God Makers...

[misterguss]

These questions are for mormons only:

1. I heard that you are not allowed to watch this movie...is that true?

2. If any of you have seen it (or read the book), what did you think of it?

(and I don't want to debate or preach at any of you, I'm just curious :teeth: )

[just Johnna]

These questions are for mormons only:

1. I heard that you are not allowed to watch this movie...is that true?

2. If any of you have seen it (or read the book), what did you think of it?

(and I don't want to debate or preach at any of you, I'm just curious :teeth: ):teeth:
I haven't heard that I'm not allowed to watch the movie, but the idea certainly holds no appeal. However, my girlfriend in high school was shown the movie by her pastor, and counseled in that revival week never to speak to me again. We sat next to each other in Algebra 2 for four more months, without a word between. Thank heaven marching band season was over, as she had been my drill team captain, and I'm not sure how we would have managed that.

There were so few of us who believed in God at that school, I was truly sorry to lose her company. But being believers, and following rules that were strange to everyone else, was our bond, so I honored her decision to obey and we were silent and separate.

I just missed the 20-year reunion. I wonder how she's doing now.

[Krusader]

:teeth:
I haven't heard that I'm not allowed to watch the movie, but the idea certainly holds no appeal. However, my girlfriend in high school was shown the movie by her pastor, and counseled in that revival week never to speak to me again. We sat next to each other in Algebra 2 for four more months, without a word between. Thank heaven marching band season was over, as she had been my drill team captain, and I'm not sure how we would have managed that.

There were so few of us who believed in God at that school, I was truly sorry to lose her company. But being believers, and following rules that were strange to everyone else, was our bond, so I honored her decision to obey and we were silent and separate.

I just missed the 20-year reunion. I wonder how she's doing now.
I have never known any Christian pastor that would counsel individuals not to communicate with Mormons. If anything, they would counsel one to witness to Mormons regarding salvation through Jesus Christ.

The only time that I could see a pastor counseling one of his flock to cease communication, would be on a theological level. For instance, if the Mormon was confusing that individual or attempting to draw them into Mormonism, a pastor might tell that individual just not to discuss theological matters any more. However, this would not prevent the individual from remaining friendly and conversing with a Mormon friend.

I have Mormon friends, and we speak all the time. Although, by now, they know better than to attempt to convert me.

[just Johnna]

I have never known any Christian pastor that would counsel individuals not to communicate with Mormons. If anything, they would counsel one to witness to Mormons regarding salvation through Jesus Christ.Ah, but have *you* ever been to one of these God-maker presentations? It seems to be quite a franchise--there are churches where they present it once a year, and apparently the counsel to shun and hate is part of the presentation. I hope someone funds the presentations privately, because the thought of offering money supporting it also is ill-making. But then, we mormons are funny about consecrated offerings. There are still a few of us worried that building the Conference Center was not a dedicated enough use of the Lord's money.

And I'm physically nauseated by the very thought of spy camera footage in the temple. I don't think those guys wiping their bottoms on temple garments have any idea how counterproductive that is. That whole I'm-superior, I'm-going-to-shock-you-into-my-way-of-thinking is very Marilyn Manson. But the Ravi Zacharias thread and the Ed Enochs apology shows me nonMormon Christians are not going to hold each other accountable or sharpen each other on these matters.


The only time that I could see a pastor counseling one of his flock to cease communication, would be on a theological level. For instance, if the Mormon was confusing that individual or attempting to draw them into Mormonism, a pastor might tell that individual just not to discuss theological matters any more. However, this would not prevent the individual from remaining friendly and conversing with a Mormon friend.Well, before god-makers week, we probably praised God quite a bit, being 16 you never settle for lesser conversation. She was counseled quite specifically that it was a danger to speak to me at all because I'm LDS. I know this sort of thing is not representative of pastors in general, but I think it might be representative of what comes out of Godmaker presentations.


I have Mormon friends, and we speak all the time. Although, by now, they know better than to attempt to convert me.Well, then, by all means don't go see any Godmakers films, Crusader. I would miss your conversation here.

[Krusader]

Ah, but have *you* ever been to one of these God-maker presentations? It seems to be quite a franchise--there are churches where they present it once a year, and apparently the counsel to shun and hate is part of the presentation. I hope someone funds the presentations privately, because the thought of offering money supporting it also is ill-making. But then, we mormons are funny about consecrated offerings. There are still a few of us worried that building the Conference Center was not a dedicated enough use of the Lord's money.

And I'm physically nauseated by the very thought of spy camera footage in the temple. I don't think those guys wiping their bottoms on temple garments have any idea how counterproductive that is. That whole I'm-superior, I'm-going-to-shock-you-into-my-way-of-thinking is very Marilyn Manson. But the Ravi Zacharias thread and the Ed Enochs apology shows me nonMormon Christians are not going to hold each other accountable or sharpen each other on these matters.

Well, before god-makers week, we probably praised God quite a bit, being 16 you never settle for lesser conversation. She was counseled quite specifically that it was a danger to speak to me at all because I'm LDS. I know this sort of thing is not representative of pastors in general, but I think it might be representative of what comes out of Godmaker presentations.

Well, then, by all means don't go see any Godmakers films, Crusader. I would miss your conversation here.
In fact, I did see the original Godmakers film at an Assembly of God, and don't recall any thing resembling an "attack" on Mormons. This was years ago, however.

I don't believe that there is anything to be gained by Christians performing acts that are destructive and demeaning to those of other faiths. So, I would personally apologize to you on behalf of Christians for anything they did during these presentations that was unfair, and hurtful to Mormons.

I enjoy discussing doctrinal differences, I don't enjoy hurting the feelings of those with whom I disagree. I know that we walk a fine line there, and it's easy to slip. I've taught in many Christian churches on the subject of (what we would consider) unorthodox groups - but I've always attempted to stick to doctrine, period. I've remained friendly with Mormons - even though we disagree. I think that's the most productive thing to do.

[misterguss]

Ah, but have *you* ever been to one of these God-maker presentations?
I'm sure there are twisted and corrupt churches that make a business out of their God-maker presentations...but I'm not curious about their presentations. I am only wondering about your thoughts on the book or movie...not something some church tries to put on to make themselves feel better about not being mormon.

Do you think any of the arguments the God Makers present are valid?

[just Johnna]

I'm sure there are twisted and corrupt churches that make a business out of their God-maker presentations...but I'm not curious about their presentations. I am only wondering about your thoughts on the book or movie...not something some church tries to put on to make themselves feel better about not being mormon.

Do you think any of the arguments the God Makers present are valid?As I said in my first post to this thread, I haven't seen or read it. It's completely unappealing.

For purposes of your survey, I am LDS. I also self-identify as Christian.

[revivalfire]

There is also a fine line between tolerance and being hurtful. I believe Crusader was right. As a Pentecostal (I think,:teeth: ) I know what it is like to disagree with other Christians. Oh boy, do I know. But if you communicate in love, the conversation is always smoother and you can actually become friends...if you do it all in love, just like Christ.

[misterguss]

As I said in my first post to this thread, I haven't seen or read it. It's completely unappealing.
This is some of what I am looking for. I am curious why you find it unappealing...Can you be more specific? :smile:

Is it unappealing just because it goes against your religion or is there more to it then that?

[just Johnna]

The movie is pretty famous for its spy footage of the temple. My reaction to this is revulsion. You need the idea of a place or an interaction being holy and sacred in order to understand this reaction.

I referenced before the apparent desire to shock or titillate evidenced by _Godmakers_, seeming to me something like the strategy of Marilyn Manson, a musician/theatrical who gives concerts.

I suppose things that "go against my religion" don't appeal to me--I don't seek them out. OTOH, I think I've pretty much heard all the analyses and arguments against my faith.

The title itself is a sort of hateful misrepresentation.

Also, it's just very alien. Paul preached Christ and him crucified. Peter said repent, be baptized into Jesus Christ, and receive the Holy Ghost. If you have some clear teaching about Jesus Christ, Son of God, by all means tell it. Plotting and mocking and hatred are not indicative of a message from God.


This is some of what I am looking for. I am curious why you find it unappealing...Can you be more specific? :smile:

Is it unappealing just because it goes against your religion or is there more to it then that?

[misterguss]

The title itself is a sort of hateful misrepresentation.
Thanks for sharing! I do have a question about the statement above though...this could be due to my ignorance regarding the mormon teachings, but isn't that kinda the main point of your faith- to become a god?

[just Johnna]

Thanks for sharing! I do have a question about the statement above though...this could be due to my ignorance regarding the mormon teachings, but isn't that kinda the main point of your faith- to become a god?

Would anyone say the main point of their faith is to go to heaven? Do you see why that can't be the main point of anyone's faith: it's not sustaining.

My faith is to have life more abundantly in Jesus Christ.

[Krusader]

Would anyone say the main point of their faith is to go to heaven? Do you see why that can't be the main point of anyone's faith: it's not sustaining.

My faith is to have life more abundantly in Jesus Christ.
I would agree, Justjohnna. The problem lies not in your goal, but in Who Jesus Christ is. I believe the LDS teach that Jesus "attained godhood while yet in pre-existence," so He was not the eternal Second Person of the Godhead, as Christians have always held. Second, Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary through the "normal process," Elohim being His literal father "according to the flesh."

It would seem to me that these LDS teachings are a major obstacle between evangelical believers and LDS.

[just Johnna]

I would agree, Justjohnna. The problem lies not in your goal, but in Who Jesus Christ is. I believe the LDS teach that Jesus "attained godhood while yet in pre-existence," so He was not the eternal Second Person of the Godhead, as Christians have always held. Second, Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary through the "normal process," Elohim being His literal father "according to the flesh."

It would seem to me that these LDS teachings are a major obstacle between evangelical believers and LDS. I hesitate to answer, as we may be drifting off the topic opened by misterguss.

Crusader's quote "attained godhood while yet in the pre-existence" is taken from a longer entry by Bruce R. McConkie in his (noncanonical but once widely popular) book MORMON DOCTRINE. "...is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state...." I don't have a copy of this book in my house, because I don't think it's useful. Brother McConkie doesn't provide us much of a trail of how he came to these conclusions, whether by exegesis or revelation or some other method, so his conclusions are difficult to duplicate.

To Crusader's other point, there's always going to be something off about calling the incarnation of Christ a "normal process," not sure who she's quoting here. I'm pretty happy with this:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Being mormon, I notice all three members of the Godhead represented. Whether this miraculous event would be somehow like artificial insemination, or embryonic implantation, or something else, it is clearly not a videocamera moment.

Though I do shy away from the embryonic implantation idea inasmuch as I believe Christ was fully human, and I dislike attempts to make Mary less than his mother. Likewise, I shy away from talk that the Most High God is disconnected from being his father, and believe Christ fully divine.

Who would other Christians say is Jesus Christ's father, according to the flesh?

[Krusader]

I hesitate to answer, as we may be drifting off the topic opened by misterguss.

Crusader's quote "attained godhood while yet in the pre-existence" is taken from a longer entry by Bruce R. McConkie in his (noncanonical but once widely popular) book MORMON DOCTRINE. "...is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state...." I don't have a copy of this book in my house, because I don't think it's useful. Brother McConkie doesn't provide us much of a trail of how he came to these conclusions, whether by exegesis or revelation or some other method, so his conclusions are difficult to duplicate.

To Crusader's other point, there's always going to be something off about calling the incarnation of Christ a "normal process," not sure who she's quoting here. I'm pretty happy with this:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Being mormon, I notice all three members of the Godhead represented. Whether this miraculous event would be somehow like artificial insemination, or embryonic implantation, or something else, it is clearly not a videocamera moment.

Though I do shy away from the embryonic implantation idea inasmuch as I believe Christ was fully human, and I dislike attempts to make Mary less than his mother. Likewise, I shy away from talk that the Most High God is disconnected from being his father, and believe Christ fully divine.

Who would other Christians say is Jesus Christ's father, according to the flesh?
Justjohnna, Jesus had no human father "according to the flesh," and was not the product of a sexual union between Mary and God. Jesus was the "Word of God" made flesh in the womb of Mary. Incarnational theology differs on whether Mary's genetic material was passed to Jesus (would this not also pass along a fallen nature?), or whether Christ, as the Second Adam, received his human nature as a direct creative act of God.

[misterguss]

Would anyone say the main point of their faith is to go to heaven? Do you see why that can't be the main point of anyone's faith: it's not sustaining.

My faith is to have life more abundantly in Jesus Christ.
The main point of my faith is to glorify God. In a way, heaven is a huge part of my faith because that is the place where I will be able to bring God the most glory in perfect worship...so I wouldn't say heaven is the main point, but it is a huge part in my faith.

I guess this is the main reason I brought this up...I have always heard the main point of the mormon faith is to become a god...thus, being on the same level as Jesus. If you do reach the same level as Jesus, why would your focus be on "having life more abundantly in Jesus Christ" and not on yourself since the two of you are equal?
Isn't becoming a god pretty important? Or does having life more abundantly in Jesus Christ supersede this?

Again, thanks for sharing :smile:

[Krusader]

The main point of my faith is to glorify God. In a way, heaven is a huge part of my faith because that is the place where I will be able to bring God the most glory in perfect worship...so I wouldn't say heaven is the main point, but it is a huge part in my faith.

I guess this is the main reason I brought this up...I have always heard the main point of the mormon faith is to become a god...thus, being on the same level as Jesus. If you do reach the same level as Jesus, why would your focus be on "having life more abundantly in Jesus Christ" and not on yourself since the two of you are equal?
Isn't becoming a god pretty important? Or does having life more abundantly in Jesus Christ supersede this?

Again, thanks for sharing :smile:
Pardon me for interjecting here, but just to be fair to Justjohnna, there are a lot of "Word of Faith" name it and claim it Christians out there who would also say that having life more abundantly is their primary Christian goal as well.

I personally would agree with the Westminster Confession, however!

[just Johnna]

Pardon me for interjecting here, but just to be fair to Justjohnna, there are a lot of "Word of Faith" name it and claim it Christians out there who would also say that having life more abundantly is their primary Christian goal as well.Hmmm, don't know if I like this kind of fairness, as what I know of that movement is Bob Tilton and that's all quite far from anything I would relate to.

I'm experiencing life more abundantly in a way that wouldn't sell on t.v. Still paying back the credit cards, children still balk at doing their homework, and so on with my whiny complaints. I experience it all as having more meaning and purpose in the context of faith. I even find a sort of poetic beauty alongside life's difficulties, and sometimes I exceed my expectation of what I'm capable of and credit God. A more mature person would probably have better motivations than I do, but that's where I'm at. Really, some days it's enough for me that I'm commanded to believe.


I personally would agree with the Westminster Confession, however!Not fair--that's twenty-three chapters long, and I thought we were going for simple, centering statements. I might as well cite the entire Encyclopedia of Mormonism in response.

[just Johnna]

The main point of my faith is to glorify God. In a way, heaven is a huge part of my faith because that is the place where I will be able to bring God the most glory in perfect worship...so I wouldn't say heaven is the main point, but it is a huge part in my faith.
Thank you. You've chosen a beautiful center.
Heaven is a huge part of my faith too, it colors how I understand God's purposes.


I guess this is the main reason I brought this up...I have always heard the main point of the mormon faith is to become a god...thus, being on the same level as Jesus. If you do reach the same level as Jesus, why would your focus be on "having life more abundantly in Jesus Christ" and not on yourself since the two of you are equal?
Isn't becoming a god pretty important? Or does having life more abundantly in Jesus Christ supersede this?
I trust Jesus Christ because it works day-to-day, and I live to be true to what I've received from him. Being Mormon, I believe you and I are children of God, and that we will experience both growth and joy in following him, until through Christ we are like him. The attraction of exaltation is to be in the presence of the Lord, made fit to participate in his work to his glory, and to be in one accord with fellow saints in that regard, particularly our with families. Our growing in the Lord to exaltation is a work and glory of God according to LDS scripture. I don't construe that as my ever being equal to the Father, or to his Son, (some would say we don't catch up, but that's not how I would put it.) Certainly we would not become self-worshipping.

The idea you are calling "becoming god" we are more likely to call "eternal progression." Since you're getting my personal take on this in my own words, here is an article from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and an article from the previously popular book Mormon Doctrine on the topic.
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/progression_eom.htm


Again, thanks for sharing :smile:sure, thanks for asking. :smile:

[Krusader]

Hmmm, don't know if I like this kind of fairness, as what I know of that movement is Bob Tilton and that's all quite far from anything I would relate to.

I'm experiencing life more abundantly in a way that wouldn't sell on t.v. Still paying back the credit cards, children still balk at doing their homework, and so on with my whiny complaints. I experience it all as having more meaning and purpose in the context of faith. I even find a sort of poetic beauty alongside life's difficulties, and sometimes I exceed my expectation of what I'm capable of and credit God. A more mature person would probably have better motivations than I do, but that's where I'm at. Really, some days it's enough for me that I'm commanded to believe.

Not fair--that's twenty-three chapters long, and I thought we were going for simple, centering statements. I might as well cite the entire Encyclopedia of Mormonism in response.

You missed my point entirely. Many Christians are put off by the term "abundant life," even though it is entirely Scriptural, due to its misuse by certain Word of Faith sects (Copeland, Hagin, Tilton (ugh!)) who have taught heterodox doctrines regarding the power of the spoken word of believers. For instance, if you aren't feeling healed, but have already "spoken" healing - you just need to ignore the symptoms. If you die, of course your "faith" was not perfect (your fault). Walter Martin, shortly before he died, exposed the falseness of these teachings.

There is also the "little gods" teaching of certain name it and claim it people, which orthodox Christians have totally renounced. Martin wrote on this problem, as did his sucessor over at CRI. You could peek in at that website and see for yourself.

The Westminster Confession is really interesting reading. I know you would hardly agree with its Calvinistic view, but it is systematic. I was referring in my former post to the fact that that Confession states that the chief end of man is to glorify God.

[just Johnna]

You missed my point entirely. Many Christians are put off by the term "abundant life," even though it is entirely Scriptural, due to its misuse by certain Word of Faith sects (Copeland, Hagin, Tilton (ugh!)) who have taught heterodox doctrines regarding the power of the spoken word of believers.I'm probably still missing your point. You recognized my naivete and complete ignorance of the Word of Faith movement and their private interpretation of abundance. I'm going to presume loyalty to your fellow trinitarians kept you from making more than the most passing reference to their existence, since you could in no way defend my reputation.

If I hadn't heard Hank Hannegraf's show yesterday afternoon, I wouldn't even know who Bob Tilton was.


The Westminster Confession is really interesting reading. I know you would hardly agree with its Calvinistic view, but it is systematic. I was referring in my former post to the fact that that Confession states that the chief end of man is to glorify God.I was looking at the 1646 Confession. Although the chapters are short, they make dense reading. Maybe the purpose of mankind statement is in a later version?

[Krusader]

I'm probably still missing your point. You recognized my naivete and complete ignorance of the Word of Faith movement and their private interpretation of abundance. I'm going to presume loyalty to your fellow trinitarians kept you from making more than the most passing reference to their existence, since you could in no way defend my reputation.

If I hadn't heard Hank Hannegraf's show yesterday afternoon, I wouldn't even know who Bob Tilton was.

I was looking at the 1646 Confession. Although the chapters are short, they make dense reading. Maybe the purpose of mankind statement is in a later version?
If you think the Westminster confession is dense, try Calvin's Institutes!

One the "abundant life," thing - don't worry about it - you're right it's a thing that perhaps I shouldn't have brought up. If you want to know more about it, however, read Hannegraf's "Christianity in Crisis."

[just Johnna]

If you think the Westminster confession is dense, try Calvin's Institutes!I'll bet.

But I was serious, which chapter contains your purpose of man statement? Text-search only found "glorify" in the context of works.


On the "abundant life," thing - don't worry about it - you're right it's a thing that perhaps I shouldn't have brought up. If you want to know more about it, however, read Hannegraf's "Christianity in Crisis."It's not so much that I'm worried about it, as that it shows you will think the worst of me, or be willing to let others think the worst.

And also, you probably think my being mistaken for a follower of Bob Tilton is a compliment to me. After all, Bob Tilton's eternal salvation is secure. :eww:

[Krusader]

I'll bet.

But I was serious, which chapter contains your purpose of man statement? Text-search only found "glorify" in the context of works.

It's not so much that I'm worried about it, as that it shows you will think the worst of me, or be willing to let others think the worst.

And also, you probably think my being mistaken for a follower of Bob Tilton is a compliment to me. After all, Bob Tilton's eternal salvation is secure. :eww:
Justjohnna, trust me I would never think that you are a follower of Tilton, Copeland, et. al.

The "chief end of men is to glorify God" is probably found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Also, I wasn't implying that you were any kind of name it and claim it type - so please forgive the misunderstanding.