Missionary procedure and denominationilism

[evangelical]

Greetings all!

As I see things, there is an important ecclesiastical distiction. This goes at least back to Augustine. There is an visible church and an invisible church. The 'real' church is only the invisible church and it is a body of people. If I were marooned on a desert island for the rest of my life, for example, I would be incapable of attending a visible church service but I would still be a part of the church.

Now, when one speaks of various denominations, I suggest, they are really speaking primarily about the visible church only. True, there are people believing slightly different doctrines within these visible churches that also belong to the invisible church. But apart from minor disagreements on secondary issues, the invisible church is "one faith".

I have noticed that LDS missionaries often stress such secondary-I hesitate to use the word-divisions. That is, the many Protestant denominations are, apparently, supposed to encourage the prospective convert, in that direction.

And yet, and here we are getting close to my question, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not the only Mormon denomination. I was once told, by an LDS missionary, that there have been sects following the wrong key-holder, down throughout history (starting with Brigham Young's coming to authority). And when you consider that LDS is much younger and much smaller than traditional Christianity it is easier to see why these Mormon denominations are easier to ignore. I can appreciate that the LDS perspective is that these groups are apostates because they do not really have the right prophet as their head. They are thus not 'real' Mormons. But that is not very different from what the people of many Protestant denominations think about other virtually similar Protestant denomination's attendees.

It is very tempting for an outsider like me to view this as a proslytizing version of special pleading, or, what perhaps amounts to the same thing, as lying (or at least being dishonest). So my question is, how should I view the procedure, on the part of some missionaries, to stress Protestant denominations (and what's the big deal about different deminations anyhow?) and ignore Mormon ones? I have the option of giving in to my temptation or, perhaps there is some better way to view the situation-something that you know, as Mormon ladies and gentlemen, which I do not.

Thank you. Shalom out.

[mnn727]

Not sure about the rest here, but I don't believe in an "Invisable Church". Perhaps its just semantics though.

I definatly do not believe different denominations only disagree on minor points and I speak as one who investigated many denominations as an adult before becoming LDS. Its true that some are very close with only minor things seperating them, but its also true there are some very wide divides with members believing the others will "roast in hell". I wonder how many different denominations you have attended (for a long enough period of time to truely learn what they believe)?

It is very tempting for an outsider like me to view this as a proslytizing version of special pleading, or, what perhaps amounts to the same thing, as lying (or at least being dishonest).

It sounds to me, from this and other posts that you are less interested in learning what we actually believe than you are in 'scoring points'. Just my personal observation based on reading your posts. Perhaps its time to humble yourself before God and find out where He wants to lead you -- thats hard to do, I was 'stubborn' in this sense for the longest time. Much of my investigation was aimed at finding a Church I was comfortable with, rather than the one God wanted me to join -- funny thing is when I finally decided to do what He wanted me to, I found that His Church made me more comfortable than ones I had been looking at on my own. Not trying to offend you with this. merely to get you to think about what you are doing and why, I hope you take it in the way intended.

[evangelical]

Not sure about the rest here, but I don't believe in an "Invisable Church". Perhaps its just semantics though.

I definatly do not believe different denominations only disagree on minor points and I speak as one who investigated many denominations as an adult before becoming LDS. Its true that some are very close with only minor things seperating them, but its also true there are some very wide divides with members believing the others will "roast in hell". I wonder how many different denominations you have attended (for a long enough period of time to truely learn what they believe)?

It sounds to me, from this and other posts that you are less interested in learning what we actually believe than you are in 'scoring points'. Just my personal observation based on reading your posts. Perhaps its time to humble yourself before God and find out where He wants to lead you -- thats hard to do, I was 'stubborn' in this sense for the longest time. Much of my investigation was aimed at finding a Church I was comfortable with, rather than the one God wanted me to join -- funny thing is when I finally decided to do what He wanted me to, I found that His Church made me more comfortable than ones I had been looking at on my own. Not trying to offend you with this. merely to get you to think about what you are doing and why, I hope you take it in the way intended.

First of all, thanks for the kind response. Second, I guess I should have been more clear. In the book, Mere Christianity, by C S Lewis, we read of being in a hallway of sorts. Each door is a different denomination of Christianity (including Roman Catholicism). This book is adressed to Christianity in general, as opposed to a particular 'door'. He is speaking to just Christianity or Christianity qua Christianity. The very fact that he could write such a book is proof that each 'door' is the same in fundamentals though not in secondary matters. These minor differences, says Lewis, are often considered of the utmost importance within a given 'door'. It is hard, he says, to get everyone to agree, sometimes, on what exactly counts as an essential Christian doctrine. But perhaps certain members of a given denomination are, I think, getting a bit carried away.

So far as I know every Protestant and Catholic church holds to the first four ecumenical councils. These councils provide us with a good standard with respect to determining essential Christian doctrine for they are, by definition, what all Christians have always believed. The LDS, and others who claim to be Christian yet deny the cardinal doctrines of the councils, have major problems with these councils. It is very common for such groups to misunderstand the nature of the councils as I understand it. The councils were not to allow human doctrine into the beleifs of the church or to decree more or less arbitrary pet doctrines. Rather, there where people in the days of the early church who were teaching things contrary to what the Bible itself taught. Therefore, it became necessary to clearly explain what the Bible itself taught so that Christian laypeople would not be so easily lead astray. The church itself, as a complete body, could provide an interpretive framework to avoid misinterpretation. This is not a bad thing but a good thing. When I was first starting to read the Old Testament, I was very concerned about probably having to get circumcised. If I knew the big picture (i.e. by having an interpretive framework) then I would have known that present-day Christians do not need to get circumcised. Not only is an interpretive framework good, it is absolutely essential. Mormons have an interpretive framework too. For example, there is no way to come to the interpretation of the Corinthians passage on glories that you do, in less you first believe in the doctrine of the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial kingdoms. Your doctrine, just like mine, guides your understanding of the Bible. Of course, that doctrine is ideally based ultimately on Scripture. And what is "Gospel Principles" if not a good summary, though unispired (like the creeds), of LDS doctrine? It is for all intents and purposes a creed. If that book is not "the doctrines and commandments of men" then niether are the creeds of traditional Christendom. The creeds, then, unite all of traditional Christianity. There is no disagreement on these cardinal points. If there is a sect which is in significant disagreement with the early creeds, then and only then, from the perspective of traditional Christianity, is the sect outside of the universal Christian church. For example, if a Jehovah's Witness denies that Jesus is God (and he or she does deny that), then a Jehovah's Witness cannot be a Christian on this perspective. They are, in other words, heretics (this is a descriptive, not pejoritive term). But if one denomination believes in infant baptism and another believes in believer baptism, that is a relatively minor (though, of course, it is still important) disagreement. The two denominations, therefore, have no right to call each other heretics. They may consider each other to be wrong, with respect to their own point of view, but neither are heretics or outside the fold of traditional Christianity.

I am not interested in scoring points. Rather, as an individual who has knowledge of Mormonism and also what I would consider to be more biblical Christianity, I can see very clearly that Mormon people are headed for an eternity, quite frankly, in Hell. As a loving Christian man, however, I do not want anyone to go to Hell. The thought of you being eternally damned is made all the worse, it seems, when I think of how decieved, in my opinion, you are. You, and other Mormons, "are not far from the kingdom of God" but you are also not in it, on my view. I am like a beggar telling other beggars where to find food. You have the Bible. You believe the Bible. This is a point of contact between us. It is merely my desire to restore the gospel and the plain and precious truths removed, on my view, from it by the LDS institution. It is not about me winning arguments. Instead, it is about you learning the truth. And I assure you, I do wish to learn all I can about Mormon history, doctrine, Scripture, and culture.

And finally, I am not in any way offended. You strongly believe what you do (and me too) but, while we do not agree, I have presumed, very forwardly, to explain why I think you are wrong. It is only fair to extend the same oppurtunity to you. Do unto others, Jesus said, as you would have them do unto you. Again, I am not suggesting that we contend with one another or fight or argue. Rather, that we have a polite, neighorly, and even loving exchange of ideas. At the end of the day, it goes without saying, you may exercise your agency by continuing to disagree with my views, and remain a faithful Saint. That's what's so great about our country-religious freedom.

[mnn727]

With your answer then, perhaps you should not be posting on "Learn about the Mormon Church" perhaps "Gospel Discussions" or "Christian Beliefs" would be a better place. I would very much like to hear more about how you think we are decieved and discuss it with you, but not in "Learn about the Mormon Church" as its not an appropriate discussion for this board. If you too wish to discuss it, lets start a thread elsewhere.

Edited August 30, 2008 by mnn727

[HiJolly]

Greetings all!

As I see things, there is an important ecclesiastical distiction. This goes at least back to Augustine. There is an visible church and an invisible church. The 'real' church is only the invisible church and it is a body of people. If I were marooned on a desert island for the rest of my life, for example, I would be incapable of attending a visible church service but I would still be a part of the church.

If I were marooned in such a way, I would feel exactly the same as you.

1 Ne. 14: 3, 10, 12, 14

3 And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell—yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end.

• • •

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso 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.

• • •

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

• • •

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

Now it is an unfortunate thing that Elder Bruce McConkie once printed in the book Mormon Doctrine that the "great and abominable" church was the Roman Catholic Church (he later retracted the statement), but this Book of Mormon scripture is saying that essentially, there are only two churches: (1) Christ's (2) Satan's. In that sense, any true believer in Christ is of this "invisible" church.

OTOH, there is a really invisible church of greater truth and reality, referred in our scriptures as the Church of the Firstborn. One is only admitted by the personal invitation of Christ. Unfortunately an apostate faction of mormonism has claimed that name for themselves, so referring to it is sometimes problematic.

Now, when one speaks of various denominations, I suggest, they are really speaking primarily about the visible church only. True, there are people believing slightly different doctrines within these visible churches that also belong to the invisible church. But apart from minor disagreements on secondary issues, the invisible church is "one faith".

In the sense you are using here (which agrees with the BoM sense), I agree.

I have noticed that LDS missionaries often stress such secondary-I hesitate to use the word-divisions. That is, the many Protestant denominations are, apparently, supposed to encourage the prospective convert, in that direction.

?? We do, yes. They do, yes. ??

And yet, and here we are getting close to my question, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not the only Mormon denomination. I was once told, by an LDS missionary, that there have been sects following the wrong key-holder, down throughout history (starting with Brigham Young's coming to authority).

Actually the break-offs started before Joseph's death.

And when you consider that LDS is much younger and much smaller than traditional Christianity it is easier to see why these Mormon denominations are easier to ignore. I can appreciate that the LDS perspective is that these groups are apostates because they do not really have the right prophet as their head. They are thus not 'real' Mormons. But that is not very different from what the people of many Protestant denominations think about other virtually similar Protestant denomination's attendees.

I agree.

It is very tempting for an outsider like me to view this as a proslytizing version of special pleading, or, what perhaps amounts to the same thing, as lying (or at least being dishonest).

You totally lost me there.

So my question is, how should I view the procedure, on the part of some missionaries, to stress Protestant denominations (and what's the big deal about different deminations anyhow?) and ignore Mormon ones?

You're non-denominational, right? What do you know of the Chruch (yes, real church) that Christ set up? You know, with apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, bishops, etc? Why would Christ do that if he didn't care if people were in a Church? Not only this, but when Judas killed himself, the apostles called another disciple to be an apostle. They tried to keep the organization intact.

This is very important. (And, no doubt, contrary to your belief). But it is biblical.

I have the option of giving in to my temptation or, perhaps there is some better way to view the situation-something that you know, as Mormon ladies and gentlemen, which I do not.

Thank you. Shalom out.

Did you just say "peace out"? It's copacetic, dude. Peace.

HiJolly