Unitarian Minister requests: Stop bashing Mormons

[Just_A_Guy]

The analogy that you used was unless you sat down and talked to God then denied what he was saying then you're not going to hell. To me that is impossible regardless of what I "believe" unless you know a way for this to happen. in which case I would beg you for that information so that I may talk to him. I have ALOT of questions for him.

You want to know how?

Here's how:

After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses…

Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; …when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions—Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the First Born [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 150-51].

[Misshalfway]

1/2 I did not intented to come off as condescending toward you in any way I was really just trying to see if I was following what you have been saying in this little convo. I apologize to you if you felt I was patronizing. I didn't mean it. It's an important issue that is at the root of this.

What is the issue as you see it? That there is an appropriate circumstance that justifies bashing another faith? I wouldn't justify it if it were my own faith doing it! What good comes from twisting falsehoods into sensationalism and using people and their weakness as the stick by which I cause them to trip?

People like Decker and many others do this because they CAN'T create the same kind of convincing sensationalism from simply discussing the facts and by simply letting the doctrine of their own church stand on its own. Truth can stand on its own in love. It doesn't need all the destructive theatrics to convince or to condemn for that matter.

It's sad that there are still religious people, especially Christians, who lower themselves to using slander to convince people instead of the convincing power of spirit and the love it creates. As if any of this sad behavior is serving the Lord and promoting the objectives of God.

I am not saying there aren't circumstances that require the bearing of direct testimony against someone or something. What I am saying is that in general we share our message and we let people accept it or reject it. The rest is between them and God. If God commands a prophet or teacher to testify and they don't, I suppose the blood would be on their hands. But if truth is taught and the people simply won't listen, God knows what to do with them and that is something that isn't part of our job description as followers.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Vort]

You want to know how?

Here's how:

Here's another Joseph Smith quote that, I suspect, is appropriate to this conversation:

"The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday."

Joseph Smith shared with some of his close friends, and at the end of his life with the larger Church, the doctrine that (in Lorenzo Snow's words) "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." Have we treasured this doctrine, pondered on its meaning, tried to understand it, and kept it as a pearl of knowledge, revealed unto us but safe from the vulgar world? Or have we widely broadcast it, even to our bitterest enemies, who are not shy in distorting this glorious doctrine and then using as a club to bash over our heads?

It is my opinion that sharing our intimate and sacred doctrines with those who have proven their hatred and contempt toward the Church and toward religion in general is foolish. The gospel is preached to all, and we can and ought to share those basic precepts with everyone, even the haters. But careful, doctrinally rich explanations are not merely lost on such people; they will be turned against us.

That's my view of things.

[superdad69]

You want to know how?

Here's how:

Thank you for that. Now just as a follow up...what about people who have had this belief in the past and then reformed? Take me for instance. I used to be a Christian. I was raised as one. My grandfather is a pentecostal preacher....imagine our conversations...anyway. So I was told once that I was to receive the wholly ghost. I really believed it. I tried so hard. They all prayed in a circle around me for half an hour to 45 minutes and I got nothing. I wanted it so bad but I got nothing. I thought at the time that it was my fault. I wasn't "good" enough to receive it. I was very upset about this. But then I joined the Army and found out there where others who believed strongly in COMPLETELY different religions. I actually had an 11 year old boy for example cry in Baghdad because in his word "I was going to hell" I had to examine this long and hard before I learned my truth. My truth is there is no God. That's why I didn't receive it. It wasn't there to receive. Even if it was I would want no part of it because people like the kid in Baghdad where going to hell if it did. That was my spiritual quest in a nut shell. Now I have become an atheist and I take a more scientific approach. Scientifically and logically speaking...how would I speak to God?

[Misshalfway]

Scientifically and logically speaking...how would I speak to God?

If one doesn't believe in a supreme being, then the process of communication would be stiffled even if the atheist were wrong in his/her assumption that there was not a god. Communication with God, as I understand it, requires faith. Faith enough to lead one to pray. Once the communication process starts, answers can be received from God inside of a range of personal experience which could include spiritual feelings or thoughts, dreams, or actual visitations from God himself.

[superdad69]

Ok but as I said earlier...what do you say to someone who DID believe but got nothing? I'm not the only one with this issue I can assure you. I have talked to two people here that had the same experience and has since turned away from this belief. I'm not saying they where right or wrong. I'm just saying it happens. You are correct. I do not believe in the existence of God. But I didn't just dream it up! It was shown to me by my own experience. So I ask again...how can I speak to God? Simply believing didn't cut it. Now what?

[Just_A_Guy]

I see your point, Vort.

But it is supposed to be a "secret" that mankind can get revelation from God? That he can encounter Him face to face, after having been proved at all hazards?

Superdad was asking how he could get a divine manifestation. Should I lie to him and tell him that it isn't possible? Or should I tell him the truth--that it's possible, but he's got to pay the price first?

. . . They all prayed in a circle around me for half an hour to 45 minutes and I got nothing. I wanted it so bad but I got nothing. I thought at the time that it was my fault. I wasn't "good" enough to receive it.

It's not what you do, superdad. It's what you become. You don't become anything in forty-five minutes.

My truth is there is no God. That's why I didn't receive it. It wasn't there to receive. Even if it was I would want no part of it because people like the kid in Baghdad where going to hell if it did. That was my spiritual quest in a nut shell. Now I have become an atheist and I take a more scientific approach. Scientifically and logically speaking...how would I speak to God?

You've got to approach God on his terms, not yours. As long as you go into the process thinking that someone owes you something . . . you'll get nothing.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Misshalfway]

Ok but as I said earlier...what do you say to someone who DID believe but got nothing? I'm not the only one with this issue I can assure you. I have talked to two people here that had the same experience and has since turned away from this belief. I'm not saying they where right or wrong. I'm just saying it happens. You are correct. I do not believe in the existence of God. But I didn't just dream it up! It was shown to me by my own experience. So I ask again...how can I speak to God? Simply believing didn't cut it. Now what?

I appreciate that someone could pray and experience nothing and conclude that there was nothing to experience in the first place. I can sympathize with the experience because I have experienced similar things and felt similar emotions as a result. My condundrum as a believer is that this is not my only experience. I have other spiritual experiences, multiple ones, that have come to me as a result of faithful, prayerful experimentation. I have the opposite problem. I can't not believe.

[Vort]

I see your point, Vort.

But it is supposed to be a "secret" that mankind can get revelation from God? That he can encounter Him face to face, after having been proved at all hazards?

Superdad was asking how he could get a divine manifestation. Should I lie to him and tell him that it isn't possible? Or should I tell him the truth--that it's possible, but he's got to pay the price first?

Believe it or not, JaG, what I wrote was not aimed at you personally. (I know that's how it came across, so please just take my word for it -- that's not how I meant it.) I did not see anything necessarily inappropriate in what you wrote.

It just seems to me that the good-hearted people on this site are only too willing to take great pains to explain, meticulously, every point of doctrine they are asked. I suspect that wiser (and, incidentally, more effective) response would be along the lines of, "Study the scriptures and pray." The meat of the gospel ought not be thrown to those barely able, or willing, to digest even the milk.

[pam]

Superdad...I understand your problem. Help us to understand how we could help you pray to a God that you don't believe in. The only thing I can say is...it may not happen by trying to pray to God once. May not happen trying it twice...perhaps you won't ever feel that you have an answer. Heck sometimes it happens to people when praying that do believe.

I guess I'm trying to understand as well, what advice or what help we can offer.

[ttribe]

I've heard the name and read one of his books called, "The Slumber of Christianity" but I didn't really like it too much. What about him?

Here are a few places to start:

Ed Decker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ed Decker - Career anti-Mormon critic

Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism - Daniel C. Peterson - FARMS Review - Volume 7 - Issue 2

FAIR Topical Guide: Decker, Ed

The God Makers - FAIRMormon

Quote mining, selective quotation, and distortion - FAIRMormon

They Lie In Wait to Deceive

The Truth About "The God Makers," Table of Contents

The Truth About "The God Makers," Appendix A

Happy reading! Pay special attention to the last link which provides you with the Anti-Defamation League's response to Mr. Decker's "work".

[superdad69]

Superdad...I understand your problem. Help us to understand how we could help you pray to a God that you don't believe in. The only thing I can say is...it may not happen by trying to pray to God once. May not happen trying it twice...perhaps you won't ever feel that you have an answer. Heck sometimes it happens to people when praying that do believe.

I guess I'm trying to understand as well, what advice or what help we can offer.

I appreciate that. I really am not looking for help. I'm just trying to learn your belief system. I don't really feel like I need help. I'm a very happy well adjusted person. I'm just looking for answers. And to the other person who responded I wasn't only there for 45 minutes. LOL maybe I wrote that wrong. I was at the church for a long time. When I decided that I believed it and wanted to be baptized is when they said I was to receive the spirit before I was baptized in water. That's when my doubt took place. Sorry for the confusion

[Just_A_Guy]

Believe it or not, JaG, what I wrote was not aimed at you personally. (I know that's how it came across, so please just take my word for it -- that's not how I meant it.) I did not see anything necessarily inappropriate in what you wrote.

It just seems to me that the good-hearted people on this site are only too willing to take great pains to explain, meticulously, every point of doctrine they are asked. I suspect that wiser (and, incidentally, more effective) response would be along the lines of, "Study the scriptures and pray." The meat of the gospel ought not be thrown to those barely able, or willing, to digest even the milk.

Thanks for the clarification, Vort. :)

[prisonchaplain]

No...the difference is not engaging in cheap polemics to further one's own cause. Surely you can see the difference.

I doubt that any of the non-LDS here would support the cheap polemics--especially the garment wavers and BoM stompers that LDSFAIR catches on video at your conferences. So, if that's it, then we're all in agreement.

On the other hand, both LDS and evangelicals evangelize each other. So, attempting to convert people is not off limits either. Thus, Dr. T's question is sound--just what are the godly limits of our criticism of one another (let's presume all parties of doing so in good faith). Is it style, tone, caliber of material? When does one cross the line, and become a theological jerk, rather than a passionate evangelist?

[pam]

I just think sometimes remaining calm and attempting to answer questions is the way to go. Instead of immediately calling someone a troll and accusing of an agenda hurts more than it helps. I will admit, I have been guilty of doing this as well.

Whether we convert someone or whether we make a transformation in a person, there are still little seeds being planted. Whether they bare fruit, who knows?

[prisonchaplain]

Apparently, you aren't all that familiar with Ed Decker then?

Just as FYI, I've heard of Ed Dekker. He supposedly did a seminar at the church I go to, more than ten years past. I'm aware that he's accused of flagrant dishonesty, only because of being here for awhile.

Now consider...I'm an evangelical minister, and that's the extent of my knowledge. Most evangelicals, and certainly Protestants in general, have indeed never heard of him. He's not a big name.

[Misshalfway]

I doubt that any of the non-LDS here would support the cheap polemics--especially the garment wavers and BoM stompers that LDSFAIR catches on video at your conferences. So, if that's it, then we're all in agreement.

On the other hand, both LDS and evangelicals evangelize each other. So, attempting to convert people is not off limits either. Thus, Dr. T's question is sound--just what are the godly limits of our criticism of one another (let's presume all parties of doing so in good faith). Is it style, tone, caliber of material? When does one cross the line, and become a theological jerk, rather than a passionate evangelist?

His question is sound and has been answered repeatedly.

The line is when being right becomes more important than the people we are speaking to. We try to force our message....or bash anothers to make our position seem "more" true. And if we can't win on doctrinal grounds, we lower ourselves to the using of personal attacks.

Then the gospel message loses its power anyway because we aren't talking to a person out of love or concern for their eternal welfare or even how their mind learns or how the scope of their experience has shaped their attitudes. It becomes a selfish agenda so I can feel right and prove that I am.

If you need an example....just wait 10 min. and there will be another thread where someone will illustrate exactly how it all works.

[prisonchaplain]

What is the issue as you see it?

*That there is an appropriate circumstance that justifies bashing another faith?

*What good comes from twisting falsehoods into sensationalism and using people and their weakness as the stick by which I cause them to trip?

*All the destructive theatrics to convince or to condemn for that matter.

*Using slander to convince people instead of the convincing power of spirit and the love it creates.

Misshalfway, I probably should not speak for Dr. T, but I'm fairly certain that neither he, nor I, nor MOST of the Protestant Christians (inc. evangelicals) would agree that any of the above are appropriate. So, if not doing those things is the standard, I guess we're all good.

Seriously, even the people you would say are engaging in such probably do not see themselves doing so--not intentionally. Those that are caught doing so, should be condemned. Period.

But, usually such accusations are a matter of interpretation. Material is viewed very differently, depending on who sees/reads it. One person's passionate evangelism is another's bellocose, aggressive nonsense.

Nevertheless, we'd all agree that those bullets above, when we see them, would all be wrong and ungodly.

I am not saying there aren't circumstances that require the bearing of direct testimony against someone or something. What I am saying is that in general we share our message and we let people accept it or reject it. The rest is between them and God. If God commands a prophet or teacher to testify and they don't, I suppose the blood would be on their hands. But if truth is taught and the people simply won't listen, God knows what to do with them and that is something that isn't part of our job description as followers.

Usually we offer a cup of cold water to our enemies. On rare occasions we call down fire and see God destroy 4000 of their false prophets.

[Dr T]

What is the issue as you see it? That there is an appropriate circumstance that justifies bashing another faith? No maam, not that we ought to bash another faith but as for calling it what it is when it deviates from Christian thought then not to be afraid and sit on it without saying something. I wouldn't justify it if it were my own faith doing it! What good comes from twisting falsehoods into sensationalism and using people and their weakness as the stick by which I cause them to trip? I'm all for catching flies with sugar/honey over vinegar and all that for sure.

People like Decker and many others do this because they CAN'T create the same kind of convincing sensationalism from simply discussing the facts and by simply letting the doctrine of their own church stand on its own. Yeah, sensationalism is not really the main goal in sharing what is believed. Truth can stand on its own in love. I agree. Truth can stand on its own. It doesn't need all the destructive theatrics to convince or to condemn for that matter. I'm not sure if we are talking about the same aspects in this discussion really. It might be peripheral. Unless it is a "destructoin of a false belief" maybe then it's the ultimate goal.

It's sad that there are still religious people, especially Christians, who lower themselves to using slander to convince people instead of the convincing power of spirit and the love it creates. As if any of this sad behavior is serving the Lord and promoting the objectives of God.

I am not saying there aren't circumstances that require the bearing of direct testimony against someone or something. What I am saying is that in general we share our message and we let people accept it or reject it. The rest is between them and God. It's always between God and them imo. I will never convert somebody because it's God and not me at all. If God commands a prophet or teacher to testify and they don't, I suppose the blood would be on their hands. But if truth is taught and the people simply won't listen, God knows what to do with them and that is something that isn't part of our job description as followers.

I think if things take people away from a correct understanding of God as laid out in the Bible then it's ok to bring up.

[prisonchaplain]

To superdad: Wow, can I relate to your journey. I am a pentecostal preacher, and I've seen altar times handled badly. Children "being taught to speak in tongues," etc. One of the major theologians in our movement, Stanely Horton, reports such an experience, and how it kept him from God's closeness and blessings for several years.

And also, I remember as a teen, hearing the quip, "If you go to India unsure of your faith, the physical poverty and the fervency of different religions will likely have you leaving an atheist."

So, how would an atheist talk to God? I actually think you have a better likelihood than many self-identified Christians. You know where you stand. Many, who are Christian-in-name-only, think they are tight with God, and have no true relationship, no sincere religious practice. So, when God does something in your life, and you sense it just might be him, you'll know you need to figure it out. Many of us "believers" would just take it for granted, and never give it a second thought.

[superdad69]

To superdad: Wow, can I relate to your journey. I am a pentecostal preacher, and I've seen altar times handled badly. Children "being taught to speak in tongues," etc. One of the major theologians in our movement, Stanely Horton, reports such an experience, and how it kept him from God's closeness and blessings for several years.

And also, I remember as a teen, hearing the quip, "If you go to India unsure of your faith, the physical poverty and the fervency of different religions will likely have you leaving an atheist."

So, how would an atheist talk to God? I actually think you have a better likelihood than many self-identified Christians. You know where you stand. Many, who are Christian-in-name-only, think they are tight with God, and have no true relationship, no sincere religious practice. So, when God does something in your life, and you sense it just might be him, you'll know you need to figure it out. Many of us "believers" would just take it for granted, and never give it a second thought.

Thank you for the advice! Any way I could move the process along? I have LOTS of questions that nobody seems to be able to answer. That's why I started my website in the first place. To give others the answers I found and how I found them and also to receive other's answers and how they found them. I see you are working in a prison. That has to be difficult. How can you stay so solid in your belief knowing what else is out there? What do you say to Muslims? Or Hindu's? Or atheists?

[beefche]

I doubt that any of the non-LDS here would support the cheap polemics--especially the garment wavers and BoM stompers that LDSFAIR catches on video at your conferences. So, if that's it, then we're all in agreement.

On the other hand, both LDS and evangelicals evangelize each other. So, attempting to convert people is not off limits either. Thus, Dr. T's question is sound--just what are the godly limits of our criticism of one another (let's presume all parties of doing so in good faith). Is it style, tone, caliber of material? When does one cross the line, and become a theological jerk, rather than a passionate evangelist?

PC, I'm not sure I understand the reason for a Sunday preaching of other faith's beliefs/falsehoods. I think that for anyone who believes they attend the Lord's church, the pulpit is one where truth is taught, repentence is cried, and love is shown. IMO, the time to criticize other churches or beliefs is in personal settings. If a pastor is concerned that his flock is being "led away", then I would think preaching God's word (the pastor's interpretation) would be the best way to teach his congregation the truth and to recognize truth. So, when his flock is being talked to by anyone (missionaries, neighbors, cashier, etc), they can learn to recognize truth on their own.

My bff is Nazarene and I know she has had sermons on the evils of other religions/beliefs. I have just never understood the reason behind it--I understand the surface reason of warning others of evil--but I don't understand how discussing the evils of Satanism can bring the Holy Spirit in. I find that the fastest way for the Holy Ghost to attend a meeting is to talk of God's truth and love.

[ttribe]

I doubt that any of the non-LDS here would support the cheap polemics--especially the garment wavers and BoM stompers that LDSFAIR catches on video at your conferences. So, if that's it, then we're all in agreement.

On the other hand, both LDS and evangelicals evangelize each other. So, attempting to convert people is not off limits either. Thus, Dr. T's question is sound--just what are the godly limits of our criticism of one another (let's presume all parties of doing so in good faith). Is it style, tone, caliber of material? When does one cross the line, and become a theological jerk, rather than a passionate evangelist?

I think the issue has been addressed already by other posters, but I'll try this - when I was a missionary in TN and KY, I surely was evangelizing to many Christians of various sects. However, do you know what I carried in my bag for teaching materials? A Bible, a Book of Mormon, and lessons about my faith. Nowhere in that bag of mine would you find an anti-Pentecostal tract, or an anti-Church of God tract, etc. I didn't go into people's homes with the intention of tearing down their existing faith; but of building upon it. However, I've not met one evangelical who attempted to "witness" to me who, upon discovering my Mormon faith, didn't immediately launch into an attack (of some kind) on my current belief system before they told me a thing about theirs.

In sum, it is largely a matter of approach - one attempts to build on an existing faith structure; the other seeks to tear down the existing one and supplant it. Is the message of modern-day evangelical Christianity (so-called "mainstream") so weak that an entire of cottage industry of Anti-Mormonism must be built up to defend it? It hardly seems reasonable, in my opinion.

Edited October 27, 2009 by ttribe

[ttribe]

Just as FYI, I've heard of Ed Dekker. He supposedly did a seminar at the church I go to, more than ten years past. I'm aware that he's accused of flagrant dishonesty, only because of being here for awhile.

Now consider...I'm an evangelical minister, and that's the extent of my knowledge. Most evangelicals, and certainly Protestants in general, have indeed never heard of him. He's not a big name.

Are you suggesting that the "God Makers" was not widely distributed, shown, and used to scare numerous flocks away from their evil Mormon neighbors throughout much of the 80's? I remember, as a child, having my best friend's Mom tell me how "devilish" my beliefs were as a result of the "God Makers" and other similar works (e.g. "The Mormon Mirage).

If it's not Ed Decker, it's someone else - Richard Abanes, Michael Quinn, et. al. Go to your local "Christian" book store and see how many books about the Mormons you find (and you'll not find an objective analysis amongst them). Then, if you have one nearby, go to your local Deseret Book and see if you can find a single book, DVD, video, etc. warning Mormons about the "evils" of Pentecostalism, or Catholicism, etc. Should be an eye-opening experiment.

[superdad69]

I think the issue has been addressed already by other posters, but I'll try this - when I was a missionary in TN and KY, I surely was evangelizing to many Christians of various sects. However, do you know what I carried in my bag for teaching materials? A Bible, a Book of Mormon, and lessons about my faith. Nowhere in that bag of mine would you find an anti-Pentecostal tract, or an anti-Church of God tract, etc. I didn't go into people's homes with the intention of tearing down their existing faith; but of building upon it. However, I've not met one evangelical who attempted to "witness" to me who, upon discovering my Mormon faith, didn't immediately launch into an attack (of some kind) on my current belief system before they told me a thing about theirs.

In sum, it is largely a matter of approach - one attempts to build on an existing faith structure; the other seeks to tear down the existing one and supplant it. Is the message of modern-day evangelical Christianity (so-called "mainstream") so weak that an entire of cottage industry of Anti-Mormonism must be built up to defend it? It hardly seems defensible, in my opinion.

I know I'm an Atheist and I only JUST recently learned the difference in the 2 but if I may...the Mormon religion was founded on the back of Christianity. Of course you can add to their existing religion. That is exactly what your belief is. And it seems to me only logical for them to have to tear you down then rebuild you to their specs. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the tactic but you have to admit....it is logical