What One Lds Distinctive Truth Is Most Essential?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 23 2005, 10:07 PM

Taoist Saint says:  I commend you for your efforts.  There are a number of items that come to my attention:....

...However, I may be reading way too much into what Tao is saying.

This is OT but, it was really Traveler that you were responding to prisonchaplain not Taoist....carry on! :)

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Maureen@Dec 24 2005, 03:51 PM

This is OT but, it was really Traveler that you were responding to prisonchaplain not Taoist....carry on!  :)

M.

←

I hate it when the quote functions won't work (usually on my ancient home computer), and I have to guess who I'm responding to, because I've deleted the code-characters!

You see. Some of you thought I never get angry. I do--but I usually refer my wrath for objects and technology, rather than personalities.

Anywho (literally)....thanks for setting me straight...uh...Maureen, was it?

[roman]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 24 2005, 12:09 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-roman@Dec 24 2005, 12:18 AM

I'm not mad at you or anybody-----you just gotta make stuff up don't you to avoid the subject matter---you need to get a clue my friend---and using swear words ---proves a lot.

well since your trying your old tactics of avoiding answering a direct question----------------which is Where in the BoM is the doctrine of baptism for the dead.

I don't reconise or bow to your challenge----since its the theme of this tread that the BoM is essential to the lds church---I asked[your just using your stalling-avoiding tactics] why most lds doctrine is not from the BoM . All you have to do is show me--thats all. Your challenge has nothing to do with what I'm asking

Now its 215 Am __Im going to bed---while you continue the show

←

For the record: I correctly predicted that you would avoid like an antiMormon plague offering an evidence whatsoever to support your claim - a claim which by the way is as likely false as your First Vision flub was clumsy. Though you certainly don't understand how or why it is false.

And here's a little hint lover: When you call someone names, like gutless, clueless or accuse them of making something up, you ought to be able to say how or why that is - it ought bear some semblance to reality.

My basic premise about you is that you are a antiMormon, very ignorant of LDS beliefs and practices and with a poor understanding of the rules of reason and logic, whose behaviors is of the very ugliest sort, rather than promoting one's own belief, you tear down other's beliefs - the very model on unChristian behavior. Everything I post re. you works off that premise. Through some misunderstanding of the English language, you call that gutless and other such dandies. That is just a fulfillment of my premise that you don't understand reason. What you should be doing instead is insulting me in a way that actually relates to my behavior; that way it might get to me - like the way you blew a gasket when I caught you being disingenuous with your First Vision question and they you melt down and start calling names etc, etc.

Now my lovely, I didn't answer your question because it is 1. Rhetorical and 2. Stupid. It's rhetorical because the answer is already known and it's stupid because you thought (though you have now changed your mind) that it answers something that it does not. I challenged you to prove your statement most LDS beliefs are not in the BoM and so you immediately asked if Baptism of the Dead was in the BoM thinking that somehow met the challenge and that's why the question is stupid. It's not whether one or five or 60 beliefs are in or not in the BoM but rather as you claimed that MOST are not. That realization has now dawned on you and now you refuse to meet your burden of proof though but you still ask the question.

Puppet, I understand that you probably aren't reading this far along in the post as you don't do well with compound thoughts and propositions so most of this will simply be lost on you - like how you now understand that you have no chance of proving your point but can't quite figure out what to do with your question - so you keep parroting it back but claiming that it is unrelated to the challenge that you failed at.

St. Augustine was right when he said: "70% of antiMormons are idiots and the other 23% are morons." Nitche wrote: "Augy baby, you got it going on."

←

snow;

huh? what? If any of what you posted was revallant to anything on this earth, then I might be inclined to listen. All you have is reckless--irrellavant ---retoric.

You think you know me and my intent---or that you are even capable of antilyzing a post of mine---please you need to stop----you are only embarrassing yourself. I have told you before and now again----you have no idea how you appear or sound to others-----

Just a couple of thoughts---

1. Your challenge was impossible to meet-----to show what percentage of lds doctrine came from the BoM one would have to know the exact number of lds doctrines---and not even you know what that number is-----you know that---- I know that---everyone knows that.

2. Who are you to offer challenges ---and demand that I meet them?

Where did you get the idea that you had any authority of any kind to demand anything from anyone

3. I need not go back and prove any comment I have made about you-----your very own post prove every statment i have ever made about you

4. Your style of ---" attack the poster" and avoid the context of a question or post is really old news to us all. You do that because you have no desire to answer any questions---you just love to create confusion---contention-----and foster anomosity. You have stated so---several times

5. Because you have absolutly no answers to opposite points of view---I will no longer engage you and play your first grade school yard ploys or tricks---- If you want to trade posts ---leave the tactics of personal destruction alone and address the topic----which up until now you have failed to do on all fronts

[Guest sugarbay]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. So much public contention! What a relief that the one particular thing that defines our religion is not vitriolic repartee. B)

[Setheus]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 22 2005, 02:15 PM

I'm still slowlly plodding my way through How Wide the Divide?  A Mormon Evangelical Conversation.  I'm about a third of the way through, and thus far, can highly recommend it as an intelligent, yet approachable discourse between LDS and evangelical theology.

Thus far, what I have found is that Mormon teaching challenges some beliefs that evangelicals take for granted.  In other words, we evangelicals ASSUME things, before we even start talking with others.

Some examples:

1.  Before God made the world, it was just him and the angels.

2.  Humans begin their existance at conception.

3.  On the day of judgment those whom God is pleased with will go to eternal reward.  The rest will be damned to hell.

4.  Many will be damned to hell.

These are just a few of the beliefs that we've been raised up to assume "go without saying."  There are others, of course.

LDS believers likely have their set of assumptions too--especially those raised in the church.  You see the four listed above and think, "What?  Why would they believe that?"

So, here's my question:  What one LDS truth, if any, holds the rest together, and justifies belief that the COJCLDS is the restoration of the Christian church and gospel?...

←

I'd like to point out that your beliefe that "Before God made the world, it was just Him and the Angels." You are correct, except that you fail to see that those angels were you and me and the rest of us. Angel is a title, not a species. When the angels rejoiced in Heaven at the Saviors birth, that was you and me and the others who had "kept their first estate" but had not yet come to mortality.

Now, some things I assume:

That people realize they are litteral children/offspring of God.

That Christ came to fulfill the law...that there was an apostasy and a restoration.

That we existed before we came to this earth. That this life is a crucial part in our duty to "be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect".

And above all, our right to free agency. I think the notion that we come into existance at birth is incorrect in that a person thrown into existance in a place where he may come under eternal condemnation is un-just. I believe we had to exist before this mortal life and Choose to be placed in this situation of life knowing the risks and rewards possible to us.

To put someone involuntarily into a position of such risks and hardships / rewards and blessings and then when they fail or succeed claim they "chose" the right or wrong is a slap in the face since the "choice" to even take on such a task was not presented to them.

This is why I believe and it makes sense that we were the angels with God before the creation of the world.

[Snow]

snow;

huh? what? If any of what you posted was revallant to anything on this earth, then I might be inclined to listen. All you have is reckless--irrellavant ---retoric.

I agree. What I said is not revallant. It is, however directly pertinent to everything you said. An astute observer can tell because it speaks to points that you tried to make.

Just a couple of thoughts---

1. Your challenge was impossible to meet-----to show what percentage of LDS doctrine came from the BoM one would have to know the exact number of lds doctrines---and not even you know what that number is-----you know that---- I know that---everyone knows that.

Wrong. I know that, and you know that NOW, since I made the point clear to you. You didn't know that before, as evidenced by: 1. your absurd claim that most beliefs didn't come from the BoM and 2. Your futile attempt to start proving it by asking where Baptism for the Dead come from.

2. Who are you to offer challenges ---and demand that I meet them?

Where did you get the idea that you had any authority of any kind to demand anything from anyone

You know - I wonder that too. Yet I pull the string and you dance along like a marionette.

Still, I am not surprised that you are unaquainted with the axiom that he who makes the claim bears the burdern of proof, so it is not my authority by which you are bound but the standard rules of debate.

And still again - my prediction came true.

4. Your style of ---" attack the poster" and avoid the context of a question or post is really old news to us all. You do that because you have no desire to answer any questions---you just love to create confusion---contention-----and foster anomosity. You have stated so---several times

Oh? I simply not that in this case I assailed the points you tried to make and you still can't hack it. And - (I predict that you will refuse) - when have I ever said that I love to foster animosity?

Since I know you will NEVER meet your burden of proof let me give you the answer lover - never, that's when. I sometimes play the devil's advocate and tease posters, and annoy the illogical, the only ones I treat with contempt are either the self-righteous or vile antiMormons. This obviously is no surprise to you.

5. Because you have absolutly no answers to opposite points of view---I will no longer engage you and play your first grade school yard ploys or tricks---- If you want to trade posts ---leave the tactics of personal destruction alone and address the topic----which up until now you have failed to do on all fronts

And then, honeybunch, is the a difference between you and I. Honesty. When I make a claim - I can back it up with fact. You cannot and do not. You say I have no answers to your point of view. We both know that is entirely false since I refute practically everything you say - see this thread.

Beside - I can predict what will happen in the future. Note: this will be the second time I've predicted this but despite my telling you what you would do, you did it anyway - I know you so well that you can't avoid doing what I say - even when I warn you.... You will slink away from the forum after a day or so. You'll stay away for some time. You drop back by in a couple weeks or months and you will avoid threads where I am active but in some other thread, you'll start posting nice but soon your posts will betray your true motive - which is to demean and denigrate the faith of Christians. I'll catch you at it. You'll lose your temper, you'll make some false charges that you can't back up. I'll shame you and then you'll leave in anger... just like you always do.

Roman,

Do you remember how this whole thing started 4 years ago?

You were pretty mild back then. You would try and get involved in debates and conversations but mostly people ignored you. Your spelling was so atrocious and your posts were so poorly made that no one took you seriously. While others were ignoring you, I felt sorry for you and engaged a couple of your posts. Pretty quickly you said something to the effect of, 'I don't always agree with what you say but now I respect you and will consider you a friend forever.' I remember because I thought it so weird that someone with whom I had only posted a handful of times was now calling me a lifelong friend.

You seemed in good spirits and then opened a thread asking to examine proof of the existence of Christ. Your proof turned out to be that the Bible said that their was a resurrection and so Christ must have been real. I, while believing the Bible on faith, of course thought that was the silliest kind of proof and said something to that effect. You got mad, dissembled, left and from then on it has been the exact same pattern with you.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Setheus@Dec 26 2005, 09:42 AM

I'd like to point out that your beliefe that "Before God made the world, it was just Him and the Angels."  You are correct, except that you fail to see that those angels were you and me and the rest of us.  Angel is a title, not a species.  When the angels rejoiced in Heaven at the Saviors birth, that was you and me and the others who had "kept their first estate" but had not yet come to mortality.

How can a resist a cute little story here? One of the exciting theological questions Middle Ages theologians tackled was, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" One day a fundamentalist Christians (note to the uninitiated--the fundamentalists are so conservative and opinionated that they make evangelicals look like universalists) happened upon the correct answer: None. No good angel would be caught dancin' . (another note to the uniniated: fundamentalists generally askew dancing, because they fear it could stir up lust, and lead to you-know-what).

What's the point of my cute little story. Setheus has once again added a little light to my understanding of LDS teachings. I did not realize that Mormons believe that our premortal existence was as angels. I thought it was just spirits. Needless to say, evangelicals do not believe humans have a preexistent state. We literally believe life begins at conception.

Now, some things I assume:

That people realize they are litteral children/offspring of God.

Professor Robinson makes some strong arguments about where this presupposition leads to. Suffice to say, whether we are created BY God or OF God is a significant "divide."

That Christ came to fulfill the law...that there was an apostasy and a restoration.

The idea of a religion-wide apostasy is something most evangelicals would say only happens during the Tribulation--when the anti-Christ and his prophet institute a false one-world religion, basically opposed to Jesus. False teachings and heresies have been a consistent part of history--but again the universal apostasy you suggest, is another "divide."

That we existed before we came to this earth.  That this life is a crucial part in our duty to "be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect".  And above all, our right to free agency.  I think the notion that we come into existance at birth is incorrect in that a person thrown into existance in a place where he may come under eternal condemnation is un-just.    I believe we had to exist before this mortal life and Choose to be placed in this situation of life knowing the risks and rewards possible to us.  To put someone involuntarily into a position of such risks and hardships / rewards and blessings and then when they fail or succeed claim they "chose" the right or wrong is a slap in the face since the "choice" to even take on such a task was not presented to them.

My only comment at this point is that I'm always cautious about saying someone's theological perspective makes God unjust. I disagree with Calvinism, for saying that God predestines some to eternal damnation. However, I won't say Calvinism is impossible, because, by definitition, God is NOT unjust.

So, we either pre-existed or we didn't. God is just, regardless.

[Guest funkyfool416]

dunno and dont care.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 23 2005, 10:07 PM

Separating the goat from the sheep, perhaps?

←

One of the reasons I have ask you questions concerning your agenda on this site is because it would appear to me that for the most part evangelicals seem to have a rather mean and nasty agenda when it comes to discussion religion. They do not seem to be much into finding common ground and areas of agreement. I realize that there are always exceptions (thank heavens). Also it seems to me that most that thrive on the internet (regardless of religious affiliation) are more into creating controversy than establishing attitudes of kindness and good will, again thank heavens for the exceptions.

Also in my travels throughout the world as I have discussed religious ideas and culture among people of various backgrounds; if they have encountered a negative experience with a Christian, most likely it was an evangelical, not always but usually. I realize that my sampling does not constitute a scientific study – but it is a trend I personally experience and I may not be the only one with such negative experiences with evangelicals.

This meanness seems to have prejudice as well. That is, it seem evangelicals will go out of their way to be mean to any one person or religious group that is classified as not part of the evangelical “saved” crowd and at the same time give liberal reconciliation consideration to that same “saved” group. A strain at a gnat in a “non-saved” eye and ignore the beam in a “saved” eye kind of thing. If you want an interesting experiment find an evangelical site and get two separate login. Under one login, tell everybody you are LDS and under the other, tell everyone you are a evangelical minister. Write a post about love and kindness and living up to commitments. Post the same post about 2 months apart (so they will forget the post for the most part) first as the minister and second as LDS and see what happens.

When I first got involved on the internet (Dr Laura forum – no longer in existence) I saved a post from an evangelical poster that I thought was exceptionally good. Three months later I posted the exact post, word for word, without changing a thing. The same person that posted it before blasted it as though it came straight from Satan. When I pointed out to them that it was really their post – without batting an eye they responded that when I posted it, it meant something very different because I (LDS) worship a different Jesus. If you have any idea how to reconcile that kind of prejudice and come to common ground or agreement – let me in on that secret.

Another example can be seen on this very thread between Roman and Snow. Now keep in mind this is an LDS internet site. Kind of an LDS home sort of speak. One would think that a guest in someone else’s place would be on their best behavior understanding that they are the guest. If you can find one time in a disagreement that Roman has made an effort to be kind and avoid controversy and come to any kind of agreement on this LDS forum – I will eat crow for posting this. And at the same time if you can find one time another evangelical has attempted to reprimand Roman for going a little overboard I will eat crow for that. Now ask Snow if he has ever been reprimanded by an LDS poster – You might find out that if he is keeping a list that I could likely be on it.

If there is to be any kind of agreement between LDS and evangelicals, the only way I can see such coming about is for LDS to abandon LDS – for I do not believe that for the most part evangelicals are interested in finding common ground – or if there is common ground letting any LDS stand on it.

But then you could be an exception – and if you are – thank heavens for you, but if you are not careful you might not be allowed to stand on that common ground either, but you do you will always have a friend in me.

Now would you tell me what is a sheep and what is a goat? and how I can tell the difference on the internet?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Traveler@Dec 27 2005, 05:30 PM

Also in my travels throughout the world as I have discussed religious ideas and culture among people of various backgrounds; if they have encountered a negative experience with a Christian, most likely it was an evangelical, not always but usually.  ... This meanness seems to have prejudice as well.  That is, it seem evangelicals will go out of their way to be mean to any one person or religious group that is classified as not part of the evangelical “saved” crowd.

I've excerpted about three paragraphs of Traveler explaining the immature and mean-natured behavior of many evangelicals on the internet, and around the world. First, I truly am sorry. I can guess at why this happens, but regardless, it's not right. Not here...not anywhere. Jesus was tender with sinners, and very direct with the self-righteous religious leaders. It does seem that we get it wrong in our churches. Teachers and leaders tread very lightly with those in their congregations, but lament the sins of the world 'out there.' As a simple example, Christians need to hear a lot more teaching about gluttony than they do homosexuality.

So, why are evangelicals prone to harsh tones and argumentativeness? Very likely they were raised on a spiritual diet of "right doctrine," the importance of winning souls, the shortness of time remaining before Christ's return, the urgency of getting the truth out, and the dire need to defend against false teachings, false Christs, false religions, etc. Couple that with the belief that those who do not embrace the gospel of Jesus will spend eternity in hell, and you have a recipe, that in the hands of an immature but zealous believer, could spell shrill, pushy, insistent, and yes arrogant presentations of the gospel. The good news ends up not sounding very good.

Perhaps Star Trek best duplicated this approach to evangelism:

The most important thing I'll say with this post: The answer to Mormon-Evangelical dialogue is conversation such as that offered by the two professors in the book A Mormon Evangelical Conversation: How Wide the Divide?. I'm into the last third of it, and have found it informative and pleasant. The two contributors are fervant in their stances, yet demonstrate the respect and love that the gospel calls for, and that both faith traditions value.

But then you could be an exception – and if you are – thank heavens for you, but if you are not careful you might not be allowed to stand on that common ground either, but you do you will always have a friend in me.

I've said repeatedly that I'm hear to both learn and share. Snow and Ray have both given me some interesting exchanges, as have Jason and Sgallan. Ironically, DisRuptive1 probably gave me the most in-depth conversation one night, when he explained to me his understanding of the Plan of Salvation. A few here have also said they enjoy my contribution. In the end, you'll do like everyone, and evaluate my potential according to my fruit.

Now would you tell me what is a sheep and what is a goat? and how I can tell the difference on the internet?

I had to go all the way back to post #11 to find out the context in which I said that! I believe I was responding to the notion that we should seek light and avoid darkness. I was just rephrasing that idea. Of course, on the Day of Judgment, it won't be us, but Jesus who separates the goat from the sheep.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by funkyfool416@Dec 27 2005, 11:57 AM

dunno and dont care.

←

I thought you cared? I really did

[Snow]

PrisonC,

I disagree that what motivates the Evangelicals (that attack other faiths) is a desire to prevent the misguided from going to hell. That would imply care and concern and compassion. Those "types" that we are referring to have no observable compassion. While some of the layman bashing is just verbal sparing without ill intent, the harsher stuff is meant to harm and not help. It is to demean and denigrate.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 27 2005, 08:26 PM

I disagree that what motivates the Evangelicals (that attack other faiths) is a desire to prevent the misguided from going to hell. That would imply care and concern and compassion. Those "types" that we are referring to have no observable compassion. While some of the layman bashing is just verbal sparing without ill intent, the harsher stuff is meant to harm and not help. It is to demean and denigrate.

←

"ReligionX practioners are such idiots."

"Now, I'm sure what you mean by that is that it is sad they do not understand the greater truths we offer."

"Yeah, I mean how stupid can they be? And did you hear that during their so-called sacraments, they believe ______. How ridiculous is that???"

-----

Now, if you also disagree with ReligionX, and the speaker is from your faith group, you might think him/her a bit zealous and immature, and non-subtle, but you would probably defend his/her heart. They mean well, they just don't express it nicely.

If you practice ReligionX you'll likely consider the speaker to be a hateful, arrogant, bigotted, individual...perhaps even a "son of perdition."

If you're right, then by both our religions, they'll likely wind up in great spiritual pain. If I'm right, they'll likely grow out of it some day.

[GRR8]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Dec 27 2005, 10:41 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Dec 27 2005, 08:26 PM

I disagree that what motivates the Evangelicals (that attack other faiths) is a desire to prevent the misguided from going to hell. That would imply care and concern and compassion. Those "types" that we are referring to have no observable compassion. While some of the layman bashing is just verbal sparing without ill intent, the harsher stuff is meant to harm and not help. It is to demean and denigrate.

←

"ReligionX practioners are such idiots."

"Now, I'm sure what you mean by that is that it is sad they do not understand the greater truths we offer."

"Yeah, I mean how stupid can they be? And did you hear that during their so-called sacraments, they believe ______. How ridiculous is that???"

-----

Now, if you also disagree with ReligionX, and the speaker is from your faith group, you might think him/her a bit zealous and immature, and non-subtle, but you would probably defend his/her heart. They mean well, they just don't express it nicely.

If you practice ReligionX you'll likely consider the speaker to be a hateful, arrogant, bigotted, individual...perhaps even a "son of perdition."

If you're right, then by both our religions, they'll likely wind up in great spiritual pain. If I'm right, they'll likely grow out of it some day.

←

Actually, all religions of Deism have a throwback one beginning belief system. The diety you call 'Heavenly Father' is literally correct. From the Heavens, Heaven(Universe) Christianity started not during the life of Jesus, but rather after the marytyrdom of the twelve apostles. Jehoshua was Hebrew by blood and Tradition. The Catholic church committee 'voted' on whether Jehoshua was divine or simply mortal. They did not recieve any accountable direct revelations concerning this. There were earlier traditions and stories of other religions that predated Jehoshua and they believed that ' a man was ressurected' It is possible that all the past and current religions anywhere in the world are all missing key vital elements pertinent to the transmutation of humanity. After all, all these books were written by Humans, not Gods. The Gods themselves, if they wrote their own books, are with them, not us.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Dec 27 2005, 08:41 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Dec 27 2005, 08:26 PM

I disagree that what motivates the Evangelicals (that attack other faiths) is a desire to prevent the misguided from going to hell. That would imply care and concern and compassion. Those "types" that we are referring to have no observable compassion. While some of the layman bashing is just verbal sparing without ill intent, the harsher stuff is meant to harm and not help. It is to demean and denigrate.

←

"ReligionX practioners are such idiots."

"Now, I'm sure what you mean by that is that it is sad they do not understand the greater truths we offer."

"Yeah, I mean how stupid can they be? And did you hear that during their so-called sacraments, they believe ______. How ridiculous is that???"

-----

Now, if you also disagree with ReligionX, and the speaker is from your faith group, you might think him/her a bit zealous and immature, and non-subtle, but you would probably defend his/her heart. They mean well, they just don't express it nicely.

If you practice ReligionX you'll likely consider the speaker to be a hateful, arrogant, bigotted, individual...perhaps even a "son of perdition."

If you're right, then by both our religions, they'll likely wind up in great spiritual pain. If I'm right, they'll likely grow out of it some day.

←

First let me say I have found this discussion good. Another way to say this might be to say that I think G-d is pleased in your mehod. I agree with you on many points to the point that you can safely think we agree on just about everything.

I will offer this insight and perhaps you have experienced something similar. The point at where communications break down most often concerning religion is when someone attempts to tell me what it is that I believe. That they think they know my belief better than I do. When explaining my belief they disagree and argue that I believe something quite different. Often they reference a publication of LDS beliefs that is not published by LDS. If they cannot even allow me to express my belief correctly how can I trust anything else they would off to me?

I agree with you that someone that thinks they have the "light" of Christ has no reason to publish any other gospel. I believe the scriptures teach this very point; that a true Christian will not teach so much what is wrong with any other gospel as they will teach and give example of what is the right gospel. This is one way of discerning methods of light that I use in regards to the internet.

There is an example at the last supper when Jesus said, "One of you will betray me." Did Peter lean over to James and whisper, "I bet he is talking about the JW's (Samaritains) - They have such strange doctrine"? The example in scripture of a true Christian is to ask "L-rd is it I". I have found no examples in scripture where Jesus inplied we should correct anyone who's deeds indicate more light than our deeds.

I find it interesting that the critisism of Jesus was his doctrine and never his deeds and when those that opposed him - Jesus asked for what deeds have they opposed him. Their response was that there opposition was not for any deeds but because of doctrine.

This is my impression. If someone cannot act out religion with good deeds - I personally do not care much for their doctrine. I believe a good tree will produce good fruit. If the fruit is not good there is something wrong somewhere with the doctrine. And a good tree is not concerned how their doctrine or fruit is received - it is its nature to produce good fruit because their roots are well founded on good doctrine.

Thanks PC for your posts. I consider you a Christian.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Actually, all religions of Deism have a throwback one beginning belief system. The diety you call 'Heavenly Father' is literally correct. From the Heavens, Heaven(Universe) Christianity started not during the life of Jesus, but rather after the marytyrdom of the twelve apostles. Jehoshua was Hebrew by blood and Tradition. The Catholic church committee 'voted' on whether Jehoshua was divine or simply mortal. They did not recieve any accountable direct revelations concerning this. There were earlier traditions and stories of other religions that predated Jehoshua and they believed that ' a man was ressurected' It is possible that all the past and current religions anywhere in the world are all missing key vital elements pertinent to the transmutation of humanity. After all, all these books were written by Humans, not Gods. The Gods themselves, if they wrote their own books, are with them, not us.

←

There appears to me to be a contradiction in your concept. If there is nothing of superior (divine) knowledge available to man - how would or could you know this?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Traveler@Dec 28 2005, 09:47 AM

I will offer this insight and perhaps you have experienced something similar.  The point at where communications break down most often concerning religion is when someone attempts to tell me what it is that I believe.  That they think they know my belief better than I do.  When explaining my belief they disagree and argue that I believe something quite different.  Often they reference a publication of LDS beliefs that is not published by LDS.  If they cannot even allow me to express my belief correctly how can I trust anything else they would off to me?

If I've learned nothing else here, it has been about this very issue. It's been several years since I've perused "anti-LDS" literature, but the impression I get is that they frequently quote from 19th-century LDS homilies and something called the Journal of Discourses. It's much more informative to engage people with what they actually believe, versus what I think they might believe. Otherwise, I could carry the conversation on all by myself.

I find it interesting that the critisism of Jesus was his doctrine and never his deeds and when those that opposed him - Jesus asked for what deeds have they opposed him.  Their response was that there opposition was not for any deeds but because of doctrine.

While I do not disagree with the importance of good works and holiness, sound doctrine is not to be totally ignored. Prof. Robinson (BYU, Religious Studies) has this to say about evangelicals/LDS and doctrine: In view of the real theological differences that exist between us, I would not think it appropropriate to grant full fellowship to one another or to cease prosyletizing on either side. But it is time to recognize each other's common devotion to the Christ of the New Testament--whichever of us may be the real Apollos in need of more perfect instruction.

If the fruit is not good there is something wrong somewhere with the doctrine.  And a good tree is not concerned how their doctrine or fruit is received - it is its nature to produce good fruit because their roots are well founded on good doctrine.

Perhaps because of my role as a prison chaplain, I am quite "lenient" in such assessments. There are several New Testament passages that speak of strong Christians valuing and helping the 'weaker vessels.' When our brothers/sisters falter, we try to salvage them, rather than discarding them. Even in the extreme case of 1 Corinthians 5--where the so-called brother was having an affair with his stepmother, the Apostle Paul orders that the offender be put out of the church--turned over to Satan--BUT, WITH THE HOPE THAT HE WOULD COME TO HIS SENSES AND REPENT. Indeed, in 2 Corinthians there is reference to one who has repented, and Paul orders the church to quite rehashing the old offense--fully forgive and restore the brother. Many scholars believe there are strong grounds to suggest that Paul is referring to the offender from 1 Corinthians 5. Granted, this interpretation is speculative. However, the gospel truth is that Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost.

All this to say, pursue holy, godly, good-work-producing living with all you've got. However, take care to lift up the weaker believers. The world will point plenty of fingers, we'd best not be guilty of 'friendly fire' against our own.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 27 2005, 07:41 PM

"ReligionX practioners are such idiots."

"Now, I'm sure what you mean by that is that it is sad they do not understand the greater truths we offer."

"Yeah, I mean how stupid can they be?  And did you hear that during their so-called sacraments, they believe ______.  How ridiculous is that???"

-----

Now, if you also disagree with ReligionX, and the speaker is from your faith group, you might think him/her a bit zealous and immature, and non-subtle, but you would probably defend his/her heart.  They mean well, they just don't express it nicely.

If you practice ReligionX you'll likely consider the speaker to be a hateful, arrogant, bigotted, individual...perhaps even a "son of perdition."

If you're right, then by both our religions, they'll likely wind up in great spiritual pain.  If I'm right, they'll likely grow out of it some day.

←

No,

Regardless of whether the basher is of my religion or not, I consider such to be unChristian, a jerk, immature, ignorant of how the gospel really works and in possession of an religious inferiority complex.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 27 2005, 08:26 PM

PrisonC,

I disagree that what motivates the Evangelicals (that attack other faiths) is a desire to prevent the misguided from going to hell. That would imply care and concern and compassion. Those "types" that we are referring to have no observable compassion. While some of the layman bashing is just verbal sparing without ill intent, the harsher stuff is meant to harm and not help. It is to demean and denigrate.

←

Snow, I agree with you ... to demean and denigrate...that sounds about right.

The "I care about your salvation" attitudes from others are so much different from the "you will burn in hell" ones. I have heard it from both sides. How fast the concern and compassion fades when they find out I don't back down from what I believe in. I find out real fast who I will call a friend...one who will accept me for everything I believe in. What's really hard is when my son tells me that I will burn in hell because of my religion. Although the care and compassion was there....that was kind of hard to take.... good Christian attitude they teach in their church I told him.

(and thanks John Doe..for helping me thru that painful day)

PC- I'm glad you have the attitude you have shown us here, you are truely an example of what a good Christian should be.....accepting others without bitter judgement. Thank you :)

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 28 2005, 02:03 PM

While I do not disagree with the importance of good works and holiness, sound doctrine is not to be totally ignored.  Prof. Robinson (BYU, Religious Studies) has this to say about evangelicals/LDS and doctrine:  In view of the real theological differences that exist between us, I would not think it appropropriate to grant full fellowship to one another or to cease prosyletizing on either side.  But it is time to recognize each other's common devotion to the Christ of the New Testament--whichever of us may be the real Apollos in need of more perfect instruction.

All this to say, pursue holy, godly, good-work-producing living with all you've got.  However, take care to lift up the weaker believers.  The world will point plenty of fingers, we'd best not be guilty of 'friendly fire' against our own.

←

I would like to pursue the concept of doctrinal importance. I do not have much time right now but perhaps you could offer your opinion on the subject. This is not really a LDS vs. evangelical issue – I have had this discussion with other LDS.

As I see it even children and the mentally incompetent, incapable of discerning correct doctrine, are not handicapped in regards to G-d’s love and salvation. In fact they may even have an advantage as to the example, “Except you become as a little child, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

Even understanding the atonement can be an interesting discussion but I am not sure I have ever found any one that really understands it completely. Even though I have a math background I am not much of a follower of the ideas from asking questions like, “What is necessary for salvation” or what comes first the chicken or the egg arguments. I believe if it is right “light” it should be sought.

I believe correct doctrine should be sought but for all that is light I believe there are greater things to be sought. It is like where I work – I figure a person with the correct attitude can be taught complete jobs to success where a “know-it-all” may get the job done but manage to alienate everyone doing it. It is like the defensive driving concept of realizing that when it comes to driving being right is of no advantage if you end up dead right.

I realize that we have only talked of doctrine and deeds and there are other elements that I consider greater than either of these. If you would express your ideas – I may not be in complete agreement but I promise to listen and consider. One will never learn anything if they only talk to those with whom they agree.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Traveler@Dec 29 2005, 04:57 PM

I would like to pursue the concept of doctrinal importance.  I do not have much time right now but perhaps you could offer your opinion on the subject.  This is not really a LDS vs. evangelical issue – I have had this discussion with other LDS.

As I see it even children and the mentally incompetent, incapable of discerning correct doctrine, are not handicapped in regards to G-d’s love and salvation.  In fact they may even have an advantage as to the example, “Except you become as a little child, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

Even understanding the atonement can be an interesting discussion but I am not sure I have ever found any one that really understands it completely.  Even though I have a math background I am not much of a follower of the ideas from asking questions like, “What is necessary for salvation” or what comes first the chicken or the egg arguments.  I believe if it is right “light” it should be sought. 

I believe correct doctrine should be sought but for all that is light I believe there are greater things to be sought.  It is like where I work – I figure a person with the correct attitude can be taught complete jobs to success where a “know-it-all” may get the job done but manage to alienate everyone doing it.  It is like the defensive driving concept of realizing that when it comes to driving being right is of no advantage if you end up dead right.

I realize that we have only talked of doctrine and deeds and there are other elements that I consider greater than either of these.  If you would express your ideas – I may not be in complete agreement but I promise to listen and consider.  One will never learn anything if they only talk to those with whom they agree.

Snow has also challenged me with this question--is their a doctrinal or religious knowledge test for salvation? Put another way, when I offer holy communion in my chapel services I always say something like, "We have open communion here. As long as you know that Jesus has forgiven your sins...as long as you know that you are a Christian, you are welcome to the table." Well...some Catholics have come (though their own religion discourages them from doing so). Hindus, who believe they are worshipping the god of America, have come. I'm sure many who have no organized faith system have come for the possible good luck. So...are they saved? For the LDS it's simple. Your theology certainly allows such folk a place of some blessing for their faithfulness with what they knew...along with the possible opportunity to respond more fully in the afterlife.

Here's a passage of Scripture that may offer some light, The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20 (TNIV)

All this to say, God is just and merciful. He will judge people based on how they responded to what they knew. Ironically, there will certainly be some who ascertained doctrine with great accuracy, and yet will be told by Jesus, "Depart from me I never knew you." Others will barely no more than John 3:16, yet will have acted out on that minimal knowledge with the true love of God.

My own hope is to be Jesus, know Jesus, teach Jesus, counsel Jesus, and do Jesus in a manner that pleases Jesus. None of that will happen by my own strength or wisdom. As the prophet Zecharia informed us, It's not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord. So, I wish to 'flow and overflow' the Spirit of God, and thus glorify Jesus--through my body, mind and Spirit.

[lisajo]

Originally posted by funkyfool416@Dec 27 2005, 10:57 AM

dunno and dont care.

←

Of course you don't! your just a wacky kid!

[Red]

Originally posted by Traveler+Dec 27 2005, 07:30 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain@Dec 23 2005, 10:07 PM

Separating the goat from the sheep, perhaps?

←

Also in my travels throughout the world as I have discussed religious ideas and culture among people of various backgrounds; if they have encountered a negative experience with a Christian, most likely it was an evangelical, not always but usually. I realize that my sampling does not constitute a scientific study – but it is a trend I personally experience and I may not be the only one with such negative experiences with evangelicals.

...

If there is to be any kind of agreement between LDS and evangelicals, the only way I can see such coming about is for LDS to abandon LDS – for I do not believe that for the most part evangelicals are interested in finding common ground – or if there is common ground letting any LDS stand on it.

...

Now would you tell me what is a sheep and what is a goat? and how I can tell the difference on the internet?

The Traveler

←

Being an evangelical myself I've also had the same experience. I've often found myself undoing the damamge done when I share with someone, mormon or other. I haven't traveled the world but I do walk around college campuses and malls to do some witnessing and I tend to meet a wide range of people (I am usually armed with a Bible, a note pad and a pen; I ask them if there is anything I can pray for them about and let the conversation go from there; I found it to be a good tactic because people hate gospel-tracks but are usually caught way off guard by some one asking if they can pray for them).

Anyway, I was at a mall one day when I saw two LDS missionaries talking to a guy in dirty work clothes (pant splattered all over his shirt). So I walked up and stood up to listen and jump in if I felt lead. Turned out this guy was a pastor at a charismatic church and that he had prophesied once or twice. For the life of me I never heard where he fit the gospel message, or if he ever made an intelligent critique of mormonism. I remember trying to interject and correct on something (can't remember what) but he was on a roll I guess. Then at some point the discussion got on "authority" and he said he had the power to give the Holy Spirit and to prove it he put his hand on one of the poor missionaries' heads and started praying in some crazy language!!! The missionary backed up so fast!

Pretty soon after that, the pastor left and I spent a half hour or so convincing the two LDS that I was not the guy's son or even working with him and somehow tried to get the gospel in there. I can't fully recall the conversation, but it was damage control. So Traveler, you are not alone in your experience.

About finding common ground and figuring out which are the sheep and the goats, I see it like this: if the person seems to be gloating over your condemnation chances are that he's a goat. But still, you can never really know, only God knows hearts. There are many immature believers who might sing the same tune, I was one of them once, but when I stopped and considered the situation I was very sobered; I forgot how to laugh about this a while ago. In any given church there are all kinds of people: True believers who act it out, true believers who act it out in the wrong way or are immature, others who don't know the Lord but are going through the motions for social reasons maybe, seekers who are coming to/being drawn by the Lord, and possibly, maybe even an infiltrator of sorts, someone who wears a christian mask but is there for a career and not the Lord. Sometimes you can spot these people easily, sometimes you can't.

You are quite right when you say that the only option we leave you is for you as an LDS to abandon the LDS church. You see, if I as an evangelical lulled you into a false sense of security thinking that we were really worshipping the same God and that the differences weren't that big of a deal anyway, then I would be a murderer. I can't speak for every christian, but that is my motive.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 30 2005, 01:11 AM

My own hope is to be Jesus, know Jesus, teach Jesus, counsel Jesus, and do Jesus in a manner that pleases Jesus.  None of that will happen by my own strength or wisdom.  As the prophet Zecharia informed us, It's not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord.  So, I wish to 'flow and overflow' the Spirit of God, and thus glorify Jesus--through my body, mind and Spirit.

←

While some would say that imitation is a sincere form of flattery, others would say that nobody has the right to represent another person without that person’s authorization, no matter how good their intentions may be. And in the name of Jesus Christ, I say that nobody has the right to represent Jesus Christ unless they receive or have received His authority.

And I also say that nobody can receive the authority of Jesus Christ by simply reading and understanding a sacred record of history showing how other people received His authority, even if that record revealed every explicit detail concerning how His authority was or was to be given.

Or in other words, even if everybody knew how to receive the authority of Jesus Christ, actually receiving His authority is and will continue to be an entirely different issue.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Ray@Jan 4 2006, 03:23 PM

While some would say that imitation is a sincere form of flattery, others would say that nobody has the right to represent another person without that person’s authorization, no matter how good their intentions may be.  And in the name of Jesus Christ, I say that nobody has the right to represent Jesus Christ unless they receive or have received His authority.

This is another issue that is a "divide." I do have authority to represent Jesus, according to the biblical requirements for overseers or bishops, in that I have been ordained as a minister by leaders of my church. Of course, this claim is only persuasive if you recognize my church as a true Christian church, not an apostate one.

A more important reason why I and any other true believer in Jesus are qualified to represent him, is that we are all priests. All true Christians are qualified and commanded to represent him to a lost and dying world.

[9] But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: [10] Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1Pe 2:9-10 KJV)

This is not written to a segment of the church, or just to the leaders, but to all the believers. We're all called to be priestly representatives of Jesus.