Responding to the “that’s not official doctrine” deflection

Mormon Coffee (Mormonism Research Ministry) ^ | April 9, 2009 | Aaron Shafovaloff

[T. P. Pole]

T.P. the reason Mormonism is not Christian has nothing to do with whether Mormons sing Christmas carols.

I understand that orthodox Christianity does not accept Mormonism as Christian. And I understand that our teaching of the nature of God and our relationship to him is the key reason for this.

But you would be amazed at the examples provided on this forum as to why we are not Christian, including the aforementioned "not singing Christmas carols" along with "not attending church on Christmas day" and "not having an Easter Sunrise service" and "using water in the sacrament [of the Lord's Supper]."

Those arguments are so absurd that I usually cannot let them stand unchallenged. It also makes me wonder about the motives of those making the claims. Hence my "lies for Jesus" statement.

As for the theological differences, for the most part we have to acknowledge that they exist and attempt to correct the worst misstatements. But in the end, it boils down to who we say God is, and who (the collective) you say God is. We probably have to agree to disagree.

Having said that, I also understand the intentions of those who feel that they need to protect others from falling into the "trap of Mormonism." I just wish it could be done in a more civil, mature (and indeed, friendly) manner.

[T. P. Pole]

If, indeed, I am "straining at gnats" as you say, these are the gnats that are being flung at us as ammunition from your side of the argument. Pretty much the whole story of the anti-momonism side, sad as that is.

Yes, yes, yes, I know about the elephant in the room. :)

[greyfoxx39]

a suggestion that Mormons refuse to sing about the cross implies something much more evil than nuances on salvation.

IMO that is a ridiculous accusation. "Nuances on SALVATION"? You may find salvation less important than words in a hymn, but Christians certainly do not.

I find your whole argument regarding "lies" on this thread unconvincing when mormonism has completely shattered the Bible's message and contrived a fiction in the Book of Mormon and the best evidence presented in your posts is such thin gruel.

[ejonesie22]

So you equate ocassional hyperbole and people trying their best to make sense out of the compelte train wreck that is Mormon doctrine and dogma with an entire work of fiction and an organization solely dedicated at taking people away from Christ and sending them on the path to the Evil one himself...

Focus on occasional stray bullets whilst ignoring the huge shells landing dead on target every day, yeah, that’ll work..

When it's all you got...

[greyfoxx39]

If, indeed, I am "straining at gnats" as you say, these are the gnats that are being flung at us as ammunition from your side of the argument. Pretty much the whole story of the anti-momonism side, sad as that is

If that is true, why the continual effort by FR mormons to censor the "anti-mormon side"?

[Guyin4Os]

I just wish it could be done in a more civil, mature (and indeed, friendly) manner.

Verbal exchanges, regardless of the level of vitriol, are much better than shootouts and ambushes where folks die, as happened in the 1800s.

But I do appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that there are differences between LDS teaching and historical Christian teaching. That's the beginning of civil conversation. A continuance of a civil conversation would be for LDS leadership to acknowledge what Joseph and Brigham said regarding the Adam-God doctrine, and then publicly repudiate it. That would not eradicate the differences, but it would make a lot of progress.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“And I understand that our teaching of the nature of God and our relationship to him is the key reason for this.”

There are more “keys” than you listed...

1. Nature of God the Father
2. Nature of Christ
3. Mormonic belief in Heavenly Mothers
4. Nature of the Gospel
5. Nature of Heaven
6. Polytheism/Henotheism
7. Preexistent intelligences and spirit
8. Becoming a god
9. 10.11.12.13.... [time limits me]

ampu

[svcw]

Politically Conservative? Really now - Rommey, Reid, Bennett, Hatch......

[CommerceComet]

For what it is worth, I grew up in a "small" town (of 100k+) outside of Los Angeles. When I was on my foreign mission and people asked me where I was from, I told them "LA" and not the name of the small town that they likely never heard of before. You see, I used a reference that they were familiar with in order to facility comprehension.

There are two major problems with this explanation for the apparent error in the BOM.

First, the Jews of North America would have expected that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. The migration of the Jews to North America supposedly happened around 600 BC. The Book of Micah which contained the prophesy of the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem has been dated from around 740 to 700 BC. The prophesy would have been in circulation for a 100+ years before they left. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they have the holy scrolls with them, so they could have just looked it up. A person claiming to be the Messiah but not correctly identifying the place of birth would have been immediately discredited. If Jesus had a bank account, do you think that the bank security questions would let him use Jerusalem and Bethlehem interchangeably as an answer to the question of his place of birth? ;-)

Second, the eight miles from Jerusalem to Bethlehem today is trivial. It was not then. The typical traveler of the day would have walked and would have taken about 5.5 to 6 hours commuting time, round-trip. Given that the automobile is the most common mode of travel today, saying Bethlehem was a suburb of Jerusalem then would be the equivalent of saying that Omaha is a suburb of Kansas City or Portland is a suburb of Seattle today. Additionally, Jerusalem and Bethlehem had separate identities and historical significance.