Dirk Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Has anybody jet figured out why any anti Mormon that quotes the bible against Mormonism has never read the following passage in the bible Mark 9:38-40 "38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Ask them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Thanks!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 If we could look at the souls of those who are determined to fight against the church in the pre-mortal life, they have the same personality there as they do here. Only difference is the amount of missionary work that was performs for them to save them from being casted out with Lucifer. Now, being in this life, they still have the opportunity to seek repentance and find the Christ beside what Lucifer has again offered them. Many of them I have met do not have the Spirit to guide them in seeking Truth. Blinded by arrogance or maybe a refusal to admit they are wrong. Either case, when reading without the further guidance from either the brethren called of GOD or instructions by the whispering of the Holy Ghost prevents them for further understanding of truths set forth from the Savior. The best thing we can do is to keep setting the example and prayed for them for a softening of spirit, in allowing the Spirit to work with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Has anybody jet figured out why any anti Mormon that quotes the bible against Mormonism has never read the following passage in the bibleMark 9:38-40Yes. They respond in one or more of the following ways:* Ask for proof that Mormons are working miracles, and then poo-poo our responses.* Remind us that satan can work wonders that seem like miracles, and even appear as an angel of light.* Explain why we're following a false christ, and hence are not doing anything in His name.* They might point out that yes indeed, they have read that passage in the bible, and smarmilly thank you very much for the unrighteous assumption of ignorance.What, you thought you could just quote a scripture and make them all go away? LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 What, you thought you could just quote a scripture and make them all go away? LMI'm always amused at conference protesters who simply have a sign with a scripture written on it, often I'll read it and, to myself, say, "Yep, that's true and...?" If it doesn't send me packing to the hills to have somebody point out a scripture they interpret to be proof positive I'm wrong but which I don't I'm not sure why one would expect it to work in reverse. Not that I haven't been guilty of the same zeal a time or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 If we could look at the souls of those who are determined to fight against the church in the pre-mortal life, they have the same personality there as they do here. Only difference is the amount of missionary work that was performs for them to save them from being casted out with Lucifer. I've never heard that some spirits were determined to fight against the Church that did not follow Satan, and I couldn't find anything at lds.org that says the same. Please provide a reference for this.Now, being in this life, they still have the opportunity to seek repentance and find the Christ beside what Lucifer has again offered them. Many of them I have met do not have the Spirit to guide them in seeking Truth.How do you know you've met these specific people? Blinded by arrogance or maybe a refusal to admit they are wrong.Or perhaps they simply don't believe, and thus have no reason to admit they're wrong. To do otherwise would be hypocritical, and they have the integrity not to do this.Again, please provide a reference that there were those who wanted to fight against God but remained part of the 2/3 who came to earth and received a body.If anyone else has the reference, I would like to have it. I just have never heard this before.Elphaba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 I could be wrong, but the footage I've seen of those conference protestors leads me to believe they are fundamentalist Christians, not ex-LDS. For the most part, these folk would protest you, me, Rick Warren (Purpose Driven Life), contemporary Christian music (can't put God's lyrics to the Devil's music), etc. So, whatever their character in the pre-existence, they are not people, in general, who have known the truth and rebelled against it. They are folk who have learned a particular way of understanding the Bible, and have taken to the extreme of literalism the verse that says, "Contend for the faith." They are sometimes caracturized as quick to fight, accept that they would often wear such an accusation as a badge of honor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 I could be wrong, but the footage I've seen of those conference protestors leads me to believe they are fundamentalist Christians, not ex-LDS.I think it's safe to say that there are a good number of people who leave the LDS church and become fundamentalist Christians. You're right though, not all of the fundamentalist antis are ex-mormons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 I do know that an organized group of ex-mormons (I forget their name) holds sort of a bizarro-General Conference at the same time. From what I remember, they're not really out to picket or pick fights, just gather at a coffee shop somewhere in downtown SLC and enjoy each other's company in their shared circumstance. Surely, we have our share of critics who are former members. But I'd agree with PC's observations, that the picketers are often folks bussed in from some evangelical counter-cult ministry somewhere. I haven't been comfortable with the term 'anti-mormon' for a long time. It seems to paint with too wide (and too unrighteously judgemental) a brush. I'll take 'church critic' over 'anti-mormon' any day of the week. LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ammonite Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Again, please provide a reference that there were those who wanted to fight against God but remained part of the 2/3 who came to earth and received a body.If anyone else has the reference, I would like to have it. I just have never heard this before.ElphabaI'm with you! As I understand the doctrine of premortal life, only those who wholeheartedly accepted Christ's plan remained with the 2/3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 I haven't been comfortable with the term 'anti-mormon' for a long time. It seems to paint with too wide (and too unrighteously judgemental) a brush. I'll take 'church critic' over 'anti-mormon' any day of the week.LM I suppose it is a word with baggage. Technically anyone who disagrees with the Church or believes it false can have the label applied to them as anti-Mormon, in some sense PC here is anti-Mormon, likewise I'm anti-evangelical (in the same sense of being opposed to some of its claims). However it has come to be associated with a certain rabitidy and motive that doesn't always apply to those who just plain disagree with us, for example, and to pick on PC more, like PC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I have replaced the word anti-mormon with the word critic, in my personal usage, unless of course they are proposing physical harm to Mormons. This is both an act of definitional correctness and also of kindness. The other word is loaded with very negative conotations. Likewise, those who merely disagree are not critics. Critics are those who openly criticize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 When I went to school, back in the day, English was "Language Arts." Aptly named, because, no matter how hard we try to pinpoint definition, there is some fluidity--some art to it. For example, most LDS probably intend the word "ANTI" as nearly a curse. And yet, for true ones, it would likely be a badge of honor. I might be hurt, in that I take it to mean "attacker," whereas I see myself as more of a talker/listener. Other words as FYI: "Fundamentalist" indicates a biblical literalist who believes in remaining separated from sin, sinners, and most especially apostates and heretics. On the other hand, "Evangelical" is one who is mostly a biblical literalist, but who believes the chief goal is spreading the Good News of Jesus by engaging (rather than combating) the culture. This difference is usually very substantial and easy to spot. Except that somehow, with LDS, many Evangelicals become Fundamentalist in tone. Perhaps I've merely further muddied the waters??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Has anybody jet figured out why any anti Mormon that quotes the bible against Mormonism has never read the following passage in the bibleMark 9:38-40"38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part." It is a sad thing but there are some that are so weak or ashamed in what they are "for" that they go through life "against" anything they can find some disagreement with. This is most evident in politics and religion. It is my personal experience that in general being against something more that for something is a sign of corruption, stupidity, laziness or all of the above. The anti movements are not new in our generation – Jesus dealt with the Pharisees and Scribes in his day. It is interesting to me that most criticism of Mormonism has the same characteristics as the critics of Jesus. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 When I went to school, back in the day, English was "Language Arts." Aptly named, because, no matter how hard we try to pinpoint definition, there is some fluidity--some art to it.For example, most LDS probably intend the word "ANTI" as nearly a curse. And yet, for true ones, it would likely be a badge of honor. I might be hurt, in that I take it to mean "attacker," whereas I see myself as more of a talker/listener.Other words as FYI: "Fundamentalist" indicates a biblical literalist who believes in remaining separated from sin, sinners, and most especially apostates and heretics. On the other hand, "Evangelical" is one who is mostly a biblical literalist, but who believes the chief goal is spreading the Good News of Jesus by engaging (rather than combating) the culture. This difference is usually very substantial and easy to spot. Except that somehow, with LDS, many Evangelicals become Fundamentalist in tone.Perhaps I've merely further muddied the waters??? You are very correct about language - especially English. Anti can mean "not". Therefore anyone not LDS would then be anti-LDS. This particular use is even employed in the Book of Mormon in reference to the Laminites living among the Nephits.But there is another meaning to the word "anti" which in essence means opposed to or in opposition to. Some thinking is so opposed that they are in essence at “war” against, to the point that they lose track of what they are for (operating on love of something) and devote their energy to be against (operating on dislike, hate or whatever one may want to call it).It is also my opinion that the difference between the two notions of anti is not a fine line but rather opposite ends of a very vast spectrum. I am not always sure where my personal trigger is but I will defend what I believe to be right from those I perceive intend to do harm (of a physical nature) should it become necessary.The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I do know that an organized group of ex-mormons (I forget their name) holds sort of a bizarro-General Conference at the same time. From what I remember, they're not really out to picket or pick fights, just gather at a coffee shop somewhere in downtown SLC and enjoy each other's company in their shared circumstance.Actually, it's a well-organized three-day conference in a real conference room and all, which they plan in advance about a year out. The last time I read anything about it, it had a couple hundred or more attendees, and the number grew each year. In fact, they arrange with the hotel to reserve a number of rooms because people come from out of town.The speakers' subjects are critical of the Church, because, after all, it is an ex-Mormon Conference. So, it is not just some people getting together at a coffee shop. In the past I thought of attending, but was so physically ill it wasn't possible. Today, I'm not as incapacitated, but none of that stuff interests me anymore.Elphaba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I'm with you! As I understand the doctrine of premortal life, only those who wholeheartedly accepted Christ's plan remained with the 2/3.Unfortunatey, Hemi is not one to acquiesce to my requests for references. So, unless that happens, or someone comes up with one, I'll assume he's wrong. But if I'm wrong, I really want to know.Elphaba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 I'm with you! As I understand the doctrine of premortal life, only those who wholeheartedly accepted Christ's plan remained with the 2/3. It's what I have always understood myself. So yes, I'd be interested in references that state otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 As I understand the doctrine of premortal life, only those who wholeheartedly accepted Christ's plan remained with the 2/3. What about extra-valiance points for exceptional harp playing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 · Hidden Hidden What, you thought you could just quote a scripture and make them all go away? I dont know, did I think That? Link to comment
Dirk Posted November 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 What, you thought you could just quote a scripture and make them all go away? LMI dont know! Did I think that?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.