon. That is, it is based on what we know and how well we present it.

Do you think Ravi was as effective as he could have been?


t-rex:
Working from what I said up top, I'd like to work on a few other ways to challenge and present the Truth.

Let's take the Pauline and St. Francis models of evangelism:



"Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words."
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom,
but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.


Good advice!

Do you think that when you've been given the lecturn at the Tabernacle you should, preach the gospel using words?

[Trout]

I do believe that Ravi is more is more comfortable confronting the Postmodern Nihistic Nietzschean fools.

I would have to agree, maybe he isn't best suited for this type of an engagment.


richbee:
I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, and what if a second invitation went out, and he visited again?

So, in conclusion, due to time constraints, he covered the basics and the common denominators for his audience, and built trust and opened doors of communication, to buld up to the EX-COMMICATION!?

Seriously, I don't see the benefit of a stranger going in to the Lion's den and poking it in the eye with a sharp stick first.

It depends on what the stranger's goal is, if his goal is to blind the lion in one eye then maybe that would be a good course of action.

But I think Ravi could have made some more pointed challenges and still avoided lion-poking. :nsm:


richbee:
And, wasn't it Moody who said the Word of God is like a Lion in a cage, and all we have to do is let it out of it's cage?

So, if Ravi were asked to compare the Book of Mo', with our sacred God breated scriptures, might this then, force the heresy out like a Wabbit for the Lion?

For the most part the Book of Mormon and the Bible are in agreement.

[Leroy]

First, on a simply practical note, Ravi was a guest in their house and at their invitation. I imagine he was trying to build a little trust with this new community, maybe lay a foundation for future talks. If Ravi had presented himself as a challenger/enemy, this would be the last opportunity. At venue like this you have the opportunity to build baby-step bridges - or instantly alienate an entire people.

How many opportunities does Ravi need? One is enough. Leave the relationship evangelism to those that have the relationships. One of these three lectures would have been plenty to expose the false doctrines and the nuancing of truth that the followers of Mormonism have been brainwashed with.


The reality is mormons are challenged everyday, or at least weekly or monthly, by the utter non-sense they believe. Part of their faith is believing in spite of challenge. Ravi's appearance was not a do or die.

Most LDS seldom have exposure to Christian lectures or literature, they are told to avoid it, they live in a tight net community of fellow LDS, with little if any time for exposure to anything but what comes from the mouths of there leaders and fellow believers. I doubt this will open the door for other christian apologists to gain access to the mormon followers under the approval of there leaders, maybe 10 years from know Ravi will be asked to preach again at the tabernacle, how many LDS will have died in that span of time?
Ravi had a chance to say some eye opening stuff, things that if heard from me, would not carry as much weight, if I could even finish saying them, but if he would have said them to this captive audience, I could have touched on them among me LDS friends, family and coworkers and not been the guy that starts the contention, but just tries to talk about it. That would have opened up some avenues of conversation that are very hard to open and keep a friendship, Ravi doesn’t need to worry so much about that, he doesn’t live here and do the relationship evangelism on a day-to-day bases.

Without drawing a distinction between Mormonism and Christianity, all Ravi accomplished was to give LDS his powerful tools to bring atheists, Buddhists and Hindus to Mormonism.

[t-rex]

I edited my previous post above, (actually, I accidently posted it too soon), but my additions only clarify what I had said.


Would you consider Ravi's appearance to be favorable to Mormonism as a whole? It certainly seems to me that what happened served to give the LDS church a more orthodox status. I mean after all, one of the Christian church's premier apologists came to the HQ of a large non-Christian organization and said nothing that was controversial to the rank and file membership.
As far as that point: yes I do think the overall effect was unfortunately favorable to mormonism. This was compounded by the stupid and context-setting remarks of Mouw, the Biola rep, and Greg Johnson.


Do you think Ravi was as effective as he could have been?
No, I don't think so. I think Ravi coming was a lose-lose scenario. Either he challenges and alienates, or he softballs and gives the impression of acceptance.

I think bringing Ravi in was an mis-placed emphasis by the eager, ecumentical, compromise crowd here in Utah. Ravi is a Christian apologist not an evangelist. His primary ministry is teaching other Christians the philosophical underpinnings of the major, religious systems around them. He is not an evangelist. He did not present the gospel per se - he presented a classroom lecture.

I think he probably should not have come or shifted gears into evangelism.


Do you think that when you've been given the lecturn at the Tabernacle you should, preach the gospel using words?
Very well put! :lol: But, no I don't. I think you should first and foremost radiate love, respect, acceptance, etc. Secondly, he could have lovingly and respectful pointed out some of the differences between Christianity and mormonism.

The gospel is a power not a thing; it is not a string of words. (Rom 1). This is not Ravi's strong suit, he is best at presenting a string of words.

Technically, Ravi's message did contradict mormon doctrine. On a cultural level it was not effective.

t.rex

[t-rex]

How many opportunities does Ravi need? One is enough. Leave the relationship evangelism to those that have the relationships. One of these three lectures would have been plenty to expose the false doctrines and the nuancing of truth that the followers of Mormonism have been brainwashed with.

Most LDS seldom have exposure to Christian lectures or literature, they are told to avoid it, they live in a tight net community of fellow LDS, with little if any time for exposure to anything but what comes from the mouths of there leaders and fellow believers. I doubt this will open the door for other christian apologists to gain access to the mormon followers under the approval of there leaders, maybe 10 years from know Ravi will be asked to preach again at the tabernacle, how many LDS will have died in that span of time?

Ravi had a chance to say some eye opening stuff, things that if heard from me, would not carry as much weight, if I could even finish saying them, but if he would have said them to this captive audience, I could have touched on them among me LDS friends, family and coworkers and not been the guy that starts the contention, but just tries to talk about it. That would have opened up some avenues of conversation that are very hard to open and keep a friendship, Ravi doesn’t need to worry so much about that, he doesn’t live here and do the relationship evangelism on a day-to-day bases.

Without drawing a distinction between Mormonism and Christianity, all Ravi accomplished was to give LDS his powerful tools to bring atheists, Buddhists and Hindus to Mormonism.

Overall, I agree with you. He could have said something. Something that pointed out the differences & done so with gentleness and respect. But, I still don't think an apolgist is the right guy for the job. They tend to be in-house Christian types; plus Ravi has a "reputation" at stake.

You are also right to say that time is urgent and the opportunity is now.

t.rex

[Trout]

I edited my previous post above, (actually, I accidently posted it too soon), but my additions only clarify what I had said.

At least you didn't lose it this time. :wink:


t-rex:
As far as that point: yes I do think the overall effect was unfortunately favorable to mormonism. This was compounded by the stupid and context-setting remarks of Mouw, the Biola rep, and Greg Johnson.

My niece and her husband got up and walked out after hearing from Mouw.

t-rex, have you read the new article I posted? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42319) I'm interested to hear your opinion.

Thanks

[Leroy]

Overall, I agree with you. He could have said something. Something that pointed out the differences & done so with gentleness and respect. But, I still don't think an apolgist is the right guy for the job. They tend to be in-house Christian types; plus Ravi has a "reputation" at stake.

You are also right to say that time is urgent and the opportunity is now.

t.rex

I agree with a lot of what you said as well, t-rex, “eager, ecumenical, compromise crowd here in Utah” is exactly that, I don’t what them to gain any more traction then they already have, they make it sound like preaching the gospel is a sin. My personal opinion is that Ravi could have focused on the differences between Mormonism and Christianity the same way he does with the differences with Hinduism/Muslim/Buddhism and Christianity.

[Trout]

Without drawing a distinction between Mormonism and Christianity, all Ravi accomplished was to give LDS his powerful tools to bring atheists, Buddhists and Hindus to Mormonism.

:thumb: Excellent insight Leroy!

[geebob]

geebob,
Don't you think Ravi could have tailored his message to the LDS people in a way that would encourage them to re-think some of their false doctrines, instead of preaching a message that they agreed with completely?

I don't know the specifics of Ravi's theological expertise and I imagine that Mormonism isn't one of them.

but supposing that he could, that doesn't mean that he should or that he should have to. I'm still waithing for this explanation to this question. why does every message from every christian have to focus on the error of those in errors.

God sends some to sow and others to reap. Ravi is more of a sower.


:huh: geebob, if you have issues with Calvinism, take them to another thread please.

Wether or not I have a problem with calvinism was not the issue. The issue is that you claimed that Ravi's message was somehow flawed simply because of the potential for misuse. The fact is, scriptures themselves are ripe with potential for misuse. The calvinist/arminian debate provides examples. You don't have to agree with me that calvinism is horrid but if you hold the calvinist paradigm, you would view it as misuse for example of John 3:16 as evidence that God wants loves everyone with a salvific intention and there for has given everyone a libertarian free chance to be saved. And if you hold to corporate election as I do, you could site how Romans 9 has been misused and applied.

Thus we could ask your very question with a different subject, "How can the scripture's message be "fine" while at the same time reinforcing false doctrine?"

aren't you a calvinist? well 1st corinthians 10:13 reinforces my false doctrine (false as far as your perception goes) that God is too faithful to have ordained from all eternity that any christian should sin.


That was Craig Hazen's report of the evening. Since he was a participant, I'm sure he's trying to portray the happenings in the friendliest light possible.

well I'm sure because of your legalism of how to reach the lost, your portraying it in a poor light.

I'm not serious with that claim btw. I just want you to see the futility of it. Such motivational assesments don't carry weight with me.

Why would a servant of God choose to not address his target audience?

he targetted his audience. It just didn't focus explicitely on disagreements. Why does every person trying to reach the lost have to focus on what they don't know? There is a time and place for everything and building bridges is just as important as uprooting bad foundations and some times it's best to focus on only one aspect. The body of Christ is diverse and it's approach to the lost should be wholistic and diverse. Not every part has to do the same thing that every other part is doing.

Which errors did Ravi address? This is the first I've heard of this.

I don't know. according to craig hazen, He did. I don't know that your assesment of his assesment carries weight.

Why are you sniping at me then?

I apologize if I lack diplomacy. (and I do lack diplomacy, so I apologize) I'm not Ravi Zacharius.

But Your judgement of him is in error. Don't you want the white hot light of truth to expose your error. You seem to be okay with that when it comes to the Mormons.

Why would it have to be a jolt?

that's what I'm wondering? let the body of christ be diverse. a jolt doesn't have to come from every sector. There's a time and place for everything.


Do you think that it's at all possible that Ravi could have been more effective? Or do you think that Ravi is above criticism?

I don't know. Ravi's human and like anyone has room for improvement. Heck, I don't agree with Ravi's approach on several fronts.

Craig Hazen said about Ravi's lecture, "In my view the rank-and-file Mormons would not have found anything controversial in it."

Do you think that was Ravi's goal?

I don't know. He has been called a missionary to the intellectual and according to Craig Hazen, Ravi hit his target (which came after the quote you just made). And is that for nothing? Does a message have to be relevent to everyone. Should a biker for Jesus have to go to nursing homes and give old people rides on there bikes so that they'll become christians (actually, that doesn't sound like a bad idea)

Do you think that Mormons and Christians share the same faith in Christ?

I think some of them probably do. Does that mean that mormonism isn't a big mistake? not at all. Does that mean mormonism doesn't lead one to hell? not necessarily. I've already written some on this though on the most neglected passage of protestant theism, mathew 25.

[Trout]

Your opinion is noted geebob.

[t-rex]

t-rex, have you read the new article I posted? (http://showthread.php?t=42319) I'm interested to hear your opinion. Hi troutk13, I just posted a response over on the media dept.>headlines thread. Not sure how to link for any casual, mormon-evangelism observers.

t.rex

[geebob]

Your opinion is noted geebob.

excellent. I'll be waiting for that white hot light of truth from you should you find error in anything I've written unless you don't think it is always necessary for a christian when they meet someone in error.

[Trout]

excellent. I'll be waiting for that white hot light of truth from you should you find error in anything I've written unless you don't think it is always necessary for a christian when they meet someone in error.

Sorry if you feel as though I've let you down geebob, but all the tools at my disposal, logic, reason and proper scripture exegesis don't seem to hold sway with you. But I gave it a try, which I wish Ravi would have done.

[Richbee]

:thumb: Excellent insight Leroy!

Ravi built trust and understanding, and I would like to see him return and teach more.

As example, I would appreciate seeing him teach about the Trinity.
Mormons believe in three Gods.

Or, IMO, many Mormons will be curious to seek out his website.

[Richbee]

Transcendence, Personhood and Man (www.rzim.org/publications/today.php/122)

One of the sublime realities of the Christian faith is what we commonly call the Trinity—three persons in one essence of the Godhead. The Trinity does indeed present a mystery, but as one of the great philosophers and legal scholars of our times, Mortimer Adler, noted, any knowledge of God would be expected to bring both rudimentary clarity and legitimate mystery. Adler's scrutinizing mind led him to his own conversion to Christ.

Obviously, a troubling question may be raised as to how there can be a “three-ness” and a “one-ness” without equivocation. We must bear in mind that God is a person. There has to be a dimension where, by analogy, we understand how He can be infinite and yet be personal. C.S. Lewis does a masterful job in helping us approach this mystery.

Here's what he says:

"You know that in space you can move in three ways—left or right, backwards or forwards, up or down. . . They are called the three Dimensions. Now notice this. If you're using only one dimension, you could draw only a straight line. If you're using two, you could draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of four lines. . . If you have three dimensions, you could then build what we call a solid body: say, a cube. . . And a cube is made up of six squares.

Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would be a world of straight lines. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body. . . As you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you don't leave behind the things you found on simpler levels; you still have them, but combined in new ways—in ways you couldn't imagine if you knew only the simpler levels."

(Footnote 1: C.S. Lewis, Beyond Personality (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1944), 14-16.)

This helps us get an albeit slender grasp on how the concept of personhood can contain a complexity and yet retain a meaningful simplicity.

In practical terms this concept of unity in diversity has fascinating implications for life. For only in the Christian message can we explain unity and diversity in the effect of this universe, because there is unity and diversity in God the first cause. God's blueprint for us is unity, diversity, and community. God's gift to us is our individuality meant to express itself best in community.

What a glorious gift this mystery unfolds. Try explaining unity, diversity, and community in other paradigms and you will see not a sublime mystery but systemic contradiction.

[Trout]

Transcendence, Personhood and Man (www.rzim.org/publications/today.php/122)

One of the sublime realities of the Christian faith is what we commonly call the Trinity—three persons in one essence of the Godhead. The Trinity does indeed present a mystery, but as one of the great philosophers and legal scholars of our times, Mortimer Adler, noted, any knowledge of God would be expected to bring both rudimentary clarity and legitimate mystery. Adler's scrutinizing mind led him to his own conversion to Christ.

Obviously, a troubling question may be raised as to how there can be a “three-ness” and a “one-ness” without equivocation. We must bear in mind that God is a person. There has to be a dimension where, by analogy, we understand how He can be infinite and yet be personal. C.S. Lewis does a masterful job in helping us approach this mystery.

Here's what he says:

"You know that in space you can move in three ways—left or right, backwards or forwards, up or down. . . They are called the three Dimensions. Now notice this. If you're using only one dimension, you could draw only a straight line. If you're using two, you could draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of four lines. . . If you have three dimensions, you could then build what we call a solid body: say, a cube. . . And a cube is made up of six squares.

Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would be a world of straight lines. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body. . . As you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you don't leave behind the things you found on simpler levels; you still have them, but combined in new ways—in ways you couldn't imagine if you knew only the simpler levels."

(Footnote 1: C.S. Lewis, Beyond Personality (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1944), 14-16.)

This helps us get an albeit slender grasp on how the concept of personhood can contain a complexity and yet retain a meaningful simplicity.

In practical terms this concept of unity in diversity has fascinating implications for life. For only in the Christian message can we explain unity and diversity in the effect of this universe, because there is unity and diversity in God the first cause. God's blueprint for us is unity, diversity, and community. God's gift to us is our individuality meant to express itself best in community.

What a glorious gift this mystery unfolds. Try explaining unity, diversity, and community in other paradigms and you will see not a sublime mystery but systemic contradiction.


richbee,

There's nothing in that statement that the rank and file LDSers would disagree with.

[Richbee]

richbee,

There's nothing in that statement that the rank and file LDSers would disagree with.


Since when do Mormons believe in the Trinity?

I heard they have three Gods.

[Trout]

Since when do Mormons believe in the Trinity?

I heard they have three Gods.

The three are "one-in-purpose", so an LDS person would greatly enjoy that particular explanation of the Godhead. The unity in diversity.

The LDS read and quote CS Lewis quite extensively.

[geebob]

Sorry if you feel as though I've let you down geebob, but all the tools at my disposal, logic, reason and proper scripture exegesis don't seem to hold sway with you. But I gave it a try, which I wish Ravi would have done.

when this is your assessment of our conversation, there's very good reason for me to be even more skeptical of your assesment of Ravi.

What has been offered to support your legalism of evangelism method? What has been offered to counter the biblical teaching of diversity within the church that emphasizes different gifts? What has been offered to counter Jesus teaching that some are sowers and others reapers?

As for arguements from logic, there weren't really many. What you're calling logic is really just questionable psycological theory, that if someone doesn't focus on another's errors, the relationship will only reinforce thier errors.

biblical and logical arguements don't hold sway with me? I'll admit that bad biblical and alleged logical arguements don't impress me.

[Trout]

when this is your assessment of our conversation, there's very good reason for me to be even more skeptical of your assesment of Ravi.

What has been offered to support your legalism of evangelism method? What has been offered to counter the biblical teaching of diversity within the church that emphasizes different gifts? What has been offered to counter Jesus teaching that some are sowers and others reapers?

As for arguements from logic, there weren't really many. What you're calling logic is really just questionable psycological theory, that if someone doesn't focus on another's errors, the relationship will only reinforce thier errors.

biblical and logical arguements don't hold sway with me? I'll admit that bad biblical and alleged logical arguements don't impress me.

This isn't our first interaction geebob, you have established a pattern of intent before content. So thank you, your opinion is noted.

[geebob]

This isn't our first interaction geebob, you have established a pattern of intent before content.

I don't know what you mean here. From our last conversation though, I recall you failing to grasp basics and asserting and reasserting answered material.

trout, I am at a profound loss as to why you remain critical as you are in light of what I brought up. you say scripture seemed not to effect me. well I'm the one who brought up scripture, scriptural principals that are ignored.

intent before content? okay. whatever that means, in the end, there are issues you haven't dealt with.

"...logic, reason and proper scripture exegesis don't seem to hold sway with you."

If you wanted to end this discussion, I understand, but the note you attempted to end it on was intellectually dishonest. A more humble approach is in line. something along the lines of "I don't know how to answer these genuine issues you brought up, but it goes against my intuitions that I don't know how to articulate", is a perfectly acceptable answer.

[Leroy]

What has been offered to support your legalism of evangelism method? What has been offered to counter the biblical teaching of diversity within the church that emphasizes different gifts? What has been offered to counter Jesus teaching that some are sowers and others reapers?

What legalism? Ravi missed an opportunity to speak specifically to the lost. Do you consider it legalism when a doctor is asked to diagnose the disease a patient has and give him the medicine that will cure the patient?


It’s not legalism to ask why didn’t Ravi use his gift to speak to the lost, to give them the reason for the hope that lies within him.

[Xmansmommy]

Perhaps we place too much power and authority in the hands of men? I always thought Jesus was The Great Physician. :wink:

[geebob]

What legalism? Ravi missed an opportunity to speak specifically to the lost.

no, he didn't miss an opportunity. He used his gifts to speak to them and build bridges. Sowing seed is not missing an opportunity. why should every christian approach the lost in the exact same way? Paul said the church has diverse gifts. Why not let them use those gifts in the diversity that God had intended?

I have asked these many times now. before I repeat them again, i would hope for an attempt at an answer.

It’s not legalism to ask why didn’t Ravi use his gift to speak to the lost, to give them the reason for the hope that lies within him.


he didn't? from what I heard, Ravi did what he does best which is what God intends for him to do.

[Leroy]

no, he didn't miss an opportunity. He used his gifts to speak to them and build bridges.

The bridges are already there.


Sowing seed is not missing an opportunity.

Your right, what seeds did Ravi sow?


why should every christian approach the lost in the exact same way? Paul said the church has diverse gifts. Why not let them use those gifts in the diversity that God had intended?

I'm not talking about every christian, I'm talking Ravi.


I have asked these many times now. before I repeat them again, i would hope for an attempt at an answer.

I have addressed them many times, how much more simplistic must I get?



he didn't? from what I heard, Ravi did what he does best which is what God intends for him to do.

Ravi didn't give compelling reasons to the overriding specific believe system, targeting the specific audience, was illogical, and unbiblical , that's what he does best.

[Leroy]

Perhaps we place too much power and authority in the hands of men? I always thought Jesus was The Great Physician. :wink:

I don't place any power in the hands of man. You are right Xmansmommy, Jesus is the Great Physician, but God has chosen to work through his people, don't you agree? :flowers:

[Xmansmommy]

I would definitely agree Leroy. The only problem I have with that is, sometimes we expect too much. Yes we have the ability to have God use us to plant and water, but we also must remember that God alone gives the increase. And we don't know what seeds were planted in the hearts of the hearers that Ravi addressed any more than we could possibly know what seeds are planted by any of our words here on TWeb or any other venue in life where we can't visibly see the hand of the Lord working. I don't think we're always meant to know either. I think that may be one of the points geebob is making. Correct me if I'm wrong geebob.

[Leroy]

I would definitely agree Leroy. The only problem I have with that is, sometimes we expect too much. Yes we have the ability to have God use us to plant and water, but we also must remember that God alone gives the increase. And we don't know what seeds were planted in the hearts of the hearers that Ravi addressed any more than we could possibly know what seeds are planted by any of our words here on TWeb or any other venue in life where we can't visibly see the hand of the Lord working. I don't think we're always meant to know either. I think that may be one of the points geebob is making. Correct me if I'm wrong geebob.

Good point Xmansmommy, thank you!

[geebob]

The bridges are already there. ..Your right, what seeds did Ravi sow?

someone perhaps Richbee was discussing the issue that mormons are rather anti-intellectual. So for Ravi to get a positive response is progress. It is the sort of relationship building that is necessary for progress towards the truth.

All truth is God's truth yes no? getting someone to think more critically about what they believe even if it's not directly about what they err on is a step in the right direction. It is sowing a seed.

I'm not talking about every christian, I'm talking Ravi.

why hold Ravi to a standard that you don't hold other Christians to?

If Christians aren't prepared to deal with the errors of mormons and if they don't attempt to understand them, then we are at a loss. And when I speak of christians, I am speaking of christians as a whole, not every single individual christian. And by no means are the christians who don't speak to the errors of mormonism lacking in something to say to them. If Ravi doesn't do it, someone else will. If Ravi didn't do it this year, who's to say he won't next. But by no means is Ravi's message less valuable because it wasn't taylored to speak to the Mormon laity. Someone else will and they may have a better time of it because of things that Ravi did.

Ravi didn't give compelling reasons to the overriding specific believe system, targeting the specific audience, was illogical, and unbiblical , that's what he does best.

To atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Why would he have to have the same approach to every group? Muslims, Hindus and atheists are different. They have a different relationship to us than do mormons.

[Trout]

I don't know what you mean here. From our last conversation though, I recall you failing to grasp basics and asserting and reasserting answered material.

Right, and I think the reason was that you couldn't get your arms around the concepts that I offered. You thought you had answered my assertions when in reality, you failed to grasp your error.


geebob:
trout, I am at a profound loss as to why you remain critical as you are in light of what I brought up.

Again, you think your answers have addressed the problem in question and they haven't, I could answer your reply several different ways but you've already decided that you are correct so my attempts would be fruitless.


geebob:
you say scripture seemed not to effect me. well I'm the one who brought up scripture, scriptural principals that are ignored.

I have found in my prior conversations with you that you can make the scripture say anything you want, or need it to say, there again, it's pointless for me to engage you at that level.


geebob:
intent before content? okay. whatever that means, in the end, there are issues you haven't dealt with.

"Intent before content" simply means that you hold to a preconceived idea and then use the tools available to you to verify your notion.


Trout:
"...logic, reason and proper scripture exegesis don't seem to hold sway with you."

geebob:
If you wanted to end this discussion, I understand, but the note you attempted to end it on was intellectually dishonest.

What makes you think my responses to you haven't been honest?


geebob:
A more humble approach is in line. something along the lines of "I don't know how to answer these genuine issues you brought up, but it goes against my intuitions that I don't know how to articulate", is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Now that would be dishonest of me.

Tell me geebob, what is your background in dealing with the LDS church?

Did you hear Ravi's lecture?

Why do you feel that Ravi's lecture was an effective one in reaching the needs of the LDS people?

[geebob]

Right, and I think the reason was that you couldn't get your arms around the concepts that I offered. You thought you had answered my assertions when in reality, you failed to grasp your error.

in our discussion on omniscience and free will which is the only in depth conversation I recall having with you, I understood your assertions because I used to think the way you did regarding the points in contention. I can still think that way.

I have found in my prior conversations with you that you can make the scripture say anything you want, or need it to say, there again, it's pointless for me to engage you at that level.

I make it say what I want in as much as you do. The range of interpretation of scripture is far greater than you give it credit for and the whole of the christian tradition testifies to this. Would you brush off the multitude of the great mind of the church including the church fathers because they didn't interpret scripture as you do evidencing that they "make the scripture say anything you want"? Believe me, there are such church fathers for the simple reason that there is wide diversity amongst what they say of scripture, and you can't hold all the positions as many are contradictory. The subjective element is both a liability but also something to live with because it cannot be completely escaped. And it can be a strength.

I don't recall discussing scripture with you at all though.

Again, you think your answers have addressed the problem in question and they haven't, I could answer your reply several different ways but you've already decided that you are correct so my attempts would be fruitless.

you could but because I've decided, your attempts would be fruitless.

but what if your wrong? then your attempts would give me opportunity to demonstrate otherwise to you. But alas "you've already decided that you are correct so my attempts would be fruitless." and if you haven't already decided that you are correct, then I don't know what the problem is with it being fruitless for you to attempt to convince me of somthing that you aren't fully confindent of yourself. So if my confidence is a bad thing, then perhaps yours is too. "judge not for you do the same thing".

What makes you think my responses to you haven't been honest?

my apologies, I can't stand it when someone plays the psycologist with me so I retract my statement.

Tell me geebob, what is your background in dealing with the LDS church?

none. are you an expert who's won many? And is your way the only way to do it? Have you ever witnessed to an entire congregation at once as well as many of the leaders of the group?

Did you hear Ravi's lecture?

I've heard many of Ravi's lectures and I've read descriptions of it here.

Why do you feel that Ravi's lecture was an effective one in reaching the needs of the LDS people?

I don't know that it was for a fact. I am just extremely skeptical of the judgement given here. But what others have said here gives me reason to think that Ravi sowed seeds if for no other reason than to invite the allegedly anti-intellectual mormons to apply their brains (alleged as I am going from descriptions given here. I have not read everything everyone has said (though I generally read everything that is written to me). Has this been refuted?). And that isn't the only reason. I've spoken much about bridge building. it's just two words but the fact is, it can't be underestimated for the power of bringing someone to understand you when you take the time not to shove their errors down their throats at a first meeting but to develope a relationship over time with effort. They have been introduced to a deep man and he is not a mormon. some who look further into some of what Ravi has said will find that Orthodoxy is a deeper well than they realized. How can this be ignored? this is absolute crucial.

[Trout]

geebob:
none.

That's not surprising judging by your responses in this thread, a good place to start studying Mormonism would be www.utlm.org


geebob:
are you an expert who's won many? And is your way the only way to do it?

I've witnessed to thousands of LDS people. And yes, I've had some success. Am I an expert in LDS doctrine? Maybe. . . I've studied it quite extensively.


geebob:
Have you ever witnessed to an entire congregation at once as well as many of the leaders of the group?

Yes



geebob:
I've heard many of Ravi's lectures and I've read descriptions of it here.

So the answer is NO, you didn't hear Ravi's lecture at the Tabernacle.

You have ZERO dealings with the LDS church.

Yet you have all the answers to the questions.

geebob, Leroy and t-rex were in attendance, both are very familiar with the LDS people, and both said that Ravi's lecture was not an effective one in reaching the LDS.

[geebob]

That's not surprising judging by your responses in this thread, a good place to start studying Mormonism would be www.utlm.org

Thank you for the recomendation. It is essential for some and perhaps many people in the church to study and understand mormonism, but for the time being, I am not one of them and have other study projects. If I feel the call to that end, I will perhaps look into that site.

I've witnessed to thousands of LDS people. And yes, I've had some success. Am I an expert in LDS doctrine? Maybe. . . I've studied it quite extensively.

very good. I have no interest in belittling that. But is your approach the only way? Have you lead every mormon who might've accepted to the gospel to accept the gospel? Or is there room for other approaches? and might they be led by someone else taking a different approach? Is it a dogma that we must adhere to do this in the way that you insist? Should everyone do as trout does or is it as paul says, the body of Christ is made of many parts with different gifts?

Do we always have to be as Jonah walking through heathen Nineveh preaching turn or burn, or is there time for approaches like that as Paul used with the greeks in Acts 17 who also affirmed some of what they knew of the truth, or perhaps Jesus who didn't say a word about the errors of the samaritans beyond "you worship what you do not know" to the samaritan woman of whos kindness he made himself dependent upon and told that there was a coming day when all would worship God in truth in their hearts? What about a sermon on the mount approach of walking the extra mile with the oppressor, the Roman Soldier, and giving two cloaks when only one was demanded?

Yet you have all the answers to the questions.

strangely, I'm so pompous to think I have all the answers when I've been content to say "I don't know" which I have done at several points and had offered an apology and retraction for a particular statement.

But what I've said with regard to mormonism has been open ended. And when I asserted something that I wasn't confident on, I invited correction. I've mostly commented on the bad ideas asserted here that were bad regardless of how well one knows mormonism.

You asked how the messege could be "fine" when it could be misused. You don't have to be familiar with Mormonism to know that is not a legitimate criticism since much of scripture is misused (even by Mormons!)

You don't have to be familiar with Mormonism to question the idea that every one in error must always have their error directly confronted by every person who would reach out to them in the name of Christ.

You don't have to know much about mormonism to challenge bad notions of identity (Right Idea's post regarding "which Jesus").

You don't have to be an expert on Mormonism to apologize to those who view you in solidarity with thier persecuters. An effort of distinction must be made, but as I pointed out to Bill the Cat, though Moses at one point says "forgive them" at another, he includes himself in the lasped body saying "forgive us" of the very specific sins of idolotry.

you don't have to be an expert on Mormonism to suggest that some of them might be saved and that that does not amount to telling them not to worry (something between me and Leroy) since Mormonism, having several gross errors can't bring legitmate assurance.

You don't have to be an expert on Mormonism to see through the arguement that no one can get into heaven who's held false doctrines considering some of the faithful have such as Naaman and the Author of ecclesiastes who doubted life after death and coined the phrase "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we shall die", and Most ancient Jews who were not monotheists but monolotrists up till around the time of Isaiah. And none of them were trinitarians. (we did agree that none would be in heaven with false doctrine, which I didn't see the relevence of since we weren't talking about those in heaven but rather those who haven't gotten their yet.

geebob, Leroy and t-rex were in attendance, both are very familiar with the LDS people, and both said that Ravi's lecture was not an effective one in reaching the LDS.

Craig Hazen was there. He thought there was a spiritual earthquake and felt that "...those LDS who had a more finely-tuned sense of theology (very rare among Mormons, even in their leadership) would have recognized some pointed challenges on sin, salvation, the nature of God, and the state of the human heart."

T-Rex didn't think that even Christians are effected by Ravi... and he places the responsibility on them, not on Ravi and critisizes not so much Ravi's performance at the event in question but the intellectualization of faith... which has some truth to it. There again, I say we need balance... the heady stuff must not be neglected and good rational thinkers may still be good influence on many of the irrational. Of course not at the expense of a wholistic diversified approach.

And T-rex implied that Ravi was building a bridge, taking baby steps.
But ultimately, he wasn't on your side here anymore than mine. You and Leroy suggested up and down that Ravi could've done better, T-Rex didn't think that the whole approach was useful at all.

And Leroy softened a bit concurring with xman's that "we don't know what seeds were planted in the hearts of the hearers that Ravi addressed any more than we could possibly know what seeds are planted by any of our words here on TWeb or any other venue in life where we can't visibly see the hand of the Lord working."

[Trout]

Thank you for the recomendation. It is essential for some and perhaps many people in the church to study and understand mormonism, but for the time being, I am not one of them and have other study projects. If I feel the call to that end, I will perhaps look into that site.



very good. I have no interest in belittling that. But is your approach the only way? Have you lead every mormon who might've accepted to the gospel to accept the gospel? Or is there room for other approaches? and might they be led by someone else taking a different approach? Is it a dogma that we must adhere to do this in the way that you insist? Should everyone do as trout does or is it as paul says, the body of Christ is made of many parts with different gifts?

Do we always have to be as Jonah walking through heathen Nineveh preaching turn or burn, or is there time for approaches like that as Paul used with the greeks in Acts 17 who also affirmed some of what they knew of the truth, or perhaps Jesus who didn't say a word about the errors of the samaritans beyond "you worship what you do not know" to the samaritan woman of whos kindness he made himself dependent upon and told that there was a coming day when all would worship God in truth in their hearts? What about a sermon on the mount approach of walking the extra mile with the oppressor, the Roman Soldier, and giving two cloaks when only one was demanded?



strangely, I'm so pompous to think I have all the answers when I've been content to say "I don't know" which I have done at several points and had offered an apology and retraction for a particular statement.

But what I've said with regard to mormonism has been open ended. And when I asserted something that I wasn't confident on, I invited correction. I've mostly commented on the bad ideas asserted here that were bad regardless of how well one knows mormonism.

You asked how the messege could be "fine" when it could be misused. You don't have to be familiar with Mormonism to know that is not a legitimate criticism since much of scripture is misused (even by Mormons!)

You don't have to be familiar with Mormonism to question the idea that every one in error must always have their error directly confronted by every person who would reach out to them in the name of Christ.

You don't have to know much about mormonism to challenge bad notions of identity (Right Idea's post regarding "which Jesus").

You don't have to be an expert on Mormonism to apologize to those who view you in solidarity with thier persecuters. An effort of distinction must be made, but as I pointed out to Bill the Cat, though Moses at one point says "forgive them" at another, he includes himself in the lasped body saying "forgive us" of the very specific sins of idolotry.

you don't have to be an expert on Mormonism to suggest that some of them might be saved and that that does not amount to telling them not to worry (something between me and Leroy) since Mormonism, having several gross errors can't bring legitmate assurance.

You don't have to be an expert on Mormonism to see through the arguement that no one can get into heaven who's held false doctrines considering some of the faithful have such as Naaman and the Author of ecclesiastes who doubted life after death and coined the phrase "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we shall die", and Most ancient Jews who were not monotheists but monolotrists up till around the time of Isaiah. And none of them were trinitarians. (we did agree that none would be in heaven with false doctrine, which I didn't see the relevence of since we weren't talking about those in heaven but rather those who haven't gotten their yet.



Craig Hazen was there. He thought there was a spiritual earthquake and felt that "...those LDS who had a more finely-tuned sense of theology (very rare among Mormons, even in their leadership) would have recognized some pointed challenges on sin, salvation, the nature of God, and the state of the human heart."

T-Rex didn't think that even Christians are effected by Ravi... and he places the responsibility on them, not on Ravi and critisizes not so much Ravi's performance at the event in question but the intellectualization of faith... which has some truth to it. There again, I say we need balance... the heady stuff must not be neglected and good rational thinkers may still be good influence on many of the irrational. Of course not at the expense of a wholistic diversified approach.

And T-rex implied that Ravi was building a bridge, taking baby steps.
But ultimately, he wasn't on your side here anymore than mine. You and Leroy suggested up and down that Ravi could've done better, T-Rex didn't think that the whole approach was useful at all.

And Leroy softened a bit concurring with xman's that "we don't know what seeds were planted in the hearts of the hearers that Ravi addressed any more than we could possibly know what seeds are planted by any of our words here on TWeb or any other venue in life where we can't visibly see the hand of the Lord working."


Once again, your opinion is noted geebob.

[t-rex]

Question: I just posted this over in the media dept., but we seem to be carrying on the same discussion here. Can I post the same thing in both places? I'll do it and then take it off if need be.

But I wanted to clarify some what I though about evangelism.

________________________________________--
Hi everybody…

Two things I’d like gently and humbly to add. :wink: The first is that there seems to be a false dilemma being posited that we have to choose either CE or FE. Frankly neither of them has been that effective, esp. here in Utah. If one of these methods was sweeping people into the church there would be no point of discussion. But the fact is, over the last several decades, CE hasn’t made much of a dent. In the past decade, FE hasn’t made much of a dent. And it’s not just that huge revivals haven’t been taking place, it’s that Christian “witnessing” has effected only a fraction of a fraction of the people with whom we work, live, eat, and barbeque with.

Most mormons are leave the mormon church because they simply have some kind of emptiness not being addressed, they have a dream where Jesus talks to them, they start praying to Jesus and their lives start to change, they were only marginal mormons anyway, etc. I've never heard a mormon say they changed because somebody came up them and said,"You worship a false Jesus" or some such.

I find it hard to believe that there isn’t at least a cursory examination of the notion that we are simply using enculturated methods of evangelism that are simply reflective of our culture. Sometimes that works, most of the time we need something that transcends our culture. CE is old-school culture that relies on argument and “reason”. FE is new-school culture that relies on political correctness and spirituality. Our faith needs to have coherent, intellectual structure and it needs to have respect and sensitivity. But that is what gives shape to our faith, it is not the faith itself. Wasn’t it the evangelical saint, CS Lewis, whose most addressed point was the warning about the intellectualization of faith? It is the practice of faith, not the pronouncement of faith, which attracts peoples’ attention.

In response:

Ad 1: There can be no in-principle bar to CE, as Jesus, the apostles, the
early church, and even the OT prophets engaged their listeners in just
such a way. That may not mean that everyone should do so, but it does mean that there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with such a style. I’m not sure that such broad generalizations can be gathered as supportive evidence. Jesus, the apostles, and the OT prophets all engaged in CE?

Which apostles were confrontational exactly?

Paul’s evangelism centered around reconciliation. In Christ, we take part in God’s plan of reconciliation. We are then made a new creation and ambassadors; given the ministry of furthering that reconciliation.

Paul states: “We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed.” They (the apostles) are characterized as ministers by:




patience, tribulations, need and distress;
stripes and imprisonments; tumults, labors, sleeplessness, and fasting;
purity, knowledge, longsuffering, kindness,
the Holy Spirit, sincere love, the word of truth, power of God, armor of righteousness,
honor & dishonor; evil report and good; deceivers yet true; unknown yet known; chastened but not killed;
sorrowful yet rejoicing; poor yet rich; having nothing but possessing all things. (2Cor. 6 & 7)
None of these sound very confrontational.


Which OT prophets were confrontational?

Most of them. But:



[1] they were ineffective. Jeremiah complained bitterly that no one listened to him. Isaiah’s message was not public in nature. The minor prophets were unheeded. In fact, this is one of Jesus’ main charges against the Jewish people: that they did not listen to the prophets!
[2] The prophets were given to Israel, not the other nations.
[3] The ministry of the OT prophets was replaced by the Holy Spirit! We no longer have to have someone else carry God’s message to us- God the Holy Spirit speaks directly to us. It is the Holy Spirit’s place to confront, convict, or condemn. (Jn 16)
Jesus was confrontational? To whom?

Did he confront the drunkards and prostitutes…or was he noted for being their friend? Did he confront the religious leaders, yes. The religious leaders of Judaism, not paganism. So to the non-Christian types, Jesus is gentle and friendly. To the religious leaders, he is corrective; yes, even confrontational.

So? Bring the peace and acceptance of God to the confused, outcast, the desperate. Let Christ confront the leaders of His church. As He does in Revelation. It is not our job.


Yes, I think there is something intrinsically wrong with self-proclaiming ourselves as confrontational evangelists. We are ministers of God’s reconciliation.



Ad 2: Mulholland et al would need some sort of evidence for this, and I
doubt this evidence is forthcoming. In fact, the evidence seems to be
to the contrary: more overtly evangelical denominations that simply present
and stand up for their message have flourished; denominations taking a more
exclusively ecumenical, relational and invitational approach have not;
indeed, they have shrunk. (I grant that matters may not be quite so
simple, but I think there is a case to be made there.)

I’d like to see the case be made. How about Morganthaler’s Worship Evangelism. She has hard data to back up her thesis. (Which is: all these Purpose Driven churches really aren’t any more effective comparatively; and neither are apologetic ministries. The churches that perform that best are those that worship the most consistently, spontaneously, and genuinely.)

How about Wimber’s Power Evangelism. He puts in a lot of information and stats about what works on the mission field, (hint: it’s not argumentation).

There is no community of people that are flourishing anywhere with just a “message”, regardless of how staunch they are about it.



Ad 3: Going for the soft sell when one is in the minority runs a bigger
danger: absorption. Further, again, it's not the biblical model: the early
church was absolutely outnumbered; first by those opposed to Jesus'
messiahship within Jerusalem and the Jewish community in general, and
then within the larger confines of the Roman empire. Again, presumably not
everyone was confrontational, but plenty were - and the Church grew and
grew. Wow, the biblical model of evangelism is confrontation? I'd like to see that outlined.

Let’s take a model and call it Transformation Evangelism.

Let’s assume that God has grabbed hold of our lives, showed us the wretches that we were, and we turned to Christ.

In Christ, we are made new creation, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit, we are made part of the body of Christ; we are made children of the day and the blindness of our culture has been removed. None of these are figurative statements; they are literal.

We are the fragrance of God to those around us; not more white noise. (2C 2)

We are living epistles written by the work of the Spirit. We are not paper arguments, listing what we consider to be the error of others. People are constantly reading us; they are not waiting to be lectured. (2C 3)

Are not the people around us blinded by the god of this age? To what effect do we berate the blind for being so? Blinded eyes are opened by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit…no argument, confrontational or otherwise, opens blind eyes!

Looking through the book of Acts, it’s hard to claim that the church grew from the confrontational demeanor of the apostles. Acts starts with the promise of the Holy Spirit coming to empower the Church. This empowerment is not better argumentation skills.

When the Holy Spirit descends and in-fills the disciples, those standing around them see a dramatic difference in their behaviors and personalities. People witness the transformation in Christians. (Christians don’t witness to people?). People ask for an explanation of this transformation. Peter, Spirit-led, preaches to them, they respond. The preaching is secondary, maybe tertiary, at best.

A Spirit-formed community follows.

Some initial thoughts,
got to run for a minute and get a turkey...


t.rex

[Leroy]

Controversy surrounds Mormonism comments by Fuller exec.
Nov 24, 2004
By Cory Miller Baptist Press Association

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (BP)--Evangelical Christian leaders and experts on Mormonism have expressed dismay at recent comments made by Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' "signature pulpit" in Salt Lake City.

Mouw spoke briefly Nov. 14 during the second night of a three-part series titled "Evening of Friendship," which was sponsored by Standing Together Ministries, an evangelical Christian group headquartered in Lehi, Utah. The main speaker for the nightly lecture series was noted Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias.

According to articles published in the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune as well as transcript of the speech provided by Mouw, he apologized at the event for evangelical Christians' misrepresentation of the Mormon beliefs.

"Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you," he said, according to the Deseret News.

"We've often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of members of the LDS faith," the Salt Lake Tribune quoted Mouw as saying. "It's a terrible thing to bear false witness ... We've told you what you believe without first asking you."

Some evangelical pastors at the event were disturbed by Mouw's comments.

"Some of my people were there and they were turned off by the whole event because of him," said Mike Gray, pastor of Southeast Baptist Church in Salt Lake City, and one of the sponsoring evangelical Christian churches for the event.

"I chose to be a part of it simply because I knew Ravi would present the Gospel," Gray said of the rare occasion for an evangelical Christian leader to speak at the Salt Lake Tabernacle. "Everything Ravi did was well done."

The last evangelical to speak at the Tabernacle, according to reports, was 19th-century preacher D.L. Moody.

"[Mouw] was wrong. He had no business. And it will hurt," said Gray, who branded Mouw's generalized comments as "insensitive," "inaccurate," and "ignorant" of activities by many evangelical Christian churches in the Salt Lake City area.

"He doesn't live here and he doesn't know what we do," Gray said. "We haven't been ugly to our Mormon neighbors. We love them and care about them."

According to Gray, comments like Mouw's present Christians yet another obstacle in their work to evangelize and minister to Mormons throughout the world. The comments blur the lines between Mormon and evangelical Christian teaching, Gray said.

"We want to become all things to all men to reach them to share the Gospel," Gray said. "And the tension and balance is how do you share the Gospel but not become part of standing with the Mormons.

"That's always the balance that we try to find here."

Tim Clark, executive director of the Utah-Idaho Baptist Convention, said that a statement from an evangelical leader like Mouw's can cause weak believers to stumble and give credence to the Mormon message by muddying the waters.

"[Mouw is] sending a message to Mormons that they are a part of mainstream Christianity," Clark said.

"The Mormons will take that and use that kind of language. It's a half truth, but that's how they report it," he added, noting the targeted evangelistic efforts of Mormons to convert evangelical Christians, like Baptists and Methodists.

Both Gray and Clark mentioned full-length movies being funded and/or produced by Mormons, such as "Baptists At Our Barbecue," which depicts a Baptist preacher and his church pitted against Mormons in a small town, as evidences of efforts to reach out and convert evangelicals.

"The evidence is tangible. Why are the Mormons building temples in New York City, Dallas and Atlanta? It's because they're targeting Baptists who don't know what they believe," Clark said.

Mouw, responding to the criticism he has received from his comments, wrote in an e-mail to Baptist Press that he acknowledged not all evangelical Christians have sinned against Mormons by "bearing false witness."

"I certainly did not mean to imply that every evangelical has sinned in this regard," Mouw wrote. "Suppose I were to address an African-American gathering and say that we whites have sinned against you blacks. Who would deny that this is a correct assessment? But who would think that I was speaking about and on behalf of all white people?"

From the transcript provided to BP and comments attributed to him by the Salt Lake Tribune, Mouw stated that there are "very real issues of disagreement" between Mormon and Christian doctrine "of eternal significance."

Then he added, "But now we can discuss them as friends."

"In none of this am I saying that Mormons are 'orthodox Christians.' But I do believe that there are elements in Mormon thought that if emphasized, while de-emphasizing other element[s], could constitute a message within Mormonism of salvation by grace alone through the blood of Jesus Christ," Mouw wrote. "I will work to promote that cause."

Although Mouw noted that many will inevitably disagree with that approach, he wrote, "at the very least admit that we have not always been fair in our wholesale condemnation of Mormonism as simply a false religion."

Clark said Mouw's comments at the Tabernacle will be felt throughout the Utah-Idaho Baptist Convention.

"It sets back our work as Christian witnesses in Utah and Idaho," Clark said. "I can't speak to what it does outside of Utah and Idaho, but I can tell you it does not communicate a clear Gospel presentation."

Clark suggested a better message for an evangelical leader like Mouw speaking at such an historic occasion: "If I had been Dr. Mouw, I would have talked about the life, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Roger Russell, pastor of Holladay Baptist Church in Salt Lake City, was present at the event with his Mormon neighbor and was shocked at Mouw's comments.

"I did not appreciate his comments at all," said Russell, who has served as a pastor in Utah for more than 16 years.

Afterward, Russell said the conversation between him and his Mormon neighbor of more than four years centered more on Zacharias' comments.

"Fortunately, after it was over, we did not talk about that," Russell said referring to Mouw's comments.

"I had absolutely no problems with what Dr. Ravi Zacharias had to say. He was on the mark and to the point and he didn't pull any punches. But it was the comments before and after he spoke that were kind of off the mark," said Russell, who was in the audience all three nights of the series.

According to Russell, although he was "red-faced" at Mouw's comments, he suggested there is some truth to his comments, because most Mormons don't know what the LDS doctrines are.

"The average Mormon in the pew, he doesn't care," Russell said. "It doesn't make any difference to him. To them it works. They have friends. They're big on family. And not only that, they can spend eternity with their family. They don't stop to think about how it works. So they're happy with it."

In his e-mail response Mouw mentioned a "discernible pattern of sinning against LDS" members by evangelicals, pointing to authors like Walter Martin who has "oversimplified Mormon teaching" and Dave Hunt who represented Mormonism as "Satanic in its inspiration and practice."

"I think this is bearing false witness," Mouw wrote.

Mouw also clarified comments he made about upcoming celebrations of the 200th anniversary of Mormon founder Joseph Smith's birth, which caused rumblings among many in the evangelical community.

"I can see how people heard me say that we evangelicals should join in 'celebrating' Joseph Smith's birthday, but that is not what I intended to say," Mouw wrote. "Instead I said that I hoped many evangelicals would participate in those events that would allow us all to 'pay special attention to Joseph's life and teachings' during this year."

Mouw said that his statement caused "unnecessary confusion," but that events like Smith's birthday allow "critical give and take" when "we evangelicals can try to sort out the good from the bad in Joseph's thought."
Instead of arguing about Mormon beliefs that are "offensive," Mouw wrote that upcoming dialogue opportunities could be spent "reflecting" on salvation through Jesus Christ alone and His atoning work on the cross.

In clarifying his own beliefs, Mouw wrote, "For the record: I do not believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God; I do not accept the Book of Mormon as a legitimate revelation; I do not believe that temple baptism saves; I do not believe that all people will be saved."

But Mouw added, "And it [is] precisely because of this that when my good friend [and Brigham Young University professor] Bob Millet says that his only plea when he gets to heaven is 'the mercy and merit of Jesus Christ,' I want to respond by saying with enthusiasm, 'Let's keep talking!'"

"I am deeply sorry for causing distress in the evangelical community," Mouw wrote. "[But] I make no apology for wanting to foster gentle and reverent dialogue with Mormon friends."

[Trout]

Bill McKeever made these comments here: (http://www.mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=130) I thought I'd paste them here and encourage everyone to read the other discussion going on.

Dear friends,

Well, after reading many of the comments regarding Sunday's meeting at the Tabernacle, I enter these waters of opinion with a bit of trepidation. For what it's worth, and knowing full well that my opinion and 99 cents still won't buy you a dollar cup of Postum, I offer my observations.

In a nutshell I thought Ravi did an excellent job with the hand he was dealt. I think we all agree that he was placed in a very awkward and tough situation. Speaking in this culture is not like speaking at Harvard or to the UN (those folks actually get it). Overall I think enough was said and it was said clearly, regardless of what the Deseret News or Salt Lake Tribune might say. On Monday night Ravi mentioned that two of the Mormons seated on the platform said they agreed completely with what he said.

If that is really true here's my short list as to what these men seem to be agreeing to:

1) That man is a depraved creation (Brigham Young taught the opposite: "Many of us have been taught the doctrine of total depravitythat man is not naturally inclined to do good. I am satisfied that he is more inclined to do right than to do wrong. There is a greater power within him to shun evil and perform good, than to do the opposite." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.78).

2) That religions that teach men can pull themselves up by their "bootstraps" are wrong (Spencer Kimball said exactly that in Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.28 -- "Man can transform himself and he must. Man has in himself the seeds of godhood, which can germinate and grow and develop. As the acorn becomes the oak, the mortal man becomes a god. It is within his power to lift himself by his very bootstraps from the plane on which he finds himself to the plane on which he should be. It may be a long, hard lift with many obstacles, but it is a real possibility.")

3) That seeking to have an eternal roommate with another human is silly when one considers the majesty of Christ. (Makes the LDS concept of eternal marriage seem inconsequential.)

4) That Christ's sacrifice on the cross is all sufficient. (So much for works and temple rituals.)

5) That the Godhead is a Trinity and can only be a Trinity. (Hardly the tri-theism espoused by LDS.)

6) That there are deep differences that divide us.

My conclusions on this are

1) these men were dozing off (like Seventy Bruce Porter was) and didn't really hear what Ravi said, or 2) they were covering up their ignorance and trying to look smart, or 3) they are just flat out prevaricating. Personally, I was amazed that Ravi covered so much in such a short time.

I understand that many think there was much more he could have said. Of course that is true, but let's be reasonable, if you overcook the turkey, nobody eats. If he had gone out and did a point by point refutation of Mormonism many in the crowd would have turned him off immediately. Remember, Zacharias is a nobody to most LDS. He has earned our respect but most Mormons have never heard of him. His words would have meant nothing if he had come out of the gate telling them they are wrong rather than compelling them to think.

True, some Mormons will say they agree with what Ravi said, and as I mentioned above, at least two of the Mormons on the platform already have done so. Of course I find such a notion comical (Ravi seemed amused by it as well when he mentioned it on Monday at Weber State). But really, should we not expect this type of response given the fact that we hear this from Mormons all of the time anyway? ("Why, we're Christians just like you"). I see this as an opportunity to probe deeper. A pastor friend of mine was told by a Mormon that he agreed with everything Ravi said. But when my friend started asking him about specifics, it became clear that this Mormon really didn't agree after all. This opened the door for my friend to once again go through the points Ravi made in order to show this man his spiritual deficit.

As expected, Dr. Richard Mouw's comments were given a prominent billing in our local newspapers. As with most of you I found his irresponsible comments to be both shameful and hypocritical. In order to make himself look pious he embarrassed many fruitful ministries that want nothing more than to present a clear and accurate case when it comes to the teachings of Mormonism. How he can think his broad brush accusations were any less a sin than the stereotypes he feels have been foisted on Mormons is beyond me. The man owes an apology to the many missionaries and ministries he undermined and I for one will have no respect for him until he does.

For Mouw to quote Joseph Smith regarding justification and sanctification demonstrates that he has no clue as to what the issues really are, unless perhaps Mouw believes that justification is, "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations" (D. & C. 132:7), in which men must abide to be saved and exalted, must be entered into and performed in righteousness so that the Holy Spirit can justify the candidate for salvation in what has been done. (1 Ne. 16:2; Jac. 2:13-14; Alma 41:15; D. & C. 98; 132:1, 62.)." I can only hope for the sake of every student attending Fuller Seminary that he doesn't. And BTW, I will definitely pass on his invitation to join in the celebration of the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's birth. The fact that millions of souls will be cursing Smith's name throughout eternity gives me no cause to celebrate. To suggest we join in the celebration of a man who was clearly a false prophet is unthinkable. Fuller Seminary should be hanging its head in shame. Since some may not have read what he said, I list the two links below.

I offer these comments in the hope that they encourage many who think this event was a step in the wrong direction. I sincerely hope God will abundantly use what happened here in Utah over the weekend. If nothing else, it gives us an opportunity to ask Mormons if they heard what was said. I certainly did this just as few hours ago as I spoke with two Mormon missionaries on Temple Square. For several minutes I was able to discuss what Ravi taught and ask them their view. Needles to say, it was a great conversation.

Bill McKeever
Mormonism Research Ministry

[just Johnna]

"The evidence is tangible. Why are the Mormons building temples in New York City, Dallas and Atlanta? It's because they're targeting Baptists who don't know what they believe," Clark said.
Just a copy edit note:
The church doesn't builds temples on spec, on the idea saints might be living in an area in the future. Dallas and Atlanta were built in the 1980s because of the many saints already living there. There are some smaller temples built now where there are smaller communities of saints--Manhattan might be part of that.

[Richbee]

The three are "one-in-purpose", so an LDS person would greatly enjoy that particular explanation of the Godhead. The unity in diversity.

The LDS read and quote CS Lewis quite extensively.

How do they define God?

Jesus Christ is the one and only Son of God, unique and co-equal with the Father.

[Trout]

Hi richbee,

A good place to learn about LDS beliefs is www.lds.org, there you'll find some easy to follow links to some basic terms.

But here is the basic statement about God from the LDS articles of faith:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

[Leroy]

Announcement! (from Utah Gospel Mission Director)

An Organizer of Three "Evangelical and Mormon Dialogs" has "Repented" of compromising the Gospel by being a part of the Johnson/Millet/Mouw LDS dialog exchanges! Ed Enochs, Executive Director of Conservatives For California, writes in his Open Letter:

Text of “Open Letter to Evangelicals on the Mormon Church”

(For a beautiful layout of this letter, go to the Website)

Open Letter to Evangelicals on the Mormon Church (http://lettertoevangelicalsonlds.blogspot.com)



Wednesday, December 15, 2004



Letter to Evangelicals about the Mormon Church

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).



"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears (Acts 20:29-31).



I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.



But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:6-9).



"But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it.." (2 Corinthians 11:2-4).



"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve" (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).





Dear Evangelical Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,





Greetings Brethren in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit,



I believe in the historic doctrine of the Trinity, Amen.



I believe in the Evangelical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone based on the Bible Alone Amen.



I believe the Bible alone is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, indestructible and only authoritative Word of Almighty God, Amen.





Brethren in Christ Jesus near and far,





In 426 AD the great North African Bishop Augustine, painstakingly went through each and everyone of his theological writings from his classic "Confessions" and the "City of God" to the most minute of publications and then released, a few years before his death, "Retractiones", a title that might be translated as his "reconsideration's." In this book, Augustine commented one by one on all his writings, showing from his point of view, where he had went wrong theologically and corrected himself.



Although I am an insignificant role player in this controversy about Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw's controversial statements made in November at the Mormon Tabernacle, many of my Evangelical friends across the country look to me for my opinion on the matter. In this, I am mindful of the testimony of Athanasius, the young assistant to the Bishop Alexander and a man God used at the Council of Nicea in 323AD to stand for the truth against the heresy of Arianism. I see that God sometimes uses seemingly "insignificant" role players to accomplish His sovereign will on the earth.



With the example of Augustine's "Retractiones" and young Athanasius in mind, after organizing three separate Evangelical dialogs with the Mormon church and after serious study and reflection upon the statements made by Dr. Mouw at the Mormon Tabernacle and the direction of the Evangelical dialog movement in general, I have to issue a public statement. I believe that Mouw's statements have seriously compromised the integrity of the Evangelical Gospel with the Mormon Church.



As a Evangelical witness to the Mormon Church, who has spent the last 20 years studying Mormon theology and discussing issues with rank and file members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day-Saints, I can give conclusive evidence through correspondence with many Mormons, that Dr. Mouw's statements are being used by many Mormons to discredit Evangelicals who attempt to share the Gospel with Mormons and show the LDS the errors of their theology.



I also believe it has been a mistake for me to have been involved in this dialog movement with the Mormon Church and I repent before my Evangelical brethren about my participation in it.



I want to state in the clearest and most unambiguous language possible, that I in no way support any teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints in any capacity whatsoever.



I do not support any of their doctrines or claims about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.



I love my Mormon friends with the entirety of my being but I cannot compromise my conviction that the Mormon church is entirely unbiblical whose doctrines are of a radical and heretical nature.



I believe Joseph Smith truly lived in history.

He was a true historical figure and lived from

1805-1844. I really do believe that. There is really

no doubt in my mind that Joseph Smith walked this

earth, said he had a visitation from heavenly beings

he said were two separate gods and then said he saw an

angelic being or something, which he said led him to

some golden plates which he said were the Book of

Mormon.



But to me the question of whether or not Joseph Smith saw an angel cannot be solved by the LDS just saying they are the true church and they received a testimony of confirmation from a spirit.



Anyone can make a similar claim and do all the time.



The Muslims (which Islam is a one Billion member group not 12 million like the LDS) say that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed and inspired him to write the most perfect book which is the Q'uran (Koran).



The same line of argumentation that the Church of

Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints uses to defend the

vision of Joseph Smith and the formulation of the Book of Mormon is used by Muslims in the defense of the truth of Islam and formulation of the Q'uran.



Muslims say that like Joseph Smith, Muhammad was a

righteous man who was led by his god to lead his people from false religion and to true worship, wrote down the Q'uran which they say is the most perfect book and we should not ever question it.



(See Q'uran: Surah 2:97-98 and 4:82)



But the Bible teaches us to test the spirits, to

examine everything carefully and to hold fast to the

truth (1 Thess. 5:21, 2 Tim. 2:15, 1 John 4:1).



I do not agree that there are any new Scriptures or

revelations from God like Scripture, true, but if

their was "new revelation" it would not contradict

God's first Word the Bible on any of it's teachings on the nature of God and the way of Salvation.



That's why so many people had and do have a problem

with the LDS Church, not because they say they believe in God, but because they have said in the history of their church that the Mormon religion is the only true church possessing the authority of Christ, which we reject based on the total lack of historical evidence



Because of my participation in this dialog movement I have to make this statement that I have sinned and I have been deceived. I have compromised the Evangelical Gospel with the Mormon Church and I hereby repent and side with the conservative Evangelicals such as Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries who take the traditional Evangelical view of the Mormon Church. I would encourage anyone interested in his views on the Mormon Church and Dr. Mouw's statements, to contact his great ministry.



I also give permission to all Evangelicals involved in the counter cult movement to share this letter with all their friends and constituents. I love you very much and I have let you down, please forgive me. I believe Walter Martin was a great man and did an honorable service for the truth of Christ. I am sorry I let you and his memory down.



Two thousand years ago, a unique man named Jesus Christ of Nazareth emerged from the chaos of human existence with a profound message of hope and human redemption. Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God, lived a perfect life, performed incredible miracles, proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God and ultimately died on the Cross for the sins of humanity and rose again from the dead to give anyone who would sincerely turn from their sins and place their faith in Him eternal life.



I love you all and wish everyone a happy holiday season.



Sincerely in Christ Jesus our Sovereign King,



Lee Edward "Ed" Enochs



Executive Director

Conservatives for California

[dizzle]

What did he do that he is repenting of? Forgive me if it is in this thread andI didn't see it.

[Krusader]

Announcement! (from Utah Gospel Mission Director)

An Organizer of Three "Evangelical and Mormon Dialogs" has "Repented" of compromising the Gospel by being a part of the Johnson/Millet/Mouw LDS dialog exchanges! Ed Enochs, Executive Director of Conservatives For California, writes in his Open Letter:

Text of “Open Letter to Evangelicals on the Mormon Church”

(For a beautiful layout of this letter, go to the Website)

Open Letter to Evangelicals on the Mormon Church (http://lettertoevangelicalsonlds.blogspot.com/)



Wednesday, December 15, 2004



Letter to Evangelicals about the Mormon Church

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).



"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears (Acts 20:29-31).



I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.



But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:6-9).



"But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it.." (2 Corinthians 11:2-4).



"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve" (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).





Dear Evangelical Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,





Greetings Brethren in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit,



I believe in the historic doctrine of the Trinity, Amen.



I believe in the Evangelical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone based on the Bible Alone Amen.



I believe the Bible alone is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, indestructible and only authoritative Word of Almighty God, Amen.





Brethren in Christ Jesus near and far,





In 426 AD the great North African Bishop Augustine, painstakingly went through each and everyone of his theological writings from his classic "Confessions" and the "City of God" to the most minute of publications and then released, a few years before his death, "Retractiones", a title that might be translated as his "reconsideration's." In this book, Augustine commented one by one on all his writings, showing from his point of view, where he had went wrong theologically and corrected himself.



Although I am an insignificant role player in this controversy about Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw's controversial statements made in November at the Mormon Tabernacle, many of my Evangelical friends across the country look to me for my opinion on the matter. In this, I am mindful of the testimony of Athanasius, the young assistant to the Bishop Alexander and a man God used at the Council of Nicea in 323AD to stand for the truth against the heresy of Arianism. I see that God sometimes uses seemingly "insignificant" role players to accomplish His sovereign will on the earth.



With the example of Augustine's "Retractiones" and young Athanasius in mind, after organizing three separate Evangelical dialogs with the Mormon church and after serious study and reflection upon the statements made by Dr. Mouw at the Mormon Tabernacle and the direction of the Evangelical dialog movement in general, I have to issue a public statement. I believe that Mouw's statements have seriously compromised the integrity of the Evangelical Gospel with the Mormon Church.



As a Evangelical witness to the Mormon Church, who has spent the last 20 years studying Mormon theology and discussing issues with rank and file members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day-Saints, I can give conclusive evidence through correspondence with many Mormons, that Dr. Mouw's statements are being used by many Mormons to discredit Evangelicals who attempt to share the Gospel with Mormons and show the LDS the errors of their theology.



I also believe it has been a mistake for me to have been involved in this dialog movement with the Mormon Church and I repent before my Evangelical brethren about my participation in it.



I want to state in the clearest and most unambiguous language possible, that I in no way support any teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints in any capacity whatsoever.



I do not support any of their doctrines or claims about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.



I love my Mormon friends with the entirety of my being but I cannot compromise my conviction that the Mormon church is entirely unbiblical whose doctrines are of a radical and heretical nature.



I believe Joseph Smith truly lived in history.

He was a true historical figure and lived from

1805-1844. I really do believe that. There is really

no doubt in my mind that Joseph Smith walked this

earth, said he had a visitation from heavenly beings

he said were two separate gods and then said he saw an

angelic being or something, which he said led him to

some golden plates which he said were the Book of

Mormon.



But to me the question of whether or not Joseph Smith saw an angel cannot be solved by the LDS just saying they are the true church and they received a testimony of confirmation from a spirit.



Anyone can make a similar claim and do all the time.



The Muslims (which Islam is a one Billion member group not 12 million like the LDS) say that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed and inspired him to write the most perfect book which is the Q'uran (Koran).



The same line of argumentation that the Church of

Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints uses to defend the

vision of Joseph Smith and the formulation of the Book of Mormon is used by Muslims in the defense of the truth of Islam and formulation of the Q'uran.



Muslims say that like Joseph Smith, Muhammad was a

righteous man who was led by his god to lead his people from false religion and to true worship, wrote down the Q'uran which they say is the most perfect book and we should not ever question it.



(See Q'uran: Surah 2:97-98 and 4:82)



But the Bible teaches us to test the spirits, to

examine everything carefully and to hold fast to the

truth (1 Thess. 5:21, 2 Tim. 2:15, 1 John 4:1).



I do not agree that there are any new Scriptures or

revelations from God like Scripture, true, but if

their was "new revelation" it would not contradict

God's first Word the Bible on any of it's teachings on the nature of God and the way of Salvation.



That's why so many people had and do have a problem

with the LDS Church, not because they say they believe in God, but because they have said in the history of their church that the Mormon religion is the only true church possessing the authority of Christ, which we reject based on the total lack of historical evidence



Because of my participation in this dialog movement I have to make this statement that I have sinned and I have been deceived. I have compromised the Evangelical Gospel with the Mormon Church and I hereby repent and side with the conservative Evangelicals such as Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries who take the traditional Evangelical view of the Mormon Church. I would encourage anyone interested in his views on the Mormon Church and Dr. Mouw's statements, to contact his great ministry.



I also give permission to all Evangelicals involved in the counter cult movement to share this letter with all their friends and constituents. I love you very much and I have let you down, please forgive me. I believe Walter Martin was a great man and did an honorable service for the truth of Christ. I am sorry I let you and his memory down.



Two thousand years ago, a unique man named Jesus Christ of Nazareth emerged from the chaos of human existence with a profound message of hope and human redemption. Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God, lived a perfect life, performed incredible miracles, proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God and ultimately died on the Cross for the sins of humanity and rose again from the dead to give anyone who would sincerely turn from their sins and place their faith in Him eternal life.



I love you all and wish everyone a happy holiday season.



Sincerely in Christ Jesus our Sovereign King,



Lee Edward "Ed" Enochs



Executive Director

Conservatives for California
Praise the Lord for this honest statement. There can be no compromise of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the gospel of Joseph Smith.

[just Johnna]

What did he do that he is repenting of? Forgive me if it is in this thread andI didn't see it.
Apparently, Ed Enochs is repenting of posting pubicly on the Times and Seasons blog. It's a blog owned by some young (late 20s) LDS who had took a philosphy class together as undergrads, who went on to mostly become lawyers.

Ed Enochs posted the apology on his own blog here
http://lettertoevangelicalsonlds.blogspot.com/
and titled it "Times and Seasons Controversy.

This is where he talked to people on the Times and Season blog.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/wp/index.php?p=1647

Frankly, I don't understand where he compromised his faith during the conversation. This apology/confession looks very odd--very manufactured to appease an authority--very Middle Ages RC.

We LDS are often accused of being unable to talk to other Christians because we are supposedly controlled by our cult. Having been LDS and always talking to anyone and saying anything, I always figured that was because you confused us with the Jehovah's Witnesses again. Now I wonder if it's because you confused us with some subset of you?

Best of luck to poor Ed Enochs. Apparently guilty by association.

[Krusader]

Apparently, Ed Enochs is repenting of posting pubicly on the Times and Seasons blog. It's a blog owned by some young (late 20s) LDS who had took a philosphy class together as undergrads, who went on to mostly become lawyers.

Ed Enochs posted the apology on his own blog here
http://lettertoevangelicalsonlds.blogspot.com/
and titled it "Times and Seasons Controversy.

This is where he talked to people on the Times and Season blog.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/wp/index.php?p=1647

Frankly, I don't understand where he compromised his faith during the conversation. This apology/confession looks very odd--very manufactured to appease an authority--very Middle Ages RC.

We LDS are often accused of being unable to talk to other Christians because we are supposedly controlled by our cult. Having been LDS and always talking to anyone and saying anything, I always figured that was because you confused us with the Jehovah's Witnesses again. Now I wonder if it's because you confused us with some subset of you?

Best of luck to poor Ed Enochs. Apparently guilty by association.
Justjohnna, Mormons are not like Jehovah's Witnesses by a long shot. I find Mormons to be well-educated for the most part, and we also share very similar moral views on such issues as abortion and gay marriage. Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand are very controlled by the "organization" (that title even sounds despotic, does it not?). They can't read Christian literature, and are even counseled not to read any evangelical material on the Internet. At their Watchtower studies the answers are printed on the bottom of the page to ensure that they don't think for themselves.

As far as Enoch, possibly he thought there had been too much compromise. I'm not really familiar with the dialogue. As for me, I think it's always good to keep lines of communication open and to participate in discussions with those who do not always agree with us. We don't have to compromise our own beliefs in order to understand the beliefs of others.

[just Johnna]

Praise the Lord for this honest statement. There can be no compromise of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the gospel of Joseph Smith.
As far as Enoch, possibly he thought there had been too much compromise. I'm not really familiar with the dialogue. As for me, I think it's always good to keep lines of communication open and to participate in discussions with those who do not always agree with us. We don't have to compromise our own beliefs in order to understand the beliefs of others.Well, having dialogued with Ed Enochs at Times and Seasons, and being somewhat familiar with Evangelical beliefs, the whole apology situation looks very sinister because there is no point at which he compromised his nonMormon Christianity. That's why his apology has nothing more to offer than his statement of Christian beliefs. He hadn't said anything specific to repent of. It all just looks like a repeat of high school, where just talking to mormons is going to get you disciplined.

[Krusader]

Well, having dialogued with Ed Enochs at Times and Seasons, and being somewhat familiar with Evangelical beliefs, the whole apology situation looks very sinister because there is no point at which he compromised his nonMormon Christianity. That's why his apology has nothing more to offer than his statement of Christian beliefs. He hadn't said anything specific to repent of. It all just looks like a repeat of high school, where just talking to mormons is going to get you disciplined.
Justjohnna, I think you experienced some really bad situations with evangelicals. Please, let me assure you, that most evangelical groups would encourage discussions with Mormons, not order their flock to cease communication. Perhaps your friend was in some type of hyper-shepherding sect (which, for me, are cultic).

As far as Encoch goes, let me research this more - I don't want to speak from ignorance.

[twohumble]

So, I just got the CD's of Ravi's talk and started with number 2 since that was at the tabernacle and was about Jesus.

For those who say there was no direct contradiction of mormon doctrine, I must disagree. Ravi started off with the nature of mans heart, he was clear, concise and unequivocal. This is in sharp contrast to the LDS belief about our natural heart.

Next he went to the nature of the cross. Again, this is in sharp contrast to the mormon understanding of the effectations of the cross.

I have only started listening, but in this setting, in their house, I am impressed with the streight forward, no nonsense appproach to broaching these differences, without any compromise of the Gospel message.

I agree that some mormons would not initially get the difference, however, it plants a seed of understanding for further witnessing to that group of people.

So far, I am pleased...I wil continue to listen to the rest of it, and would welcome any feed back on my thoughts.

Thanks

[xevolutionist]

As someone who was born into the Mormon church [that's what we called it when I was going], I must say that I was entirely disappointed with the this whole RZ fiasco. I have been a Christian for 12 years now and just joined this site a few days ago.

When I started reading this thread I found myself holding my breath as I read as quickly as I could to see what the outcome would be. Bummer!

Perhaps RZ didn't realize what he was getting into and I still respect the man and his teaching, but I have been witnessing to members of my former family for years and I believe this was a setback.

You don't know how many times I have heard them say "but we are Christians.", and "we believe in Jesus", but the truth is that the LDS doctrine is that Jesus was not born of a virgin,[because god came down and had physical sex with Mary], or that He is God any more than any of the other innumerable sons of God. actually they believe that Joseph Smith must personally approve of your admittance into heaven.

I went to Utah and witnessed to Mormons at the Joseph Smith pageant, and it was an eye opener. Most LDS are not really sure of the differences in doctrine between Christians and Mormons, and I don't think this will help.

Well you are all probably aware of most of this and I don't want to bore anyone but I do think that in some cases confrontational evangelism is very effective. It seemed to be the only method that had any effect with the Mormons I spoke to. After one lengthy conversation an LDS man asked me why I came down just to witness to them. I replied " because I love you and I want you to know the truth" and even though I had been confrontational, he replied that he felt that was true.

I definitely don't believe that Christians owe Mormons any apology for trying to preach the truth of the gospel to them. I am called the preacher by my brothers and sisters because I never pass up an opportunity to share the true gospel with them. [that is what Mormons call their beliefs, but it has no resemblance to Christianity.

[Trout]

As someone who was born into the Mormon church [that's what we called it when I was going], I must say that I was entirely disappointed with the this whole RZ fiasco. I have been a Christian for 12 years now and just joined this site a few days ago.

When I started reading this thread I found myself holding my breath as I read as quickly as I could to see what the outcome would be. Bummer!

Perhaps RZ didn't realize what he was getting into and I still respect the man and his teaching, but I have been witnessing to members of my former family for years and I believe this was a setback.

You don't know how many times I have heard them say "but we are Christians.", and "we believe in Jesus", but the truth is that the LDS doctrine is that Jesus was not born of a virgin,[because god came down and had physical sex with Mary], or that He is God any more than any of the other innumerable sons of God. actually they believe that Joseph Smith must personally approve of your admittance into heaven.

I went to Utah and witnessed to Mormons at the Joseph Smith pageant, and it was an eye opener. Most LDS are not really sure of the differences in doctrine between Christians and Mormons, and I don't think this will help.

Well you are all probably aware of most of this and I don't want to bore anyone but I do think that in some cases confrontational evangelism is very effective. It seemed to be the only method that had any effect with the Mormons I spoke to. After one lengthy conversation an LDS man asked me why I came down just to witness to them. I replied " because I love you and I want you to know the truth" and even though I had been confrontational, he replied that he felt that was true.

I definitely don't believe that Christians owe Mormons any apology for trying to preach the truth of the gospel to them. I am called the preacher by my brothers and sisters because I never pass up an opportunity to share the true gospel with them. [that is what Mormons call their beliefs, but it has no resemblance to Christianity.


Good observations!

And welcome to Tweb, thanks for signing up.

[Leroy]

xevolutionist,

Thanks for your comments; it's nice to hear from someone that came out of Mormonism, who witnesses to LDS. I think it's hard for most Christians to understand the mindset of the Mormon religion and culture, and to understand the specific problems that we have in witnessing to LDS.

Most Mormons do not know the biblical differences between Mormonism and Christianity, the LDS church has twisted definitions so much that a Christian can have very deep lengthy conversations with LDS folks and the Mormon would agree with everything said. It's only when you confront them with the improper definitions that you start to get to the point.

I applaud you for your witnessing at the pageant, keep up the good work :thumb:

[twohumble]

xevolutionist,

Thanks for your comments; it's nice to hear from someone that came out of Mormonism, who witnesses to LDS. I think it's hard for most Christians to understand the mindset of the Mormon religion and culture, and to understand the specific problems that we have in witnessing to LDS.

Most Mormons do not know the biblical differences between Mormonism and Christianity, the LDS church has twisted definitions so much that a Christian can have very deep lengthy conversations with LDS folks and the Mormon would agree with everything said. It's only when you confront them with the improper definitions that you start to get to the point.

I applaud you for your witnessing at the pageant, keep up the good work :thumb:
I have finished the CD's of Ravi's talk, and I will fully agree that he did not "confront" them. I was privileged to go to a "Search Ministry" conference this past week. This is a group of men who are apologists that embed themselves in communities and develope "lifestyle intervention ministries" with people. In other words, the reach out to where the unbeliever is, and "strategically and intentionally" (thats their phrase) 'go after them'. Two of the men were gentlemen who witness regularly in heavy LDS influenced areas (Salt Lake) and he is very familiar with the Johnson/Millet discussions. He is also very familiar with some of the gentlemen like Millet that are 'high' in the LDS hierarchy. He commented to me that there is a 'clear change' going on in the LDS church. Many are openly disagreeing with past teachings, but only behind closed doors. He told me that many of the scholars have totally distanced themselves from some of the prophets teachings and even some teachings in the Book of Mormon itself. This has only been done in closed meetings, and not for the general population to know, however its happening. Johnson (organizer of the Ravi deal) apparently informed Ravi of this, and some of the "soft shoe" was aimed at not offending the scholars, so they could fascilitate further dialog.

I think that any true "confrontation" at that first meeting would have only hurt that process. Ravi has laid the ground work for further meetings and further discussion, and has also laid the ground work for how "truth" will be evaluated.

I understand all of your concerns, and they are valid from your points of the evangelism experience, as it is with mine. I am MUCH more direct in the evangelism to Mormons that I engage in. I point out false prophesy, changes in their book, differences with the Bible, and the foolishness of Kolob.

However, to expect Ravi to have done this, in this setting, is not reasonable, especially if he was laying the ground work to get involved with them on a regular "teaching" basis. He could make a huge change at the high levels, if he is allowed to become involved with them on a 'lifestyle' or relational basis.

God bless

[Berean Todd]

I have finished the CD's of Ravi's talk, and I will fully agree that he did not "confront" them. I was privileged to go to a "Search Ministry" conference this past week. This is a group of men who are apologists that embed themselves in communities and develope "lifestyle intervention ministries" with people. In other words, the reach out to where the unbeliever is, and "strategically and intentionally" (thats their phrase) 'go after them'. Two of the men were gentlemen who witness regularly in heavy LDS influenced areas (Salt Lake) and he is very familiar with the Johnson/Millet discussions. He is also very familiar with some of the gentlemen like Millet that are 'high' in the LDS hierarchy. He commented to me that there is a 'clear change' going on in the LDS church. Many are openly disagreeing with past teachings, but only behind closed doors. He told me that many of the scholars have totally distanced themselves from some of the prophets teachings and even some teachings in the Book of Mormon itself. This has only been done in closed meetings, and not for the general population to know, however its happening. Johnson (organizer of the Ravi deal) apparently informed Ravi of this, and some of the "soft shoe" was aimed at not offending the scholars, so they could fascilitate further dialog.

I think that any true "confrontation" at that first meeting would have only hurt that process. Ravi has laid the ground work for further meetings and further discussion, and has also laid the ground work for how "truth" will be evaluated.

I understand all of your concerns, and they are valid from your points of the evangelism experience, as it is with mine. I am MUCH more direct in the evangelism to Mormons that I engage in. I point out false prophesy, changes in their book, differences with the Bible, and the foolishness of Kolob.

However, to expect Ravi to have done this, in this setting, is not reasonable, especially if he was laying the ground work to get involved with them on a regular "teaching" basis. He could make a huge change at the high levels, if he is allowed to become involved with them on a 'lifestyle' or relational basis.

God bless
Excellent commentary on this twohumble, and I would have to agree with most all of what you said.

[twohumble]

Excellent commentary on this twohumble, and I would have to agree with most all of what you said.
Thanks Todd,

[xevolutionist]

I must say that Ravi is still one of the greatest apologists that I have ever heard. We can pray that his presentation will be magnified by the Holy Spirit to effect change in that body of persons, most of whom I believe are earnestly seeking salvation but are deceived by their leadership. It happened in the World Wide Church of God and it could happen in Mormonism.


Have you heard that one of their own researchers did DNA testing to verify that the native american population was descended from the Israelites like the Book of Mormon states? Amazingly, there wasn't a drop of Jewish blood in their heritage. The researcher was almost excommunicated for publishing his results. One church near Manti where the annual pageant is held had videotapes with interviews. Unfortunately, my brother wasn't persuaded by the evidence. The power of the cult to deceive is amazing.

[Trout]

I must say that Ravi is still one of the greatest apologists that I have ever heard. We can pray that his presentation will be magnified by the Holy Spirit to effect change in that body of persons, most of whom I believe are earnestly seeking salvation but are deceived by their leadership. It happened in the World Wide Church of God and it could happen in Mormonism.


Have you heard that one of their own researchers did DNA testing to verify that the native american population was descended from the Israelites like the Book of Mormon states? Amazingly, there wasn't a drop of Jewish blood in their heritage. The researcher was almost excommunicated for publishing his results. One church near Manti where the annual pageant is held had videotapes with interviews. Unfortunately, my brother wasn't persuaded by the evidence. The power of the cult to deceive is amazing.

I heard that story. I found it interesting that he wasn't excommunicated, but rather disfellowshipped? I didn't realize that there was such a punishment.

[just Johnna]

I heard that story. I found it interesting that he wasn't excommunicated, but rather disfellowshipped? I didn't realize that there was such a punishment.Tom Murphy was neither excommunicated nor disfellowshipped. A court was scheduled at one point, but was postponed and then cancelled. Mel Tungate has a good history on his site.
http://www.tungate.com/murphy.htm

fwiw, excommunication from the lds church ideally creates time and freedom for repentence and the person can be rebaptized, at least a year after the court.

Disfellowshipping can be formal or informal, and involves individual-case restrictions, like not teaching in church or not taking the sacrament.

Meetings can still be attended in either case, unless there's an unrelated problem of being disruptive. There isn't shunning, one of the reasons these matters traditionally have been private.

[{Tim}]

Last edited by just Johnna : Today at 04:53 PM. Reason: too much mormon trivia no one but me would care about.
Um... how do you know no-one would care? Unless it's really boring trivia... who knows, one of the lurkers might be interested?

[twohumble]

Tom Murphy was neither excommunicated nor disfellowshipped. A court was scheduled at one point, but was postponed and then cancelled. Mel Tungate has a good history on his site.
http://www.tungate.com/murphy.htm

fwiw, excommunication from the lds church ideally creates time and freedom for repentence and the person can be rebaptized, at least a year after the court.

Disfellowshipping can be formal or informal, and involves individual-case restrictions, like not teaching in church or not taking the sacrament.

Meetings can still be attended in either case, unless there's an unrelated problem of being disruptive. There isn't shunning, one of the reasons these matters traditionally have been private.
Johnna
Can you summarize why a "court" was even considered? What was Murphy's transgression to even suggest it was necessary?

Thanks

[just Johnna]

Johnna
Can you summarize why a "court" was even considered? What was Murphy's transgression to even suggest it was necessary?

ThanksI think it really comes down to some people thinking he is anti-Mormon, so therefore they want his membership revoked.

Tom Murphy is an anthropologist, he surveyed the molecular genetics database specifically to show no Hebrew/Semitic ancestry among native americans to end the use of the term "Lamanite" in favor of self-determination. He suggests our community should reframe the Book of Mormon as pious fiction.

[twohumble]

I think it really comes down to some people thinking he is anti-Mormon, so therefore they want his membership revoked.

Tom Murphy is an anthropologist, he surveyed the molecular genetics database specifically to show no Hebrew/Semitic ancestry among native americans to end the use of the term "Lamanite" in favor of self-determination. He suggests our community should reframe the Book of Mormon as pious fiction.
Do you agree that the book is pious fiction? It seems many LDS scholars are starting to recognize this, but that their opinions are still mainly behind closed doors. There seems to be a general distancing from some of the old teachings, do you agree? The threat of a "court" or somehow being out of favor seems very real w/i the LDS system.

[just Johnna]

Do you agree that the book is pious fiction?No.

My thinking would be similar to that of Brant Gardner and Blake Ostler. Yes, I've read several of Tom Murphy's papers.It seems many LDS scholars are starting to recognize this, but that their opinions are still mainly behind closed doors.There's plenty to read on the subject, and people to talk to, so I'm not sure "closed doors" includes all the usual implications. Do you know how we do leadership? Because it's a different system than scholars. Scholars are a mixed bag. I'm sure you would agree the Jesus Seminar is not the most efficient methodology for arriving at the truth about God.There seems to be a general distancing from some of the old teachings, do you agree?It really depends on what old teaching you're talking about. Adam-God certainly dead-ended. I predict anywhere we go doctrinally will be rooted in what has been. The threat of a "court" or somehow being out of favor seems very real w/in the LDS system.How would it work if a member of your church published that Christ was never resurrected, his conception and birth was ordinary, if he were Bishop Spong. Would he be out of favor with your congregation is he brings these ideas up in discussion? I do know LDS people who are private about their beliefs. Some people have reasons to be at church (yes, and at a church like yours too, possibly) that don't seem to have much to do with salvation. That makes me sad. Outsiders, possibly like yourself, will criticize us Mormons for being too pluralistic in our beliefs on the one hand (Mormon theology is like jello.) and criticize us for being monolithic on the other (they excommunicated one of their members, how cruel.) Being an outspoken Democrat can put you out of favor with your peers. Yes, this is a mish-mash of responses.

From my point of view, I'm thinking: what do nonMormons Christians know or do with dissent and heterodoxy that I will find useful?

[just Johnna]

Um... how do you know no-one would care? Unless it's really boring trivia... who knows, one of the lurkers might be interested?The reason I gave for the edit was an equivocation--you caught me.

[twohumble]

From my point of view, I'm thinking: what do nonMormons Christians know or do with dissent and heterodoxy that I will find useful?

I think how orthodox Christianity handles the heterodox says a ton to the non-Christian, or unbeliever. How any religion handles its nay sayers, and dissenters says a lot about how defensable their positions are, and hence, how based in reality they are. If heterodoxy cannot be adequately dealt with, then there is a serious question about the validity of the orthodox position.

For instance, Muslims claim their book is "beyond human critique", and even the Mormons claim their scriptures cannot be judged by normal scholastic investigation alone. This method of dealing with critisism is weak, and will not lead to a good apologetic that is convincing to the skeptic, and eventually even the member should question the orthodox position that is indefensable.

[just Johnna]

I think how orthodox Christianity handles the heterodox says a ton to the non-Christian, or unbeliever. How any religion handles its nay sayers, and dissenters says a lot about how defensable their positions are, and hence, how based in reality they are. If heterodoxy cannot be adequately dealt with, then there is a serious question about the validity of the orthodox position.Well incorrect books can be met with correct reviews and with correct books in the marketplace.

I was asking what happens if there were a person in your congregation who persisted in publishing heterodoxy, what does the body do? What if the person is a minister? Because those may be the analogs to court or being somehow out of favor.

[xevolutionist]

[QUOTE=just Johnna]Well incorrect books can be met with correct reviews and with correct books in the marketplace.

I was asking what happens if there were a person in your congregation who persisted in publishing heterodoxy, what does the body do? What if the person is a minister? Because those may be the analogs to court or being somehow out of favor.[
/
Tom Murphy is an anthropologist, he surveyed the molecular genetics database specifically to show no Hebrew/Semitic ancestry among native americans to end the use of the term "Lamanite" in favor of self-determination. He suggests our community should reframe the Book of Mormon as pious fiction.
QUOTE]

Many things can take place in modern evangelical settings, usually a church will ask the heretical member to leave the congregation. If that member has support from other members, they may start another church as the Mormons have done a few times. Which sect of "The Church" do you belong to?

Do the Mormons still believe in blood atonement? That's one problem with believing that your current prophet can contradict God's word. When you believe that God is consistent and constant and His word is true and correct and infallable, then at least the basics of your faith can be agreed on, and as I have heard some teachers say " In essentials, unity."

In most other points of view [preterist, futurist, historicist] you can choose your own interpretation and argue for it and you won't get kicked out. The important things such as the deity of Christ and His virgin birth cannot be compromised. The gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith and not by works, is essential.

That's why I consider the LDS cults; preaching millions of Gods, elevating Joe Smith above Christ, gospel of works.[all nowhere in the Book of Mormon]

The story I heard about Tom Murphy is that he was trying to prove the Book of Mormon, and was surprised when he found no Hebrew blood in the Indians. Surprised may be an understatement, as he actually believed the story about it being the most perfect, true, correct etc. DNA is considered by some who work with it powerful evidence and that may have changed his mind. Or could this just be a story the LDS leaders are spinning to discredit his motives? Well, they've never cared before about what was in the Book of Mormon, I don't know why they are concerned now.

[twohumble]

Well incorrect books can be met with correct reviews and with correct books in the marketplace.

I was asking what happens if there were a person in your congregation who persisted in publishing heterodoxy, what does the body do? What if the person is a minister? Because those may be the analogs to court or being somehow out of favor.
I remember a few such scientists in the Roman Catholic Churches history that also had what appeared to be "heterodoxical" ideas...the catholic church later (centuries later) recanted and apologized for their stance......do you see any analogy here?

[just Johnna]

The story I heard about Tom Murphy is that he was trying to prove the Book of Mormon, and was surprised when he found no Hebrew blood in the Indians. Surprised may be an understatement, as he actually believed the story about it being the most perfect, true, correct etc. DNA is considered by some who work with it powerful evidence and that may have changed his mind. Or could this just be a story the LDS leaders are spinning to discredit his motives? Well, they've never cared before about what was in the Book of Mormon, I don't know why they are concerned now.
I think you should check your source on that story you heard. I've been aware of Tom Murphy since his 1997 award-winning essay "Laban's Ghost" and he wasn't a historicity guy when he started his DNA survey. Someone has misrespresented him to you.

I remember a few such scientists in the Roman Catholic Churches history that also had what appeared to be "heterodoxical" ideas...the catholic church later (centuries later) recanted and apologized for their stance......do you see any analogy here?Galileo presented scientific findings but didn't dictate how such findings should be interpreted theologically. You might have a analogy to Juanita Brooks, but not to Maxine Hanks.

[Undomiel]

I don't think the patriarchs of mormonism originally meant to portray the Lamanites as Semetic. It's likely they thought them to be "Caucasian." So saying
"there's no semetic genealogy in Native Americans," does not address the issue. Several of the early church fathers followed what approximated "white supremacy" ideaology. This is mirrored today by the christian identity movement, which is basically akin to KKK type organizations, with a decidedly christian perspective but an overall message that is quite different from that of mainstream christianity. The christian identity people believe Adam and Eve were caucasian, so if they became mormon, they would also view the Lamanites as caucasian (unless I'm incorrect in assuming the Lamanites were considered a lost tribe of Israel).

[Menno1]

Hello there. Hope you have a great day!

[just Johnna]

I don't think the patriarchs of mormonism originally meant to portray the Lamanites as Semetic. It's likely they thought them to be "Caucasian."

I refer you to <a href=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0252028031/qid=1081188895/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/103-5606256-1549417?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage</a> by Armand Mauss. Although some racism prevailing from the larger culture did contaminate the church, it is not in the way you described. Armand has a chapter on the pro-Semitic history of the LDS.

The Book of Mormon text names the Lehite heritage as from the tribe of Manassah, therefore Semite.

Of course, you and I know "Caucasian" is an absolutely worthless and repudiated term today; it arose in an attempt to harmonize anthropology with Genesis 10, the Table of Nations. Causcasian was the "science" word for "descended of Shem" or Semite. I'm a Local Flood gal, so I read Genesis 10 as God's distribution of the people in the greater area around Israel, not an account of the entire human race.

So saying "there's no semetic genealogy in Native Americans," does not address the issue. Several of the early church fathers followed what approximated "white supremacy" ideaology.Not really.

This is mirrored today by the christian identity movement, which is basically akin to KKK type organizations, with a decidedly christian perspective but an overall message that is quite different from that of mainstream christianity. The christian identity people believe Adam and Eve were caucasian,

We believe all people today are literally descended of Adam and Eve. There was a First Presidency declaration to that effect.

so if they became mormon, they would also view the Lamanites as caucasian

Historically, people look at Mormonism as as a breakoff from the same Campbellite/Restoration Movement the also developed in Disciples of Christ, no connection or sympathy to the racist Christian Identity movement.

(unless I'm incorrect in assuming the Lamanites were considered a lost tribe of Israel).

The Lamanites were not a lost tribe, but a break off group from the tribe of Manassah, or atleast their patriarch Lehi was. I believe this small group intermarried with the indigenous population already in America. The main group of the tribe of Manassah continued in Israel, Manassah was never considered to be one of the lost tribes. This is one of the ways the Book of Mormon fails to answer American expecations of being a history of lost tribes.

Most Mormons are completely naive of British-Israelism, and when they are informed of it, consider it to be a satanic imitation of God's real paln to adopt all his faithful as his people.