So I'm not feeling very humble today...

[ke7ejx]

I think it hampers modern-day efforts to build bridges when we focus so much on stirring up issues of the past much of which belongs to a different culture and context.

I can see how you mean..I guess I don't mind it because I'm still a toddler in the gospel. I still have a lot to learn. For instance, I've been reading up on the KFD because I keep getting questions about it.

[JB]

So I'm not feeling very humble today and its a rare opportunity for me to get a few things off my chest:

This may come as a shock to some of you Evangelicals but you do NOT have a monopoly on the term "Christian". You also do NOT own Jesus Christ or somehow have exclusive rights to our Saviour. You do not get to judge or decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.

The level of arrogance (as is evident in various threads) as posted by the anti-brigade, is completely unbecoming of people "claiming" to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The downright condescension of "I'm a Christian and you're not because your views conflict with mine" shows your complete lack of respect, intolerance and bigotry towards the faith and culture of others.

If you really thought you were on God's mission and exposing wrong, could you honestly believe God needs you to fight his battles with poor scholarship, derogatory remarks, ad hominem fallacies, outright lies, deceit and ridicule?

Since when do we Christians peddle intolerance and mis-information as righteousness and intelligence?

I do believe a few of the people who claim we're not Christians, actually have good intentions. They were unknowingly duped by someone's competitive agenda and false information.
The main purpose of the non-Christian claim is to bias Evangelicals and other Protestants enough so they won't even consider the rapidly-growing LDS Church, being thwarted by the taboo "non-Christian" slander.
Thus, good and sincere folk, will be deterred from knowing what is really here, including that we're a thriving, Christ-centered community.


In closing a comment from an ex-Methodist now LDS:

"As a previous Methodist and convert later in life to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I have to say that the Christ I worshiped then IS the same Christ I worship now. Absolutely, no different. I still keep in contact with my Methodist Sunday School teacher from my childhood and adore her. She set the foundation for the same Christ I worship today. Those that say otherwise are simply misinformed,and I believe purposely so in many cases.

I expect that most that support this view have never even stepped into an LDS church or devoted any serious time to any reading other than anti-Mormon literature which
typically selectively chooses controversial issues and uses quotes taken out of context to support mis-leading half truths. I am grateful that those of faiths other than mine have faith in their lives and in particular a belief in Christ.

It is however hard for me to understand why members of other faiths attack my faith. I have no interest in attacking theirs. I have no problem with others investigating my church, in fact I invite it.

Posted By Brian, Gloucester, VA : June 18, 2007 9:30 pm

I only ask you show the same level of respect and tolerance we are expected to show you.

Hi, humbled4444, I hope you won't mind if I provide a calm reply to your post here.

First, it isn't clear how much of the last few paragraphs is from you, since there doesn't seem to be a closing quotation mark. At any rate, allow me to briefly introduce a few things about myself. I am an Evangelical Christian. I've attended sacrament meeting numerous times in the past, I attended the first day of General Conference with my friends in the ward, and every chance I get, I swing by the meetinghouse after my own church service to attend priesthood and EQ (though it's been several weeks since I've had the chance; had to miss one for lengthy Easter celebrations, another to ferry a disabled friend back from church, and yet a third due to car repairs and illness). On the whole I read more LDS literature than I do "anti-Mormon literature"; right now I'm reading a book by Elder Holland and the second volume of President Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation, and I've got President Spencer W. Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness on backburner at the moment; I'm also reading John Whitmer's history of the Church and finishing up a book by historian B. Carmon Hardy about the history of LDS plural marriage. So when I say what follows, I hope it won't be read as the words of someone unsympathetic, unfriendly, or ill-informed.

I do not make a practice of going around yelling, "Mormons aren't Christians!", though I do have reservations about giving the label of 'Christian' to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a whole institution; I also very seldom make clear negative judgments as to the legitimate Christian status of any given Latter-day Saint I know, though there are some whom I positively do believe to be Christians. I don't step much into the arguments over questions of "another Jesus" - although I do note that, where your ex-Methodist convert sees things one way, President Gordon B. Hinckley's words would at least seem to cut the opposite direction. Recently I updated the introductory post at my blog with a section addressing the 'Christian' status of Mormonism and its adherents, and I'd like to quote from it here:

Do you think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult?

The short answer is, no. For a longer exposition of that 'no', feel free to read on. As for the question of whether Latter-day Saints are 'Christians', which is in fact quite a separate issue from the 'cult' issue, that's also a tricky question that requires a long answer. I'd first say that some surely are and some surely aren't (same as professing Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc.), and I'd secondly say that, even setting that aside, neither a simple 'yes' nor a simple 'no' capture the nuance needed, as both are potentially misleading in their connotations.

What do I mean by that? Well, as a thought experiment, imagine Warren Jeffs coming out with an "I'm a Mormon" ad, and the FLDS (Jeffs' group, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) stepping up a missionary effort in which their missionaries refer to themselves as "Mormons", and so forth. How might the mainstream LDS Church react? In the past, they've already expressed a great dissatisfaction whenever the media refer to Jeffs' group as "Mormon fundamentalists", to say nothing of just plain old "Mormons". They would likely say that the word "Mormon" should be taken to refer mainly to the mainstream LDS Church. Why? I imagine they'd be concerned about people mentally associating Warren Jeffs and his practices with the mainstream LDS Church. I imagine they'd be concerned about people forgetting the differences between mainstream LDS and the FLDS, classing them all under the label "Mormon". I imagine they'd want to say that they as the mainstream LDS Church are the only true and valid heirs to the Restoration legacy, and that the so-called "Mormon fundamentalists" are apostate and have left the pure doctrines of the real LDS Church. And I imagine they might be concerned about the possibility that FLDS missionaries claiming to be "Mormon" might use that label to get a foothold in LDS households and families.

On the other hand, the FLDS might object that they're the true heir of the Restoration since they follow Joseph Smith and Brigham Young more closely; they might object that the mainstream LDS Church can't exclude them from the Restoration heritage, since by a minimal definition of what it means to be a Mormon (believing in Joseph Smith as a prophet, belief in the Book of Mormon, belief in the priesthood restoration, etc.), they qualify as much as (if not more than) members of the mainstream LDS Church. Maybe they'd be concerned that saying that they aren't 'Mormon' would be misleading if it led people to think that they reject those basic Restoration claims. In other words, it seems like both sides here have some legitimate concerns that get ignored by either a simple 'yes' or a simple 'no' to the question, "Are the FLDS Mormon?"

It also seems to me that there's a close analogy here with the question of whether the LDS Church is Christian - except this time, the mainstream LDS Church stands in relation to traditional Christianity in a similar way that the FLDS relate to the mainstream LDS. Traditional Christians might object that the LDS can't claim the label "Christian" because we collectively own it by being the church throughout the centuries. We'd worry about LDS missionaries getting a foothold in places by stressing, say, the name "Jesus Christ" on their nametags; we'd be concerned that outside observers or even our own might assume that the differences between traditional Christianity and the beliefs and practices of Latter-day Saints are small or inconsequential, whereas we on the other hand see them as such a strong departure from what (we believe) has been the unified testimony of Christians for thousands of years that it qualifies as something new entirely. So the worry is that labeling the LDS Church 'Christian' would be misleading. But, just like the FLDS answer to the LDS, there's a pushback, with the most reasonable concern being that people might miss the commonalities if the term is denied.

That's why my answer in both cases is ultimately that both 'yes' and 'no', when applied to whole institutions or groups here, are simplistic and misleading. I happen to have more sympathy for the traditional Christian position, since I believe that many important LDS theological beliefs are totally foreign to the entire heritage of Christianity from the days of the ancient apostles until now - a much stronger difference than that between the FLDS and the LDS. But, because I don't like oversimplifying, I try not to contrast Latter-day Saints to "Christians" but rather to "traditional/mainstream Christians". While disagreeing with their decisiveness, I nevertheless want to be sympathetic to the objections Latter-day Saints have to being disqualified from using that word. Arguing over the label seldom is as productive as exploring the actual content of the similarities and differences, and - as I said above - the dispute over whether the LDS Church is Christian is related yet distinct to the dispute over whether any individual Latter-day Saint is Christian.

When Evangelicals and others here make statements like, "Mormonism isn't Christian" or "Mormons [qua Mormons] aren't Christian", they aren't doing it to be mean, typically, and they aren't saying these things as a personal attack, nor to say that you aren't committed to (or sincerely believe yourself to be committed to) Jesus Christ. What they're doing is making a statement of categorization based on criteria that, within Christian discourse, makes sense.

Before you continue characterizing the dialogue between Latter-day Saints and [other] Christians this way, as one of rather unilateral attack, it might help to consider the history of Latter-day Saint appraisal of other Christians. Historically, it has been a very aggressive stance, beginning with expansive claims of universal apostasy, mockery of sacred Christian things (e.g., the creeds, biblical reliability, etc.), even barbs intended to suggest that mainstream Christians - that's me, the other Evangelicals here, our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters, all of us - aren't really Christians at all. I've heard very strong remarks even from modern-day Latter-day Saints - for instance, I recalled in another thread how I attended a stake conference and, out of the blue, a speaker denounced the Nicene Creed (a statement of belief I hold in much the same respect that you might hold an LDS temple) as "false doctrine", in a quite inflammatory way. That was a direct 'attack' on my faith. It isn't just a one-way street. I think that understanding the way in which Evangelicals here interact with LDS beliefs might be helped by thinking about this history. The heat has been great on both sides. I think what we need to aim for is a civil, reasonable, critically engaged exchange here.

Now, in your post, you make some generalized references to "poor scholarship, derogatory remarks, ad hominem fallacies, outright lies, deceit and ridicule", as well as "lack of respect, intolerance and bigotry" and "intolerance and mis-information". These are all serious charges, and I would have wanted to interact with you about them, but no specifics were given. As a general rule, I would say that while not everything said here by Evangelicals and others is always as it should be, I cannot recall having seen those posters engaging in "outright lies", "deceit", "mis-information", or "poor scholarship". If you really do believe that these have been the case, I would like to hear more details from you.

I would like to ask you to give us the "same level of respect and tolerance we are expected to show you". I say these things, not as an attack on your beliefs nor as an attack on you, but as a friendly rejoinder given in a calm spirit.

God bless,
JB

[Cow Poke]

A clear, respectful well written response thank you.

It's a curse - he can't help it!

[OtherCheek]

When Evangelicals and others here make statements like, "Mormonism isn't Christian" or "Mormons [qua Mormons] aren't Christian", they aren't doing it to be mean, typically, and they aren't saying these things as a personal attack, nor to say that you aren't committed to (or sincerely believe yourself to be committed to) Jesus Christ. What they're doing is making a statement of categorization based on criteria that, within Christian discourse, makes sense.
JB

Thanks, JB. I think this helps a little to understand the POV. The charge of "Another Jesus" has always seemed strange to me. To me, there was only one historical Jesus who atoned for the world and not two. I see us as having different concepts and understanding of Jesus, but having different concepts or understanding of the same person, doesn't change the actual identity of that person. As far as the charge of being a "cult"? Would you say that such charges also fall into the same categorization as the charge that we are not Christian?

I think a lot of LDS, including me, view the term "cult" as something that is 'meant to offend,' and 'meant to play on a stereotype that a cult is associated with some type of evil mind control and compulsion and manipulation. Or worse, as a satanic movement.

[Cow Poke]

I would agree. Do you think it is possible for one person to say that he believes that his church is true, and the other person of another faith not to take offense at that? I do. Albeit that it may be hard.

You could teach Hum that "choose not to be offended" wisdom that you told me about.

[Cow Poke]

I think it hampers modern-day efforts to build bridges when we focus so much on stirring up issues of the past much of which belongs to a different culture and context.

OC, when we want to understand Christianity, we seek to go as "early" as we can, to see what was taught "way back when".

Why should the "restored" Church be any different? God, supposedly, "restored" the Church and set prophets and apostles to guide it, according to Joseph Smith. Isn't that what you believe? So, to fully understand what that "restoration" was all about, why is it such a terrible thing to go to the "earliest" teachings, just like we do with Christianity?

[JB]

Thanks, JB. I think this helps a little to understand the POV. The charge of "Another Jesus" has always seemed strange to me. To me, there was only one historical Jesus who atoned for the world and not two. I see us as having different concepts and understanding of Jesus, but having different concepts or understanding of the same person, doesn't change the actual identity of that person. As far as the charge of being a "cult"? Would you say that such charges also fall into the same categorization as the charge that we are not Christian?

I think a lot of LDS, including me, view the term "cult" as something that is 'meant to offend,' and 'meant to play on a stereotype that a cult is associated with some type of evil mind control and compulsion and manipulation. Or worse, as a satanic movement.

The reference to "another Jesus" is typically, I think, a stock charge drawn from the use of that phrase in 2 Corinthians 11:4. It's a bit difficult to discern exactly what baggage Paul means that phrase to carry in his epistle, but the general tone seems to be the same as in its use in Evangelical critiques of Mormonism.

As for a "cult", I don't like to use that term. (You might enjoy my post devoted to just that topic; it's linked in the boxed statement I quoted.) Interestingly, I've heard numerous interviews with members of leading "anti-Mormon" ministries who also say that they don't like to use the term either. Usually the user will either have a specialized meaning for the term (though not, as it terms out, one of especially recent make) without any offense necessarily meant, or is indeed meaning some offense. Given that it could be either, it's probably best not to assume offense is meant unless context requires it. Some do, others don't.

[OtherCheek]

OC, when we want to understand Christianity, we seek to go as "early" as we can, to see what was taught "way back when".

Why should the "restored" Church be any different? God, supposedly, "restored" the Church and set prophets and apostles to guide it, according to Joseph Smith. Isn't that what you believe? So, to fully understand what that "restoration" was all about, why is it such a terrible thing to go to the "earliest" teachings, just like we do with Christianity?

The passage of time has a significant change-affect on things like culture, word meaning, attitudes, prejudices, stereotypes, attitudes, politics, styles, popular movements, policies, traditions, perceptions, understanding, and a whole lot of other things dealing with our perceptions. For example, would it be proper to judge Christianity today according to the culture and context of the Law of Moses?

[Cow Poke]

The passage of time has a significant change-affect on things like culture, word meaning, attitudes, prejudices, stereotypes, attitudes, politics, styles, popular movements, policies, traditions, perceptions, understanding, and a whole lot of other things dealing with our perceptions. For example, would it be proper to judge Christianity today according to the culture and context of the Law of Moses?

All of that is taken into consideration with "context", OC... for example, we don't wash each others feet when we visit one another's homes. And we are NEW TESTAMENT Christians, OC -- so we don't go back to the OT for how we should live.

[lilpixieofterror]

I only ask you show the same level of respect and tolerance we are expected to show you.

I do not hate you nor dislike you, the issue is that the more I look up and find about the LDS Church and Joseph Smith, the more I am convinced that the LDS Church doesn't represent anything Christian and Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Just to name a few differences and issues:

1. How orthodox Christians view the process of becoming a Christian is first one is convinced by the evidence, one decides to accept Christ, and one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. The LDS Church is more like first praying for the Holy Spirit to show you that the BoM is true and then one becomes a Mormon.
2. The LDS Church believes we can become gods. Where is that found in orthodox teachings?
3. Joseph Smith told his wife that God would destroy her if she didn't like him sleeping with multiple women. How is that at all in line with orthodoxy?
4. The BoM does not have any archeological support for it what-so-ever. It describes cities that have not been shown to exist and this can be confirmed by multiple lines of evidence.

These are just a few, of many, issues I find with the LDS Church and the BoM and based on that, I am quite sure that the LDS Church is not the 'true church' it claims to be and Joseph Smith is a false prophet. If these are wrong though, go ahead and explain how and give the proper view of each of these views, from your official church doctrine please. Thanks!

[lilpixieofterror]

By the way, what's with the emphasis on evangelist Protestantism in the OP? What makes you think that all those who post in this section of the forum are a part of any sort of evangelist movement? I'm not saying they aren't, but it seems sort of specific.

Well, a quick search of profiles shows that few of the people that regularly take part in this forum are evangelical protestants. As I recall, JB is the only one that calls himself an evangelical, the rest are represented by all three major branches and several different protestant flavors.

[humbled4444]

Well, a quick search of profiles shows that few of the people that regularly take part in this forum are evangelical protestants. As I recall, JB is the only one that calls himself an evangelical, the rest are represented by all three major branches and several different protestant flavors.

Yes I realise I used the term incorrectly - my apologies.

[humbled4444]

I managed to survive the night, could have sworn I heard the mob approaching. Went to sleep with my bullet proof vest on and kept away from the windows.

[lilpixieofterror]

I managed to survive the night, could have sworn I heard the mob approaching. Went to sleep with my bullet proof vest on and kept away from the windows.

Mellow dramatic much? I'm sure most of the people here have better things to do then go play lynch mob to somebody on a web forum that couldn't even get basic facts straight.

[Bill the Cat]

So I'm not feeling very humble today and its a rare opportunity for me to get a few things off my chest:

Meaning that when you ARE feeling humble, you hide the real you?

This may come as a shock to some of you Evangelicals but you do NOT have a monopoly on the term "Christian".

We never claimed to. So, that's strawman #1

You also do NOT own Jesus Christ or somehow have exclusive rights to our Saviour.

We never claimed to. Strawman #2

You do not get to judge or decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.

We know that. However, when you have another Jesus and another gospel, you decide and we simply inspect the fruit of your false doctrines. So, Strawman #3

The level of arrogance (as is evident in various threads) as posted by the anti-brigade, is completely unbecoming of people "claiming" to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As I have asked before of the others, did Jesus, Peter, Paul, or any of the others ever act in a manner that you would call "unbecoming"? Whitewashed tombs? Brood of vipers? anti-Christs? How "becoming" are those phrases?

The downright condescension of "I'm a Christian and you're not because your views conflict with mine" shows your complete lack of respect, intolerance and bigotry towards the faith and culture of others.

It has nothing to do with OUR views. It has to do with the Bible and the teachings of the Apostles. Strawman #4

If you really thought you were on God's mission and exposing wrong, could you honestly believe God needs you to fight his battles with poor scholarship, derogatory remarks, ad hominem fallacies, outright lies, deceit and ridicule?

If you'd like to show 1) poor scholarship, 2) outright lies, or 3) deceit in our posts, please do so. But I promise you, I won't wait to drink my hot tea on your response for fear it will get cold...

Since when do we Christians peddle intolerance and mis-information as righteousness and intelligence?

Intolerance? Since the Garden of Eden. Misinformation? That's Joseph Smith's schtik, not ours.

I do believe a few of the people who claim we're not Christians, actually have good intentions. They were unknowingly duped by someone's competitive agenda and false information.

Probably Hinckley's

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/31188/Crown-of-gospel-is-upon-our-heads.html

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

© source where applicable

The main purpose of the non-Christian claim is to bias Evangelicals and other Protestants enough so they won't even consider the rapidly-growing LDS Church, being thwarted by the taboo "non-Christian" slander.
Thus, good and sincere folk, will be deterred from knowing what is really here, including that we're a thriving, Christ-centered community.

The Christ that you have been taught is not the Christ of history or the scriptures. He is not a separate god, for there is only one God. He is not a brother of satan, for He created satan. He did not earn his godhood, for He was forever God. The LDS Church teaches false doctrines, and scripture commands us to expose them for what they are.

In closing a comment from an ex-Methodist now LDS:

"As a previous Methodist and convert later in life to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I have to say that the Christ I worshiped then IS the same Christ I worship now.

Were you taught by your methodist preacher that there is a plurality of gods and that Jesus is simply another in a long line of them? Did he teach you that Jesus EARNED his godhood? Did he teach you that Jesus was just another intelligence before he was organized? Did he teach you that Jesus and satan are spirit brothers?

Absolutely, no different. I still keep in contact with my Methodist Sunday School teacher from my childhood and adore her. She set the foundation for the same Christ I worship today. Those that say otherwise are simply misinformed,and I believe purposely so in many cases.

No. It is you and the rest of the "converts" who are duped into believing that you have the same Christ. Even Hinckley admitted that you don't. How can we be "misinformed" when the very words came out of the mouth of your former "prophet"?

I expect that most that support this view have never even stepped into an LDS church or devoted any serious time to any reading other than anti-Mormon literature

I have been in a Mormon church a few times, have worked for years with a former missionary to Japan (whom I consider a good friend), and I've read several books by pro-Mormon authors and apologists.

which typically selectively chooses controversial issues and uses quotes taken out of context to support mis-leading half truths.

Which is why I typically cite MORMON sources so that everyone can see the context for themselves. Just like for the Hinckley source above.

I am grateful that those of faiths other than mine have faith in their lives and in particular a belief in Christ.

It is however hard for me to understand why members of other faiths attack my faith. I have no interest in attacking theirs. I have no problem with others investigating my church, in fact I invite it.

We attack ALL false doctrines where we find them. As we are commanded to. We do not want another single person to be duped by the lies of Joseph Smith.

Posted By Brian, Gloucester, VA : June 18, 2007 9:30 pm

Posted by Bill, Chester, VA : April 23, 2012 9:04 AM

I only ask you show the same level of respect and tolerance we are expected to show you.

Sorry, but I can't do that. I will not tolerate false doctrines.

Rev 2:2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

Rev 2:6 'Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.