My first interaction with an actual anti-Mormon

[JudoMinja]

So, I was on youtube looking up some LDS videos to try and promote the LDS advertising campaign by giving them more views and looking for ones I could link to my facebook profile that might be uplifting to my non-member friends, and I came across an anti-Mormon video. It was cleverly disguised as an informative video about what Mormons believe and teach, and the user had an "official" looking name, so I didn't know I was clicking on an anti-film until I was already watching it.

Specifically, he was addressing whether or not Mormons are Christian and brought up many quotes from past prophets that he twisted into attacks on Christianity by taking them out of context. He seems to have a following of viewers who support and believe his interpretation of "Mormonism" and while I generally avoid confrontations I felt like it might be a good idea to provide an informative comment. It has resulted in the following conversation:

Me: You have taken many things that past leaders of the LDS church have said out of context and generalized their statements so that the meaning is twisted into something different. This makes your argument fallicious. The full name of the LDS church is The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints. The definition of Christian is someone who believes in Christ. Mormons are Chirstian, just as anyone else who believes in Christ is Christian. It's as simple as that.

Him: That is your definition of a Christian, not mine or the historical one. Would you consider me a Mormon because I believe in Jesus Christ?

If you can show me how those quotes don't mean what they appear to mean by using context, I would be interested to see that.

Me: Not all Christians are Mormon, but all Mormons are Christian. Christian is an all-encompassing definition of anyone who believes in Christ, while Mormon is a more specific description of a small group of Christians.

Your quotes are not references to "Christianity" but to "the great and abominable church", full context and understanding of which can be found in Steven E. Robinson's Ensign article "Warring Against the Saints of God", something you can easily google.

Him: Like I said in the video, it depends on how you define 'Christian'. Your definition is that its 'all-encompassing', and mine (and history's) is that it pertains to a particular Jesus (not Mormonism's), and is predicated on belief in Christian doctrine. Make it a semantics thing if you want, but your beliefs are not related to mine.

Its pretty clear in those teachings that "the great and abominable church" is anything not Mormon. My website has the link to the larger quotes.

Me: First- how is the Mormon Jesus different? We believe in the same Jesus that was born in Bethlehem to the virgin Mary, taught and ministered in Jerusalem, is the Only Begotten Son of God, was crucified and atoned for the sins of the world, and is now a resurrected living being. Different? How? Sounds to me like LDS are worshipping the same person as other Christians. Doesn't mean you have to be associated with them, but you shouldn't try to discount their belief in Christ.

Second- Did you even read that article? Quote- "Just as there are some Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records". So... it can even include some Mormons and is not "anything not Mormon".

Him: Well no, Mormonism teaches God the Father had real relations with Mary, so she wasn't a virgin. How about, my Jesus didn't go to South America, wasn't spirit brothers with Satan, wasn't a polygamist, didn't atone for sin in Gethsemane, is God, etc. You can watch my video called 'Is Mormonism Another Gospel?'.

And no I didn't read the article, I was talking about the quotes from your prophets. I'm not concerned with a guy writing articles who doesn't officially speak for the church doing damage control on church image, I'm concerned with what your apostles have officially said.

Me: I was never taught that God had real relations with Mary, so saying that Mormonism teaches such is completely false since I'm LDS. We do not believe he was a polygamist. We believe that PART of the atonement happened while he was praying in Gethsemane and that he visited the people in South American AFTER he was resurrected, yes which is what makes us different from mainstream Christianity. We believe in a premortal existance which makes us ALL spirit brothers and sisters. Everything about who Jesus was though is the same. We can believe different things about the same person, it doesn't make him a different person. It's more a "we believe Jesus did this TOO", not "we believe in a totally different person".

Also, the Ensign is a LDS endorsed magazine, so articles in it are "officially" from the church. All articles have to be approved by the prophet/apostles before they can be included as this magazine is considered to be the "modern doctrine" of the church to help us in our study of scripture and to understand modern revelations.

Him: Just because it wasn't personally taught to you doesn't mean that it wasn't taught at all. It was, look it up. It doesn't matter that the church doesn't currently emphasize it if they never retracted it.

What if I said Jesus was Chinese and went to Antarctica and was gay, but was still the same Jesus as yours? From my point of view, if you believe anything about Christ that's not strictly biblical, then its a different guy. Your point of view is different.

Me: Yes, we have a different point of view but that does not mean we do not have at least some similarities. LDS members believe in the Bible and all the teachings within it, we just believe in MORE than the Bible. If you said Jesus was Chinese, went to Antarctica and was gay I would still call you Christian. I would just say we would have to agree to disargee on those particular details of his life and ministry.

At this point, I feel like I'm just going in circles, but I guess I should have expected that when I first posted... Any thoughts on this? Is it even possible to bring something like this to a graceful conclusion or will I just have to let him have the final word?

[slamjet]

Give him the final word. Reasoning matters of the spirit is, intellectually, circular reasoning to begin with. There is no way to come to a final conclusion. They want to argue and argue and argue. Their goal is not to learn, it is to turn you away from your faith. They are not worth the trouble. Only those who are willing to have a proper give and take.

[pam]

Does no one any good when they are so set in their ways with anti Mormon sentiments. Just let it go.

[prisonchaplain]

Whether you want to engage this fellow further is up to you. I would suggest that saying anyone who believes in a Jesus is a Christian is too broad. After all, Jews believe Jesus to be a false prophet, but they generally agree he existed. Muslims give great honor to Jesus as one the prophets, but they would not even want the label Christian.

So, what the youtuber is arging, if I may hazzard a guess, is that one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, second person of the Trinity, and that he, like his Father, is eternal God. Further, he would like say that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit stand apart and separate from all creation, in that they alone were not created.

You could split the difference and say that you are not his kind of Christian, I suppose. It is reasonable, though, to assume that Christians would agree on some basic understandings of Christ's nature. Just how "wrong" a person can be and still be considered a Christian is indeed a difficult question. I still do not have a definitive answer.

[NeuroTypical]

You did great, Judo!

At this point, I feel like I'm just going in circles, but I guess I should have expected that when I first posted... Any thoughts on this?

Yes - after a decade or more of doing this, I almost never come away from an interchange thinking anything else.

Here's the deal - you're not arguing to convince him - you're arguing to help out the dozens of people who are witnessing the exchange, and who honestly don't know what to think. The interaction never was about him, or winning.

Just like Peter said: "...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

You will never, ever make a dent in someone who's mind is made up. But the people who watch the tennis match between you will go away with both sides of the story, and the ability to choose.

Good job.

[JudoMinja]

Whether you want to engage this fellow further is up to you. I would suggest that saying anyone who believes in a Jesus is a Christian is too broad. After all, Jews believe Jesus to be a false prophet, but they generally agree he existed. Muslims give great honor to Jesus as one the prophets, but they would not even want the label Christian.

So, what the youtuber is arging, if I may hazzard a guess, is that one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, second person of the Trinity, and that he, like his Father, is eternal God. Further, he would like say that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit stand apart and separate from all creation, in that they alone were not created.

You could split the difference and say that you are not his kind of Christian, I suppose. It is reasonable, though, to assume that Christians would agree on some basic understandings of Christ's nature. Just how "wrong" a person can be and still be considered a Christian is indeed a difficult question. I still do not have a definitive answer.

I do agree that simply stating someone believes in a Jesus is Christian is a little too broad, and if he'd given an explanation like the one you just provided I could see where he is coming from at least. However, I think a more accurate description of a Christian would be someone who believes in and follows to the best of their ability and knowledge the TEACHINGS of Christ in the New Testament. Mormons would fall in this description even though we believe in more than the Bible. Jews and Muslims would not fall in this description since they may acknowledge the existance of the man Jesus but do not believe or attempt to follow his teachings.

Clearly, you and I can come to an understanding of the differences of our belief and where to draw the line on who is or is not Christian, and if this youtuber had attempted to explain his position and draw a similar line without flat out attacking the LDS faith I'd see that we were just having a misunderstanding and difference of opinion on symantics. I feel myself hitting the brick wall with him, though, because he makes no attempt to come to such an understanding, which is of course what should be expected since (as slam and pam pointed out) he is set in his ways and there can be no give and take in the conversation.

Edited July 21, 2011 by JudoMinja

[JudoMinja]

You will never, ever make a dent in someone who's mind is made up. But the people who watch the tennis match between you will go away with both sides of the story, and the ability to choose.

That was my initial purpose in making the first comment, and I guess I got lost in the circular banter and started feeling like I was making no impact. I knew from the get-go that I wouldn't make a dent in this guy. After posting here about it and looking back at our conversation, I saw that someone else on there thanked me for my comments on his video. That was the whole point of it all- making sure anyone who came across his video would see that there is more to it than the information he is providing. So I guess I achieved my goal afterall. :)

[skippy740]

The only way you can "win" with Bible-bashing or Anti-LDS... is to testify and use the Book of Mormon. This way, you can agree with them, and 'confuse' them with words that sound like their scriptures... that they may have a hard time remembering.

I remember a RUMOR of a General Authority visiting a mission and discussing such things as "Bible-bashing". He said that we shouldn't do it. BUT... he also said that if you DO "Bible-bash"... make sure you WIN!

But you cannot win a spiritual discussion using Satan's tools (I'm not saying you did this).

"The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of all contention. Behold this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men to contend with anger one against another. But behold this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." - 3 Nephi 11.

"Where's that in the Bible?"

"Uh... somewhere in the back." - Homer Simpson

[AGStacker]

Post was edited/deleted per moderator action.

Please do not discuss any political candidates per rule #8:

violation: 8. Do not post or upload any names of political candidates or posts that insinuate a particular candidate. Do not make post, messages, videos, or uploads in reference to political candidates. You may not use LDS.NET to endorse any candidate running for political office. You may not use LDS.Net to intervene directly or indirectly in the election process by endorsing a political candidate. Any post that speaks favorably about one candidate, even in a religious context, can be construed as indirect intervention in the election process.

Edited July 21, 2011 by skippy740
No political candidate discussion allowed on LDS.net

[Guest mysticmorini]

Quoted post removed for discussing political candidates. - skippy740

wheres the LOL button? that aside your post will most likely be removed for refences to political candidates.

Edited July 21, 2011 by skippy740

[AGStacker]

wheres the LOL button? that aside your post will most likely be removed for refences to political candidates.

I know that the truth hurts.

[ruthiechan]

I think you should end with your testimony. What form that takes is something you and the Holy Ghost can work out together. :)

[Suzie]

Judo:

Me: First- how is the Mormon Jesus different? We believe in the same Jesus that was born in Bethlehem to the virgin Mary, taught and ministered in Jerusalem, is the Only Begotten Son of God, was crucified and atoned for the sins of the world, and is now a resurrected living being. Different? How? Sounds to me like LDS are worshipping the same person as other Christians.

But it's true. Our Jesus is different from the common Jesus worshiped by other Christian denominations and it's just not me saying it.

It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Living Christ - Ensign May 1977

And President Hinckley:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom I speak is not the Christ of whom they speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Church News, June 20, 1998).

I think as members we get caught in thinking of the term Christian anyone who believes in Christ but I think we need to acknowledge (as our leaders) that the Jesus we worship isn't the same as other Christian denominations. I don't think that's even debatable at this point.

Me: I was never taught that God had real relations with Mary, so saying that Mormonism teaches such is completely false since I'm LDS. We do not believe he was a polygamist.

And that's where the thing gets trickier and trickier...The problem with Church history is that we had a bunch of Prophets and leaders who taught and spoke a lot of controversial stuff that were published in official (at that time) Church books such as the Journal of Discourses or magazines like the Millennial Star. Did they imply that Jesus was the product of natural action? Sure, they did. Did they say that Jesus was a polygamist? They surely did, including Brigham Young. Does the present day Church believes Brigham Young was sharing doctrine or sharing his opinion? I don't know. Did they ever retracted from these specific statements? No, as far as I know.

I didn't see the video, so I cannot comment on that but I did want to comment on those points. Thanks.

[bytebear]

The problem is they use straw man arguments. I often wonder, if no one in the church believes doctrine X, even if there are quotes that support it, does the church actually teach it?

I often just quote the Book of Mormon or Doctrine & Covenants and say, that's the OFFICIAL answer:

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:28

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

2 Nephi 31:21

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

Mormon 7:7

And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

1 Nephi 11:20

(Yup, still a virgin even after giving birth)

Also, recommend "How Wide the Divide" the best book discussing LDS and traditional beliefs. Fair and even handed. And shows just how similar our beliefs really are.

[skippy740]

"Our Jesus" doesn't condemn people to an Endless and Eternal Hell for having not heard of Him and His Gospel while they were here on earth.

"Our Jesus" doesn't save us "in" our sins.

"Our Jesus" expects more of us than blind and hollow worship to be seen of men.

"Our Jesus" doesn't allow His clergy to preach for money.

"Our Jesus" won't send US down to an Endless and Eternal Hell for the countless, but finite sins we commit - EVEN if we didn't believe in Him! (See D&C 20 & 76)

"Our Jesus" teaches that families are the foundation of society and that our family relationships can continue into the Eternities.

"Our Jesus" teaches us that there is a great work to continue doing throughout the eternities, and that we won't be sitting on a cloud plucking a harp every day.

Yep. I think we believe in a different Jesus. Because the Jesus that I often hear about from others who are not of the LDS faith, is vindictive and says "sorry, you didn't hear about me, so you'll spend the rest of your eternal life in hell, without your family."

[john doe]

Whether you want to engage this fellow further is up to you. I would suggest that saying anyone who believes in a Jesus is a Christian is too broad. After all, Jews believe Jesus to be a false prophet, but they generally agree he existed. Muslims give great honor to Jesus as one the prophets, but they would not even want the label Christian.

Splitting hairs, I guess, but here goes: I would say in a broad sense, that anyone who believes in Jesus as the Savior of the world and men's souls probably qualifies as a Christian. Agreed, just because they acknowledge that he existed and even go to the point where some will accept that he was a great prophet, that does not make them a Christian. It is when they express a faith in Him as being the Savior of all mankind and as the 'gatekeeper' if you will, to heaven, that they should be recognized as Christian.

[applepansy]

After reading your opening post all I can say is "a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

Sometimes its better to waste the energy

..... you did a good job though. high five

Edited July 22, 2011 by applepansy

[prisonchaplain]

Splitting hairs, I guess, but here goes: I would say in a broad sense, that anyone who believes in Jesus as the Savior of the world and men's souls probably qualifies as a Christian. Agreed, just because they acknowledge that he existed and even go to the point where some will accept that he was a great prophet, that does not make them a Christian. It is when they express a faith in Him as being the Savior of all mankind and as the 'gatekeeper' if you will, to heaven, that they should be recognized as Christian.

This strikes me as an intelligent proposal. With it though, you include Jehovah's Witnesses, FLDS, and many true cults (Jim Jones, David Koresh's group, etc.). Ironically, my guess is that LDS teaching would indeed consider such people "Christian," in the broad sense. Here's a kicker though--what of EX-LDS who convert? They are apostate, may become vehemently Anti...and yet, under your suggestion, they would be Christian.

[Just_A_Guy]

"Our Jesus" doesn't allow His clergy to preach for money.

I like the tenor of your post generally, but I'd be careful with this. The GAs are supported with Church funds. In times past, so were bishops and stake presidents. The line between "living stipend" and "paid clergy" is so thin as to be nonexistent to most non-Mormons.

Here's a kicker though--what of EX-LDS who convert? They are apostate, may become vehemently Anti...and yet, under your suggestion, they would be Christian.

Yep. As Mormons we have kind of a love-hate relationship with the word "Christian". We want outsiders to view us as Christians; but we'll talk about "Brother so-and-so who went off and became a Christian whack-job" without even batting an eye.

It's a really weird dynamic.

[bytebear]

Well, are you speaking of the church as a "Christian Church" or the individual as a Christian. Is the person saved through belief, or is the church a vessel toward salvation? And can one be a Christian (of any church) and still have hate toward others?

One thing I find odd is the concept I got from a discussion with a Christian who accepts the teachings of Jesus but really doesn't accept the miracles or even that Jesus is divine. But she considers herself a Christian because her church accepts the creeds and fits into the larger Christian community. I understand this is not a unique position within Christianity. So, is she more "Christian" than the Latter-day Saint who believes with their whole heart that Jesus is their Savior?

[Guest Sachi001]

Well JudoMinja I will give you kudos for trying. Unfortunately you have gone up one of the priests of Nehor who has developed their own Doctrine. I would no doubt if there weren't any Mormons he would be disparaging the likes of Lutherans or Catholics etc....

Just remember that such priests will not change their minds or agree based on the prejudices, but only within the spirit. Maybe you should have asked if the gift of the HG was given? As dictated by Peter in Acts. I bet no, yet he will probably say it's not needed. Therefore just look at it as your just another one in the same line of Lehi, Nephi, Alma etc... who talked blue in the face on deaf ears on many, but reached some. Like Christ said: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Now don't let your feelings think that your effort went to waste. It's like the parable of the mustard seed. You planted the words in some ears, and some will take root (such as one missionary did with me), and to others it will stall, fall, and die. Give yourself a pat on the back. Winners never quit fighting. High fives around the room etc...

Aloha

[Jenamarie]

This strikes me as an intelligent proposal. With it though, you include Jehovah's Witnesses, FLDS, and many true cults (Jim Jones, David Koresh's group, etc.). Ironically, my guess is that LDS teaching would indeed consider such people "Christian," in the broad sense. Here's a kicker though--what of EX-LDS who convert? They are apostate, may become vehemently Anti...and yet, under your suggestion, they would be Christian.

Call me wierd, but I personally find the whole "define-a-Christian" debate rather... pointless. I mean, who can look at men's hearts? Someone may be able to offer proof of membership within an accepted Christian denomination, and spout off the various applicapable creeds and doctrines, but in their hearts it's all just a show, perhaps because they enjoy the community, or it makes life easier for them as opposed to being a "non-believer" in a highly Christian area, or it's what they've always been raised to "believe" and they've never really gotten what a relationship with the Savior really is. It's in their heads but nowhere near their hearts. A "Christian in name only".

For me, if someone says they're a Christian, then I'm not going to argue with them. If the Lord recognizes their belief in Him, then yay for them! If they're using His name to gain social standing, or for some other unholy reason, or they believe He existed but refuse to "Walk the Talk", then they'll have to answer for that at a later date. It's between them and the Lord.

So yes, I *do* accept ex-LDS persons claims to being Christian, as well as the claim of the FLDS and other "cults" that they believe in Jesus Christ. *HE* knows the truth of their claim, and I'll leave it to Him to sort out the true believers from the frauds.

[john doe]

This strikes me as an intelligent proposal. With it though, you include Jehovah's Witnesses, FLDS, and many true cults (Jim Jones, David Koresh's group, etc.). Ironically, my guess is that LDS teaching would indeed consider such people "Christian," in the broad sense. Here's a kicker though--what of EX-LDS who convert? They are apostate, may become vehemently Anti...and yet, under your suggestion, they would be Christian.

And there's the rub, isn't it? Just because someone's religious beliefs in Christ makes them a Christian, their actions many times are not very Christ-like. But we need to be very careful about taking away someone's Christianity, simply because it doesn't jive with our definition of what being a Christian is. To tell someone who professes a faith and belief in Christ that they have no right to follow Christ is like telling them that they have no hope of salvation. It's the ultimate slap in the (religious) face.

For instance, is it really very Christian of us to tell earnest people who believe in Jesus as their Savior that they really don't qualify as Christians simply because they interpret his teachings and words differently than we do? Or would Christ suggest that we celebrate our common belief in Him and engage in civil discourse in an attempt to come to a common understanding of His truth?

On the other hand, I also think that it is fair to point out the inconsistencies of one's stated faith in Christ and their actions showing that perhaps they don't really understand His word. I guess my point is, you can embrace Christianity, and be a Christian, but that doesn't necessarily translate to conducting yourself in a way that would make Christ claim you as one of His. In the end, we can't make Christ accept us, but we can try to live our lives to such a degree that when He comes, He will say 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Enter into my Rest'.

[skippy740]

I like the tenor of your post generally, but I'd be careful with this. The GAs are supported with Church funds. In times past, so were bishops and stake presidents. The line between "living stipend" and "paid clergy" is so thin as to be nonexistent to most non-Mormons.

Well, we can simply say that they're not doing it for "gain", "excessive gain" or for the "fame of the world".

My understanding is that support allowances for general authorities are quite modest.

I actually had a similar discussion on my mission about this. This guy had an Anti-LDS book that he had been reading. He asked me about "how rich" these GAs were. I simply stated that most have accumulated their own resources and live off of them as well as receive a modest support allowance - just as missionaires receive support funds. We traded books. I took his book and gave him a Book of Mormon!

[Blocky]

Most of the anti's I've spoken with have either been family members or co workers. Basically, even if you have the most fact based factually true facts of factiness, it wouldn't matter to them.

In the end, I just tell them that I think they're a great person and I'm glad we're friends and it's ok for us to disagree, and bare my testimony. They can never argue with the testimony in the end, and if they do, I just give them the 'look' and it's like, hey I"m not telling you how I think, it's how I feel, argue all you want but that doesn't change how I feel. End of story.