Of course, only Jesus can tell who is and who isn't.
My questions for you:
(1) Does God ever give anyone spiritual discernment to someone to discern where another person is, snapshot like, at that point in his/her life spiritually at that moment? Look, for example at Philip in the book of Acts re: the Ethiopian eunuch: "The Spirit told Philip, 'Go to that chariot and stay near it.' Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. 'Do you understand what you are reading?' Philip asked." (Acts 8:29-30)
Now, was Philip being judgmental when he asked the Ethiopian, "Do you understand what you are reading?" (That question would only be asked of someone who was assuming that their understanding was not where it the Holy Spirit wanted it to be, revelation-wise).
(2) When Jesus says "Ye shall know them by their fruit," is that a totally meaningless statement? (Should that verse have been changed in the JST to read, "Ye shall not know them at all, by their fruit or by their professed doctrine, because that could be conceived as being judgmental"?)
(3) Why bother sending missionaries, LDS or Christian, to the Buddhists in Asia or the Hindus in India? I mean isn't that presumptively passing "judgment" on them? Aren't these missionary agencies guilty, as you claim, of declaring them "unChristian?" How could they possibly "see into the heart" of any given Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu?
(4) To be a latter-day saint has a definite definition/boundary. So "Christian" carries no similar definition/boundary? It's self-determined? Self-identified?
>>Of course, only Jesus can tell who is and who isn't.
>>My questions for you:
>>(1) Does God ever give anyone spiritual discernment to someone to discern where
>>another person is, snapshot like, at that point in his/her life spiritually at that moment?
Yes, these people are called prophets
>>Look, for example at Philip in the book of Acts re: the Ethiopian eunuch: "The Spirit
>>told Philip, 'Go to that chariot and stay near it.' Then Philip ran up to the chariot and
>>heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. 'Do you understand what you are reading?'
>>Philip asked." (Acts 8:29-30)
>>Now, was Philip being judgmental when he asked the Ethiopian, "Do you understand
>>what you are reading?"
Phillip was being led by the spirit and was open to the possibility that someone he would not have expected to be spiritual, might be.
>> (That question would only be asked of someone who was assuming that their
>>understanding was not where it the Holy Spirit wanted it to be, revelation-wise).
>>(2) When Jesus says "Ye shall know them by their fruit," is that a totally meaningless
>>statement? (Should that verse have been changed in the JST to read, "Ye shall not
>>know them at all, by their fruit or by their professed doctrine, because that could be
>>conceived as being judgmental"?)
So, in your definition, what is good fruit? (Hint, I consider the Shriners an excellent example of good fruit, and they are not Mormons)
>>(3) Why bother sending missionaries, LDS or Christian, to the Buddhists in Asia or the
>>Hindus in India? I mean isn't that presumptively passing "judgment" on them?
What part of "all the world" do you think we should disobey and not send missionaries to? We also have missionaries in Salt Lake city, New York, and Wisconsin (which is where my parents joined)
Aren't these missionary agencies guilty, as you claim, of declaring them "unChristian?"
No. We preach, we Teach We Exhort, We expound we testify of Christ to all men and each other. We are not judging anyone by testifying of the truth as we understand it to all men, quite the reverse of judging actually.
How could they possibly "see into the heart" of any given Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu?
Well, I wrestled with that myself, so I took lessons from and graduated from a Buddhist monastery in Taiwan my first two months there to better understand those I would teach. Bhuddisem is technically not a religion, although many of it’s practitioners do not even understand that much, it is a philosophy. Daoism is a religion, and often co-opts Buddha as a God into its religion. Most of the people in Taiwan believe a mix of the two we as missionaries dubbed “the church of tradition”.
(4) To be a latter-day saint has a definite definition/boundary. So "Christian" carries no similar definition/boundary? It's self-determined? Self-identified?
That’s because the Church which started Mormonism still exists today. All the protestant churches and Mormonism agree on one thing at least. The Catholic Church Lost the way somewhere (where varies by which religion) and needed to be reformed. The Catholics maintain they have never “lost the way” Actually since God’s pattern is to send a prophet to build up his church, and he does not change, any protestant church not started by a prophet, cannot be God’s church (That leaves the Catholics and the Mormons as the only two who could logically be right.
For those with a sense of humor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpMrcvag6DA ) humorless people do NOT click here! I will not be held responsible for any humor that might be acquired by those who do not know how to take a joke.