Posted on 11/08/2010 3:37:09 PM PST by delacoert
The Bible predicts a dreadful fate for liars. For instance, while banished on the island of Patmos, the Apostle John saw that "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). Similarly, the beloved disciple writes, liars are doomed to an eternity outside of God's presence (Revelation 22:15). Because Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), lying is extremely serious sin. As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible. After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984. Cheated and betrayed, I lacked spiritual life for the next 17 years. But God, knowing those who are His (John 10:14; 2 Timothy 2:19), drew me to Christ (John 6:44) and saved me in 2001. My spiritual emptiness was replaced by the abundant life only the Savior can give (John 10:10). And now, like millions of Christians worldwide, I have everlasting life through my faith in Him (John 3:36; 6:47). I can't remember all of my missionary lies. Some were small, others grandiose, but all were false and misleading. Here are ten I'll never forget. Of all my lies, this was the most frequent. I learned it well while in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which was my first assignment. A standard door-to-door proselyting pitch began with, "We represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Interrupting, many people said they had their own religion. "Oh, we're not trying to convert you," I responded. "We're sharing a message for all faiths." But Mormon missionaries have one overriding goal, and that's to bring converts into the church. Clearly, this was the purpose of my mission. I didn't trade the Southern California sunshine for the Dakota snow merely to build interfaith relations. My calling was to teach the church-approved missionary lessons and then baptize the people I taught. According to their eighth Article of Faith, Mormons accept the Bible as the word of God only when it's translated correctly. How convenient for a missionary. When a non-Mormon's interpretation of scripture differed from mine, I frequently blamed faulty Bible translation. And since I believed the Bible was missing "many plain and precious things," as the Book of Mormon claims in 1 Nephi 13:28-29, I urged prospective converts not to trust it completely. And yet, Mormon proof texts had few translation problems. Throughout my mission, I used only those Bible verses that steered prospects away from their church and toward Mormonism. But what kind of Christian believes that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God gave mankind an inadequate version of His word. Actually, the Bible is more than sufficient. With its 66 books, 1,189 chapters and nearly 740,000 words, it's the divine road map to eternal life through Jesus Christ. For decades, the Mormon Church has tried to blend with mainstream Christianity. Accordingly, during my mission a quarter-century ago, I worked hard to convince prospects that Mormons believe in the biblical Jesus. But Paul warned of deceivers who would lure Christians away from "the simplicity that is in Christ." These false teachers preached "another Jesus" and "another gospel" (2 Corinthians 11: 3-4) and were accursed (see Galatians 1:8-9). How interesting that Paul also cautions against false apostles, such as those in the Mormon Church (2 Corinthians 11:13-14). So which Jesus and gospel do Mormons preach? While a missionary, I taught that Christ was the firstborn spirit child of the Father in a premortal life. (The remainder of humanity was born as spirits later in this "pre-existence.") But I didn't tell prospects this was a literal birth, the result of literal fathering, as Mormon prophets and apostles have claimed. If asked, I taught that the devil was born as one of God's noble spirit sons during the pre-existence, but had rebelled and started a war in heaven. Consistent with Mormon doctrine, then, Christ and Satan are spirit brothers. But the Bible teaches that Christ is God (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; John 1:1), that He has always been God (Psalm 90:2), and that He always will be God (Hebrews 13:8). Born into mortality some 2,000 years ago, Jesus is "God... manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). He is far grander and holier than "our Elder Brother," as Mormons dub Him. Jesus and Satan aren't spirit brothers, and true Christians don't believe such blasphemy. I usually told this lie during the first of seven 30-minute missionary lessons, which presented the Joseph Smith story. According to our script, Smith prayed in 1820 about which church to join. He claimed the Father and Son appeared and told him that all Christian churches of the day were wrong. Smith said he was forbidden to join any of them, that their creeds were abominable and their professors all corrupt. "They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me," the Lord allegedly added. "They teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Joseph Smith — History, verse 19). In subsequent lessons, I told prospects that Mormonism is the true church God restored through Smith. But the Bible says such a restoration was unnecessary. Admittedly, there was partial apostasy after Christ's resurrection, but never a complete falling away. In fact, shortly before His crucifixion, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). During my mission, however, I argued that the gates of hell did prevail against Christ's church. Shortly after renouncing Mormonism, I learned a scriptural death blow to notions of universal apostasy. Addressing Ephesian believers 30 years after the Ascension, the Apostle Paul writes, "Unto [God] be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Ephesians 3:21). God received glory in the Christian church from the time of Paul's writing to the present day, and He will receive such glory throughout all succeeding generations. Therefore, the church must exist from Paul's day throughout eternity. This annihilates Mormon claims of complete apostasy and makes restoration of Christ's church impossible. Whether in wintry Winnipeg or the balmy Black Hills of Rapid City, I criticized Christians because their church lacked a living prophet. Mormons claim the true church must have one. My favorite Bible proof text to back this claim was Amos 3:7, which reads, "Surely, the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." When prospective converts remained skeptical of living prophets, I quoted Ephesians 4:11-14, which apparently requires living apostles and prophets until believers unify in the faith and understand Christ completely. However, writing in the past tense, Paul is actually referring to apostles and prophets of Jesus' day. Otherwise, verse 11 would read that the Lord "is giving" or "will give" apostles and prophets. Of course, God did reveal His will through Old Testament prophets, as Amos 3:7 affirms. But for the last 2,000 years, He has spoken to believers through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). The truth about Mormonism's living prophets is further illuminated in Deuteronomy 18:22. "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord," the scripture reads, "if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Isaiah 8:20 contains a similar warning: "To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." False prophets who led ancient Israel astray received the death penalty (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20), and all who profess to be living prophets should consider the consequences. Mormon prophets might appear grandfatherly and sincere, but they're not God's living oracles. Since the Mormon Church was founded in 1830, its prophets have uttered a striking number of false prophecies. (See chapter 14 of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's "The Changing World of Mormonism.") Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, adding that man would become closer to God by following its precepts than by obeying any other book ("History of the Church," Vol. 4, p. 461). Replace "Book of Mormon" with "the Bible" and Smith would have told the truth. When teaching missionary lessons, I boldly maintained that the Book of Mormon is scripture. I spent myriad hours convincing prospects that it's a sacred record of Christ's activities in the western hemisphere. Yet many Christians I contacted realized the book "borrows" heavily from the Bible and other sources. And in stark contrast to the Old and New Testaments, virtually no archaeological and anthropological evidence supports the Book of Mormon. Why not? Because it's fiction. When Christians want to read scripture, they turn to the Bible. More than any other Mormon lie, this undermines Christ's atonement, which is the most sacred doctrine of the Bible. Mormons usually equate salvation with resurrection. Likewise, they refer to eternal life as "exaltation." I did both while teaching prospective converts. I relished the church's third Article of Faith, which claims, "through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Trying to bridge the doctrinal divide between Mormons and Christians, I emphasized that salvation is by grace "after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). What classic Mormon double-talk. Unmistakably, the Bible says eternal life is a gift from God (Romans 5:15; 6:23) to those who believe in Christ (John 6:47), call upon Him (Romans 10:13) and receive Him as Lord and Savior (John 1:12). Contrary to Mormon dogma, this gift cannot be awarded meritoriously. Equally clear is that salvation results from God's grace through each believer's faith, not from obeying a checklist of laws and ordinances (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). All who confess Christ and believe in Him from the heart shall be saved (Romans 10:8-13). Most Mormons know little about imputed righteousness — and neither did I during my mission. Essentially, as Christians know, the Lord credits believers with His perfect righteousness and charges their transgressions to His sinless spiritual "account." Paul explains this doctrine masterfully in Romans 4 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-21. When teaching the Mormon gospel, though, I emphatically denied imputed righteousness, which is the essence of the atonement. I stressed that eternal life is earned by perfect obedience to all gospel laws and ordinances. Yet the Bible says that "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). As the Psalmist writes: "They are all gone aside. They are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Psalm 14:3; compare Romans 3:10-18). How many Mormons perfectly obey all gospel laws? None. As the Bible asserts, even the church's current prophet can't keep God's laws thoroughly enough to merit heaven (1 John 1:8). And if he can't, how can anyone else? Given its explosive nature, this tenet was rarely shared with prospective converts. Missionaries try to entice people into Mormonism gradually, and presenting the doctrine of plural gods is seldom the best way. Several contacts learned the concept from their pastors or read about it on their own, but it was new to most prospects. "Our Father in heaven loves us so much," I often said, parroting our lesson script, "that He provided a plan [Mormonism] for us to become like him." I didn't mention that Mormon godhood includes spirit procreation throughout eternity. Neither did I hint that the Mormon God was formerly a mortal man, had lived on an earth like ours, and had earned salvation through good works. However, such polytheism strips God of glory and sovereignty. No wonder the Bible condemns it so strongly. When discussing plural gods on my mission, I sidestepped Isaiah 44:8 whenever possible. "Is there a God beside me?" the passage reads. "Yea, there is no God; I know not any." Other verses amply testify that only one God exists in the universe (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 45:21-23). When confronted with these scriptures as a missionary, I usually countered with, "Those verses mean we worship only one God, that there's only one God to us." And if that failed, I lied further: "The Bible isn't clear on this subject. Fortunately, the Lord told Joseph Smith that mortals can become gods." Smith might have had a revelation, but not from God. One of my favorite missionary scriptures was John 3:5. "Verily, verily I say unto you," the Savior explains, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To Mormon missionaries everywhere, being born of water means baptism into the Mormon Church. Birth of the Spirit refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost, allegedly bestowed after baptism. Unfortunately, during my mission, I didn't know what it means to be born again. I completely misinterpreted Paul's declaration that "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17; compare Galatians 6:15). According to the Bible, believers in Christ are reborn spiritually as sons and daughters of God (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1-2). They experience a complete Christian conversion of mind and heart. Membership in a church organization might foster social activity and fellowship, but it's not spiritual rebirth. I participated in well over 100 Mormon temple ceremonies from 1975 to 1982, including my own marriage in 1977. Based heavily on freemasonry, temple rites are the church's most carefully guarded secrets. And "celestial marriage," which supposedly weds men and women eternally, is probably the most important temple ordinance. While a missionary, I frequently told prospects they needed temple marriage to gain eternal life. Yet the Lord says marriage between men and women is irrelevant to the hereafter. "The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage," He declares. "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage… for they are equal unto the angels...." (Luke 20:34-36.) The Bible does teach eternal marriage, but not the Mormon version. The union is between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His collective body of believers, who are the bride (Matthew 25:1-13; John 3:29; Romans 7:4; 2 Corinthians 11:2). I close with a few words about "testimony," which is a missionary's emergency cord. When I couldn't rebut an antagonistic statement scripturally, I fell back on my testimony. For instance, while proselyting in Grand Forks, North Dakota, I was once asked where the Bible mentions the secret undergarments Mormons wear. Caught off guard, I admitted that the Bible says nothing about them. I could merely testify that God revealed the need for these garments through living prophets. But my testimony wasn't based on scripture or other hard evidence. Rather, it was founded on personal revelation, which is extremely subjective. Essentially, my testimony was nothing more than a good feeling about the church and its teachings. In Mormon parlance, it was a "burning in the bosom." But burning or not, it wasn't from God. If you're a Christian, I urge you to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). That faith, the pathway to heaven, is found only in the biblical Jesus (John 14:6). But if you're a Mormon, it's time to prayerfully re-examine your beliefs. Do you know you have everlasting life? No. Can you obey all the commandments perfectly and earn a place in heaven? You can't. I regret the many lies I told during my Mormon mission. When I received Christ, though, I confessed them (and my other sins) and received His forgiveness (1 John 1:9; Colossians 1:13-14). "He that heareth my word," Christ assures us, "and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24). 1. We're Not Trying to Convert You
2. The Bible is Insufficient
3. We're the Only True Christians
4. We're the Only True Church
5. We Have a Living Prophet
6. The Book of Mormon is Scripture
7. You're Saved By Works
8. People Can Become Gods
9. You're Born Again By Becoming a Mormon
10. Temple Marriage is Required for Eternal Life
False Testimony
I objected to your "imputing motive" to the author of the article. From your original post, "In any case, the article suggests that these beliefs are generally lies, and specifically, generally lies of Mormon missionaries. Which means that the Mormon missionaries saying these things are generally liars. Meaning that they, like the author (presumably), don't believe the tenets of their religion, and thus act in bad faith."
Pretty clear case of suggesting something (presumably) a million miles from what (likely) was in the author's mind.
...I didn't intend it to be an invitation for you to proselytize for Catholicism in return.
I simply have a problem with someone who hasn't "walked the (mormon) walk" pontificating on the "possible" reasons for the author to state his conclusions after having had a chance to reflect on the actions he took as a mormon missionary.
IMO, you may have been speaking from the position of one who is absolutely convinced of the superiority and truth of YOUR faith regarding the journey of someone who has painfully discovered his own to be lacking and in the process denigrating the man who quite probably was speaking from his heart. Quite a stretch.
“Sorry...I don't see where your post is responsive to MY post.”
Made perfect sense to me. ;-)
In the first place, as I've replied before, I don't see much evidence that the author, himself, was lying when he affirmed the beliefs of the LDS religion as a missionary. Not in the article, at least. Thus, these aren't even lies vis-a-vis his own missionary work.
I continue to make an exception with regard to #1 since that's more about someone’s state of mind than about affirmation of propositional beliefs.
“...I didn't intend it to be an invitation for you to proselytize for Catholicism in return.”
I don't think that I did. If you think that I did, then therein lies part of the problem. Your perception and mine differ. Could be that your perception differs, as an ex-Mormon, from the perception of current Mormons.
“I simply have a problem with someone who hasn't ‘walked the (mormon) walk’ pontificating on the ‘possible’ reasons for the author to state his conclusions after having had a chance to reflect on the actions he took as a mormon missionary.”
Okay then. May we reflect on some of your experiences?
When you were a Mormon, did you believe the tenets of the religion (at least up until the time you started to consider serious doubts that caused you to abandon the religion)?
If you were an LDS missionary for a period, when you were telling people about LDS beliefs, did you disbelieve them, yourself?
Do you think that every LDS missionary thinks that what he believes is untrue?
“IMO, you may have been speaking from the position of one who is absolutely convinced of the superiority and truth of YOUR faith...”
Aren't YOU persuaded of the truth of your faith? If not, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT??
sitetest
Your perception and mine differ.
Sitetest...one of the interesting pheonomena that seems to occur among some non-Mormons on Mormon FR threads is...
...some will come in on a Mormon scandal thread, and say nary a word about the victim(s), but they'll talk as if they're an advocate or PR agent for the Mormon perp caught up in the crime...
...or some will come in on a thread where Mormon theology is being critiqued and they'll accuse some of us of "bashing" no matter what the tone or attitude is...if it's negative at all, they'll wonder why you aren't taking on the Muslims, the liberals, the Dems, whoever.
And so, at times, I'll ask them the "consistency" Q:
"Tell me, do you rush into threads where a public school male educator has been arrested for a sex crime vs. a female student & start defending that educator? No? Why not? Where's your sense of consistency?"
Or I'll say, "Hey, the Mormon church has been badly bashing Christianity for 180 years with their billion $ budgets and multi-media venues at their disposal. And yet, instead of contacting Salt Lake City HQ to give feedback on their scorched-earth religio-politics, you scold us -- a mere handful of posters?"
So, based on your comments, it's time to ask you a similar Q: What if I essentially repeated back some of your words to you...only changed the group we were talking about (words in italics are yours):
I kinda doubt that most liberal journalists think that they're doing something evil in trying to share their worldviews often imbedded in their articles. So, they might reject terms that label their actions as nefarious. You may disagree with them. And, it may be that you're objectively correct, and their methods ARE nefarious. Yet, they may not be persuaded of that.
My "consistency" Q for you: Do you occasionally go into FR threads where the liberal MSM is being "bashed" and torn asunder, and defend them similarly to your words highlighted above? If an ex-MSM Journalist wrote an article about "Ten Lies" he used to tell as a lib journalist, do you feel the need to accuse the journalist himself of lying in how he's presenting the MSM?
No? If not, why not?
I mean, c'mon...you've now gone on record saying the Mormon faith is "goofy" and "whacky." Certainly much of the MSM worldview is "goofy" and "whacky." Do you feel similarly compelled to be an MSM advocate of their goofy, whacky pet agenda?
THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized
According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons.
I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.
II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.
As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.
III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).
We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance:
A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.
B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).
Even in regard to these last elements it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does.
IV. The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It must be maintained therefore that one cannot think that the Baptism received by that person is anything different from what he was taught. It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism
Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.
We're Not Trying to Convert You
Is that statement by the (at that time) missionary a lie? What was his pre-missionary training and support materials all directed towards - converting you. To say they are not there to 'convert' is a lie by all definitions.
Equivocate and misdirect toward catholism all you may try sitetest - you fail epically to address this basic issue. The (former) missionary KNEW at the time he said they were not trying to convert you he was LYING. Perhaps addressing that rather than the bunny trails you've been trying to hijack the thread down.
If you were an LDS missionary for a period, when you were telling people about LDS beliefs, did you disbelieve them, yourself?
If I was an LDS missionary and my whole purpose for devoting two years of my life was in proselyting and converting both Christians and non-Christians into baptism and thereby membership in Mormonism,... and upon meeting them, I told them that I didn't intend to convert them - - then yes, that would be a lie since the whole purpose of being there, talking to that individual is to convert them. This is the first "lie" told by missionaries. It is intended to deceive.
It wouldn't matter if I seriously believed the doctrine, because I did, but to lie about my intent is still a lie regardless of the conviction of my belief.
Another area where I was told to “lie for the lord,” is in always showing the “church” (and I mean LDS church) in the best possible light. If it meant distorting its history, or obscuring embarrassing doctrine, or magnifying my tales of “faith,” it didn’t matter. The ultimate goal was in converting people. Lying was simply secondary.
I object to your characterization of my definition of Mormon missionary communication of Mormon doctrines as being lies as absurd. You merely employ rhetoric in a provocative manner, and you arrogantly maintain Catholicism as the only true Christianity.
Pah.
Be forewarned that your first discussion about the nature of God won't produce any visible change in your Mormon acquaintance. He's unlikely to admit the cogency and simplicity of your argument. He's working in good faith, and he's sincere in his beliefs, but psychologically you're at a disadvantage, since he wants to maintain his faith as he's known it.
Be patient as you help him see these theological "black holes."
MORMONISM'S DOUBLETHINK-Catholic Answers
Those Catholics seem to have the answers, alright.
Perhaps you will learn something from reading this, i.e., the testimony of Mormon missionaries - substantiatable by unignorable evidence of numerous videos on the internet, documents written by many former Mormons, citation available on FR supporting colorcountry's testimony that, 'I was told to “lie for the lord,”.'
Furthermore, long participation by many of us in the these threads on FR's Religion forums have convinced the Inman of the reality of the deliberate intention of Mormons on FR to post lies.
Since it it hard to recall your long term particition on these Mormon threads, it is hard to believe you understand that which you now assert - familiarity and competence on the subject of the Mormon "doctrines of demons."
State your bona fides.
Whether the Lady addresses your ‘request’ for bona fides or not, I for one will vouch for her completely. She is a Christian ex-mormon and has more ‘in the sty’ experience with Mormonism than I think you do.
“Sitetest...one of the interesting pheonomena that seems to occur among some non-Mormons on Mormon FR threads is...
...some will come in on a Mormon scandal thread, and say nary a word about the victim(s), but they'll talk as if they're an advocate or PR agent for the Mormon perp caught up in the crime...”
I rarely peruse threads related to the LDS religion. I looked in on this one because I thought I'd learn that Mormons consciously, with full intent to deceive, tell 10 different lies, and I'd learn what they are.
So, I get on this thread and discover that the “lies” are mostly about the propositional beliefs of Mormons! What a letdown! Here, I thought I was going to read all this good dirt on how those dirty little Mormons were running around like cockroaches in the dark, scheming to wittingly, knowingly deceive innocent people. And all I get is that Mormons missionaries tell people what the LDS religion is all about. Gee whiz.
Now, let's look at your substitution exercise:
“I kinda doubt that most liberal journalists think that they're doing something evil in trying to share their worldviews often imbedded in their articles. So, they might reject terms that label their actions as nefarious. You may disagree with them. And, it may be that you're objectively correct, and their methods ARE nefarious. Yet, they may not be persuaded of that.”
I actually know folks who went to college to actually major in journalism and communications, so I'm going to be thinking of some of them as I answer this.
First sentence: I agree with that whole-heartedly. The folks I know actually truly really believe the garbage they spew. They actually believe that global warming is going to have us 20 feet under water by 2050. They actually believe that it's “a woman's right to choose.” They actually believe that higher taxes on the rich are a good idea.
I think they occupy the far denizens of the left side of the bell curve. I think that they've got their heads up you-know-where.
But they're all quite sincere. If gloriously stupid.
Reading through the rest of your substitution exercise, yeah, it all works for me. They see nothing wrong with what they do, or what the lamestream media does. They would strongly object to labeling what they and their cohorts in the lamestream media to as nefarious, even the stuff that really is nefarious.
Yup. Absolutely.
It's why it's so darned frustrating with some of these folks I know, some of whom are actual relatives.
“My ‘consistency’ Q for you: Do you occasionally go into FR threads where the liberal MSM is being ‘bashed’ and torn asunder, and defend them similarly to your words highlighted above? If an ex-MSM Journalist wrote an article about ‘Ten Lies’ he used to tell as a lib journalist, do you feel the need to accuse the journalist himself of lying in how he's presenting the MSM?”
Hypothetical. I'd have to read it.
The problem here is that the actual article in question says this:
“As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible. After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984.”
He was a missionary from 1975 to 1977. After his mission ended, he actually went through the Bible and examined the doctrines more closely. The more he studied, the longer he studied, the less able he was to reconcile his LDS beliefs with the Bible. Finally, in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, a full seven years after his mission ended, he left the LDS religion.
To me, this strongly suggests that he was an actual believing Mormon from 1975 - 1977.
If a liberal-turned-conservative journalist were to right that from, say, 1995 - 1997, he wrote all sorts of liberal lunacies, but that by 2004, he'd abandoned his former beliefs and embraced conservative views, I'd think it disingenuous to say that his earlier views were “lies,” or to suggest that other journalists who tout this baloney were “lying.”
Now, there are times when some or many (most? all?) lie. For instance, when Glenn Beck has a rally and clearly hundreds of thousands of folks show up and then Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have a rally and a few tens of thousands of folks show up, and some folks misrepresent the two audiences as basically similar in size. Even there, only the folks who actually manufactured the false data, or those actually aware that the data was falsified would be lying. Those repeating the false information unknowingly wouldn't be lying.
But that's not the affirmation of a propositional belief, that's just fudging. Having one’s own interpretation of the Bible, believing that there are sacred texts beyond the Bible, these are propositions of belief.
“Do you feel similarly compelled to be an MSM advocate of their goofy, whacky pet agenda?”
I'm not an advocate of the lamestream media's agenda, nor of the LDS agenda. I AM an advocate of acknowledging that folks who disagree with me may not be lying, just mistaken.
sitetest
“This is the first ‘lie’
told by missionaries. It is intended to deceive.”
This is why I allowed for an exception to the first “lie.”
Nonetheless, I'm not really willing to generalize this, for reasons on which I've already written copiously in this thread.
However, you confirm that you believed the tenets of the LDS religion that you shared with others.
Thus, for “lies” 2 - 9, it seems hard to me to characterize them fairly as lies, at least not of those missionaries affirming them.
So, at best, we have 1 lies told by a Mormon missionary and 9 affirmed beliefs that the missionary later decided were false.
sitetest
Were there any of the ten you would agree are purposeful lying?
You can object until the cows come home.
If you believe that someone who mistakenly asserts something as true a thing that is actually false is telling a lie, is a liar, then your definition of the words is absurd.
“...and you arrogantly maintain Catholicism as the only true Christianity.”
I never actually said that, and in fact, the very fact that I speak about “non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christians” makes it really difficult to reasonably infer that.
You have misrepresented me again.
What is that, by your definition?
sitetest
BTW, the author of the piece is giving a perspective from after being born again outside of Mormonism, looking back at what was done to support —as the author perceives them in retrospect— the lies of satanic origin which prop up Mormonism. In a spirit of ecumenism we can see why you would not want such things discussed openly.
I mistakenly adressed this to you when I intended it for sitetest.
<doh>
I don't think it's quite fair to ask me to go back and repeat stuff I've already posted. I've already taken up too much of my day involved in this thread, being for the most part the lone respondent to multiple other posters.
But as I believe you asked in good faith, this is from my post #7 (my first post to the thread):
“With the possible exception of No. 1, these really aren’t lies, but rather beliefs with which the author now differs.”
As I've said more than once, No. 1 goes to the interior state of a person's mind rather than to an affirmation of a religious belief or doctrine. There are any number of ways for someone to understand the first “lie,” but some folks might decide straightforwardly that in asserting the first statement, they're lying.
sitetest
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.