Posted on 04/21/2008 7:29:14 AM PDT by JRochelle
SAN ANGELO, Texas — Shortly after the raid began on the Fundamentalist LDS Church's YFZ Ranch, a group of Mormon missionaries sat down to eat at a restaurant here. A man shouted out "compound!"
"There was this guy. He held up a knife and yelled at us," said Elder Tyler Duffy from Orem.
Some of the fallout from the raid on the YFZ Ranch is being felt by members and missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the FLDS Church is not connected in any way to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some Mormon faithful have said they feel they are being found guilty by association.
"There are some people here that believe anything bad about Mormons and that's what they're going to do," said Charles L. Webb, who serves as president of the Abilene, Texas, stake.
The LDS Church's presence in this part of Texas is small. The Abilene stake covers an area 25,000 square miles in size with about 3,000 members. There are only two LDS chapels in San Angelo, but a number of Baptist and other evangelical Christian churches. It's the polar opposite of Utah, where the LDS Church is the dominant faith.
In repeated statements, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have differentiated between the two faiths and expressed disappointment that some news media outlets have lumped the two together.
"Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often called Mormons, do not practice polygamy and they have not practiced polygamy for over a century," Elder Quentin L. Cook, an LDS apostle, said in a video clip the church recently posted on YouTube. The LDS Church has said there is no such thing as a "fundamentalist Mormon," although an estimated 37,000 people who practice it consider themselves as such. Fundamentalists argue that the LDS Church has strayed from its original doctrine by abandoning the practice of polygamy in 1890.
Here in the Bible belt, many LDS members have had to explain the differences in their faiths — the practice of polygamy being the chief example.
Clinton Hudson, a student at Sonora High School, is a member of a Christian student fellowship. During a lunchtime meeting, he said one student said they should pray for the children taken in the raid. Another student said they should "pray for the Mormons."
"I approached her and said, 'They're not Mormons. They're fundamentalists. They broke off from the church' and described our history and how they broke off. It really helped a lot," Hudson said Sunday. "It was a great opportunity to get them to understand there's a difference between them and us."
Not everyone is interested in hearing their explanations.
Duffy said he was speaking with a man interested in converting to the LDS Church. After the raid, the man gave them back a copy of the Book of Mormon, saying he did not want to hear from them again.
"He didn't even give us time to explain," Duffy said.
As they go door-to-door, the missionaries have had to alter their introductions a little to clarify the differences between the two faiths.
"We're not from the church in Eldorado, but we share this message," said Elder Nicolas Librandi, from Murray.
Some have lashed out at the missionaries, blaming polygamy and allegations of child-bride marriages on the LDS Church. But some say there is more interest in the mainstream church, and its message.
"The purposes of God won't be frustrated," said Elder Ryan Bartley, from Carmichael, Calif.
Webb said he has discouraged members from helping out in the name of the LDS Church to avoid confusion between the two faiths, but said they should offer their services as individuals. The local Baptist congregations have contracts to provide relief services in disaster situations.
San Angelo 2nd Ward Bishop Jeffrey Bushman was contacted by a chaplain helping the FLDS women when they were being housed at Fort Concho. The women had requested copies of the Book of Mormon.
He sent them some copies.
"They didn't have anything or bring anything with them, I guess, and they wanted some scriptures and they asked for the Book of Mormon," Bushman said. "I didn't mind. We don't ever mind giving out (copies of the) Book of Mormon to people."
Correction. Those 30,000 inconsistencies are just in the old New Testament texts.
Luther, one of the first of the reformers, never regarded himself as the later unique Mormon-coined definition of “restorationist”—only as reformer.
All you have to do is compare Luther’s 99 thesis he put on the Wittenberg Door to Smith’s Pearl of Great Price, JS-History, verses 18-20....and you will see that Luther never sought to "nuke" the presence of the Catholic church as the authentic church off of the face of the earth (like Smith did re: Christianity).
It’s the difference between remodeling a house vs. tearing it down, digging a grave for its materials, and then erecting an entirely new structure right on top of the supposed “grave” of Christianity. (Face it, if the Protestant AND Catholic AND Orthodox churches had all gone totally “underground”—as in dead—the LDS church would be redundant & superfluous.)
Unlike Protestantism, which sees itself as a “branch” of Catholic Christianity, Mormonism sees itself as a “branch” of no church. Its “genesis” is pure Joseph Smith, mainlined in massive dosages.
Luther did not name a new church after himself; that was imposed by others. Structure of the worship service remained largely the same. Luther himself said that “Popes and councils CAN error”…but an errorist or even a heretic can possibly be “correct” in 90-99% re: doctrine…but if the doctrine is so radically opposed to Christianity, it’s still enough to regard him as a “heretic.” (An “apostate” is one who has totally abandoned the church; a “heretic” may still even be in the church until confronted and/or disciplined.)
To accuse the RC church of heresy, as the reformers did, was not the same as labeling every single RC leader as a “corrupt…professor” whose creeds were all an abomination.
Also, the “universal apostasy” does not mean that every point of doctrine believed by every Christian on earth was wrong… It’s just easier to get people riled up if you make it sound like Mormons believe that there was no truth left, anywhere in the world, and that all Christians are 100% wrong. Which we don’t.
You need to qualify that “100% wrong” statement. When you leave it open-ended like that, of course, it’s easier for you to defend. But even Smith didn’t do that. Even he didn’t leave it wide open. He qualified it. He was, in fact, quite specific. Whereas for you, you realize the need to speak in broad, expansive terms, in effect saying, “Of course, we don’t believe Christians are 100% wrong! Where would you get such a wild idea?”
So let’s not do what you’ve done & open the door wide open so that now we are discussing whether or not there was any ”truth left, anywhere in the world” minus the Mormon church. (Since the LDS throw that same well-chewed bone out to even atheist secular scientists, I’m not sure how you can regard that as any kind of compliment aimed @ the Christian church...LDS say to the Muslim world, atheist scientists and Christianity that they all have some "truth" and that none of them are "100% wrong"...big whoopie...is that statement supposed to inspire a standing ovation from all of us?)
I always wonder about folks who “qualify” such absolutely clear words. Joseph Smith said “ALL creeds”—not “SOME creeds.” But what do you then attempt to do? You redefine “ALL” to mean “wrong on doctrine to one degree or another.” (And that’s not being very intellectually honest about the core meaning of basic words).
As for the word “creeds,:” creed is simply “Latin” for “beliefs.” And what are beliefs if not contained within doctrines, creeds & even the LDS “articles of faith?” What if any poster in here labeled all LDS articles of faith as an “abomination” (which means “putrid”) in God’s sight? Would you accelerate into soft-sell apologetics mode & smilingly say, “Well, since I know you don’t really mean every single article of faith stinks to high heaven, because we know there’s gotta be at least some semblance of faith life to one degree or another in a religion this size, I’m sure you can’t possibly mean that there’s no truth anywhere to be found in our beliefs…so I’m just going to take what you say as objecting to our lack of authority. You don't really mean what you say about every article of our faith”
It means that the priesthood authority bestowed by Christ on His apostles was completely gone from the earth…
Well, the unnamed “personages” allegedly speaking to Smith never used the word “authority” in that supposed exchange. Nor do fine-tuned, “in the know” Mormons even believe that…(for they know that LDS standard works declare that the apostle John & 3 Nephite disciples never died…so how could the “priesthood authority” be gone if John was hanging around live somewhere? Unless John apostatized from the faith, too). Besides Christ is Himself the High Priest. He claimed "all authority" is His (Matt. 28:18). He claimed He and that authority would “be with us always, even unto the end of the age”(Matthew 28:20). You don’t believe Christ apostatized, too, do you?
It is not unusual for Delf to assume that which he is trying to [persuade you is factual, thus his circular arguments appear reasonable ... to him. Bwahahaha, Nahom indeed! We could build a whole religion out of the Star Wars episodes, claim it preceded Christianity and Judaism, and make George Lucas the restoration prophet using Delf’s methodology!... I wonder if George would like to pay for that work??? Delf could get a pay raise!
Judging from post #110...and then the same poster of #110 to have the gall to call for "civility" not very many posts later (see #125), I would say that the "phrase" of the day is "vile bile."
You say “heresy,” I say “apostasy.” Both indicate that the Protestants believed that the Catholic church had corrupted doctrine. And, you are right, we do not call ourselves “reformers,” and the original Protestants did not call themselves “restorationists,” although some Protestants recognized the need for a restoration. Maybe some still do. I don’t know. To my knowledge the reformers didn’t fully understand or grapple with the notion of priesthood authority.
As to the rest of your post, you need some lessons on parsing sentences. Or, maybe you are just deliberately mixing things up.
Even DelphiUser, who also claims that Moses was a polygamist, concedes that there are no death dates in Bible re: Moses' first wife coupled w/a marriage death re: his 2nd wife. (And those wives are never connected)
(I mean what if I dug into 19th century history & whenever I found a 2nd LDS wife I just automatically assumed she was "polygamous.")
The "author" of Jacob's 2-wife household was "deception," not God. Zilpah is never referenced as a Jacobite "wife"--only as a surrogate mother & servant for Leah. Bilhah, even after delivering babies, is still referenced as a concubine who has sex with Jacob's adult son, Reuben (Gen. 35:22). You don't think adult sons having sex with their fathers' wives was approved in Corinthians or just fine w/God, do you? (Absalom, David's son, also had sex with David's concubines...see 2 Sam. 16:21-22).
Bilhah, Zilpah, and Hagar were all surrogates acting as slaves for womenfolk. They are all id'd as such. To claim a parallel to 19th to 21st century LDS polygamy, then you would need to say that these "sister wives" are all servants to the first wife. (BTW, some 19th & early 20th century plural marriages were approved by LDS leaders because of barrenness by the first wife; it was these kind of family realities that are closer to Gen. 16 & Gen. 30--not the wide-open, free-for-all by the likes of Brigham Young & Heber C. Kimball).
Finally, after Abram slept with Hagar ONCE, Hagar is ALWAYS mentioned as a servant or slave...by Abram himself...by Sarai, who reiterates that she was only a "slave" in Gen. 21...by the Angel of the Lord Himself...by Moses (Gen. 25)...by Hagar herself...and by even the apostle Paul (Gal. 4:21-31).
(So much for the "lie" that Hagar "graduated" from slavery)
LL, the usage and the clear separation between mormonism and Christianity in those citations are clear and straightforward. They are in absolute terms.
And yes, we do believe that there are inconsistencies in the Bible, and that you have be careful about translation. Ehrman (not a Mormon) says there are about 30,000 inconsistencies in the different, old Biblical texts.
You need to review a little deeper regarding these inconsistencies, if that is the exact word Ehrman used. However, we have documentary evidence from extant MS to refer to. There have been 3000+ changes to the bom that are not documented by any extant ms.
As for the Nicene Creed, it has never made sense to me that some modern Christians insist on conformity with the Nicene Creed in order to be “Christian.”
Never brought it up, but is summarizes the core doctrines of Christianity.
It didn’t exist at the time of Christ. It was negotiated about 400 years later, under duress, when Constantine called the theologians together to settle the question of whether God was three acting as one, or one acting as three.
The meeting was called to settle the dispute started by Arius, that Jesus was a lesser god. This presupposes an existing doctrine of the trinity - although Nicea didn't apply that term then. Infact Jesus taught the Trinity.
But, you’re free to believe it, if you wish. It’s not in the Bible, though.
Neither is eternal progression and many other doctrines :)
Leave it up to Mormon apologists to offer "expert" workshops on "parsing sentences."
(I think one of my favorites for the Mormons accumulating expertise in this area is the LDS man over 100 years ago who went to a magistrate to seek a plural marriage...only of course, the "plural" part was downplayed...The magistrate asked him if he was married...The man replied that he was, but that his first wife was "in the cemetary." Of course, what the man said was "technically" true...at that very moment, his first wife was right there in the cemetary...very much alive!!! Source: B. Carmon Hardy, A Solemn Covenant)
So now we're all "Pigs?" (Is that supposed to be repentant "improvement" of post #110??? You know, kind of like showing "fruit that befits repentance?"...or is this rather a stoic extension of $110...you know like pouring syrup on an already sugared-substance? Post #125 with your call to "civility" and sandwhiched by these other statements is what is confusing me about the way LDS "butter up" their alleged "mission field")
“But, you’re free to believe it, if you wish. It’s not in the Bible, though.
Neither is eternal progression and many other doctrines :)”
But I’m not the one here arguing that everything we need to know about the original Christian church and doctrine is in the Bible. So that’s a little bit of a non sequitur, isn’t it?
I believe in the restoration, and in continuing revelation. Therefore, it is not a problem to me to acknowledge that some really important things that the original Christians believed were left out of the collection of manuscripts that we now call the Bible.
I hope you’re wearing your special condescension repellant coat and hat ...
Some of the “wives” had different legal status, but they were still recognized. The twelve tribes came from all four wives.
The rest of your post does nothing to refute the fact that prophets in the Old Testament practiced polygamy. You have put a lot of gloss on the Biblical text to try to diminish the impact, but it is just that — gloss.
Gee, were you trying to refute the fact that some OT men practiced polygamy? ... How could we have missed that, especially when you cited the facts and showed how Jesus condemned their polygamy and adultery and murdering. Wow, we do so need these lawyers to tell us what you’re claiming don’tchaknow!
Show me where Jesus condemned the polygamy practiced by the prophets.
You are the one who made reference in regards to the Trinity.
Therefore, it is not a problem to me to acknowledge that some really important things that the original Christians believed were left out of the collection of manuscripts that we now call the Bible.
Does that include documents that in now way resemble how the extant document should have been translated? Why would significant text changes to the bom be made a hundred years after translation of the most perfect document - absent an extant ms?
Yeah. He’s real big on ad hominem slurs too, for those living and dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.