What parts of Mormanism make peaple think.That its a Cult?

[bytor2112]

Hi bytor,

First, why did you type PC before Ceeboo ???? :):) ( he must rank higher )

I would absoltly agree with your offering of our protestant brethren, last I looked there were about 30,000 or so. This , to me , is why there seems to be so many " flavors " of Christianity for us to choose from and in my humble opinion why we sometimes make that choice based on personal, appetizing, or family reasons.

Your comment " they followed the views of men " ( although I agree ) is rather interesting coming from an LDS member.

God bless,

Carl

Ceeboo,

Since I was addressing PC he came first...no favoritism here.:) Why do you think that an interesting view, pray tell?

I have long believed that the real discussion or debate as to who is really the true church, the church with the authority to officiate in the name of God is really between the Roman Catholic Church and The LDS church. If the RCC is wrong, then the off shoots, the Protestants can't be right.

[Islander]

Rejecting ALL claims that part from the lines drawn by the establishment has always been a feature of organized religion. The RCC was no different.

The RCC put thousands to death during the Reformation. Once we got over killing people for ideological dissent, they allowed them to form splinter groups. Bu that does not change the fact that the lights had gone out of the church hundreds of years before. I note elsewhere in another post that both, the definition of the tenets of Christianity and the Canon itself were significantly flawed and the contention escalated from there. So although the Protestants may have been theologically right in some respects, they were still wrong in others because they dragged with them the same DNA patterns, of sorts, of the mother church. To the uncommitted (denominationally) that seems obvious. Discerning (and deciding) about the RCC claim to apostolic succession takes a little more work and study but the lack of validity of such is also discernible from any time line in the lives of the Apostles and their itineraries.

As far as new teachings; every revelation brings new teaching. We learn "new things" that we were not aware or understood from existing texts. Is not that the value of having ALL scripture? We learn from Luke things and details not found in Mark. Subsequent John shares light not contained in the Gospels about the end of days. It may be new because we had no knowledge of it or because we had failed to see it in the existing scriptures.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Islander

[Guest ceeboo]

Ceeboo,

Since I was addressing PC he came first...no favoritism here.:) Why do you think that an interesting view, pray tell?

I have long believed that the real discussion or debate as to who is really the true church, the church with the authority to officiate in the name of God is really between the Roman Catholic Church and The LDS church. If the RCC is wrong, then the off shoots, the Protestants can't be right.

Bytor,

AS always, your reply to me was very kind and warm ( thanks for that )

I do NOT believe it was based on who you were addressing, rather I STRONGLY feel you simply like him better.:)

" interesting view " because I believe that of all " Christian " religions, the one who puts most weight and authority in men would be LDS. ( I can't imagine you would disagree ??)

The " who is really the true church " is ( to me ) not so much of a contest but rather a slightly different view. IMHO, we ( all ) Christians have truth because we all value scripture ( I am referring to the Bible only ) and thus have the " words of Jesus " to help us on our journey. I also believe that there are countless Christains from all denominations ( to be clear, I include LDS ) that try their best to live as Christ taught us.

Yes, I do believe the Catholic Church to be the " fullest " or " total " truth but that is not out of a superiority complex or arrogance, it is because I believe that the 2000 year history of teachings and leaders are EXACTLY what Jesus left for us to help us in this " sin"

filled world we live in. ( even with the 2000 years of human isuues, and there are indeed alot ) I believe it to be the " whole truth ".

God bless,

Carl

[Bookmeister]

All of this was caused 2000 years ago (give or take) by that nice jewish boy who went around attacking the established order.

[Over43]

I don't think "any parts" of Mormonism make it a cult. I think the word cult is used to cast a negative light on "Mormons", but in reality it isn't any more or less "of a cult" than any other religious belief system. It's just in the Western World you can really see heads pop up an pay attention when you say "cult"!

O43

[bytor2112]

Uh oh, I opened a bad can of worms, didn't I? >_> I'll try to explain what I meant...

Hi Heavenguard....it's a good can of worms....:)

From the Mormon POV, the Protestants have an incomplete and erronous picture of who God and Jesus are. (ie Godhead vs Trinity) From the Protestant POV, the Mormons have given attributes to God and Jesus that are outside of who they are. (ie God having lived a mortal life in times past) I don't think I'm wrong in saying that from the LDS POV, the rest of Protestantism has an incomplete picture of who Jesus is, and so we do not follow the "true" (or whole picture) Jesus. Following that, from my (a non-Mormon Protestant) POV, the LDS church's understanding of Jesus has additions to it, and so does not follow the "true" Jesus.

I think where you error is in saying that we do not follow the true Jesus. Jesus Christ is who he is. We all agree that he is the only begotten Son of God and that salvation comes through Jesus Christ and in no other way. You would be more correct in stating that because the LDS have an open canon and believe in continuing revelation that their doctrinal beliefs regarding salvation and the nature of the Godhead is different. As a Latter Day Saint, I absolutely believe that other Christian churches believe in the true and only Jesus Christ.

I'll give that there are differing views in the different denominations, however none of them are so great that we cannot come together and still agree on who God is. We agree that God is our father, who sent Jesus, his son (in the Trinity) to die and resurrected from death in order to overcome it and redeem us from our sins so that we may return to the Father's presence. On the other hand, the LDS view of God and Jesus is far, far richer (and more epic ) than any of the Protestant teachings. The notion of God's former mortality and progression, Godhead (as opposed to Trinity), and humanity's exaltation to Godhood are things that paint a very different picture of who or what God is compared to he other churches. I rather understand the different denominations as emphasizing or focusing on a certain one thing more than another. (Baptists obviously baptism, Pentecostals on tongues.) Things we disagree on (ie determinism, predestination, communion as symbolic or transubstantiation) are not things that affect our view of God, but rather our view of ourselves.

We also believe and agree that God the Father, sent Jesus Christ, his only begotten son to save humankind, to atone for the sins of the world and to conquer death that we may return to our Father's presence. Where we differ here is that we don't believe that God sent himself, he literally sent his Son. That when Christ was praying to the Father in Gethsemenee, that he wasn't praying to himself or that on the Christ he didn't ask himself why he had forsaken himself or the beautiful intercessory prayer in John ch. 17 was indeed a prayer to the Father asking, "That they all may be one (united); as thou,Father, art in me, and as I in thee, that they also may be one in us...."

I give wholly that if the LDS church is the One True church of Christ, then the rest of us are wrong. I never meant to say "I'm right, you're wrong", however the post-modern way of thinking can only go so far.

I don't mind being told I am wrong or misguided or even decieved. What I strongly disagree with is being regarded as non-Christian. A Baptist minister at my gym asked me one day in conversation if I had been saved,.....if I was a Christian.. I replied yes. He asked if I had a Church to attend and invited me to his, I politely declined and he aked me where I attend, I told him and his response was that I was not a Christian and not saved. I told him I was once a Baptist and was "saved" ,if I were to change back to Baptist would I need to be saved again? He said that if I believed in a different Christ than in the Bible I was not saved anymore. I replied, I was saved by believing in the Christ of the Bible and still believe in the Christ of the Bible. He was pretty confused....... Truth is , we all have a portion of the truth, as a Latter Day Saint, we belive we have more of the truth. But, as Christendom as a whole we have much more than those who have never been blessed with any knowledge of the redeemer of humankind...Jesus Christ.

Edited August 15, 2008 by bytor2112

[Guest ceeboo]

Rejecting ALL claims that part from the lines drawn by the establishment has always been a feature of organized religion. The RCC was no different.

The RCC put thousands to death during the Reformation. Once we got over killing people for ideological dissent, they allowed them to form splinter groups. Bu that does not change the fact that the lights had gone out of the church hundreds of years before. I note elsewhere in another post that both, the definition of the tenets of Christianity and the Canon itself were significantly flawed and the contention escalated from there. So although the Protestants may have been theologically right in some respects, they were still wrong in others because they dragged with them the same DNA patterns, of sorts, of the mother church. To the uncommitted (denominationally) that seems obvious. Discerning (and deciding) about the RCC claim to apostolic succession takes a little more work and study but the lack of validity of such is also discernible from any time line in the lives of the Apostles and their itineraries.

As far as new teachings; every revelation brings new teaching. We learn "new things" that we were not aware or understood from existing texts. Is not that the value of having ALL scripture? We learn from Luke things and details not found in Mark. Subsequent John shares light not contained in the Gospels about the end of days. It may be new because we had no knowledge of it or because we had failed to see it in the existing scriptures.

Hi Islander,

Due to other posts of yours, I can not say I'm surprised by this one.:)

I guess I should be happy that you did ask me to leave the forum ( like you have done to others )

Thank you for bringing up some of the human history with the RCC , your contribution really added alot to the topic at hand.:)

Notice I will choose to not respond in kind:)

To me ( for what it's worth ) ( not very confident it will be worth much to you ), the ability to converse and share perspective with my brethren CAN be a mutually rewarding as well as an enormously humbling journey. In this case ( Islander/Ceboo) I sadly offer that it ia an opportunity lost for all ( me included )

God bless,

Carl

[bytor2112]

Bytor,

AS always, your reply to me was very kind and warm ( thanks for that )

I do NOT believe it was based on who you were addressing, rather I STRONGLY feel you simply like him better.:)

" interesting view " because I believe that of all " Christian " religions, the one who puts most weight and authority in men would be LDS. ( I can't imagine you would disagree ??)

The " who is really the true church " is ( to me ) not so much of a contest but rather a slightly different view. IMHO, we ( all ) Christians have truth because we all value scripture ( I am referring to the Bible only ) and thus have the " words of Jesus " to help us on our journey. I also believe that there are countless Christains from all denominations ( to be clear, I include LDS ) that try their best to live as Christ taught us.

Yes, I do believe the Catholic Church to be the " fullest " or " total " truth but that is not out of a superiority complex or arrogance, it is because I believe that the 2000 year history of teachings and leaders are EXACTLY what Jesus left for us to help us in this " sin"

filled world we live in. ( even with the 2000 years of human isuues, and there are indeed alot ) I believe it to be the " whole truth ".

God bless,

Carl

Ceeboo,

If you read my posts you will see that I have a special place in my heart for Catholics...you guys are a lot like us.:)

My comment about the reformation and following the philosophies and views of men differs in that we believe that the General Authorities in our church have Priesthood authority to conduct church affairs and lead the church. They are called by God and set apart as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. We believe that Thomas S. Monson speaks with the same mantle of authority and Prophecy as did Moses. We believe that listening to Dallin Oaks or Henry Eyring or David Bednar is just like listening to Peter, James or John.

Ceeboo, I respect you and others in their beliefs and I appreciate the respect you offer in return. As I have stated, if I weren't LDS.... I would be Catholic:D

-Bytor

[candyprpl]

Hi candyprpl,

" Cult " to 97% of the peolple walking the earth is filled with negative tone as well as an evil flavor. ( 3 % use a scholarly definition ) So it is my humble opinion that the LDS is far from a cult, additionaly I believe that when some place this label on the LDS it is applied with a ignorant tape.

Although most of your post ( to me ) was very well said and I appreciate your LDS perspective, I would like to offer a few comments about the above portion from a Non LDS perspective.

I will begin ( to be fair ) that some ( me included ) do not believe, as you suggest, that the

line of authority was broken and thus the " Great Apostasy ", some ( me included ) are convinced that there was no " Great Apostasy " and furthermore can not find any historical evidence to support such a claim.

I would also respectfully not agree with your offering that to restore is to bring back to it's original form. I realize that to an LDS member they must make this claim to follow the next several beliesfs, however, to me, restore is NOT to apply completly " NEW " teachings and suggest that the " additional scripture " is part and equal to the original. I, for what it's worth, see this as " all new and different " and not restoring.

At any rate, I really do appreciate your comments.:)

God bless,

Carl

I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe what I believe -- I only wanted to share how I came to believe what I believe. It took me quite a while studying the scriptures (the Bible) to understand that an apostasy had occurred. I'm not trying to continue an argument. I respect that you and Prisionchaplain and others can't interpret the scriptures in the same manner. No problem -- honest. I just chimed in with my two cents in case someone was interested in my LDS understanding.:) And you did say you appreciated what I had to say -- thanks.:)

I wish I could write as eloquently as some of the others do. Some of my fellow posters are much better at explaining things than I am.

[Guest ceeboo]

I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe what I believe -- I only wanted to share how I came to believe what I believe. It took me quite a while studying the scriptures (the Bible) to understand that an apostasy had occurred. I'm not trying to continue an argument. I respect that you and Prisionchaplain and others can't interpret the scriptures in the same manner. No problem -- honest. I just chimed in with my two cents in case someone was interested in my LDS understanding.:) And you did say you appreciated what I had to say -- thanks.:)

I wish I could write as eloquently as some of the others do. Some of my fellow posters are much better at explaining things than I am.

Hi again candyprpl,

Fair enough :):)

I really did appreciate your LDS understanding ( thanks for sharing )

God bless,

Carl

[Islander]

Hi Islander,

Due to other posts of yours, I can not say I'm surprised by this one.:)

I guess I should be happy that you did ask me to leave the forum ( like you have done to others )

Thank you for bringing up some of the human history with the RCC , your contribution really added alot to the topic at hand.:)

Notice I will choose to not respond in kind:)

To me ( for what it's worth ) ( not very confident it will be worth much to you ), the ability to converse and share perspective with my brethren CAN be a mutually rewarding as well as an enormously humbling journey. In this case ( Islander/Ceboo) I sadly offer that it ia an opportunity lost for all ( me included )

God bless,

Carl

I did not intend to offend you. If such was the result I offer my sincere apology. I acknowledge not being the best diplomat but I always strive my very best to convey facts rather than opinion or bias.

I just pointed to some factual information in that high (loss of lives) has been the price of theological dissenting in history, that the battle for moving new teaching and theological positions to the forefront has been a long and protracted one but also not new. I also pointed that Protestants once severely persecuted, became a significant majority and parted ways with the Church at Rome. They were "right" in some ways but also took foundational teachings and traditions "inherited" from the mother church which in our view continued to be wrong.

My apology again, but I fail to see how the above can be insulting or hurtful to you or anyone reading it?

The rest of my post dealt with your claim that no "new" doctrine or teaching should increase the body of Wholly Writ as we know it.

[Traveler]

Allott of Religions&Sects from the 18th&19th Century seem very Cult Like...I typed in Morman in Yahoo.And allott of peaple diss Mormans.Labeling you'll a Cult...I'm interested in Mormanism.But i want to get past this Cultish thing 1rst...

Opinions?

1. There is no reason for a new religion that does not introduce any change in thinking of religious things.

2. Any change in thinking of religious things is a great threat to the "traditional way" of thinking of religious things.

Those that fear change without reason create reason that is not reasonable - thus the LDS are called a cult. It is just an effort to keep traditional members from considering an alternate point of view or allowing such a point of view from changing traditional lives.

Since it is not the standards by which the LDS live, those that fear our faith or realize the weekness of their own result to lables.

The Traveler

[Guest ceeboo]

I did not intend to offend you. If such was the result I offer my sincere apology. I acknowledge not being the best diplomat but I always strive my very best to convey facts rather than opinion or bias.

I just pointed to some factual information in that high (loss of lives) has been the price of theological dissenting in history, that the battle for moving new teaching and theological positions to the forefront has been a long and protracted one but also not new. I also pointed that Protestants once severely persecuted, became a significant majority and parted ways with the Church at Rome. They were "right" in some ways but also took foundational teachings and traditions "inherited" from the mother church which in our view continued to be wrong.

My apology again, but I fail to see how the above can be insulting or hurtful to you or anyone reading it?

The rest of my post dealt with your claim that no "new" doctrine or teaching should increase the body of Wholly Writ as we know it.

Hi again Islander,

For clarification ( not to split hairs ) are these some of the FACTS and not your opinions or bias you suggest.

" The lights went out in the RCC hundreds of years before the Reformation "

" The RCC put thousands of people to death during the Reformation "

" Once they got over killing people, they allowed splinter groups "

" The definition of tenents of Christianity were seriously flawed "

" Protestents were theologically right in some respects "

" Protestents were wrong in others because they dragged some DNA patterns from RCC"

Insulting or hurtful ( :confused:) Not to me, rather very opinion based and had very little to do with topic.

I could ( but will not ) formulate a similar list of FACTS ( really my opinions and bias ) regarding any religions " history " ( including yours ). That ( like your post ) would not bring any value or contribution to this enviornment.

It was NOT my claim that " new "doctrine should or should not increase the body of " scripture" It was my offering of a different view ( there are others you know ??) in regards to the " restoration ".

God bless,

Carl

[MichaelPAGuy]

The LDS religion is not a cult. People fear the unknown. They don't want to get to know the religion first hand. They only rely on what they hear. Thus, if people rely on what they hear(including negative) and do not get to gain a knowledge of the restored gospel they will always have a fear of it. That is just my 2 cents.

[FunkyTown]

I think we need to get back to the original question. This was a question designed to evoke the reaction it did. So... Let's get back to the original question that was asked(I've cleaned up the spelling and the sentence fragments):

"What part of mormonism makes people think it's a cult?"

I don't know, OP. If you're wondering why people think it's a cult, you'll have to ask the people who think of it as a cult and go to an lds church meeting to see if they're telling the truth.

[Maya]

This thread keep growing faster than I can read!!

Hi Mark! A good quetion! I been wondering about it a lot. There where I been writting on a forum mormons are called a cult because of the negative feeling it gives. In order to warn everyone NOT TO go and inestigat it, as there are bad things in it! Calling some religion a cult tells you it is scarry and may even be fatal like the groups that have killed themselves.... The people calling it a cult either dont know anything of it themselves, or have heard a negaive thing abnout it or believe everything they hear through the grapewine.

So it is just to scare people away as they are afraid if we are right - they are wrong and they want to be right! It was started by people who wanted se mormons disapear...

[Misshalfway]

I love the differences in our religious viewpoints that have been shared on this thread! I don't think the OP expected to have opened such a healthy dialogue. I have appreciated reading the positions of all and frankly love the honesty. I think much is gained thru such respectful interaction rather than the "nice nice" that sometimes hides and misrepresents the contempt that lies beneath.

I must say though, in light of the OP's main intent, that none of these arguments presented has anything to do with the "cult" argument. And I appreciate those who are not of our faith that have the ability to discuss differences without stooping to add the term "cult" to the landscape or who choose to excuse those who do.

[abqfriend]

Many Christians consider Catholicism a cult as well-for different reasons than they may than for the LDS Church.

So-Don't feel too bad about this "label."

The LDS Church has Christ at the center of their faith theology as well as the Catholic Church. They both hold to doctrines/teachings not espressed fully in Sacred Scripture alone. They both have a heirarchial structure. They both believe in a teaching authority outside of Sacred Scripture alone.

They both hold doctrines/teachings that may be difficult to understand by those outside their faith tradition.

-so don't feel too bad about being labeled a "cult."

Just go on your work of mission and ministry and sharing your message 2 by 2! -and a great message it is.

-Carol (a Roman Catholic)

I'm not sure if I (as a non-Mormon Christian) would call Mormonism a cult ... I'm not entirely sure I would call it Christian either, because of the different way that the LDS understand God and Jesus to be compared to other Christian denominations. Edit: I'd actually rather define it as a different, but related religion.

But I agree with PrisonChaplain, I think the greatest problem people have with LDS are the additional texts besides the Bible and the doctrines that come from them.

[brother01]

Old Testament. Amos 3:7

Ben Raines

The context is not that the prophet gives new laws of God or changes any law of God or that any has the authority to peach any other gospel than that which was preached by the apostles of Jesus Christ.

The context is prophets telling what God is going to do in calling the people to repent, or sometimes what is going to happen when the patience of God has expired with certain persons or people. There are other verses that say as much.

"Surely the LORD God does nothing,

Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the Prophets."

It's about what God is going to do, that He will reveal that through the prophets. It's pure and simple. There is no need to expect more.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Welcome, Mark.

Mormons tend to get a little defensive about the "cult" thing partly because we don't consider ourselves a cult, partly because our church was subject to persecution in the 19th century, and partly because we are a proselytizing church and don't want to appear weird to potential converts.

There are various reasons why people think of the LDS Church as "cult-like." Sometimes it's simply because friends or family have told them we are a cult and because they trust those people, that's what they start believing.

Mormons believe in modern-day prophets, and some (though not all) Mormons take that belief a bit too far, in that they believe that EVERYTHING the prophet says is true. To outsiders that notion sounds scary and cult-like (actually, to insiders like me it's scary, too!). Some Church leaders, past and present, have said some pretty wacky things. They, like everybody, are entitled to their personal opinions, and everything they say is not necessarily "gospel truth." However, critics of the church often point to those things and say "the Mormon church is a cult!"

There's also the secrecy of the temple. We hold our regular worship services in a "chapel" but for certain extra-special ceremonies we go to the "temple." Only worthy, trusted members of the Church are allowed into a temple after it's been dedicated. We keep those ceremonies secret because they are sacred to us and we don't want people mocking them or misinterpreting them. Some people find that secrecy to be cult-like. However, there's nothing bad going on in the temples that would make the Church a cult.

I could continue, but I would suggest finding some Mormons in your area and getting to know them in person. Then decide for yourself if it's a cult.

DH

[truthwalker]

we were considered a cult because they accused freemasons of the same and our rituals in the themple reminded a lot of the freemasons. they also accused us of blood atonement wich is that some sin must be atoned for with blood. Of course these are false accusations. But myths about different religions hang on to people for a long time.

[prisonchaplain]

The Great Apostasy -- Amos 8:11-12 - prophecies the downfall of Israel, 'there will be a famine of hearing the word of the Lord.' Acts 20:28-30 and 2 Peter 2:1-2 - Jesus speaks of the apostasy that will come after his crucifixion -- 2 Timothy 4:3-4 - very accurate prophecy, 'And they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned into fables.'

Of course there are many warnings against the coming of false teachings, false prophecies, "winds of doctrine," etc. And yes, the word apostasy is used. However, interpreting those warnings to mean that the Christian church would be without priesthood authority, and basically in a state of abject error, for 1900 years...such would be impossible to discern, minus LDS revelations. If one accepts those visions and prophecies of your church, then I'm sure there are some biblical passages that could be read as affirmations.

Even before the death of the Apostles, many conflicts concerning doctrine arose. Important religious questions were settled by councils. The simple doctrines and ordinances taught by the Savior were debated and changed to comform to worldly philosophies (see Isaiah 24:5). They physically changed the scriptures, removing plain and precious doctrines from them. Because of pride, some aspired to positions of influence (see John 1:9-10). People accepted these false ideas and gave honor to false teachers who taught pleasing doctrines rather than divine truth (see 2 Timothy 4:3-4).

And again, I'd suggest, first, that there were disputes even in the New Testament writings. These may be the beginnings of the apostasy, or they might be proof that Joseph Smith protested too much about the doctrinal tares amongst the wheat.

And alas, the accusation that the Bible was tampered with and corrupted raises that on-going tension in your church, between affirming the Bible as Scripture, and yet, as a means of bolstering the Triple, casting doubts about how the canon came to be. Your church accepts the Bible as canon, and yet seems to question it at the same time.

I would compare the Apostasy doctrine to Evolution. Nobody denies "micro-evolution." Species adapt to their environment. If the environment changes, over time the species will undergo changes that help it survive the new situation better. Likewise, Protestants and Catholics openly admit that church history includes some false doctrines, some evil acts done in the name of God, and some human politics in the midst of spiritual decision-making. But, God made the world, and God protected his Church.

We believe the Apostasy will be the rising of the one-world church--one that will eventually lead people to ally with Antichrist, rather than God, during the Great Tribulation.

Therefore, a restoration, not a reformation, was required. Priesthood authority did not continue in an unbroken line of succession from the Apostle Peter. To reform is to change what already exists; to restore is to bring back something in its original form. Thus, the restoration of priesthood authority through divine messengers was the only possible way to overcome the Great Apostasy. (Preach My Gospel)

This goes to the whole matter of church polity (governance). Most Protestants disagree with the highly hierarchical form of rule practiced by the Catholic Church. We believe that spiritual authority primarily comes from biblical revelation, and from callings given directly by the Spirit from God. For example, my church considers the ordination of ministers to be a confirmation of what God has done in the individual called. Our leaders did not call me, they confirmed God's calling on me. Thus, when I look at church history, I see that despite some of the failures detailed here, there has always been a remnant that remained true to God, and faithfully followed his calling.

I still do not understand why people think that a loving Heavenly Father would close the heavens to his children and not give them guidance through a prophet. Every dispensation since Adam has been led by a prophet, why not now? Why Joseph Smith? Why not before the 1800's? This post is long enough. If you have read thus far and want to know the answer to those questions -- we'll go there another time -- or someone else can take up where I left off.:)

Well, in most of our churches, we hear prophetic words on an almost weekly basis. Per Paul's instructions, it's possible to hear 2-3 prophetic utterances in a single service. We don't call the proclaimers prophets. Instead we say they "exercised the gift of prophecy." So, no, God is not silent. He speaks through his Word, and through modern spiritual gifts. We do not see the office of prophet spelled out in our New Testament, so we do not yearn for a person. Rather, we see prophecy, and hunger much for God's fresh word for us today...and thank him when it comes.

[Elphaba]

they also accused us of blood atonement wich is that some sin must be atoned for with blood. Of course these are false accusations. But myths about different religions hang on to people for a long time.

Just a clarification: Blood atonement is not a myth. There was a "Reformation" in the Church in the 1850s, and blood atonement was preached to those in the pews. Additionally there are a few incidents where it was "applied." They are very few though.

It's obviously more complicated than that. But I thought it worth the clarification, as it is not a myth.

Elphaba

[FernRL]

When I think of a cult, I think of Jim Jones and the Jonestown situation in the '70's.

What are the similarities to Mormonism?

The name "Jim Jones" is kind of like "Joe Smith," even more than "Joe Schmoe."

The other thing is the total devotion of "his" followers. We may be seen to be like those Jonestown people who would blindly obey everything they are told without question. (If people only knew how unlike that we really are!)

Why shouldn't people be suspicious?

[The_Incredible_Piff]

One of the major points in the LDS faith is that Christianity as a whole was in a state of apostasty. The funny thing here is that many would contend with this notion or take offense to such thinking, but the reality is that the Christian faith had become so splintered and divided (hence the reason for Joseph Smith asking for guidance in terms of which Church to join). It's a pretty flimsy argument to maintain that this state of apostasy wasn't a truth... meaning it's a false belief, especially in light of severe division within the Christian faith. I mean the whole point to the Nicean Creed was to bring unity to a divided people because people subscribed to differing beliefs.

Understanding this point, that Christianity was divided, is essentially the first step into realizing and understanding who and what Josesph Smith was and his role in this world. If this idea isn't something you can grasp then chances are you won't be able to grasp the importance of the restoration, which is the catalyst for the LDS faith.