Unitarian Minister requests: Stop bashing Mormons

[ttribe]

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

Superficially it may appear logical.

[superdad69]

How is it not totally? I mean like I said I am just learning but...let me use an analogy to better explain myself. If I was to build an addition to my house, lets call my house Christianity, and I wanted to build it upstairs. The addition I would call Mormonism. If I built that addition so big that it hurts the original foundation of my house would i not want to tear it down? I'm not saying that your religion does this but, I'm sure this is the viewpoint of many standard Christians. Now on the other hand if I had this house named Christianity and I had not YET built the addition wouldn't it make sense to leave the house intact and just build from there? If I'm wrong at all please point it out. As I said I am JUST learning

[Misshalfway]

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.

Ok. So how do we correct each other? We share ideas and we allow people to make their conclusions. What more can we do? And I couldn't agree with you more, Dr. T, that it is God that converts thru the holy spirit. We are only tools in his hands. So really it does all boil down to personal responsibility and when life is over and when we set in front of God, I am sure he will bring up when we felt his spirit and the invitations that were presented to us.

And if this is the best way for people to begin believing in truth, what place in that process do the activities of Beefche's post and that of ttribe's mission experience have a positive place? This is the activity that doesn't make sense to me from a Christian perspective. Perhaps it could be seen as loving to point out falsehoods. I just have a hard time seeing that this is the only motivation behind these tactics. Forgive me for my cynicism. I think people do it because it gets the desired results. I am not sure I could characterize those results as conversion.

[Misshalfway]

How is it not totally? I mean like I said I am just learning but...let me use an analogy to better explain myself. If I was to build an addition to my house, lets call my house Christianity, and I wanted to build it upstairs. The addition I would call Mormonism. If I built that addition so big that it hurts the original foundation of my house would i not want to tear it down? I'm not saying that your religion does this but, I'm sure this is the viewpoint of many standard Christians. Now on the other hand if I had this house named Christianity and I had not YET built the addition wouldn't it make sense to leave the house intact and just build from there? If I'm wrong at all please point it out. As I said I am JUST learning

We are not talking about adding a floor or an extra guest room. Mormonism is a restoration of truth that was lost. Our assertions are insulting to the rest of Christianity. IF we are right they are completely wrong.

If I am building my house and you think I am building it wrong, that is one thing. Stand on the sidewalk and observe my faulty building practices. heck, come bring me muffins and start a conversation with me because you care that my house might fall in onto my head. Don't throw cherry bombs over my porch or gather as many neighbors as you can to do the same. Don't' plant a rocket launcher in your back yard and fire it to destroy my house.

[Vort]

How is it not totally? I mean like I said I am just learning but...let me use an analogy to better explain myself. If I was to build an addition to my house, lets call my house Christianity, and I wanted to build it upstairs. The addition I would call Mormonism. If I built that addition so big that it hurts the original foundation of my house would i not want to tear it down? I'm not saying that your religion does this but, I'm sure this is the viewpoint of many standard Christians. Now on the other hand if I had this house named Christianity and I had not YET built the addition wouldn't it make sense to leave the house intact and just build from there? If I'm wrong at all please point it out. As I said I am JUST learning

Your analogy is flawed. Here is a better analogy:

You build a house and name it "Christianity". This house has some characteristic features -- gabled roof, indoor plumbing, marble staircase -- that set it apart as being the Christian house. Over the years, the ownership changes things, tearing out the staircase and replacing it with a ladder, replacing the roof with a flat tin model, cutting up the plumbing and using it for talking between parts of the house. The change out the very foundation of the house, modifying it to their tastes. By the time they are done, the house of Christianity bears only a passing resemblance, if that, to your original.

Later on, you decide to rebuild your house of Christianity. You don't bother acquiring the old house, of course, because retrofitting it would be basically impossible. Instead, you dig a foundation on a new plot of land and start building. You use materials originally used on the first house, and you build it using a plan very close to your original plan -- indoor plumbing, gabled roof, marble staircase. When you finish, you say, "Okay, there's the restored house of Christianity."

The owners and occupants of the first house object. "THAT'S not the Christianity house!" they exclaim. "WE have the true house of Christianity! It was built HERE, on THIS spot! Look, here's an original wall! Here's some linoleum built with the house! Here's the original fireplace, or at least something built where the original fireplace was! That 'new' house of Christianity is nothing but a fraudulent and amateurish copy that uses a weird design and looks NOTHING like our real house of Christianity!"

Which is the real house of Christianity? I contend that the new house, rebuilt on the same plan and with the same materials as the original, is the "real" house.

The question comes down to this: If you are the true architect and builder of the original house of Christianity, did you in fact build the new house of Christianity? And did you in fact use the same basic plan and the same materials? If so, your rebuilt house is the "real thing". Otherwise, the vastly modified "original" is the "real thing", or else the "real thing" does not exist any longer, if it ever did.

[superdad69]

We are not talking about adding a floor or an extra guest room. Mormonism is a restoration of truth that was lost. Our assertions are insulting to the rest of Christianity. IF we are right they are completely wrong.

If I am building my house and you think I am building it wrong, that is one thing. Stand on the sidewalk and observe my faulty building practices. heck, come bring me muffins and start a conversation with me because you care that my house might fall in onto my head. Don't throw cherry bombs over my porch or gather as many neighbors as you can to do the same. Don't' plant a rocket launcher in your back yard and fire it to destroy my house.

Very good point. I know that is the way you see it as a Mormon, BUT look at it from their viewpoint. To them this statement "Mormonism is a restoration of truth that was lost" implies that they are "lost" I'm sure they don't take kindly to this. Again I'm not saying they are wrong but how could they not start be attacking? Is not your very existence an attack on them? You are here to restore truth. They feel like there in no truth to restore. So by you believing what you believe I could see how they would feel they need to attack. I'm not condoning it. Just trying to see it from their perspective.

[prisonchaplain]

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?

Here's my own thought process. If there is/are god(s), I only need to really pay attention if that God is one. After all, if there's more, they are not all powerful, and I just need to stay out of there way.

So, if there is one God, does he care about his creation? If not, or if it's not clear, then I can be a "soft atheist" or an agnostic. But, to me, if there is a Creator, he cares. And if so, the God would try to relate to his creation universally, not just in pockets.

So, really quickly I narrow faith systems to Christianity and Islam. And, in Islam, the faith is still too linguistically and culturally bound. After all, I must learn Arabic before I can legitimately study the Qur'an. And, sure enough, Christianity teaches that God loves us so much he comes in love, and allows his Son, his emissary, to be sacrificed for us. That resonates!

So, to the Hindu, who is accustom to many gods, I'd just show them Jesus. They often consider him the local god here anyway. If his power is true and resonates, they will often sit and learn, and some will convert. To the Muslim, our difference really comes down to whether Jesus is a human prophet, or the Son of God. I give them a cup of water, show them the loving power of my faith, and answer any questions. To the atheist, our difference is even simpler. I believe there is God. In order for my belief to make any sense it has to work. My life must be good. I must live with an underlying confidence and peace. It rains on all, but I believe I know where the rain comes from, ultimately.

Really...I don't have to say a lot. I just have to be, to serve, to carry myself well, and let God do the convincing. When I get a chance, I give a ready defense. But I don't panic, and I don't think I have to convince anyone. If God is real, He'll do the wooing.

[ttribe]

How is it not totally? I mean like I said I am just learning but...let me use an analogy to better explain myself. If I was to build an addition to my house, lets call my house Christianity, and I wanted to build it upstairs. The addition I would call Mormonism. If I built that addition so big that it hurts the original foundation of my house would i not want to tear it down? I'm not saying that your religion does this but, I'm sure this is the viewpoint of many standard Christians. Now on the other hand if I had this house named Christianity and I had not YET built the addition wouldn't it make sense to leave the house intact and just build from there? If I'm wrong at all please point it out. As I said I am JUST learning

IMO, there are enough fundamental theological differences to justify an alteration of approach away from the tearing down.

[superdad69]

Your analogy is flawed. Here is a better analogy:

You build a house and name it "Christianity". This house has some characteristic features -- gabled roof, indoor plumbing, marble staircase -- that set it apart as being the Christian house. Over the years, the ownership changes things, tearing out the staircase and replacing it with a ladder, replacing the roof with a flat tin model, cutting up the plumbing and using it for talking between parts of the house. The change out the very foundation of the house, modifying it to their tastes. By the time they are done, the house of Christianity bears only a passing resemblance, if that, to your original.

Later on, you decide to rebuild your house of Christianity. You don't bother acquiring the old house, of course, because retrofitting it would be basically impossible. Instead, you dig a foundation on a new plot of land and start building. You use materials originally used on the first house, and you build it using a plan very close to your original plan -- indoor plumbing, gabled roof, marble staircase. When you finish, you say, "Okay, there's the restored house of Christianity."

The owners and occupants of the first house object. "THAT'S not the Christianity house!" they exclaim. "WE have the true house of Christianity! It was built HERE, on THIS spot! Look, here's an original wall! Here's some linoleum built with the house! Here's the original fireplace, or at least something built where the original fireplace was! That 'new' house of Christianity is nothing but a fraudulent and amateurish copy that uses a weird design and looks NOTHING like our real house of Christianity!"

Which is the real house of Christianity? I contend that the new house, rebuilt on the same plan and with the same materials as the original, is the "real" house.

The question comes down to this: If you are the true architect and builder of the original house of Christianity, did you in fact build the new house of Christianity? And did you in fact use the same basic plan and the same materials? If so, your rebuilt house is the "real thing". Otherwise, the vastly modified "original" is the "real thing", or else the "real thing" does not exist any longer, if it ever did.

Wow. That is a better analogy. But there is one major issue. The people who built the house feel like they have more right to it than the people who built the second house. That is my understanding of why Christians may be so upset with Mormons. All I'm saying is that it is logical. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. It's just an outsiders perspective of things

Edited October 27, 2009 by superdad69

[superdad69]

IMO, there are enough fundamental theological differences to justify an alteration of approach away from the tearing down.

Like.....?

[Misshalfway]

Very good point. I know that is the way you see it as a Mormon, BUT look at it from their viewpoint. To them this statement "Mormonism is a restoration of truth that was lost" implies that they are "lost" I'm sure they don't take kindly to this. Again I'm not saying they are wrong but how could they not start be attacking? Is not your very existence an attack on them? You are here to restore truth. They feel like there in no truth to restore. So by you believing what you believe I could see how they would feel they need to attack. I'm not condoning it. Just trying to see it from their perspective.

I am not saying I don't understand the threat. The threat is real. What I am saying is that if one is planted on sure ground, there is no reason to fear or become offended. There is only love and concern for anothers wellbeing.

[beefche]

Wow. That is a better analogy. But there is one major issue. The people who built the house feel like they have more right to it than the people who built the second house. That is my understanding of why Christians may be so upset with Mormons. All I'm saying is that it is logical. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. It's just an outsiders perspective of things

Continuing with this analogy, then I would think the owners of the original, changed home would say, "Look, this house is the original. Let me tell you why our floor is better. Let me explain why our roof construction is the only true construction." Teach them the truth, then they can judge for themselves. That whole teach a man to fish as opposed to giving him one.

[Misshalfway]

Wow. That is a better analogy. But there is one major issue. The people who built the house feel like they have more right to it than the people who built the second house. That is my understanding of why Christians may be so upset with Mormons. All I'm saying is that it is logical. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. It's just an outsiders perspective of things

Except that we weren't the first who started building alternate housing.

[Vort]

Wow. That is a better analogy. But there is one major issue. The people who built the house feel like they have more right to it than the people who built the second house. That is my standard Christians may be so upset with Mormons. All I'm saying is that it is logical. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. It's just an outsiders perspective of things

At this point, the analogy fails. If the LDS Church is literally true -- if the Lord actually restored his Church through a modern prophet named Joseph Smith -- then no other system, religious or otherwise, offers any sort of salvation from death. This sense of exclusivity is built into the theology of the LDS Church, a fact recognized both within the Church and outside of it from the very beginning. More than perhaps anything else, it is this doctrine of exclusivity that makes "Mormonism" unpalatable to the vast majority of other religions, especially the nominally Christian religions. Given the great efforts over many centuries exerted by various Christian sects to arrive at a compromised consensus of doctrine and find a way to accept each other's baptisms, other rites, and very theology as common to all, the jarring claim of exclusive possession of truth sounds downright hubristic.

Of course, the claims that God the Father and his Son are both corporeal beings, that they literally stood before Joseph Smith and talked with him, that Joseph Smith received literal divine revelation from their own lips and from other sources prepared by God for him, and that the modern LDS Church and its members continue to receive such literal, daily revelation and actually hold the literal Priesthood authority of Jesus Christ himself, do not endear Mormonism to them, either. But it's the exclusivity thing that really rankles.

[superdad69]

Continuing with this analogy, then I would think the owners of the original, changed home would say, "Look, this house is the original. Let me tell you why our floor is better. Let me explain why our roof construction is the only true construction." Teach them the truth, then they can judge for themselves. That whole teach a man to fish as opposed to giving him one.

Very nice. But let's face it. Any time you tell someone their religion is "almost" right but not quite, it's the same to them as telling them they are wrong. For instance if I was to quote Stephen Roberts and say "I contend we are both Atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do." You would instantly see that as condescending and mean. But I'm just adding to what you believe right? It's really in the words what you get out of it.

[superdad69]

At this point, the analogy fails. If the LDS Church is literally true -- if the Lord actually restored his Church through a modern prophet named Joseph Smith -- then no other system, religious or otherwise, offers any sort of salvation from death. This sense of exclusivity is built into the theology of the LDS Church, a fact recognized both within the Church and outside of it from the very beginning. More than perhaps anything else, it is this doctrine of exclusivity that makes "Mormonism" unpalatable to the vast majority of other religions, especially the nominally Christian religions. Given the great efforts over many centuries exerted by various Christian sects to arrive at a compromised consensus of doctrine and find a way to accept each other's baptisms, other rites, and very theology as common to all, the jarring claim of exclusive possession of truth sounds downright hubristic.

Of course, the claims that God the Father and his Son are both corporeal beings, that they literally stood before Joseph Smith and talked with him, that Joseph Smith received literal divine revelation from their own lips and from other sources prepared by God for him, and that the modern LDS Church and its members continue to receive such literal, daily revelation and actually hold the literal Priesthood authority of Jesus Christ himself, do not endear Mormonism to them, either. But it's the exclusivity thing that really rankles.

This is where this is where the analogy fails in YOUR opinion. It failed with a standard Christian as soon as you said "I'm gonna add to my house" In their mind there is no god but god (sound familiar? It's in the quran to) and the Bible and ONLY the Bible represents that God. As soon as you say "But wait! There is MORE!!!" they instantly attack. It's perfectly logical. May not be right. But it IS logical. That's all I'm saying

[Misshalfway]

Very nice. But let's face it. Any time you tell someone their religion is "almost" right but not quite, it's the same to them as telling them they are wrong. For instance if I was to quote Stephen Roberts and say "I contend we are both Atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do." You would instantly see that as condescending and mean. But I'm just adding to what you believe right? It's really in the words what you get out of it.

This is just human nature. We humans don't like being wrong and we all get our dander up when someone points out our flaws. Interesting, don't you think? It doesn't necessarily prove who is doctrinally right and who is wrong. But it is the nature of humans to desire popularity and if we can get enough people behind us or enough proofs, then we get to be the big winner!! Being truly right doesn't always decide who wins.

[Misshalfway]

Becoming offended is a choice. Choosing to attack is another choice. No one is forced to behave this way. In fact for those of us who do subscribe to the Christian way, this behavior is not what our professed and revered leader teaches us to do. In fact, he teaches the opposite. It is often the case that the worst parts of human behavior often undermind the conversion process. I can talk all day about love, but if I am not loving then my words mean nothing.

As far as I can tell, the article Ben posted is more about being Christlike than all the efforts to bash mormons into doctrinal submission.

[superdad69]

This is just human nature. We humans don't like being wrong and we all get our dander up when someone points out our flaws. Interesting, don't you think? It doesn't necessarily prove who is doctrinally right and who is wrong. But it is the nature of humans to desire popularity and if we can get enough people behind us or enough proofs, then we get to be the big winner!! Being truly right doesn't always decide who wins.

Again...this is your opinion. Most feel that if you get the most points you win. The saying "It's not weather you win or lose, it's how you play the game." comes to mind. Who do you think said that first? Someone who just one the World Series? Or the guys who just lost? The head Coach of a pro football team also comes to mind. When the coach got caugh cheating what happened? Nothing. Why? Because he was winning. The fact of the matter is Majority rules the Majority of the time. Personally I think both are wrong. But, I'm just saying it IS logical for them to attack you. It will probably continue the rest of the time these religions exist

[superdad69]

Becoming offended is a choice. Choosing to attack is another choice. No one is forced to behave this way. In fact for those of us who do subscribe to the Christian way, this behavior is not what our professed and revered leader teaches us to do. In fact, he teaches the opposite. It is often the case that the worst parts of human behavior often undermind the conversion process. I can talk all day about love, but if I am not loving then my words mean nothing.

As far as I can tell, the article Ben posted is more about being Christlike than all the efforts to bash mormons into doctrinal submission.

That is true. But like I said they feel like you attack them simply by existing. There is only so much even a loving person can take before they attack back. I can sympathize. But also your interpretation of "Christ-like" may differ from there's as well. My opinion of being "Christ-like" I'm sure differs from both. But I'm arguing the logic of the attacks. NOT weather they are wrong or right.

[Misshalfway]

But I'm arguing the logicality of the attacks. NOT weather they are wrong or right.

And I AM arguing whether they are right or wrong.

[beefche]

Very nice. But let's face it. Any time you tell someone their religion is "almost" right but not quite, it's the same to them as telling them they are wrong. For instance if I was to quote Stephen Roberts and say "I contend we are both Atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do." You would instantly see that as condescending and mean. But I'm just adding to what you believe right? It's really in the words what you get out of it.

I served as a missionary for the LDS church in a land that had a government sanctioned religion. At no point, did I tell anyone, "You're wrong." What I said was, "I'm here to teach about Jesus Christ and how His church is on the earth again. Would you like to learn more?" If they said yes, then I began to teach them the doctrine of the LDS church. In those teachings was the teaching of Joseph Smith and his first vision of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and Their words that other faiths and religions are far from them.

When teaching God's words in truth and love, you don't destroy another's beliefs and faith--you actually build upon their understanding and believed truths. They, on their own and through their own research and prayers, find out if their beliefs are built upon truth or something close to truth. That is God's work--not mine. I can only preach truth--He testifies of it and teaches it to an individual.

[ttribe]

Like.....?

Have we not covered most of them? Interpretation of the Trinity, after-life, origins of our souls, purpose of mankind, etc.

[Vort]

This is where this is where the analogy fails in YOUR opinion.

The analogy was given from an LDS perspective; any non-LDS Christian would have rejected the analogy outright. But the analogy is just that. It is a parallel of the truth (from the LDS perspective), not the truth itself. When the analogy stops paralleling the truth, then it fails at that point.

It is not hard to stretch an analogy into absurdity. "Well, the original house of Christianity still has porch boards that survive from the original structure! Some of the mildew growing in the original house is descended from mildew growing shortly after it was first built! The original house has been retrofitted for Wi-Fi!" Do such things even have meaning? At this point, it's no longer analogy, just blather.

In their mind there is no god but god (sound familiar? It's in the quran to) and the Bible and ONLY the Bible represents that God. As soon as you say "But wait! There is MORE!!!" they instantly attack. It's perfectly logical. May not be right. But it IS logical. That's all I'm saying

Logic has little to offer in such situations, as even atheists will quickly admit. Logic is simply a reasoning structure. If you use a syllogism within the bounds of its linguistic construction, it is useful only as long as your premises are valid.

If all A are B, and if all B are C, then all A are C.

This is a perfectly good logical syllogism. Is it true? Yes, it is true, so long as the premises "all A are B" and "all B are C" are true. For example:

All cats are mammals. All mammals are animals. Therefore, all cats are animals.

But if either or both of the premises are false, the conclusion is false:

All Mormons are Christians. All Christians are saved by Jesus. Therefore, all Mormons are saved by Jesus.

You may debate which of the premises is flawed, but flawed premises lead to untenable conclusions -- EVEN WHEN THE LOGIC IS PERFECTLY SOUND.

Note that it's possible to have a flawed premise, yet still be correct:

Vort is my father. All fathers love their children. Therefore, Vort loves me.

The fact that there is a flawed premise in the above syllogism invalidates the logical necessity of the conclusion, but does not invalidate the conclusion itself. This is a point often missed by those discussing logic.

It's also perfectly possible to be illogical (not understanding the principles of logic), yet still be correct:

Vort posts on a discussion list. Sometimes, people who post on a discussion list are wrong. Therefore, Vort is sometimes wrong.

The fact that this is illogical does not mean that it is false, only that the logic fails.

[superdad69]

I served as a missionary for the LDS church in a land that had a government sanctioned religion. At no point, did I tell anyone, "You're wrong." What I said was, "I'm here to teach about Jesus Christ and how His church is on the earth again. Would you like to learn more?" If they said yes, then I began to teach them the doctrine of the LDS church. In those teachings was the teaching of Joseph Smith and his first vision of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and Their words that other faiths and religions are far from them.

When teaching God's words in truth and love, you don't destroy another's beliefs and faith--you actually build upon their understanding and believed truths. They, on their own and through their own research and prayers, find out if their beliefs are built upon truth or something close to truth. That is God's work--not mine. I can only preach truth--He testifies of it and teaches it to an individual.

Again...This has to do with a different topic. You where talking to people of a different faith. If I told you I was starting a faith based on Jesus' teachings yet they where slightly off untill something interacted to change those teachings and you where a Christian it's only logical to me that you would be offended right?