Posted on 11/28/2012 6:00:38 PM PST by Colofornian
Then why the mormon disdain for the Cross? Jesus chose to give His life for us on the Cross and Christians honor the emblem of His choice...mormons do not.
Mormon disdain for the Cross is just another way for mormonism to have, for 150 years withheld themselves from the Body of Christianity claiming "superiority"...until some PR flack decided that there is an advantage to NOW claim to be part of the Christian Body.
Those of us who heard the Christian-bashing in the pews of mormon chapels well remember the smug "better than you" sermons against Christians and Christian denominations.
You seem to skip all pertinent dialogue that actually 'challenges' your position. But whatever; comparing the annoyance to answering a doorbell; to those 'possibility thinkers' who hold to jihadist loyalties; simple fails the test of 'reason'.
You are dogged in your views; their focus per concern and orientation; however; unfortunate. IMHO; of course.
The Bible contains the Gospel."
Sure, I'm with you there.
"I believe the Book of Mormon also contains the Gospel"
If the Bible contains the Gospel, then what need have we of the Book of Mormon? If it's the same gospel, then it might be supplementary, but surely not necessary. If, as it clearly says on the cover of my copy, it's another gospel, then we should reject it, as God has commanded us to reject any other gospel.
"As for another Gospel, I believe the Gospel as preached by Orthodox Christianity is no longer what was preached by Jesus, and has become “another Gospel”.
It's a simple honest disagreement in interpretation."
The Gospel as preached, or the Gospel as written? It's not simply preached, it is clearly written that we are commanded to reject any other gospel. So, if we are to reject that command, so that we can accept the BoM, then we must believe that the Bible, as written and delivered to us, is not the Word of God.
As soon as you accept that proposition, then you have no more standing to claim Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God than the Muslims have to claim Mohammed as a true prophet of God, or the SDA's have to claim Ellen White as a true prophet. We've arrived at simply taking a man's word for it that he knows better than the preserved scriptures, so one man has no more legitimate claim than any other.
If Joseph Smith VIII showed up tomorrow and said that an angel visited him and gave him a new restored gospel, because the BoM had been corrupted, how could you argue against it? For that matter, how can you argue against a very real example, such as Muslims? I can appeal to the Bible (and the Koran's endorsement of the Bible) to demonstrate to a Muslim that Muhammad was a false prophet, but what recourse do you have?
Your response:
A) Assuming the consequent again...
Delf...I do desire to be civil with you here and have a brief exchange...so let's -- just for the moment at least on this point -- put aside which version of Christianity is "genuine" and which is a "counterfeit" -- if any of them even are.
Can we not at least agree that we ARE talking about mutually exclusive positioning here?
Your teaching is that the Lds church is "the only true and living church on the face of the earth." (D&C 1:30). However personally civil you might be, DU, that pronouncement alone shoves me, all Protestants, all Catholics, and all Orthodox out the door of true Christianity.
My label of Mormonism then as "counterfeit" is really not any different than your label of non-Mormon Christianity as "apostate"...false and dead...corrupt and abominable.
There is no middle ground then that the Mormon church allows here. Even tho we oft see comments from Lds leaders re: "the rest of Christianity" (like I saw on a recent BYU Maxwell Institute piece on Christian apostasy)...or a tone of "we're Christians, too"...the Lds version of "Christianity" is quite intolerant of any legit "competitors" to that brand name...and in the long run, doesn't wish to share "Christian" as fellow brand managers.
So...Lds assume the consequent that we are corrupt, false, dead, abominable apostates; and we assume the consequent that Lds are counterfeit, heretical, and cultic.
So even if you and I don't wish to interactively wrestle with "who is right" on those questions, we can at least recognize that ecumenical "brand sharing" is really out of the question. Right?
Otherwise, evangelicals would need to halt its witnessing to Mormons; and Mormon missionaries would need to "move on" upon discovering that the doorbell they just rung are committed Christians.
And none of that will ever happen. Right?
There, frankly, is NO respect on either side for the "other side" having a "legit" claim to the brand name of Christ. So, let's at least don't fall into clap-trap of pretending otherwise.
Are there any pts of agreement here?
What I meant here is several things:
1. Lds missionaries will ask contacts to read & pray about (more pray than read) the Book of Mormon...
Yet, most of the key distinctive doctrines that makes Mormonism distinctive from Christianity are not to be found there!
Becoming a god? (not there)
That multiple gods exist? (not there)
That god was once a man & has a physical body? (not there)
Baptizing the dead? (not there)
Temples used for ritualistic purposes...temple recommends...etc. (not there...oh, sure a few temples are mentioned...but never for purposes Lds claim they are for)
3 degrees of glory? (not there)
Eternal progression? (not there)
And on and on...
2. Lds take perfectly good words...Christian vocab...and assign entirely different meanings to them without clueing their hearers that they are doing that.
For example, "Eternal damnation" becomes temporary damned up...or "becoming like God" -- which hearers think is simply godliness...actually in Mormonese = being already a god-in-embryo, becoming perfect via Lds covenants, good works, ritualistic undertakings, being a full grown-up god, and getting your own planet to run.
There's just no way that Lds missionaries would dare to unpack that for the contacts they meet...It'd scare 'em all away!
"Forgiveness" and "grace" are other misused Lds words...as they predicate receiving that based from God based upon merit/earnings...etc.
Your four points are sensible, after all, they’re basically (except for the first) the same things that Protestants and Catholics continue to dispute over. However, the Protestants and Catholics do not really believe that any of their points of disputation alter the requirements for salvation, even if they aren’t really vocal about that fact, and many of their members are under the impression that they do. The Catholics, at least at this point in history, admit that the Protestants can be saved without agreeing with the Catholics on any of your other 3 points, and likewise, the Protestants admit that Catholics can be saved simply by faith in Jesus, even if they think that they are mistaken about these other points.
So, I guess the crux of your argument really boils down to the belief in the Trinity. If I believe in a Jesus that is part of a Trinity, and you do not believe in a Jesus that is part of a Trinity, then do we really believe in the same Jesus? I mean, there are New Agers who believe that Jesus is a god in a pantheon of many gods. I don’t think that their Jesus is the same Jesus Christ that I believe in. Their Jesus is a product of their own imaginations.
Likewise, the Muslims believe in a Jesus who was just a prophet, and they believe he prophesied the coming of Muhammad. I don’t believe that they believe in the Jesus that I know. So, why should I not also believe that your Jesus, who is not part of a Trinity, is also a different Jesus than the one I believe in? He doesn’t seem to meet the description that I am familiar with.
If I accept that Mormons and Christians do believe in the same Jesus, then why wouldn’t I also have to accept that the New Age Jesus and the Muslim Jesus are the same too?
So your prophets were wrong.
Good points. I’d like to add, there is clearly a prophesied Second Coming, but no Third Coming, or First and 1/2 coming. At the Second Coming, the Kingdom is instituted forever and ever, so that’s that. He’s not going anywhere from whence He might need to return again.
So, if the Jesus who came to America, in the Book of Mormon, were the glorified Jesus, returning in vengeance, then that must have been the Second Coming, and we have already missed it. Where is the Kingdom, ruling in glory over all the Earth? Where are the glorified saints, sitting on thrones around the judgement seat of the Lord? Where is the New Jerusalem, from whence the Glory of God emanates to light the whole Earth? Why do we still need the sun and moon and stars in the sky to light our way?
Delph
“So... Why do you think Jesus Travailed in the Garden?”
Since the Bible does not tell us why, it is really a question that only God can answer with certainty. However, the traditional supposition of Christians is that Jesus, having both the nature of man and the nature of God, was experiencing the same human emotions that any of us would experience if we knew we were about to face what He was about to face, such as uncertainty, sorrow, fear, grief, etc.
We’ve all had an experience where we knew that we needed to do something very difficult, but had to struggle against the weaker part of our nature trying to dissuade us from the task. It may seem strange for God to have a similar struggle with Himself, after all, we associate weakness, fear, and the like with imperfection, while we associate God with perfection. However, the Bible clearly records that Christ quoted a Scripture expressing doubt while He was on the cross, so it would seem that God even took on some measure of our weaknesses, at least while He walked among us as a man.
I do think that there was a very important purpose to Christ’s suffering in the Garden. God’s plan for salvation was implemented in such a way that no objections to Christ’s atonement for us could stand. Even though God is subject to nobody but Himself, He is also a just God, and that is why He provided the means to satisfy His own law which condemned mankind, instead of just issuing a pardon or reversing his judgement. If Christ was immune to our human weaknesses, then an accusation could be made against Him that He never truly suffered as men suffered, and was not truly a man in substance, but only in form. Such a sacrifice could not satisfy the demand of the law, which required the blood of man for a full atonement for the gravest sins. Christ’s suffering in the garden, and his exclamation on the Cross, were evidence of his true humanity, and evidence that his sacrifice was valid.
Because protestants do that for each other... NOT!
“Instead, what we see is traversing land & sea to make these families twice the son of Mormon.”
So... How do we know that a house is “Christian” by the cross on top? Sign on the door? What if one person there is not “Christian” can we come by or does it need to be 51% of the household?
This is ridiculous. These are young men and women going out into the world to preach of Christ Crucified.
Don't get your panties in a bunch, be polite, say no and go on about your day.
It sure beats the kids doing drugs, or in gangs at that age, and it sure beats unwed mothers at that age, relax!
I talk to missionaries from other churches, even helped some who were lost while I was in Taiwan. They were good guys living what they believed.
My attitude apparently is a strange one, but I'd rather spend time with men of another faith who actually believed and practiced their religion than some men of my faith that didn't keep the teachings of the church.
These LDS missionaries, they are showing by their actions what is in their heart and spending two years preaching the word of God as they understand it. It's not like they are out to get kids into drugs or steal your garbage can...
Delph
The bottom line here is that mormons have not offered those who do not share their faith the choice of a)conversion or b)death.
I do not consider mormonism a religion nor do I consider islam a religion any more than I consider scientology a religion.
I have had a great many mormon proselytizers at my door over the years since, I live a few miles from Hill Cumorah. They are polite and gracious even though they know that I am not going to be converted. I do not consider Joseph Smith a prophet. I consider him a crackpot.
As for muslims, I no more consider their prophet anything but a war mongering, pedophile, rapist, pederast, mass murderer. His so-called revelations were used to justify his perversions and lust for murder and theft.
I am content to leave the LDS’ers to their odd ways because they are nice, polite, and in fact make good neighbors and honest business partners.
Islam on the other hand...brings death and destruction wherever its adherents gather. They are obnoxious neighbors and are dishonest in business and everything else.
There is nothing redeeming in islam. It is 14 centuries of death and mayhem.
Quite a chart! (Source:. http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2012/11/the-impossible-gospel-of-mormonism-plan.html.)
Well, I see the cross as the murder weapon used to kill the man who loves me the most in this world... It's not disdain.
Then there is the skeletal Jesus I see on may of them like he was a victim or something, I always Pictured Jesus as a big beefy strong guy, they didn't exactly have power tools back then and he was a carpenter. Scourging killed a lot of people, so he was pretty tough to be able to withstand that and then be crucified. To me Jesus didn't have to die, nobody *could* kill him, He chose to die for me, to save me. (Sorry, screen's getting blurry)
G “Those of us who heard the Christian-bashing in the pews of mormon chapels well remember the smug “better than you” sermons against Christians and Christian denominations.”
I have never heard such a “sermon” and wouldn't stand for it if I did (I am empowered to correct false teachings by testimony).
greyfoxx39 I'm pretty sure that if we ever meet, and don't know each other’s screen names that we'd be good friends (We're both pretty opinionated) but aside from religion, I think our opinions are compatible.
Delph
“Just for fun though, anyone got a good answer to what Jesus did with his body if he was resurrected and God doesn’t have a body? (Please don’t tell me he died again, or that he put it somewhere safe...)”
Jesus’ body was transformed into His glorified body at his ascension, forty days after his resurrection. This glorified body is depicted in the Book of Revelation, in the description of the Second Coming. The bodies of the resurrected saints who follow Christ will also be similarly transformed, although I think they will surely be less glorious. So, God does have a body. It would be more accurate to say that God is not confined to a body.
1 Cor. 15:39-39 explains this:
“39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”
The first man, Adam, and his progeny, have physical bodies, like our habitation on Earth. The second Adam, Jesus, was given a spiritual body, since he is the Lord and his habitation is in Heaven, which is not like our physical abode. When we live in Heaven, we’ll get spiritual bodies as well.
Despite the lengths your home page must go to (and which proves you do not simply respond by prayer and simply preaching repentance) - including "thought experiments at Temporal Mechanics" (you and the LDS remind me too much of the types of explanations in some of Swedenborg's work) - in order to attempt to justify the novel unScriptural teachings of Mormonism, the fact remains that the God Mormons point to was once a man who evolved into God, contra Ps. 90:2 (cf. Jn. 4:24) and that the heavens and earth were created by a council of Gods, while the Son was a product of God's conception thru Eve, one of his many wives, making Jesus a spirit brother to Lucifer, and whose plan for mans progression was rejected in favor of Christ's.
And that no church is preaching the gospel except the LDS, and yet they complain about being targeted.
And which has been plainly and abundantly documented by others, and you can take up your "explanations" with them. Even the idea that David was not forgiven but was suffering in Hell (rather than the grave being referred to in Acts 2) testifies to how you must conform Scripture to Mormonic (yes, i see that as accurate as "Quranic") doctrine.
You: I have personally never turned away a missionary from my door, I am always polite and hospitable, Water, juice, etc. I listen to the message and do not bible bash with the unsuspecting innocents who give me plenty of openings.
Well, I was incomplete in my comment, so allow me to explain what I meant by Lds not according/affording us the "same privilege" that their own missionaries are to have.
There's a 5-volume work from your 10th "prophet," Joseph Fielding Smith...called Answers to Gospel Questions...published by the Lds-church owned Deseret Book Company. I own this series -- and have read all 5 small books.
In that series work, JF Smith twice outlined the key mandates of an Lds missionary. In both volumes 1 and 4, Joseph Fielding Smith cited the same D&C passage: 88:81-82:
"Behold, I sent you out to testify and
WARN the people, and it becometh every man who hath been
WARNED to WARN his neighbor.
Therefore, they are left without excuse, and their sins are upon their own heads.
Joseph Fielding Smith then, after citing these verses in volumes 1 and 4, mentioned the following:
"This commission to go forth which was given in the beginning is still in force and binding on every missionary who goes forth today to declare the gospel of salvation in the world." (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. I, p. 134, 1957/1979)
And:
"...there are certain commandments missionaries should remember...they are sent not only to preach and bear testimony and bring people to repentance...but to WARN ALL men..." (Vol. 4, p. 55 1963/1979)
Do you know what I took away from reading Joseph Fielding Smith here, DU? What I took away is that -- to partially reference the free exchange of religious ideas with Buddhists and that Baptist pastor that you had -- I am glad we live in a country where your Lds missionaries are free to warn others as they see fit.
Yet...has it dawned on you yet, that there was a second sentence to this comment that mutually applies?
Would you actually agree D&C 88:81-82...and with Joseph Fielding Smith's application...that the responsibility goes beyond testifying??? Would you "amen" me if I said I'm glad to be a member of my church and worship as I see fit (one of your articles of faith)...and that this also includes the freedom to engage in an exchange of mutual warning with my neighbors, the Mormons???
You wouldn't begrudge me the same freedom you extend to your Lds missionaries, would you DU? Joseph Fielding Smith said the very essence -- the commission and commandments -- of an Lds missionary is to warn all men. Right?
I take away from your answers that you hate Mormons and consider us unworthy to bear the name of Jesus. Fine, I thought Jesus loved everyone and that you claim to be his follower... I don't feel loved by you. [DU]
DU, why do you judge my inner soul motivation as "hatred?" Doesn't God say that man looks at the outward nature of a fellow man, but only God knows the inner man? (see 1 Samuel 16:7)
Have I negatively judged the inner motivations of all those Lds missionaries I've talked to over the years? (No) They are there to testify and to warn, right?
The "testify" is the positive portion; the warning is the negative aspect.
You've got a bit of gall, DU, to accord Lds missionaries the right to speak negatively -- to warn -- and yet cast all sorts of judgmentalism about me when I do the same in reverse.
I respectfully request an apology for your judging my inner man and my motivations. You don't know me that well.
And if you want people to respect the motivations of Lds missionaries, and respect their freedom to "warn" as they not only see fit but as they interpret your sacred "scriptures," then please exchange the same common courtesy and honor/respect my right to spiritually warn as I am led by the power of the Holy Spirit.
What do you then call the Mormon narrative of baptizing the dead?
Let's assume for a moment that this narrative tracks reality...I know that's a long stretch...but stay with me here.
Mormonism claims that when we die, we ALL initially go to the same Spirit World. We're supposedly ghettoized there, of course. The good Mormons will allegedly eternally "progress" out of there toward the two higher kingdoms; and basically honest religious people can still make the middle kingdom.
Anyway, Lds believe that Lds spirit missionaries (yes spirit missionaries) will visit the non-Mormons in this spirit world...at least they'll visit those who have had a proxy baptism done on earth on their behalf.
Now the vocab won't be "convert or die"...but the bottom-line net effect of their "offer" is exactly that.
Either you as a spirit in spirit prison in the spirit world convert to Mormonism then and there...or you will spiritually die by risking continued alienation from the Mormon jesus and perhaps even risking outer darkness...which, tho, is usually reserved in Mormonism for Mormons who apostatize and demons.
I mean, c'mon Ouderkirk. If somebody put you in prison, and told you the only way out was to convert to their religion, what kind of a so-called "choice" is that?
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.