Mormon friendly VS. anti Mormon

[HemofHisGarment]

LDS Christ - different than that of the bible?

Christ asks us to be like him - loving & kind, patient & tolerant.
This is what the Mormon church teaches each Sunday!I do not mean to attempt to defend the LDS church necessarily, just any falsehoods about it and the negative nature of comments towards it. Whether the church teaches correct doctrine or not is not my place to state as fact; but it is, one cannot deny, the epitome of family values -- to put a 'satanic' label on it is just ridiculous. I am open to any logical statements made and it isn't logical to single out the Mormon church as a cult...all religious organizations are technically cults!
Also wondering how many of the "anti-mormons" have actually read th BOM from cover to cover (it is only a little over 500 pages). I have read it many times, though it's been awhile True or not, it is still a very excellent book. I have read where some people compare it to writings by J.R.R. Tolkien. Also, the reason that only 1/3 of LDS members are active is because of the church’s high demands such as the church's teaching of the higher law of consecration. One must admire those who remain faithful in light of these demands.

I agree that Christ died not so that we can try to be good enough, but because of His Great Love for us. He paid my personal debt to satisfy a Just God. This is in line with LDS teachings. The argument over faith vs. works is so OLD!! No one in the Mormon church ever said that they could save their self. The belief is that God does expect us to do all that we can; this only seems a natural wish from a loving Father - that even though the price has been paid, he would still want us to be the best that we can with His help (like the Potter's clay.) And Yes, His will is learned by reading the Word & applying truths to our lives.

To summarize some Biblical verses sent to me -
"May we lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. May we seek after what is good and acceptable in the sight of God. May we come unto the knowledge of the truth; it is not far from us. May we set aside everything and allow Truth to be our standard." And as Xmansmommy says "May we all grow in God's grace, knowledge and truth."

p.s. Embraced By the Light is such a life changing book! I first read it about 9 years ago.
http://www.embracedbythelight.com/index.html

Kind feedback appreciated!
With love,
Adrianne

~

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 03:57 AM post located here
HemofHisGarment:

LDS Christ - different than that of the bible?

(Removed main portion of text, as I don't intend to answer point-by-point)

To summarize some Biblical verses sent to me -
"May we lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. May we seek after what is good and acceptable in the sight of God. May we come unto the knowledge of the truth; it is not far from us. May we set aside everything and allow Truth to be our standard." And as Xmansmommy says "May we all grow in God's grace, knowledge and truth."

p.s. Embraced By the Light is such a life changing book! I first read it about 9 years ago.
http://www.embracedbythelight.com/index.html

Kind feedback appreciated!
With love,
Adrianne

~

The term "cult" has been devalued to the point of being nearly worthless.
Mormon doctrine differs markedly from Christian orthodoxy (that as been and will be discussed in its particulars in various other threads). Many of the differences are obscured by the fact that Mormons and (orthodox) Christians use the same "Christianese" words but with different meanings, such as the term "gentile".

Mormons affirm some positive truths, such as honesty and family values, which may result in situations of appropriate co-belligerence. The same could be said of the Moonies, of course.

I thought that _Embraced by the Light_ was a typical new-agey claptrap. My humble opinion, of course.
CRI review of sorts:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/.../crj0171a.html

[Jin-Roh]

Christ asks us to be like him - loving & kind, patient & tolerant.
This is what the Mormon church teaches each Sunday!I do not mean to attempt to defend the LDS church necessarily, just any falsehoods about it and the negative nature of comments towards it. Whether the church teaches correct doctrine or not is not my place to state as fact; but it is, one cannot deny, the epitome of family values -- to put a 'satanic' label on it is just ridiculous.

Adrianne, Jesus was very, very intolarent of falsehood. If something was false, he didn't just gloss over it, he outright said it was wrong. You can't stand for truth and not be intolarent of falsehood. It doesn't mean that you have to be mean about it, but you can't be a Christian and ascribe to the "we'll just both be right" mentality.

As far correct doctrine, well, don't you think that's kind of important to know when it comes to your own salvation?

I am open to any logical statements made and it isn't logical to single out the Mormon church as a cult...all religious organizations are technically cults!

Haven't you kind of made a philosphical smoke-sheild with this statement? You're basically saying "I'm open to all logic, just as long as that logical conclusion doesn't end in an anti-mormon stance." It's similiar to how atheists say that they'll believe in God only if scientific evidence can be shown for his existance, but than declare a naturalistic presumption as a prerequeiste before something can be considered science. Just think of how they react to creation-scientists these days.

Also wondering how many of the "anti-mormons" have actually read th BOM from cover to cover (it is only a little over 500 pages). I have read it many times, though it's been awhile True or not, it is still a very excellent book.

You know I'm sure it is a good story. No, I have not read it myself, but the manner in which it was written, who it was written by, among other things is enough for me to understand that it is not inspired by God. Maybe Joseph Smith was been a good author (it's not like he was stupid), but he did have some problems with grammer.

I agree that Christ died not so that we can try to be good enough, but because of His Great Love for us. He paid my personal debt to satisfy a Just God. This is in line with LDS teachings. The argument over faith vs. works is so OLD!! No one in the Mormon church ever said that they could save their self.

no teacher? Well maybe not in those exact words but...

"The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil. The idea upon which this pernicious doctrine was founded was at first associated with that of an absolute predestination, by which man was foredoomed to destruction, or to an undeserved salvation"

and

"Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience"

--James Talmage, Articles of Faith 1984* (emphasis added)

Jesus didn't die and rise again so we "could be Good" he died so we could be saved. Period. Salvation is not a cooprative deal.

The belief is that God does expect us to do all that we can; this only seems a natural wish from a loving Father - that even though the price has been paid, he would still want us to be the best that we can with His help (like the Potter's clay.) And Yes, His will is learned by reading the Word & applying truths to our lives.

Yes, God does want us to do the best we can, but even the best we can is still not good enough for us to be saved. Even "with his help."

I'll share a little story.
I work with World Vision, a Christian institution that allows you to "sponser" kids in the third world by sending money that pays for food, community equipment, clothes, ministry materials etc.

Letters are sent between child and sponser. One of my kids, (a little girl in India) once sent me this caryon-drawn scribble of art in the mail. Now this wasn't a remembrandt, this wasn't something that I'd sell, or even a flattering potrait. It was nothing that would help her 'earn' the support I send her every month. It was just a scribble. But the fact that it was sent to me, from her to me, is what made it special and what made it touch my heart.

God looks at our deeds the same way. We can't do enough to impress God with our merits, but when do things for God, it touches his heart in the same way. We did it because we love him, and that's what he really wants.

[HemofHisGarment]

Captain~

the term cult is "nearly worthless?" I agree but why is the term used so frequently?

Mormonism "...differs markedly from Christian orthodoxy..."
If the "mark" is Christ in both religions, I do not see how there is a "marked" difference.

" Mormons and (orthodox) Christians use the same "Christianese" words but with different meanings" Doesn't each and every religion within Christianity? - isn't it sad that we can't just all agree on the basics? To me that is like comparing the different languages of the world; sure there are differences in meanings for some of the words but that is precisely because the langauge is different...it can never be fully resolved, so why not focus on the similarities?

"Mormons affirm some positive truths, such as honesty and family values, which may result in situations of appropriate co-belligerence." What?! Please explain....

"The same could be said of the Moonies...
Please! Leave the poor Moonies alone!

Re: Embraced by the Light
1)you haven't read it?
2)if it isn't 'orthodox', it's 'new-age'?

Also, the CRI (Christian Research Institute) say that they
exist to 'combat' ideas that 'assault' orthodox Christianity, but
it is full of products, offers and an easy pay donation page - Basically a store!

And what was said about Betty J. Eadie, as being a member of the LDS church is irregardless, but since the CRI has made it an issue...
If you look at her webpage you will find no mention of her religious affiliation. The CRI makes paranoid comments that she and her publicist are trying to keep that information quiet. If the line is true from the 12/20/92 Salt Lake Tribune edition stating she had become "a recent convert to the LDS church" this would conflict with the statement found further into the article that in '93 Eadie's Mormon bishop, Dan Miller, verified that she and her family had attended the Seattle, Washington 9th Ward for at least 15 years.
The article also states that when asked which church was the truest, she replied: "If I were to tell [people]...the church that I find most rewarding, most fulfilling for me, they might not find that at all....I might be misguiding them from what they need to find for themselves...." hmmmmm

Her quote continues "...I have learned that many of the things that I have written about in the book matches with many of these other religions. And I think that there are common threads that run through all churches"

It is so annoying that these marketing ministers paint pictures like this one claiming that this author has deceptively created a "Trojan Horse!" This is exactly my problem with anti-mormons - the encouragement of paranoia!! Christ is at the center of this woman's experience, but this is almost entirely overlooked.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback

[HemofHisGarment]

Jin~

Thanks for your reply

When I said that it is not my place to state whether the church teaches correct doctrine or not, it is because I am currently in limbo over my previously held beliefs. But, I do believe that one can absolutely be a Christian and still allow each their own personal truths because each person is learning on their own timetable with God's guidance.

Re: "correct doctrine"
This is why debate exists - because all of the 'absolute' answers vary.

(a philosphical smoke-sheild - very creative!)
Your assumption is not true that I'm not open to non-mormon conclusions; What I was trying to say is that I do have a problem with the anti-mormon stance versus the mormon friendly non-mormon stance.

it is a good 'story'...but how can you really know anything firsthand about the Mormons without actually reading the book...that was my point.

the old round & round:
"...dogma of justification by faith alone..."
"...associated with...absolute predestination..."
"...the justice of salvation..."
Doctrines debated within Christianity itself; what's new?

teacher? student here, friend!

I wrote, "Christ died ...not so that we can try to be good enough...... He paid my personal debt to satisfy a Just God."
You wrote, "Jesus didn't die and rise again so we "could be Good" he died so we could be saved.
Sounds like we are saying the same thing - Christ died to save us.

I said, " No one...said that they could save their self."
You said, "Salvation is not a cooprative deal."
Back to the faith vs. works debate...Obviously one of the greatest controversial subjects within Christianity.

I said that we are like "the Potter's clay."
You said that even with His help "the best we can is still not good enough for us to be saved."
You said, "We can't do enough to impress God with our merits..." I agree. Love is the answer.

~

[Jin-Roh]

Jin~

Thanks for your reply

Always.

When I said that it is not my place to state whether the church teaches correct doctrine or not, it is because I am currently in limbo over my previously held beliefs. But, I do believe that one can absolutely be a Christian and still allow each their own personal truths because each person is learning on their own timetable with God's guidance.

Okay, now I understand a little better where you are coming from.
But the thing here is you use the term "personal truths," truth by definition, can't be "personal." Its an objective thing. Truth is Truth even my "personal truth" disagrees with it.

And yes, God does reveal things to each person over time. I'm not going to expect someone to pass a "doctrine test" if they're a new believer and still learning. But there are esseintials of the faith that you have to agree with in order to be a real Christian.

For instance, you've mentioned that Christ is the central figure of both Mormonism and Christianity right? but in Christs own words:

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
Matt 24:24 NASB

So we can't just say "oh I believe in Jesus" because there are many so called "Christs."

President Hinkley even says that he believes in a Diffrent Jesus

(a philosphical smoke-sheild - very creative!)
Your assumption is not true that I'm not open to non-mormon conclusions; What I was trying to say is that I do have a problem with the anti-mormon stance versus the mormon friendly non-mormon stance.

Again, I didn't fully understand where you are with your beliefs right now. I had thought you where a full-fledged Mormon.

it is a good 'story'...but how can you really know anything firsthand about the Mormons without actually reading the book...that was my point.

I'm not actually claiming to know anything first hand about Mormonism. What I know about mormonism comes from Christain reseachr sites, ex-mormons, and professing/practicing mormons.

What I do claim to know, for certianity, is that the BOM is not divinely inspired. It was the product of Joseph's Smith imagination, with some plagarism thrown in.

the old round & round:
...dogma of justification by faith alone...
...associated with...absolute predestination...
...the justice of salvation...
Doctrines debated within Christianity itself; what's new?

What's diffrent is that James Talmage flat out says that works are necessary for salvation. We must earn it. This is not a debate within Christianity. Predestination/Foreknoledge? Yes. OSAS/non-OSAS? Yes. Sola Fide? no.

Christians, at best, may debate on the state of someone's heart when they do works. But nobody really tries to assert justification. Sola Fide is not considered an 'optional' doctrine.

teacher? student here, friend!

huh?

I wrote, "Christ died ...not so that we can try to be good enough...... He paid my personal debt to satisfy a Just God."
You wrote, "Jesus didn't die and rise again so we "could be Good" he died so we could be saved.
Sounds like we are saying the same thing - Christ died to save us.

I said, " No one...said that they could save their self."
You said, "Salvation is not a cooprative deal."
Back to the faith vs. works debate...Obviously one of the greatest controversial subjects within Christianity.

But you also said that "Christ died so that 'we could be good enough'" Maybe I should let one of the Calvinists explain Sola Fide. They thinik about that a lot, so they could probalbly do a better job than me.

I said that we are like "the Potter's clay."
You said that even with His help "the best we can is still not good enough for us to be saved."
You said, "We can't do enough to impress God with our merits..." I agree. Love is the answer.

~

Well I'm glad we have some common ground.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:32 AM post located here
HemofHisGarment:

Captain~

the term cult is "nearly worthless?" I agree but why is the term used so frequently?

It's used carelessly by Christians to mean departure from orthodoxy, and it is used carelessly by many to denote sects which use manipulative methods in dealing with adherants.
Sorry, but I can't specifically explain why the word enjoys such popular use. It's one of the best specifically religious pejoratives, I guess.

Mormonism "...differs markedly from Christian orthodoxy..."
If the "mark" is Christ in both religions, I do not see how there is a "marked" difference.

1) Is the "mark" Christ in both religions?
2) Does "Christ" refer to the same person in both religions?

At least one of the above answers is "no" afaics.

" Mormons and (orthodox) Christians use the same "Christianese" words but with different meanings" Doesn't each and every religion within Christianity?

No.
"Gentile" (to carry on with my example) means the same thing to virtually every other sect apart from Mormonism.

- isn't it sad that we can't just all agree on the basics?

Yes.
Mormons, however, don't care whether or not you agree with them doctrinally on the large or small points. If you haven't had a Mormon baptism either personally or by proxy, then you're either bound for a lower heaven or no heaven at all.
Their hierarchy is exclusive, even more so than that of the Roman Catholic Church.

To me that is like comparing the different languages of the world; sure there are differences in meanings for some of the words but that is precisely because the langauge is different...it can never be fully resolved, so why not focus on the similarities?

I'd suggest keeping your attention on both. Looking for similarities while ignoring differences may lead you into error, just as might happen if you used similarities to judge how to behave in a different culture ("I heard that in Spain they use the "thumb's up" sign, so I'll be sure to use that one when I go to Spain")
http://www.isabellemori.homestead.co...onsgestus.html

"Mormons affirm some positive truths, such as honesty and family values, which may result in situations of appropriate co-belligerence." What?! Please explain....

Co-belligerence is simply cooperation to a point. Two enemies might become partners when faced with a third and greater enemy, for example.

"The same could be said of the Moonies...
Please! Leave the poor Moonies alone!

You classist!
I wasn't insulting the Moonies (though I probably could). I was affirming that a degree of cooperation between Unification church members and orthodox Christians is possible and even desirable (albeit I might question some of the cooperation that has already occurred between the two groups).

Re: Embraced by the Light
1)you haven't read it?

I have read it, just as I've read many new age works that are comparable in terms of their teachings.

2)if it isn't 'orthodox', it's 'new-age'?

If it's John Tesh it's "new age".
Kidding.
New age is a modern worldview riddled with inconsistency. It centers on the teaching that man is innately divine and ostensibly shows people how to realize their own divinity. New Agers frequently find that they cannot resist giving commentary on Jesus and the Bible, and Eadie's teachings parallel those of New Agers to a considerable extent. Her (apparent) Mormonism is wishy-washy enough to pass for new age belief in Embraced by the Light.

Also, the CRI (Christian Research Institute) say that they
exist to 'combat' ideas that 'assault' orthodox Christianity, but
it is full of products, offers and an easy pay donation page - Basically a store!

I suspect that Ms. Eadie has experienced some financial gain from having her book published . . . is this relevant?

CRI exists to teach and disseminate information. They do so via a radio show, a magazine, and by recommending (and selling) books that accomplish the goal of defending orthodoxy. An organization that lacks income will cease to exist. CRI assumes that people who want their materials might be willing to pay for them. Pretty much the same assumption that Eadie makes, afaics.

And what was said about Betty J. Eadie, as being a member of the LDS church is irregardless, but since the CRI has made it an issue...
If you look at her webpage you will find no mention of her religious affiliation. The CRI makes paranoid comments that she and her publicist are trying to keep that information quiet. If the line is true from the 12/20/92 Salt Lake Tribune edition stating she had become "a recent convert to the LDS church" this would conflict with the statement found further into the article that in '93 Eadie's Mormon bishop, Dan Miller, verified that she and her family had attended the Seattle, Washington 9th Ward for at least 15 years.

There is no necessary conflict in the two statements, assuming that both are true. FTM, CRI isn't responsible for the truth of the statements of others, but merely for reporting accurately what has been stated.

The article also states that when asked which church was the truest, she replied: "If I were to tell [people]...the church that I find most rewarding, most fulfilling for me, they might not find that at all....I might be misguiding them from what they need to find for themselves...." hmmmmm

Her quote continues "...I have learned that many of the things that I have written about in the book matches with many of these other religions. And I think that there are common threads that run through all churches"

It is so annoying that these marketing ministers paint pictures like this one claiming that this author has deceptively created a "Trojan Horse!" This is exactly my problem with anti-mormons - the encouragement of paranoia!! Christ is at the center of this woman's experience, but this is almost entirely overlooked.

Again, I recommend that you keep dissimilarities from going out-of-focus as you continue your hunt for similarities.

[greyphilosophy]

LDS Christ - different than that of the bible?

I think it is assumed by many LDS that Christ taught mormon doctrine. I rarely receive a good answer when I ask what would happen if He didn't teach mormon doctrine. The truth is if Christ did not teach mormon doctrine, and even worse taught something contrary to mormon doctrine, then the LDS church cannot claim to be following Christ. Of course to many LDS this is a really big "if".

One of the core beliefs in the LDS faith is eternal families and eternal marriage. The belief is that when "sealed" in the temple a couple remains married even after death, or it could also be said that they remain married even after the resurrection. Jesus Christ himself spoke about marriage in regard to the resurrection:

Here we see in Matthew 22:30:
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Again in Mark 12:25:
For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Here is the story in context from Luke:
Luk 20:27 Then came to [him] certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
Luk 20:28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Luk 20:29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
Luk 20:30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
Luk 20:31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
Luk 20:32 Last of all the woman died also.
Luk 20:33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.
Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.


Here we have 3 of the 4 gospels giving the same account. One might argue that Jesus is saying we must marry before the resurrection, however Luke 20:35 states otherwise. Paul gives clarification further in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. To summarize Paul states that it is better to not marry, however it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

The bible teaches that marriage is not eternal, and unnecessary for salvation.

Let's compare that to one of the LDS scriptures:

Doctrine and Covenants 131:2 states: And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]

This plan of reaching the highest, which refers to either dwelling with the Heavenly Father (which Christians would call salvation), or becomming a god of your own world, requires eternal marriage. This is contrary to the plan of salvation which Christ taught.

You do not need to be married to be saved, any more than you have to be perfect. (Many LDS hold that "be ye therefor perfect" is a command - Spencer W. Kimball certainly thought so, as seen in "The Miracle of Forgiveness"). This is how we know that God loves us: when we were still sinning Christ died for us. The grace which was given to us was not contingent on us doing all we can do, as 2 Ne. 25: 23 states, but rather contingent on us having faith. 2 eph 8-10 very clearly shows that we are saved by faith, and when placed together with the writings of James we see that it is a faith that encourages us and leads us to do works. The works are not required, but rather come as a result of us having faith.

We are all sinners, the Good News, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is that Christ died for us, and if we have an ernest desire to be free from sin that we can accept, by faith, Christ's sacrifice for our sin. If we sin again after having accepted Christ's sacrifice once, and we still desire to be free from sin, we can still use Christ's sacrifice - that's what a living sacrifice is. This makes us perfect in God's eyes and allows us to dwell with Him.

[HemofHisGarment]

Jin:

Re: faith vs works
You said, "This is not a debate within Christianity"
An online search for "FAITH VERSUS WORKS" delivers about 79,000 results.

You said, "What I do claim to know, for certianity,is that the BOM is not divinely inspired."
Again, my point is that if 100% of your information if biased, how can your claim be so certain. I was trying to point out that there really is no excuse for NOT reading the book since it is short, easy to read, and accessible.

OSAS/non-OSAS? Please explain

You said, "Christians... may debate on the state of someone's heart when they do works." Why would this be an issue, seems a debate open to God only, but this may be OT.


But you also said that "Christ died so that 'we could be good enough'" ...
No, I wrote..."Christ died not so that we can try to be good enough..."

Again, thanks for the discuss
Later

[HemofHisGarment]

Captain~

You wrote,
"1) Is the "mark" Christ in both religions?
2) Does "Christ" refer to the same person in both religions?"

Question no.1 is a Yes, but apparently, Q2 is the big debate.

(afaics - please explain this word to this here igno )

Mormons definintely do not have the exclusive right to being deadset on their set of beliefs, but anyway...

You said, "If you haven't had a Mormon baptism...then you're either bound for a lower heaven or no heaven at all."
For clarification, the 'no heaven at all' part isn't true. The LDS belief is that very few people will actually go to 'Outer Darkness'.

You said, "Their hierarchy is exclusive, even more so than that of the Roman Catholic Church."
Have you heard the joke about the guy who went to heaven? He met with a small group of people and noticed that there were many different groups standing around. There were the Baptists, the Methodists, etc. Then he noticed a group way off in the distance; he asked who they were. His friend replied, "Oh, those are the Mormons; they think they're the only ones here."

You said, "Mormons affirm some positive truths...which may result in situations of appropriate co-belligerence."/"Co-belligerence is simply cooperation to a point."
It sounds like you are saying that Mormons (or any group who you may not have the correct 'truth') is a deceptive enemy. This is my problem; whether LDS beliefs are 100% correct or not does not put them in this type of category. There are thousands of factions within Christianity; this type of statement is ridiculous.

You said, "New age is a modern worldview riddled with inconsistency."
New age is still a 'view'; Must'nt we have respect for the search? Personally, I love riddles~

"It centers on the teaching that man is innately divine and ostensibly shows people how to realize their own divinity."
This point of man's innate divinity is sadly debated as well; aren't we all children of God?

CRI defends orthodox information to the point of excluding other information that may be good if seen in the correct light...why create fear over what is good, even if not 100% correct. This goes back around to absolutism, doesn't it?

Side note regarding CRI statements of LDS membership of Beattie J. Eadie:
You said, "There is no necessary conflict in the two statements"
I believe there is unless you consider 15 years to be recent. And also, if CRI is attempting to spread correct information then I would assume that they would want the information others are reading IS correct in order to avoid carelessly misleading others.

Later Captain

[Hitch]

Yawn,,, same old used carsalesman tactics.

'Bob you told me this was a Chevy ,, its a Mustang!

'Well maybe but she runs great! and she uses gas, and has four tires so for all intents and purposes shes a Chevy"

"Bob,,, you SAID it was a Chevy, its a Mustang!"

'Ya know,,, my wife makes the best cookies and we only eat em on family at home nights...'

Hitch

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:21 PM post located here
HemofHisGarment:

Captain~

You wrote,
"1) Is the "mark" Christ in both religions?
2) Does "Christ" refer to the same person in both religions?"

Question no.1 is a Yes, but apparently, Q2 is the big debate.

(afaics - please explain this word to this here igno )

Honestly, I'm not sure what word you're referring to. ?
Question number one isn't cut & dried, afaics. Christ could merely be a means to an end in Mormonism. The ultimate goal of Christianity (broadly), established in Genesis, is fellowship with God--and that is what was lost at the fall. Jesus is God, we note. In Mormonism, the emphasis shifts to the role of man in creation, which is dominion over creation. While this is a valid facet of man's nature, LDS doctrine makes the dominion of man the emphasis. Thus, the ultimate goal in Mormonism is dominion over a new Eden, peopled by a child "god" of God. As many commentators have noted, this looks suspiciously like the lure that the serpent used to draw A&E into sampling forbidden fruit.

Mormons definintely do not have the exclusive right to being deadset on their set of beliefs, but anyway...

Sarcasm noted and appreciated. You're quite right.
I have no qualm about exclusivity of belief--but you'd better be right.

You said, "If you haven't had a Mormon baptism...then you're either bound for a lower heaven or no heaven at all."
For clarification, the 'no heaven at all' part isn't true. The LDS belief is that very few people will actually go to 'Outer Darkness'.

If the "Outer Darkness" isn't considered a lower heaven, then in what respect is my statement untrue? If nobody goes to the "Outer Darkness" then why would it be part of LDS teaching?
Explain, please.

You said, "Their hierarchy is exclusive, even more so than that of the Roman Catholic Church."
Have you heard the joke about the guy who went to heaven? He met with a small group of people and noticed that there were many different groups standing around. There were the Baptists, the Methodists, etc. Then he noticed a group way off in the distance; he asked who they were. His friend replied, "Oh, those are the Mormons; they think they're the only ones here."

I'm not sure what your point is, unless you just saying that the LDS claims regarding the necessity of an LDS baptism are false.
Are you being intolerant?

You said, "Mormons affirm some positive truths...which may result in situations of appropriate co-belligerence."/"Co-belligerence is simply cooperation to a point."
It sounds like you are saying that Mormons (or any group who you may not have the correct 'truth') is a deceptive enemy.

No; you're reading too much into my illustration while ignoring the basics of the explanation. Co-belligerence may take place any time common interests are found. Ironically, you're emphasizing the differences rather than the similarities.

This is my problem; whether LDS beliefs are 100% correct or not does not put them in this type of category. There are thousands of factions within Christianity; this type of statement is ridiculous.

You're still referring to your perception that I'm calling the Mormons an "enemy" afaics. Insofar as they depart from orthodoxy, and insofar as orthodoxy is correct belief, Mormons are an enemy. Moreover, while I haven't described them as a deceptive enemy except in your imagination up through this point, the fact is that they are deceptive. They allow themselves to be classified as "Protestant" in order to place chaplains in the armed services, while maintaining their stance that all of Protestantism is apostate while they are a true restored church. They downplay doctrines and practices that might be shocking to potential converts, such as their teachings regarding blacks and the wearing of a "temple garment" (known irreverently to many evangelicals as "magic underwear"). Advancement in the LDS church itself has a built-in progression of revealed doctrine to the individual convert, patterned after the Masons (of which Joseph Smith had been a member prior to such practices appearing in LDS tradition).
Don't get me started on LDS deception.

You said, "New age is a modern worldview riddled with inconsistency."
New age is still a 'view'; Must'nt we have respect for the search? Personally, I love riddles~

If you don't mind a little inconsistency in your truth, then you're probably going to find that your search isn't leading anywhere (unless we count circles).

"It centers on the teaching that man is innately divine and ostensibly shows people how to realize their own divinity."

This point of man's innate divinity is sadly debated as well; aren't we all children of God?

You mean are we literally God's offspring through a spiritual mother? The LDS says yes. Protestants who are actually Protestants--and Roman Catholics, ftm--say no.
New Age generally says that we are God. If you ignore all the differences, though, I guess you could say that they are all saying the same thing.

CRI defends orthodox information to the point of excluding other
information that may be good if seen in the correct light...

Like what (one example, please)?

why create fear over what is good, even if not 100% correct. This goes back around to absolutism, doesn't it?

An example of creating fear, please? I've read the CRI Journal for years, and I don't find myself fearful of the false doctrines described therein.

Side note regarding CRI statements of LDS membership of Beattie J. Eadie:
You said, "There is no necessary conflict in the two statements"
I believe there is unless you consider 15 years to be recent.

So, apparently you assume that if somebody went to church for X years, it means that they have been a member of that church for X years? I don't think that your assumption is warranted.

And also, if CRI is attempting to spread correct information then I would assume that they would want the information others are reading IS correct in order to avoid carelessly misleading others.

Your perception that the statements above (regarding Eadie's religious affiliation) are contradictory is false. What did CRI publish that is inaccurate, specifically?

[HemofHisGarment]

grey~
You said, "I think it is assumed by many LDS that Christ taught mormon doctrine."
That is backwards; the belief it that what Christ taught is found in the true gospel, just like any absolutist church believes.

Re: eternal marriage
I am not trying to debate what is so easily interpreted in different ways. There is another thread on this site that addresses this issue; I think it's called 'Joseph Smith vs. Satan' or something like that.

Re: Faith vs. Works
Again, I think this issue is asinine. Like you said - works naturally come as a result of faith; I do not see how you can have one without the other. The essential point is agreed upon that without Christ there is no salvation.

A.

[HemofHisGarment]

Today @ 10:31 AM post located here
Hitch:

Yawn,,, same old used carsalesman tactics.

Haven't we been over this before, Hitch?

Today @ 10:31 AM post located here
Hitch:
'Ya know,,, my wife makes the best cookies and we only eat em on family at home nights...'

That would be Family Home Evening (not "family at home night")

You must be from out West.

[HemofHisGarment]

Coooooooool......


Re: either bound for a lower heaven or no heaven
I said that LDS belief holds that VERY FEW people will actually go to 'Outer Darkness.' Just because someone isn't baptized would not be a reason for going to Outer Darkness. That wouldn't play a part. You could be baptized and still go to OD if God saw fit.

Re: the point / the joke
It was a joke!! Sorry, I am the worst joke teller, maybe it didn't come across as humorous - that was my only corny intent.

Re: situations of appropriate co-belligerence/cooperation to a point that takes place any time common interest are found
the basics of this are...as you say, "Insofar as they depart from orthodoxy, and insofar as orthodoxy is correct belief, Mormons are an enemy...the fact is that they are deceptive....Don't get me started on LDS deception."
I have found all of the same information you have (the other side of the coin), but the 'deception' as you call it is nothing more than a self-perpatuating belief system. The missionaries are innocent!

Re: Unorthodox views
I have not come across any whole set of beliefs without a little inconsistency, and so my search does seem to go in circles.

Re: man's innate divinity / spiritual offspring
I believe that our souls are spiritual in nature and therefore divine--of God. Otherwise, it would seem to me that we are just animals.

Re: CRI/ good info that may not be 100% correct
You said, "I've read the CRI Journal for years, and I don't find myself fearful of the false doctrines described therein."
So why not look at both sides of a coin before holding such a strong opinion that the other side is absolutely wrong?