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 :smile: 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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60882#post60882)
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. :smile:
CRI review of sorts:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/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?
:hrm:

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* (http://www.carm.org/lds/quotes_talmage.htm) (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? :frown: 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! :ahem:

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:smile:

[HemofHisGarment]

Jin~

Thanks for your reply:smile:

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.

~:bunny:

[Jin-Roh]

Jin~

Thanks for your reply:smile:
Always. :smile:

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 (http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_jesus.htm)

(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? :hrm:

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. :help: They thinik about that a lot, so they could probalbly do a better job than me. :lol:

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.

~:bunny:

Well I'm glad we have some common ground.
:smile:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62409#post62409)
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. :smile:


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? :frown:


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.com/questionsgestus.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! :ahem:


You classist! :wink:
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.
:cheers:

[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:smile:

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:bunny:

[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 :help: )

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." :wink:

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 :bow:

[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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64080#post64080)
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 :help: )


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." :wink:


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? :wink:


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. :wink:


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. :wink:


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~ :hi:
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 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64089#post64089)
Hitch:

Yawn,,, same old used carsalesman tactics.

Haven't we been over this before, Hitch?

Today @ 10:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64089#post64089)
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") :duh:

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?



:em7:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64226#post64226)
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.


I'm quite aware that simply not being baptized into the LDS would not be sufficient reason for going to Outer Darkness.
You asserted that my statement was inaccurate. I'm trying to find out what the supposed inaccuracy is/was.


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.


A joke made in such a discussion made only for the purpose of hilarity is a digression, is it not? You didn't respond much to my preceding statement apart from your joke-telling. Was I wrong regarding my guess as to your point?


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 meaning of your response is not clear to me. You appear to be mixing co-belligerence, which places focus on what is in common, with doctrinal differences which might make co-belligerent parties enemies apart from their cooperation. I have attempted to emphasize this distinction, and I don't detect acknowledgement from your end.


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!


Innocent of what? Innocent of knowing all the doctrinal nuances of the belief that they are trying to spread?
They know that the LDS church makes an exclusive claim among the churches, and I have personally entertained missionaries who appeared to initially downplay that claim in order to increase the appeal of their pitch. That's deceit, and the missionaries certainly appear to be the guilty parties in that deceit.
When these same missionaries became aware of my knowledge of their system, and encountered an argument that their exclusivity was wrong-headed, they lost no time in accusing me of "slamming" their religion. That struck me as being a tad hypocritical. Wouldn't you agree? They visit me to tell me that my baptism ain't worth diddly (in effect), and when I challenge their premise I'm the one who's attacking somebody's religion.


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.


Fair enough--my point was that a concern for consistency will give you the potential to make real progress, if real progress is possible. You appear to affirm that self-consistency is important to you, and I applaud that stance on your part.


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.


If God created everything, then everything is of God, ftm--or at least everything that God created is of God.
I would have liked for you to address the fact that the various teachings regarding human divine nature have fundamental differences one from another.


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?


What makes you think I haven't looked at both sides of the coin?
Before reading CRI's take on things, I had talked to Mormons, read the BoM, and read substantial portions of LDS literature.
Here's the thing: Not everybody has the time or the inclination to look intently at both sides of every coin. Having looked at various coins on both sides, and having read CRI Journal, I conclude that they are a good resource for those persons who don't have the same interest regarding the investigation of competing ultimate truth claims that I have.

[greyphilosophy]

Today @ 05:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64175#post64175)
HemofHisGarment:

grey~ :hi:
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.


A.

Alright, I'll bite. What is the "true gospel" in your belief?

While I'm asking, what does "fullness of the everlasting gospel" mean? I hear the missionaries say that phrase a lot when talking about the book of mormon.

~Grey

[HemofHisGarment]

Captain~

Okay, before I force myself to put the computer on standby...one more post!:smile:

The point that I felt you made that wasn't correct was this:
"If you haven't had a Mormon baptism...then you're either bound for a lower heaven <or no heaven at all.>"
It sounds like you are stating that the LDS believe that if you haven't been baptised then you are bound for either/or said heaven or no heaven. I was merely pointing out that the part about being bound to <no heaven> in such a case is incorrect.

Re: Joke
Pardon my digression...You had said, "Their hierarchy is exclusive, even more so than that of the Roman Catholic Church." I don't disagree; it's a non-point for me personally and was trying to move along.

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...
Probable because your terminology is unclear to me. The term co-belligerence has a negative tone and that was my only point.
I do tend to focus on what is common, but I see your point in the noting the distinctions and doctrinal differences. Thanks.

Re: deception/self-perpatuating belief system
Missionaries are innocent of trying to spread what they feel is the Good News. If LDS missionaries appeared to have initially downplayed their own absolutist claim, it is to achieve common ground in order to engage in discussion without offense -- not 'to increase the appeal of their pitch' as you say. If the missionaries are carrying an incorrect message, they are only guilty by association as they truly believe what they are sharing is the truth. (Former LDS missionary myself). It is a powerful BELIEF system that perpetuates itself innocently. When a missionary encounters argumentive people they tend to move on; the premise is to share the message with people who are INTERESTED in the religion. I see what you're saying about the irony, though.

Re: Human divinity
"various teachings regarding human divine nature have fundamental differences one from another." Sure, but I haven't been inclined to study all those differences, as you might imagine!

Re: CRI
"they are a good resource for those persons who don't have the same interest regarding the investigation of competing ultimate truth claims"
-a good resource for those who DON'T have the same interest? I'll assume you meant for those who DO ...

:bunny:See ya!

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 09:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64337#post64337)
HemofHisGarment:

Captain~

Okay, before I force myself to put the computer on standby...one more post!:smile:

The point that I felt you made that wasn't correct was this:
&quot;If you haven't had a Mormon baptism...then you're either bound for a lower heaven &lt;or no heaven at all.&gt;&quot;
It sounds like you are stating that the LDS believe that if you haven't been baptised then you are bound for either/or said heaven or no heaven. I was merely pointing out that the part about being bound to &lt;no heaven&gt; in such a case is incorrect.


You're complaining about absolutely nothing, afaics. Is a possible destination for folks who have not been baptized by the LDS church the "Outer Darkness" (=no heaven at all)? If so, case closed: My statement was entirely accurate without reservation. Only if a person could ascend to the highest heaven without an LDS baptism would my statement be incorrect.
I would think that this would be obvious, and I don't understand the logic of your objection (if any).


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, &quot;Insofar as they depart from orthodoxy, and insofar as orthodoxy is correct belief, Mormons are an enemy...
Probable because your terminology is unclear to me. The term co-belligerence has a negative tone and that was my only point.
I do tend to focus on what is common, but I see your point in the noting the distinctions and doctrinal differences. Thanks.


Okay--thanks in return for acknowledging the point.
A belligerent person is (mol) combative. Co-belligerence just means that two fight against a common enemy--no necessarily negative implication, afaics.


Re: deception/self-perpatuating belief system
Missionaries are innocent of trying to spread what they feel is the Good News. If LDS missionaries appeared to have initially downplayed their own absolutist claim, it is to achieve common ground in order to engage in discussion without offense -- not 'to increase the appeal of their pitch' as you say.


The same way a used car dealer won't offend me by offering me a clunker by showing how nice the thing looks on the outside?

Okay--so the missionary might think that it's a perfectly good car he's trying to sell. Let's say that he wants to sell me a better car and take my car in trade (not to keep my car for himself, of course).
He believes that my car is a piece of ***p.
Maybe he says: "Hey there! Your car sure has nice door handles! Would you like to learn more about this car I've got?"
Let's say that I want to hear more about his car.
Maybe he says: "My car has a borm, without which a car really will not last."
So, I'm like: "What's a borm?"
"A borm is the only thing that enables a car to really last."
We'll pretend that he gives some reasons for this, except I don't feel like working that hard to flesh out the play.
So, I'm like: "Well, my car not only has nice door handles, but it also has botanetifier, which is supposed to enable the car to really last. In fact, from what I understand of the borm, it doesn't really work."
So he says (recalling my actual missionary acquaintances): "You're slamming my car!!!"

Now, didn't the salesman deceive me with his approach? He's not really concerned with my car at all except to tell me why I ought to have a different one--isn't he? His compliment of the door handles is facile, and intended to get his foot in the door.


If the missionaries are carrying an incorrect message, they are only guilty by association as they truly believe what they are sharing is the truth. (Former LDS missionary myself).


Their "car" says right in the owner's manual that it's better than the one I've got. The deceit is not that they do not believe in the quality of their merchandise, but that they have respect for the car I've got. "Your church teaches many good things"="Your church is apostate" to an LDS missionary, no? That is, if they use such words to non-Mormons?

Slightly off the trail, but here's another funny bit: An LDS acquaintance complained that "Mormon" is derogatory. That LDS adherents are called "Mormons" was a sign of the persecution of the LDS (to my friend). Problem is, I can remember LDS ad campaigns that encouraged the use of the term ('brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--The Mormons!").


It is a powerful BELIEF system that perpetuates itself innocently. When a missionary encounters argumentive people they tend to move on; the premise is to share the message with people who are INTERESTED in the religion. I see what you're saying about the irony, though.


Thanks for acknowledging another point.
I'm fairly certain that I'm not argumentative in person. I just don't think that these missionaries were prepared to deal with certain issues at depth, and (as you just mentioned) discussing the issue in depth isn't their purpose in going door-to-door. They want to find people who might buy the car; they don't want to bring out the shortcomings (if any) of their car for comparison. They don't (as a generality) want to see if the prospective customer's car might actually be better than the product they're offering.


Re: Human divinity
&quot;various teachings regarding human divine nature have fundamental differences one from another.&quot; Sure, but I haven't been inclined to study all those differences, as you might imagine!


Fair enough. I encourage you to take to heart my encouragement to remain aware of differences as you look at similarities.


Re: CRI
&quot;they are a good resource for those persons who don't have the same interest regarding the investigation of competing ultimate truth claims&quot;
-a good resource for those who DON'T have the same interest? I'll assume you meant for those who DO ...


No, I meant what I said, although it could use clarification. I'm willing to expend considerable time comparing religious (and other) traditions different from mine. Others might have an interest in what other religions teach, and far less interest in dedicating the time required.
Not everybody is going to bother reading works by L. Ron Hubbard, the Book of Mormon, Aid to Bible Understanding, the Urantia Book, and a host of others.

If somebody isn't interested in comparing various pov to Christianity, then they're not likely to read CRI Journal in the first place. I was referring to those who are interested but not interested enough to do the research on their own. CRI is a far better source for Christians than, say, the writings of Dave Hunt (nice guy, lamentable author imo) or Texe Marrs (Borderline or over crackpot, imo).
CRI is a biased source, of course, but they make a serious effort to research their topics, and avoid sloppy reasoning with good success.

[HemofHisGarment]

Okay, now I see what you meant. And yes, you are right that "Only if a person could ascend to the highest heaven without an LDS baptism would my statement be incorrect." This was not obvious from the wording of your original statement.

Re: used car salesman bit

The idea that the religion is a 'clunker' would be a matter of debate except that isn't what the missionaries are doing. Sure, I can see what you're saying. The only point I'm trying to make is that the LDS people are not trying to sell anything, and that they genuinely believe the vehicle is the absolute best one - the one you need. The approach is merely a form of communication designed to build on common ground. If the message delivered isn't true, it isn't because the messanger is evil.
Of course, he isn't really concerned with your 'car' except in mild interest because his own message is obviously his 'agenda'- being that, yes, he has the 'truth' that you need. Compliments may still be considered genuine, because LDS generally do admire the good in all religions. The line of thought is simply that they themselves have the absolute truth. I see what you are saying though--that essentially that is what it means - the other churches being apostate, but I'm just saying that the thinking doesn't naturally fall into that type of negative mode. But yes, I agree with you that the intentions are not just to go around and make empty compliments, that there are, of course, other intentions. These intentions, however, are innocent because the messanger only wants to SHARE what he feels is necessary for you. And no, they are not looking to make comparisons in religions. You have to remember that they feel the message is important and that time is precious. A study of differences among religions is a respectable one. I find it very interesting that you spend the time like you do while holding (I'm assuming) firm orthodox beliefs. What causes such great interest in all of the idiosyncrasies of other religions?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65163#post65163)
HemofHisGarment:

Okay, now I see what you meant. And yes, you are right that &quot;Only if a person could ascend to the highest heaven without an LDS baptism would my statement be incorrect.&quot; This was not obvious from the wording of your original statement.


I'm not sure what the problem was with my original statement, but we can consider the matter resolved, if you like.


Re: used car salesman bit

The idea that the religion is a 'clunker' would be a matter of debate except that isn't what the missionaries are doing. Sure, I can see what you're saying. The only point I'm trying to make is that the LDS people are not trying to sell anything, and that they genuinely believe the vehicle is the absolute best one - the one you need. The approach is merely a form of communication designed to build on common ground. If the message delivered isn't true, it isn't because the messanger is evil.


It seems obvious to me that despite even a maximal level of sincerity on the part of an LDS missionary, they are selling something. That's precisely why they look to achieve common ground with people (customers).
A person who thinks they've got the best car is going to tell the people that he naturally comes into contact with every day. Is he going to go door-to-door far from home to do so?
Not to downplay the fact that even the private person who brags about his car is also "selling" to a point . . .


Of course, he isn't really concerned with your 'car' except in mild interest because his own message is obviously his 'agenda'- being that, yes, he has the 'truth' that you need.


Allow me to interject the reminder that the only reason I need that truth is because (in the eyes of the LDS missionary) my car sucks.


Compliments may still be considered genuine, because LDS generally do admire the good in all religions.


I'm not saying that the salesman doesn't actually think that the door handles are nifty, I'm saying that he's not interested in my car, he's interested in getting me to buy his car. He brought up the door handles not out of admiration but because he wishes to establish common ground so that I'll listen to how wonderful his car is. If he's really interested in my car, then he'd want to hear about why the botanetic-thingy is better than a borm. Does he want to hear that, iyo?


The line of thought is simply that they themselves have the absolute truth. I see what you are saying though--that essentially that is what it means - the other churches being apostate, but I'm just saying that the thinking doesn't naturally fall into that type of negative mode.


I've encountered testimony of ex-Mormons who say that's exactly how they felt, fwiw.
I don't assume that all of them feel that way, nor do I assume that they cannot be made to take an interest in my "car".


But yes, I agree with you that the intentions are not just to go around and make empty compliments, that there are, of course, other intentions. These intentions, however, are innocent because the messanger only wants to SHARE what he feels is necessary for you.


A salesman who sincerely believes in the quality of his product is still a salesman.
I don't want to throw Mormons in jail for giving agenda-driven compliments, I'm just suggesting that there is an subtle deceit involved in the desired reaction of the customer: "He's interested in my car! I'd like to discuss cars with this guy!".
He's not interested in your car, buddy.


And no, they are not looking to make comparisons in religions. You have to remember that they feel the message is important and that time is precious.


I'm quite aware of that. Wouldn't it save the missionaries a bunch of time if they said "Your religion is apostate if it's not ours. Want to talk about it?" :smile:
Point being, if there's a sale to be made they'll make the time. Finding common ground (finding a way to compliment the mark's clunker, in terms of our illustration) takes valuable time.


A study of differences among religions is a respectable one. I find it very interesting that you spend the time like you do while holding (I'm assuming) firm orthodox beliefs. What causes such great interest in all of the idiosyncrasies of other religions?

I don't take it for granted that my--err--car is absolutely the best. If I end up in conversation with a person who holds to a particular belief system, I like knowing something about it entering that conversation.
In terms of my personal missionary work, it also provides a foundation for showing that I'm interested in the other person's religion. Certainly I'm not looking for a new "car", though.

[Jin-Roh]

Yesterday @ 07:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64058#post64058)
HemofHisGarment:

Jin:

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

That doesn't actually mean that there is a "debate" going within Christianity on the subject for two reason:
1. Sola Fide is very important, so don't be surprised if you get a lot of discussion on that.
2. The search engine is not exactly a closed system. A good portion of those websites are probably not even run by Christians. There something called "liberal Protestant" that goes on. Basically, they read the Bible but don't actually believe any of it, and that's just one example.

I Typed in "Divinity of Christ" at yahoo.com and got 194,000 hits, and "Saved by Jesus" and got 713,000 but Christians are in disagreement on those two.

If you want to figure this out in a closed system (i.e. Christians only) open up a poll here at Tweb asking Christians specifically how we are saved giving these three options.

1. Works
2. Works + Faith
3. Faith Alone (Sola Fide)

I assure you, you will get very little dissent, if any.

You said, &quot;What I do claim to know, for certianity,is that the BOM is not divinely inspired.&quot;
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.

Again, the first person to explain Mormonism to me was a professing Mormon. My claim on it not being divinely inspired is supported by the following.

1. Grammatical errors in the orginal text when it was supposed to be a "perfect" translation using a seer stone.
2. Only Joseph Smith could see the plates, which is in contrast with God's Chracter in the Bible. For instance, the Ressurected Christ was seen by over 500 people.
3. Inconsitances with scripture when it comes to stuff like the rebuilding of Solomon's temple, it didn't take long enough in the BOM for it be a replica of the same temple.
4. Outright plagarism
5. Being translated by a demonstratibly false prophet.

I don't need to read the BOM to know that it doesn't come from God. I believe it was a product of Joseph Smith's imagination.

OSAS/non-OSAS? Please explain:smile:

OSAS Stands for "Once saved always Saved."

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

Well Jesus did say "out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks." What I'm talking about here is money grubbing televangelists and stuff like that.


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

Again, thanks for the discuss
Later:bunny:

Okay.
Please explain what you mean by that.

[HemofHisGarment]

Yesterday @ 12:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65214#post65214)
Jin-Roh:
...Christians are in disagreement on those two....

Right, so why the disagreement that faith vs works isn't controversial within Christianity? I hear that aaaaalllll the time! It is such a common phrase!
Yesterday @ 12:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65214#post65214)
Jin-Roh:
If you want to figure this out in a closed system (i.e. Christians only) open up a poll here at Tweb asking Christians specifically how we are saved giving these three options.
1. Works
2. Works + Faith
3. Faith Alone (Sola Fide)
I assure you, you will get very little dissent, if any.
Thanks, I may take your advice on that, except that option #1 seems ridiculous in a closed, Christian forum.
Yesterday @ 12:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65214#post65214)
Jin-Roh:
I don't need to read the BOM to know that it doesn't come from God. I believe it was a product of Joseph Smith's imagination.

That's cool, but the point I was attempting to make was that it would be beneficial for someone like yourself, who holds such a strong opinion, to have had the firsthand experience of the book as a whole. Beneficial, that is to someone like me - so that your conclusion is more balanced in my mind. Obviously, you already have your firm convictions; but if you are discussing the opposing sides of Mormonism, then it's only fair (seems to me) that you have read the book as a whole. Just my humble opinion!

Yesterday @ 12:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65214#post65214)
Jin-Roh: Okay. Please explain what you mean by that.
Previous Post:
<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.>
That is what I meant originally, but the 'not' was overlooked; I just wanted to clarify the apparent agreement in that Christ died for our salvation. Anyway, I guess that brings us back around full circle to the faith vs. works thing...I will look into the poll idea.
Thanks for your feedback!! I appreciate it a lot :smile:

[Jin-Roh]

Well if you do the Poll idea, I think it would be a good idea to put "works" in there still. It may seem ridiculous, but I guess from a "pysch/belief survey" standpoint, I think it would be good to keep it, becuase when it is not choosen it will say something as well (i.e. The option was still there, so nobody can say "they choose one of those two becuase the third option wasn't available").

And yes, obviously if I dialouge with Mormons, it would be a good idea to read the book. Its not something I'm saying I wouldn't do, but I have probably half a dozen books I want to get through.

:read:

That is what I meant originally, but the 'not' was overlooked; I just wanted to clarify the apparent agreement in that Christ died for our salvation. Anyway, I guess that brings us back around full circle to the faith vs. works thing...I will look into the poll idea.
Thanks for your feedback!! I appreciate it a lot

Oh your right. That would be why there was no communication going on the subject, I misread it. My bad. Sorry.
:doh:

[HemofHisGarment]

:smile: Thanks again for the discussion/feedback...

Yesterday @ 11:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65198#post65198)
Captain Ochre:
...they are selling something... That's precisely why they look to achieve common ground with people (customers).
A person who thinks they've got the best car is going to tell the people that he naturally comes into contact with every day. Is he going to go door-to-door far from home to do so?
I see you're point.

Yesterday @ 11:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65198#post65198)
Captain Ochre:
...the only reason I need that truth is because (in the eyes of the LDS missionary) my car sucks.
If you believe that he see the glass is half empty, okay.

Yesterday @ 11:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65198#post65198)
Captain Ochre:
I'm just suggesting that there is an subtle deceit involved in the desired reaction of the customer: &quot;He's interested in my car!
I will agree to disagree... from experience, I don't believe that the 'subtle deceit' is anything more that a polite form of communication.

Yesterday @ 11:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65198#post65198)
Captain Ochre:
I don't take it for granted that my--err--car is absolutely the best.
So are have you settled for the best you can find to date? I mean you said that you are certainly not looking.
Also, curious about your 'work': your discussions with others and showing interest in the other's religions...Is it to share what you have found to be the best 'car' that you know of, or for the joy of the discussion itself, or what? Just nosy

~ :bunny:

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 01:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66837#post66837)
HemofHisGarment:

:smile: Thanks again for the discussion/feedback...


No problemo. :wink:


If you believe that he see the glass is half empty, okay.


In beverage terms, the LDS missionary is running a mobile lemonade stand. If my glass isn't half-empty, then my beverage still doesn't taste as good as his alternative, isn't as good for me . . . something like that.


I will agree to disagree... from experience, I don't believe that the 'subtle deceit' is anything more that a polite form of communication.
:hrm:


So are have you settled for the best you can find to date? I mean you said that you are certainly not looking.


Correct. A competing view must have a plausible shot at noetic (worldview) consistency prior to warranting serious consideration (in term of displacing the King of the hill (pun intended this time)).


Also, curious about your 'work': your discussions with others and showing interest in the other's religions...Is it to share what you have found to be the best 'car' that you know of, or for the joy of the discussion itself, or what? Just nosy


I talk about many different things with people, so it's the discussion and interaction that I enjoy. The fact that I enjoy talking about theological and philosophical issues makes it natural for those topics to come up. IMO, the fact that I have no agenda to confront others with my views makes them feel very comfortable in asking me about my views.

[HemofHisGarment]

Cool.