Why Do You Face So Much Opposition?

[Snow]

To submit your life to Christ. You say that you've done that. You indeed have faith in a Christ, but not the real one! The Christ that you believe contradicts the Christ of the Bible. The Bible says that you will know if someone is of God if they believe that Jesus in the Son of God. The greek for "Son" is not a literal word for "son," but it means more of "in realation" Such as If you believe in Christ you are my Brother, or Mother, or Sister. Not literally, but in relationship. Jesus is God, to say he isn't is to deny that He is the Son of God. He is called the "Son" because He is God that came to earth in the lowly form of human, taking His own curse upon mankind for Himself.

Great - another critic who doesn't believe in salvation by grace through faith only and pretends to understand Greek:

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Son - original word: uiJov?; transliterated word: Huios

1. a son

a. rarely used for the young of animals

b. generally used of the offspring of men

c. in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)

in a wider sense, a descendant, one of the posterity of any one,

1. the children of Israel

2. sons of Abraham

e. used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower

1. a pupil

2. son of man

a. term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and mortality

b. son of man, symbolically denotes the fifth kingdom in Daniel 7:13 and by this term its humanity is indicated in contrast with the barbarity and ferocity of the four preceding kingdoms (the Babylonian, the Median and the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman) typified by the four beasts. In the book of Enoch (2nd Century) it is used of Christ.

c. used by Christ himself, doubtless in order that he might intimate his Messiahship and also that he might designate himself as the head of the human family, the man, the one who both furnished the pattern of the perfect man and acted on behalf of all mankind. Christ seems to have preferred this to the other Messianic titles, because by its lowliness it was least suited to foster the expectation of an earthly Messiah in royal splendour.

3. son of God

etc (KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon).

[

Actually I wrote it, although I believe that the Holy Spirit gave me the words to say.

So we are to believe that the Holy Spirit is a rotten speller, doesn't understand grammar and has 9th grade writing skills?

Yeah - I don't think so.

[the Ogre]

Well PC, considering your original question and the response from TheL-rdSaves, I would say the answer is Tequilla and the worm.

Honestly, a lot of the Utah locals who are mad at the Church are mad for reasons that have nothing to do with theology, but the common Chr-stian plague of "someone in church was rude and judgemental." All faiths have the problem, but since it is so hard to shake LDS bullheadedness at times, antis will take their "concern" for the LDS soul to extremes.

Aaron the Ogre

[Elphaba]

Honestly, a lot of the Utah locals who are mad at the Church are mad for reasons that have nothing to do with theology, but the common Chr-stian plague of "someone in church was rude and judgemental." All faiths have the problem, but since it is so hard to shake LDS bullheadedness at times, antis will take their "concern" for the LDS soul to extremes.

This is a myth perpetuated by Church members that I find very annoying.

As an ex-Mormon who has spent a fair amount of time with other ex-Mormons, and a great deal of time online with ex-Mormons, being offended by someone in the Church can be the impetus caues a person to leave, but I guarantee you it is not the main one.

There are numerous reasons why people leave that have nothing to do with the person being offending or wanting to sin, go to bars, have sex or are just lazy.

By far the majority of people I've known have, in an experience filled with trauma, simply lost their testimony because they did. Oftentimes this is trigged by learning information they had never heard at Church. It is not necessarily the information itself, it is a sense of betrayal the Church had never told them about it.

However, thats only one example. There are too many to write here. There are many, many reasons, and if anyone is truly interested in wanting to know why people leave, PM me and Ill send you a link.

But plese don't continue to believe the myth that it is because someone offended him or her.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

Well PC, considering your original question and the response from TheL-rdSaves, I would say the answer is Tequilla and the worm.

Honestly, a lot of the Utah locals who are mad at the Church are mad for reasons that have nothing to do with theology, but the common Chr-stian plague of "someone in church was rude and judgemental." All faiths have the problem, but since it is so hard to shake LDS bullheadedness at times, antis will take their "concern" for the LDS soul to extremes.

Aaron the Ogre

Maybe a fair number of LDS (like a fair number of most churches) are not that deeply involved in the intellectual nature of the faith. Some of these become disillusionsed, perhaps for some of the reasons you suggest, and an LDS-critic comes along with some questions, and behold, the church isn't true--I've been duped...

Of course, within Protestantism at large, we can just switch to the next church down the road. B)

[the Ogre]

But plese don't continue to believe the myth that it is because someone offended him or her.

Sorry,

I know the issues are often thicker, but what you say is a myth is the truth for others. Think what you want. Maybe, you know more.

Personally, I want someone to just be honest with why they left and now decide to hate those who stay. Most of people's reasons are so coated in dishonesty it's ironic. I know a lot of people who have left the church because they dislike the way the church treats homosexuals, they dislike that there are so many members in the military, President Hinckley has not taken an openly hostile position regarding the war in Iraq, because President Hinckley does not have a pet (an actual post on this site), because they found out the church practiced polygamy, or whatever else the reason (MMM, anti-feminism, etc.). My little brother says he left because some members think it is okay to abuse the environment because the L-rd will repair nature after the second coming, not because he was already smoking, drinking, doing meth, fathering children out of wedlock and deserting them because it wasn't his fault the girl wasn't on the pill and committing petty crimes. Why couldn't he say, I'm leaving the church because I just want to treat society and myself destructively without feeling guilty?

A close friend left because her bishop sided with her ex after he raped and beat her. I can understand that, but has that got to do with the faith of others? I know many women who have left the church because their bishops tried to stay neutral between disputing spouses. I know others who have left because their rotten husbands were let back in after an excommunication while remaining the same crudcicle and hypocrite he always was.

What has this got to do with the doctrine of the church? I dislike with my whole soul the Society of Mormons (I do use one of the words I hate because it does represent well Utah's culture of middle-class oppression of people on the fringe), but I am not going to lets some yutz at church and his goofy sense of propriety dictate my testimony even if he goes out of his way to make my children feel unwelcome because they are of mixed race and he uses McConkie to defend himself. He has his own reward just like I will if I let him and others like him get in the way of my salvation.

Whatever, I think most personal apostasy comes from pride and choosing to be offended. You want to hold the church accountable for my close-mindedness, my opinion, and my personal faults, go right ahead, be just as self-righteous as that yutz in church. You have a different opinion, enjoy it, but don't facilitate another's dishonesty or cheapen their childishness with validation.

Yeah, whatever. Maybe, you know more.

Aaron the Ogre

[the Ogre]

Maybe a fair number of LDS (like a fair number of most churches) are not that deeply involved in the intellectual nature of the faith. Some of these become disillusionsed, perhaps for some of the reasons you suggest, and an LDS-critic comes along with some questions, and behold, the church isn't true--I've been duped...

Of course, within Protestantism at large, we can just switch to the next church down the road. B)

PC,

that is not a bad analysis. One of the problems with LDS people (at large) is not exploring deeply what goes on or actually forming a testimony independent of society. Many members do not read deeply the scriptures or conference talks and because of this their faith is easily shaken.

Many members do read carefully and study carefully all the new "revelations" and "revelators" and can discern (without the help of some pathetic apologist) what is at stake. I do believe it often requires a certain level of commitment. The Book of Mormon describes the tribulations that come upon many people who don't spend the amount of time it takes to gain a solid testimony. What did the S-viour say about building on sandy foundations?

Oh well.

[CrimsonKairos]

Being LDS ain't easy. Lots is required (since lots is promised...gotta' love God's symmetry). For many, the fact is simply that the path of least resistance doesn't lead to the chapel on Sunday, or the hometeaching route during the week. The path of least resistance leads to the couch on Sunday and the bar during the week.

Contrariwise, many people I know just don't take time to learn the doctrines. Then when some child of Satan comes along with a twisted quote or lie about LDS history, it's bye-bye to any testimony that member might have had. Is it because the Church ain't true? Nope. It's because they never knew it was in the first place.

The difference between the doers and the doubters is this:

The doers immerse themselves in evidence supportive of their faith.

The doubters immerse themselves in evidence supportive of their fears, i.e. What if I've been duped, what if this church isn't true, what if I've been lied to, what if Joseph Smith lied, blah blah blah.

Feed your faith, and doubt will starve to death. Feasting on the word is one of the best ways to feed your faith.

[prisonchaplain]

These last two songs remind me of part of the lyrics to a Keith Green song (Christian singer, died in 1980s):

To obey is better than sacrifice

I want more than Sundays and Wednesday nights

If you can't bring me everything, then don't bother coming at all!

We can all agree that the gospel requires total commitment, and our testimonies should be personally acquired through authentic communion with God.

[CrimsonKairos]

You always articulate things with style and class, PC.

[Maureen]

Jesus is God, to say he isn't is to deny that He is the Son of God.

Dude, for the second time, LDS do believe Jesus is God, Jehovah of the Old Testament...

He is called the "Son" because He is God that came to earth in the lowly form of human, taking His own curse upon mankind for Himself.

That has to be one of the most nonsensical things any Christian has said. The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the Mediator between man and God (see 1 Tim. 2:5). But you would have us believe that Christ is both the vengeful Father and the interceding Son.

If the Father and the Son are the same Being, then you've made the doctrine of Christ as Mediator redundant and false...

If Jesus is not God, then how could His death pay for your sins?

Again, show me where I or anyone else every claimed Jesus was not God...

...It is you who is discrediting Christ's claim that he came to be our Advocate with the Father...you believe Christ is our Advocate with one of his own split-personalities

...Now was he wearing the Father's face when he told you to write this, or was he wearing the Son's face? I mean I know they're the same person (he said sarcastically), I'd just like to know which schizophrenic deity was speaking to you in this instance. I'm surprised he had time to stop mediating with himself to speak to you at all.

I'm not sure if this will be easy to follow but the quotes are TLS's and CK's conversation.

I'm just curious CK as to why you are interpreting TLS's statements that Jesus is God as some sort of bizarre description of the Godhead? You correct TLS's misunderstanding in thinking that LDS do not believe that Jesus is deity, but then go on to assume that you know exactly how TLS views the Godhead yourself. Just because you think he pictures the Godhead the way you teasingly describe it, doesn't mean that's how he sees it. You're doing exactly the same thing TLS is doing - assuming each other's beliefs.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm just curious CK as to why you are interpreting TLS's statements that Jesus is God as some sort of bizarre description of the Godhead? You correct TLS's misunderstanding in thinking that LDS do not believe that Jesus is deity, but then go on to assume that you know exactly how TLS views the Godhead yourself. Just because you think he pictures the Godhead the way you teasingly describe it, doesn't mean that's how he sees it. You're doing exactly the same thing TLS is doing - assuming each other's beliefs.

M.

Jews and Muslisms accuse Christians of polytheism for teaching that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all Gods. We respond that, no, we believe the three persons are one God. God in three persons, blessed Trinity.

LDS look at our Trinity and see a monstrous contradiction. How can God be one if He is three persons? They are either separate gods, or you've got some split-personality deity.

The Trinity is simply that the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. They are distinct personalities. They are the one true and living God. We are monotheists.

Of course, Protestants and Catholics look to the LDS Godhead and see polytheism. The response seems to be that since only one Godhead, united in purpose, is worshiped, then LDS worship can be considered as in fidelity to only one God.

Jews & Muslims do not accept either the Trinity nor the LDS godhead as being monotheistic. Catholics and Protestants do not consider the LDS godhead, with its three god essences, as being monothestic. And yet, all three self-identify as worshipers of one God.

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm just curious CK as to why you are interpreting TLS's statements that Jesus is God as some sort of bizarre description of the Godhead?

TLS said that Christ is called the Son because he is God who came to earth taking his own curse upon mankind for Himself. It was the Father who cursed Adam and Eve after their transgression, hence the only person who could be taking "his own curse upon himself" would be the Father, yet this same Father is supposedly the Son who came down in lowly human form to be our Mediator with God the Father.

See the contradiction? That would leave one being posing as the Father and the Son and mediating with himself. That is what I thought was absurd. Perhaps I totally misread TLS's intent.

Of course, Protestants and Catholics look to the LDS Godhead and see polytheism. The response seems to be that since only one Godhead, united in purpose, is worshiped, then LDS worship can be considered as in fidelity to only one God.

Allow me to correct one thing, PC. LDS don't worship the Godhead. We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost. We only worship one God, though we believe three separate Gods form the Godhead. If polytheism is meant to imply the worship of more than one God, then LDS are in no way polytheists.

[Annabelli]

The only opposition that I have witnessed among the churches is the need to be recognized as being #1. All churches linking to God, Jesus, & the Holy Ghost, also link to the old Testament as a foundation. And you cannot be #1 until the Jews break their covenant with God.

What is the difference of a pope, prophet, minister, preacher....etc? All are the leaders of their religious sects.

Opposition is usually contributed to fear. A small church with about 20 members will have little or no opposition. People just refer to it as "the little white church house." Fear is a taught trait. Change is also a trait of fear. Most people associate their religion to their grandparents preferences. Trust is also apart of opposition. Comfort being the next challenge of opposition. Therefore opposition is a very complex human behavior.

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you CK. So, you do not worship Jesus?

If so, what do you make of the Father's command that the angels are to worship him (see Hebrews 1:6-8)?

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm going to be gone for a few hours PC, but I will respond when I get back. Thanks for the question.

[CrimsonKairos]

Okay PC, here are my thoughts about worshipping Jesus.

When I say I worship God the Father only, I mean a few things:

1.) I only pray to Heavenly Father. I do not pray to Jesus.

2.) I ask for blessings from Heavenly Father only. I do not ask Jesus for blessings (sort of goes along with the above).

3.) I acknowledge God the Father as the Supreme Sovereign who presides over all including His Son Jesus.

Now, I guess you could say I worship Jesus in the sense that I feel and express reverence and adoration for what he's done for me on the cross. How? By singing hymns in his praise, by witnessing of his divine atonement, etc... I talk of Christ, preach of Christ, and rejoice in Christ (2 Ne. 25:26).

Perhaps it's a silly semantic delineation to say I only worship God the Father as regards prayer and so forth. I certainly don't worship the Holy Ghost, and I think most LDS would agree that we give differing amounts of praise and reverence to the various characters in the Godhead.

As for Hebrews 1, which you cite, I looked up the Greek word translated as "worship" and found this:

Proskyneo

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

1) to the Jewish high priests

2) to God

3) to Christ

4) to heavenly beings

5) to demons

So if by worship you mean the above, namely, to express reverence towards and make obeisance to Jesus, then sure, no problem. But when I think of worship, I associate it with prayer and in that sense LDS only worship God the Father. Does that make sense?

[prisonchaplain]

CK, I think so.

You'd have no problem with the following:

Oh come let us adore Him

Oh come let us adore Him

Oh come let us adore Him

Christ...the Lord!

Did I get my basic premise right...that for the LDS, the worshiping/following of one God is accomplished through allegiance to the one, "united in purpose" Godhead?

[CrimsonKairos]

The Christmas hymn is a great example of how I adore and reverence Christ, but don't add prayer to the worship.

Now as for your basic premise...I've never heard an LDS member tie the worship of only one God to the entire Godhead. I don't try to justify my belief in more than one God. I don't try to say, "Well it's really as if I worshipped only one God because the three Gods taken together form one council or Godhead and so I'm really metaphorically dealing with just one entity."

I believe in three Gods who form the Supreme Presidency, with God the Father presiding over and directing God the Son and God the Testator. I believe in praying to only God the Father, in the name of God the Son, by the power of God the Testator.

I believe there is but one Savior of mankind and nature, and that is the Wholly Begotten Son of God, Christ Jesus. I believe that the scriptural prohibitions against there being more than one God are really prohibitions against believing in more than one Savior. The scriptures almost always combine the warning against having other gods to this assertion: "For there is no Savior beside me."

I don't think the scriptures forbid us to believe in more than one God. I believe they forbid us to look at any being in heaven or on earth as our Savior other than Jesus Christ.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not sure where I first heard the concept of belief in a single Godhead as being sufficient grounds for LDS claims to be monotheistic--probably Stephen Robison's explanation in How Wide the Divide?. I did find this quote from AllAboutMormons (a pro-LDS site):

Other critics go even further, claiming that Mormons are polytheistic. This view is simply inaccurate. Mormons believe in one God as taught in the scriptures; they believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost together constitute one single "Godhead." In Mormonism, the words "God" and "Godhead" are often used interchangeably. When we say that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, immutable, and immortal, we do not distinguish between the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost but instead refer to them collectively as one single entity, the Godhead, or, often, simply God.

It could be that you meant the same thing, and I threw you off with the use of "worship?"

[CrimsonKairos]

No, it's not your fault PC.

Before now, I'd never heard members say what that quote says. When the scriptures use the word God, to me, it's always referring to one of the Gods in the Godhead, usually the Father or the Son.

[Gabelma]

CK, I think so.

You'd have no problem with the following:

Oh come let us adore Him

Oh come let us adore Him

Oh come let us adore Him

Christ...the Lord!

Did I get my basic premise right...that for the LDS, the worshiping/following of one God is accomplished through allegiance to the one, "united in purpose" Godhead?

That describes how I feel about it PC - also for me worshipping Christ or the Holy Ghost would not be automatically wrong as the glory automatically goes to the Father anyway. I guess I see it in a very none Christian way but for me by worshipping any of the Godhead all the energy flows to the same place. Whilst my prayers are always directed to Heavenly Father sometimes I like to have a word with the Saviour or ask the Holy Ghost for help.

But I do know a lot of LDS say they are closer to the Father than the Saviour whereas I tend to be the reverse.

Charley

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

You indeed have faith in a Christ, but not the real one! The Christ that you believe contradicts the Christ of the Bible.

Ah yes, I remember reading where Jesus said, "And unless ye have faith that I am my own Son...figuratively speaking...then ye shall be cast off to my Father's right hand...which is my hand...because I'm my own Son and my own Father...figuratively speaking...and if ye do not believe this, ye are damned."

Barry Bickmore has a pretty good joke on his site:

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

Source

[sixpacktr]

Barry Bickmore has a pretty good joke on his site:

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

Source

LOL!

[Guest Yediyd]

Thank you for that Dr. S...that was great!!!

[Doctor Steuss]

Here’s the thing that really gets me with the “different Jesus” thing. Do they really think this is going to be the scene of the Second Coming:

*Christ comes down from the heavens surrounded by angels*

Angels proclaiming: Every knee shall bend, every tongue shall confess...

Mormons: Nah... we're waiting for a different Jesus.

???

People try to make a qualitatively “different” Jesus out to be a quantitatively “different” Jesus. The fact of the matter is, most of those who try to jettison the LDS from the Christian Club do so by redefining what “Christian” means. And, interestingly by butchering the definition to tailor it in such a way as to make “Christian” mean “anyone who agrees with me,” they often inadvertently jettison many of the earliest Christians and often some of the apostles themselves.

They fail to recognize that many of the attributes for the “right” Jesus weren’t accepted by “orthodox” or “traditional” Christianity until at least the 2nd century (and in many cases, the 4th century or all the way up until the 12th to 16th century).

I feel bad for all of the poor misguided Christians in the earliest centuries of Christianity who weren’t really Christians because they failed to think exactly the same as a small wing of twentieth century protestant-evangelism.

If they want to monopolize the title of “Christian” that bad, they can keep it. I for one am fine with bearing the title of a Nazarene.