Free Republic

~”I keep a pretty well stocked panty...”~

Good to see there are still some of you around, Tammy8.

OO, mere wordplay is fun; the mature and witty kind is a practice which I would recommend to anyone. In my time engaging in such trivial pursuits, however, I’ve learned that adjectives mean things.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puerile

~”Is that your last word?”~

Hardly. But it might be a good place to pause.

~”Ignoring the context and other thigs offered in the post you lifted from is getting to be a rather telling methodology, Mormon.”~

You’re telling me.

Truth is, MHG, I’m trying out a new tactic: application of the Golden Rule. If the anti-Mormon can take my faith’s doctrine out of context and misrepresent our explanations of it, then I can do the same thing to them.

For example, when I’m told that I worship a different Jesus than that of the Bible by reason of that old brother-of-Lucifer canard, then I feel perfectly justified in returning the favor and accusing the person of worshiping a different Jesus than that of the Bible by reason of the uncaring, unmerciful, unjust, and unloving attributes of that bastardized from of Jesus that is preached by much of orthodox Christianity.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you’re to be the decrier of ignoring context, I suggest you tend to your own house first.

~”God measures the heart of man (or woman).”~

Ah, good! So a person -doesn’t- have to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this life in order to be saved. He or she simply needs to have a heart that God judges worthy. God will judge a person in the context of factors in their life.

You and I agree, after all. You may want to check in with P-Marlowe, though; he was telling me something very different. Perhaps you can instruct him somewhat, because he seems to be under the impression that God is not merciful, kind, or just. It might also be the case that he worships a different Jesus than you and I do.

I accept your correction, RM. However, I did not intend that as any more of a personal shot than “taunti boo” was meant to deride me as either a taunter or a whiner. My intent is solely to invite MHG to raise the level of discourse above that of puerile wordplay.

You have always applied an even hand in your moderation of these discussions. I hope that continues into the future.

~”taunti boo”~

Come now, MHG, either act your age or learn to be more effective in your displays of childishness.

~”Therefore, faith is the stuff, the substance, the thing we may exercise on this side of death, not the other side.”~

We believe that faith is an eternal principle; it is practiced by us both during and after this life.

~”...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”~

And what of those who never have the opportunity to hear? We keep asking you this question. Does God damn to Hell the ignorant savage who never hears the name of Christ? Would that be merciful? Would that be just?

If God is merciful and just, then how do you reconcile that the fact that orthodox Christianity condemns such people to eternal damnation?

If a person can’t exercise saving faith in Christ after this life, then an infant who dies is damned. A mentally retarded person is damned. A good person who never hears of Christ is damned. That leads to the conclusion that God is unfair, unmerciful, and unjust. And you cannot justify this to me within the bounds of your theology; I defy you to try.

Sorry, that’s not the God I worship. Mine is the one the Bible talks about - the one who is merciful, loving, kind, and just.

Did I ever tell you how charming you are when you resort to personal insult in lieu of reasoned response?

I, of course, do not take offense at the term “Mormon;” but I find it endlessly fascinating that you use the term as if I should, as if my being a Mormon should immediately be applied as a filter to discredit everything I say. It’s an endearingly subtle little trick, MHG. Shall we even call it “devious?”

~”Let me reprhrase that:

Christianity MORMONISM has embraced falsehood after falsehood, then gotten together and said:

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God [the Mormon Church] and the other is the church of the devil [All other Churches]; wherefore whosoever belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10).”~

Um, no. This betrays a deep ignorance on your part of LDS theology.

The Church of Christ is comprised of His followers, regardless of denomination.

The Church of the Devil is comprised of all those who fight against Christ, regardless of denomination.

~”So we finally are in agreement that your Jesus is not the Jesus of Christianity.”~

No, you’re reading your own interpretation into my words, just as you read your own interpretation into the “Church of the Devil” doctrine above. That seems to be a recurring habit with you, P-M.

I worship the Jesus of Christianity - the original, one-and-only Savior of Mankind.

Christianity, to an extent, has abandoned that Christ, and has instead chosen to worship its own theology - so much so that if you accept Christ but not the traditional theology that “Christians” promulgate, they do not consider you Christian.

In short, the dogmas of orthodoxy have become an idol to many Christians.

It’s not surprising, then, to see such “Christians” act in a very un-Christlike fashion; after all, their god - dogma - doesn’t teach them be be Christlike. Christ did that, but He’s not the object of their devotion. Sad to see, really.

~”I know you are not. Not by any traditional or orthodox definition of the term.”~

See, that’s where you err. The “traditional or orthodox definition of the term” to which you refer is itself a bastardization of the term. Men have, over the centuries, redefined what it means to be a Christian. A Christian used to be one who follows Christ. That’s the sort of person the Romans fed to the lions. Over the centuries, Christianity has embraced falsehood after falsehood, then gotten together and said, “If you don’t believe our falsehoods, then you aren’t a Christian. Certainly not by the traditional or orthodox definition of the term.” This is one of the two things that I mean by the phrase “taking the Christ out of Christian.”

Well, the tradition is wrong. So, I proclaim that I’m not a traditional Christian, because then I would be wrong too. But, try as you might, you cannot effectively redefine what it really means to be Christian, because there is only One who is charge of that particular definition.

~”Jesus said that such people would suffer hell and eternal damnation where the worm dieth not and there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.”~

Your Jesus, perhaps. Mine actually has charity and love of mankind. That’s why He gives them every opportunity to accept Him - even beyond this life. Your Jesus doesn’t seem to be powerful enough to save the ignorant, little children, or the innocent. My Jesus can.

If you are insistent that we worship different Christs, fine, I’ll stick with my Jesus, thanks. I don’t want anything to do with the vengeful, wrathful, spiteful, weakened recasting of Him that your faith has invented over the centuries.

~”If you believe that Ghandi, by his good works, was made righteous before God, then you deny the Gospel of Christ.”~

Of course not. Grace comes by faith. But you abrogate to yourself Christ’s authority to judge. You are no one to proclaim that Ghandi will burn in Hell, and you are no one to proclaim that Christ will not save me.

~”Instead of your self-aggrandizing condescension, why not tell us gentiles why you think Ghandi will not be condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ in this life when he heard the Gospel. Or don’t you have anything of substance to offer, Mormon?”~

Did I ever tell you how charming you are when you use the word “Mormon” as an epithet? It really displays your intellectual prowess, too.

You know very well our doctrine regarding free agency. As it pertains to accepting the Gospel, we believe that a person isn’t accountable for not having the truth until they, of their own free will, accept or reject it.

Whether or not they have actually rejected it, we leave up to the Lord to decide. For example, I knocked on a lot of doors as a missionary in Italy. Many of them were closed in my face. Did those people reject the Gospel? How could they have if they didn’t know what they were rejecting? Perhaps my role was simply to plant a seed in their heart; maybe one day in the future, they will be prepared, and will be able to make a knowledgeable decision at that time.

Apply the same principle to Ghandi. If he never understood what he never accepted, he never rejected it, did he? I don’t know if he ever had that opportunity such that he knowingly rejected it. That’s up the the Lord to decide. Of course, then you get into the concept of missionary work being done in the life to come, temple work to provide the saving ordinances by proxy, and the grandness of the fullness of the Plan of Salvation. Many Christians fail to realize that the LDS Church is only a very minor part of the Kingdom of God - which extends past this life and beyond.

Be that as it may, unlike many Christians, you see, we Latter-Day Saints are encouraged by our faith to let God be the arbiter of ultimate justice.

Hmmm.... I seem to have nicked a nerve, PM. I got not one, not two, but three separate responses out of you. I must have struck home.

To 1126:
~”Aren’t you glad now that you’re not a Christian?”~

I am a Christian, loud and proud. And you know it.

The mean-spirited, disgraceful, self-proclaimed Christians of whom we speak give the rest of us Christians a bad name. If that were the yardstick for who is Christian, then I -would- be ashamed to be a Christian. It’s unfortunate that Ghandi so insightfully saw through the veneer of holiness that such people have wrapped around themselves. But, it’s a thin veneer, so perhaps his perceptiveness in not surprising.

To 1135:
I’m not sure whether I’m responding here to you or to this “Ray Comfort” fellow. Since you saw fit to post it as a quote, in lieu of enlightening us with original thought of your own, I’m going to assume that you agree with it, and will therefore respond to you as if they were your words.

~”The cynic no doubt did this to illustrate that all Christians are nothing but hypocrites”~

How can one interpret my comments as meaning that “all” Christians are hypocrites? I specifically define my comments as directed toward “the so-called Christians to whom Ghandi seems to have been referring.” Meaning the mean-spirited, disgraceful, self-proclaimed Christians of whom we speak.

Besides that, you know that I believe myself to be a Christian. What sense would it make for me to call all Christians hypocrites? Your logic just doesn’t fit.

You do seem to have gotten quite defensive at that observation. Why would that be? I didn’t accuse you of being in that group.

~”First, no one is like Jesus Christ. He was sinless. “~

That’s true. He also taught us to follow Him. That means striving to emulate His example, despite our inevitable failures at doing so. In my book, this includes avoiding behavior such as lying, mocking, ridiculing, unrighteously judging, and otherwise being uncharitable - you know, like the mean-spirited, disgraceful, self-proclaimed Christians of whom we speak

~”Jesus warned that if we die in our sins, we will end up in Hell. What a tragedy that Ghandi didn’t find any help in his own hopeless religion.”~

Yes, poor Ghandi. A great man, good and righteous as any other mortal, damned to Hell because... well, because the cruel, unloving God worshiped by the mean-spirited, disgraceful, self-proclaimed Christians of whom we speak says so.

To 1139:
~”You mean the way you are ranting now?”~

Ranting? A simple observation is not a rant. Consider the possibility of psychological projection, PM. Why should I rant when I am right? The mean-spirited, disgraceful, self-proclaimed Christians of whom we speak do not act in such a way as to glorify their Lord and Savior. They instead choose to use their religion as a fig leaf for their rage and hate. I believe that is a significant problem in many places in the world. Wouldn’t you agree?

Hmm... Interesting. Goes to show that the Latter-Day Saints are anything but monolithic. Some of us are even morons (not a typo).

~”If they were really acting scripturally, they’d act as Jesus commanded his disciples in Mark 6. But arguing is so much fun....”~

Yeah, these are the so-called Christians to whom Ghandi seems to have been referring when he said:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
and
“If it weren’t for Christians, I’d be a Christian.”~

They certainly don’t seem to emulate Christ in their rantings about the Christianity of others.

~”I feel for you guys. You all have to take it as much, if not more, than we Catholics do...”~

Perhaps, but sympathy’s not necessary. I’m sure you become stronger and more knowledgeable in your faith every time you defend it. Same way for us.

The people we’re talking about, though, are always on the attack. They may become very good at attacking other faiths, but they are never forced to examine their own religious convictions. The result? We get stronger, they remain weak.

~”I just do not understand why some posters are seemingly obsessed with trying to put down my beliefs and my Church.”~

There are a few among our detractors who are genuinely concerned about our eternal well-being. Not many. Among the rest, the reasons I’ve identified include the following (in no particular order):
- An ecclesiastical form of penis envy.
- The drive to convince themselves it is not true (mostly ex-Mormons who have received a testimony, but who have decided to fight against it - they find that their testimony never completely goes away and that the soul is an annoyingly persistent sort of critter).
- A vested religious interest in disproving it (pastors, ministers, etc. - a substantial number of the detractors we see on FR are of this sort. They just hate the fact that we keep stealing the best people - like you - from their flocks. This is how they act out).
- People who make money from the anti-Mormonism cottage industry.

It was all prophesied. Lying in wait to deceive, etc. Water off a duck’s back. For me, I’m just glad to have my beliefs challenged and thereby strengthened. Imagine - the early Saints only had the Spirit to help them know it was true. We’ve got the advantage of also having the cantankerous!

A brief summary of the conversations of this thread:

“You think prophets are higher than Christ.”

“No, we believe Christ is the Savior.”

“No, you follow prophets, not Christ.”

“We follow Christ.”

“Nuh-uh! You worship prophets!”

“No, we don’t! We worship Christ, not prophets!”

“See? You worship prophets! Stop lying!”

“No, we don’t!”

“Yes, you do, cultist!”

“Nuh-uh!”

“Yuh-huh!”

...yada, yada, yada...

Well, I’ve had enough of playing with the belligerent children who have hijacked this thread. Regards to all.

A tad bombastic, even for you, PNSN.

Go get a good night’s sleep. Whatever’s bothering you will seem much better by morning.

Tell me, where to prophets get their wisdom?

It is no different today.

This is becoming a semantical argument, and I don’t have the patience for such a thing this evening.

I believe you are misinterpreting the quote. I suspect you won’t concede that this is the case. Therefore, I see no point in beating one another up on the matter any further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitpicking

Read up.