If Mormon missionaries were straightforward about Mormonism…[Best 4-minute video on topic]

Mormon Coffee Blog ^ | Oct. 30, 2014 | Sharon Lindbloom

[Colofornian]

Though done in a lighthearted manner, this 4-minute video is a fairly accurate depiction of standard Mormon doctrine. It would be nice if Mormon missionaries explained Mormonism as clearly as the characters in this video do, but I imagine that would not foster strong LDS Church growth.

Mormon Secrets: What the Missionaries Don’t Tell

By Saved XMormon

[Elsie]

Be a frugal photographer.

[rrrod]

I always enjoy the anti Mormon cult. I find the rants amusing and entertaining. Thank you.

[MosesKnows]

Mormon Secrets: What the Missionaries Don’t Tell

For the record ... Christianity is more a way of life than a religion for me and I do not condemn or condone those who choose another way.

[trebb]

I've noticed in your threads that when a Mormon comes to defend their position they completely and summarily dismiss any scholarly refute of Mormonism.

If we would go after Democrats with the same zeal as many here use to go after Mormons (some are absolutely obsessed), we would have a better chance of being effective in the task of moving our government to the Right.

I would have to hazard that, if you actually noticed how some of the Mormons try to defend themselves so poorly, you also noticed some of the crap that the Mormon haters have used against them...

Not Mormon and don't believe in their tenets, but absolutely detest hypocrites.

[T. P. Pole]

To be fair

Major kudos there. Thanks.

[Politicalkiddo]

“Do not participate in musical groups.”

So what’s that Tabernacle Choir?

[MosesKnows]

Mormon Secrets: What the Missionaries Don’t Tell

For the record ... Christianity is more a way of life than a religion for me and I do not condemn or condone those who choose another way.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Thomas Jefferson

What harm do Mormons inflict?

[Utah Binger]

Rules are meant for breaking. I thought you knew that.....

[Alex Murphy]

For the record ... Christianity is more a way of life than a religion for me and I do not condemn or condone those who choose another way...What harm do Mormons inflict?

Do you like Sulfur-flavored Jell-O?

[MrB]

South Park did a pretty good expose’ on Mormonism as well.

[MHGinTN]

^catching my breath now* haven’t enjoyed an Elsiethon in a few weeks. That was a good un’ ... but I dropped Direct TV to return to Comcast/Xfinity, and without a single forest vision!

[StormPrepper]

"I've never seen that happen."

Neither have I.

Alex, are you asserting that the truth of God can be proved through scholarly examination?

Here's an examination you might want to consider. In the original Church a Bishop was the head of a congregation of the Church.

Linus was a Bishop in Rome. When most of the Apostles were killed, Linus claimed to be head of the whole Church, even though there was still a living Apostle on the earth at that time. Linus was never ordained an Apostle. He was only a Bishop.

Regardless of what Linus claimed, the Lord Jesus Christ followed His original organization. In 70 AD, Jesus appeared to the Apostle John and spoke to John face to face. Jesus gave John a vision of the world to come, which is now the Book Revelation in the Bible.

Jesus never appeared to Linus, Clement or any Pope ever.

When Linus claimed to be the head of the Church without being called directly by God Himself, this action constituted apostasy. Linus by his actions had in fact, created a new church. One that was not claimed by Jesus.

Jesus followed His own rule. When men teach another gospel other than His, He leaves them alone. Again, God has never spoken face to face with any Pope or protestant minister, ever.

If Linus had been the real leader of Jesus' true Church, Jesus would have appeared to Linus instead of John. But John was the real head of the Church, not Linus.

I think this is a much more interesting topic of discussion...

[elcid1970]

Wow! You burst into this thread like Rambo! Love it!

No refutation of your points, just “you’re a hater!” from the eaters of green Jello.

I’m having a nice “Oh, SHIZZZ!!” morning. Thanks!

;^)

[Alex Murphy]

When most of the Apostles were killed, Linus claimed to be head of the whole Church, even though there was still a living Apostle on the earth at that time. Linus was never ordained an Apostle. He was only a Bishop. Regardless of what Linus claimed, the Lord Jesus Christ followed His original organization. In 70 AD, Jesus appeared to the Apostle John and spoke to John face to face. Jesus gave John a vision of the world to come, which is now the Book Revelation in the Bible.

Jesus never appeared to Linus, Clement or any Pope ever. When Linus claimed to be the head of the Church without being called directly by God Himself, this action constituted apostasy....If Linus had been the real leader of Jesus' true Church, Jesus would have appeared to Linus instead of John. But John was the real head of the Church, not Linus.

So John the Apostle was the real chosen head of the church, and the Great Apostasy started with Pope Linus' rule in 67 AD? D&C teaches that John never died and still walks the Earth today, so why do Mormon prophets claim to be the chosen head of the "restored" church, and not the still-living John the Apostle?

"I'll tell you what, Patrick..."
"Yeah, turn on your listening ears, Patrick..."
"Let's make a deal, Patrick..."
"Oh, we're about to go Monty Hall on you, Patrick..."
"When it comes to your supposed "One True Church" and the disciple whom Jesus loved, we'll convert to Mormonism as soon as he does."
-- from the thread Donall and Conall Meet the Mormon Missionaries

[StormPrepper]

"So John the Apostle was the real chosen head of the church, and the Great Apostasy started with Pope Linus' rule in 67 AD?"

Yup, that about sums it up. John was the last one in authority.

Do you agree?

[Alex Murphy]

Yup, that about sums it up. John was the last one in authority. Do you agree?

No.

[StormPrepper]

"No."

umm k.

Then can you explain why God didn't reveal Himself to Linus or to any Pope or minister?

The only reason Jesus gave for not communicating directly with man is apostasy.

[Alex Murphy]

Then can you explain why God didn't reveal Himself to Linus or to any Pope or minister? The only reason Jesus gave for not communicating directly with man is apostasy.

There's so much wrong with that core assumption, and everything that Mormons build off of it, that I'm not sure where I should begin. So when did John attend the meet-and-greet at SLC?

[nonsporting]

Excuse me, but I couldn't help notice that you've dropped some of your seeds.

This was spoken in response to apostasy. We know from Matthew 24 that believers in Jesus Christ (not some false christ or false gospel) will not be deceived, will not fall away.

Matthew 24:24 (KJV)

²⁴ For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

This is a contrary-to-fact condition. It is not possible to deceive the elect. But the deception will be great and will deceive those who think they are saved but who have believed a false gospel, or another savior/mediator and are relying on works and not the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

The infallible word of God is clear:

1 Timothy 2:5-6 (KJV)

⁵ For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; ⁶ Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

One God. Not many gods.

One mediator, not another mediator (Joseph Smith, et al. Popes, and priests)

He was a ransom for all, not a select few. (His ransom only profits those who believe. "Believe on The Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved" in response to e question: "What must I do to be saved?"--Acts 16:30,31)

[Colofornian]

Re your comment that Christianity is more a way of life than a “religion”...that’s pretty much the Biblical take too...given that only James uses the word “religion” in the Bible... As for condemning those who choose another way...what? Can’t we condemn Islam minus condemning Muslims? Or is radical Islam to get a critique free pass from you and all way of life Christians? What about liberalism? Are you conveying we are to never critique it or that you somehow can’t critique liberalism without condemning liberals? If so liberalism and radical Islam are oft critiqued on fr...and I don’t find you defending either on other fr threads...what? Just haven’t had time to consistently apply that conviction...but will do better in the future? If you adhere to the new testament...then may I suggest you consider fleshing out 2 corinthians 10..vv 3 to 5...or Jude 3 about contending for the faith...And, as for condemning PEOPLE...no need to...Jesus says right after the famous John 3 16...in verse 18...that unbelievers are condemned ALREADY
..no need to do what is already been divinely done