An Evangelical Minister Speaks to a Mormon

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, eVa said:

The Bible actually shines light on the possibility that Christ visited America, but there is nothing in the Bible saying Jesus did not come to America.

The Bible can be interpreted in thousands of ways... as we have seen in all the Christian Churches around the planet.  At some point, we have to draw the line on where Christian teaching ends and heresy begins.

Edited November 9, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

The only real difference between Mormon beliefs and the Nicene Creed itself appears to be the inclusion of the word meaning "of the same substance".  This word was apparently insisted upon by Emperor Constantine, who if I remember correctly was not even baptized during the creed, over the objections of many/most of the bishops... If I remember correctly, the Pope at the time advised Constantine not to cause contention over such "minor" doctrinal matters (and was ignored) . . . 

Of course, subsequent creeds, "interpreting" the Nicene Creed, got loopier and loopier . . . 

This is false.

Consubstantiation was a schism between the East and West/Roman versus Greek/Athanasius versus Arius.  The Council of Nicea's objective was to get rid of heresy.  The schism had to be resolved and Constantine did not quit the council until it was resolved even as he had no vote (as he was not a Bishop).  There was no "pope at the time" as it is considered now.  At the time of the council, there was no established Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.  Rather, all Bishops - Romans and Greeks and everybody in between - have the same authority in the same manner that the 12 Apostles have the same authority even as the apostle Peter, then Bishop of Rome, was given charge of establishing the Church.  Peter in Rome and John the Revelator in Patmos (Greece) were considered of the same authority.  The Roman Bishops clashed with the Greek Bishops on the subject of homoousia which is the fulcrum of Jesus' Divinity.  In the end, the Romans succeeded and the Arian Greeks were declared heretics.  And thus started the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox after the council of Nicea resulted in the established Primacy of the Bishop of Rome for future matters of faith.

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

On 11/8/2017 at 3:41 PM, DoctorLemon said:

Anyone who uses the word "cult" to describe Mormonism frankly doesn't know what they are talking about.  They are either grossly ignorant or have an ax to grind against Mormonism.

 

 

Why?  What does "cult" actually mean to you?

[zil]

23 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Why?  What does "cult" actually mean to you?

Per google's dictionary:

Quote

a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

    a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

    a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.

The second one is, I think, what most people mean when they define the Church as a cult.  Though some might include the other two in relation to Joseph Smith.

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Per google's dictionary:

The second one is, I think, what most people mean when they define the Church as a cult.  Though some might include the other two in relation to Joseph Smith.

My feelings about the word "cult" have changed over the past few months of studying.  

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

My feelings about the word "cult" have changed over the past few months of studying.  

Shocking.  I assume you mean about the use of the word to describe the Church?

Meanwhile, I'm sure @MormonGator could help you change your feelings about The Cult as well...

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

The Cult as well...

Totally overrated garbage. Imagine Bobby Smith from the Cure (a band I love) if he decided to form a D-list glam rock band in his spare time. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by MormonGator

[zil]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Totally overrated garbage. Imagine Bobby Smith from the Cure (a band I love) if he decided to form a D-list glam rock band in his spare time. 

(This is zil, relieved that there's actually a band named "The Cult" so that her gambit worked.)

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

(This is zil, relieved that there's actually a band named "The Cult" so that her gambit worked.)

lol. 

The reality is that if you can get someone to pay their money to buy your records/see you live you probably have at least a little bit of talent. So take my opinion with a grain of salt. 
 

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Shocking.  I assume you mean about the use of the word to describe the Church?

Meanwhile, I'm sure @MormonGator could help you change your feelings about The Cult as well...

Not really.  In some ways, I view it as an accurate depiction of the Church.  I just don't necessarily view it as a negative thing. 

 

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

lol. 

The reality is that if you can get someone to pay their money to buy your records/see you live you probably have at least a little bit of talent. So take my opinion with a grain of salt. 
 

Yeah, but it's not like they're the Bangles or Bananarama

Edited November 10, 2017 by Grunt

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Not really.  In some ways, I view it as an accurate depiction of the Church.  I just don't necessarily view it as a negative thing. 

Gotcha.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

My feelings about the word "cult" have changed over the past few months of studying.  

As opposed to the "occult", right?

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

As opposed to the "occult", right?

You so cWWazy!

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You so cWWazy!

Pssst.  This is anatess.  Not @zil.

[anatess2]

@zil, that's just a sad picture of sad.  It's looks like it wants to poop but it's too hard.  Get that fountain pen working on a better sad!

[zil]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

@zil, that's just a sad picture of sad.  It's looks like it wants to poop but it's too hard.  Get that fountain pen working on a better sad!

Diamine Misty Blue in a new Fountain Pen Revolution Indus with a flex nib (thought the pen was a dud, but found and fixed the problem, all is right with the world - I'm back to being the cWWazy pen lady).

Edited November 10, 2017 by zil
That bottom left sad face looks kinda mad too.

[Grunt]

Are you writing on a "dots and boxes" game board?

[zil]

32 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Are you writing on a "dots and boxes" game board?

Rhodia dot pad.  The paper itself is my favorite.  I wish their lined paper had the same finish, but it doesn't - slight difference - so I use the dot pad - which is nice for drawing on, OK for writing on.  And, yeah, if you wanted, you could use it for dots and boxes.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, zil said:

 

Diamine Misty Blue in a new Fountain Pen Revolution Indus with a flex nib (thought the pen was a dud, but found and fixed the problem, all is right with the world - I'm back to being the cWWazy pen lady).

That's not a sad face!  What a waste of Diamine Misty Blue!  That's a wry face!

[zil]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's not a sad face!  What a waste of Diamine Misty Blue!  That's a wry face!

Zoom in - maybe the little tiny sad faces are too small to see.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Zoom in - maybe the little tiny sad faces are too small to see.

They're all mocking me!

[Jane_Doe]

30 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Why?  What does "cult" actually mean to you?

History background here: in the 1980's there was a certain extremely anti-Mormon individual who created a multitude presentations/phamplets/movies spreading slanderous flat-out falsehoods about the LDS faith.  It became a giant movement with entire churches having inflammatory sermons/workshops with titles of "Come and learn the truth the Mormon cult!" (the "truth" meaning flat out falsehood or severe purposeful misrepresentation).  The word "cult" used didn't correspond to any actual dictionary definition, and was just one more inflammatory slander.  All these sermons did was spread hostility between these Protestant groups and LDS.

Fast fowarding to today: things has gotten substantiality better, even if they still have a ways to go (as the OP here pointed to one example).  Still, a minority people do still hand out/watch those false materials and shout the "cult" word.  And there's just the memory of the past misinformation/persecution residing with LDS and these Protestant groups.  So all in all... it's word that leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths.

[Guest]

On 11/10/2017 at 9:48 AM, Grunt said:

Why?  What does "cult" actually mean to you?

On 11/10/2017 at 10:14 AM, zil said:

1) a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

2) a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

3) a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.

Growing up, it was clear which definition certain individuals meant when they used the word.

We can choose to assume that they simply mean #1.  And that's fine.  That's the definition of any religion really.  So, nothing wrong there.  But these same individuals don't consider themselves a cult, so they obviously don't mean that.

We can guess that they mean #3 with a focus on "misplaced".  And that's fine.  We all think other beliefs are misplaced when they disagree with ours.  But they get offended when I call them a cult for the same reason.  So, do they really mean that?  Hypocrisy is fairly common among such, so...

#3 "Excessive".  According to who?  The fact that we believe it is important to live our faith and give so much of our time, talents, and means to building it up is merely an example of how we all ought to behave in our attitude towards God.  And, granted, some people do mean this when I've spoken with them.  But I always have to wonder -- why don't they do the same with their faith?  And if they do, what makes ours "excessive"?

#2 can be about "strange" in which case, I'd say that's fine.  We are strange.  We're different.  We are supposed to be a peculiar people.  We need to stand out or else it doesn't mean anything to be a Saint.  We might as well be just like everyone else.  Then it doesn't matter what faith we claim.  No, we're supposed to be different.  And, yes, that is a good thing.

#2 "Sinister".  I can only speak from my own experience.  The overwhelming majority of those who choose to use the word "cult" to describe us mean this.  This is completely unfounded and absolutely untrue.  We're talking about the most educated, successful, and capable people in the world being "duped" by some sinister cabal into performing acts of service, giving to charitable causes, take care of their families, be honest in all our dealings with our fellow man, and do everything we can to become better people.  Gee, that sure sounds sinister to me.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Guest

[Blueskye2]

On 11/10/2017 at 8:12 AM, anatess2 said:

This is false.

Consubstantiation was a schism between the East and West/Roman versus Greek/Athanasius versus Arius.  The Council of Nicea's objective was to get rid of heresy.  The schism had to be resolved and Constantine did not quit the council until it was resolved even as he had no vote (as he was not a Bishop).  There was no "pope at the time" as it is considered now.  At the time of the council, there was no established Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.  Rather, all Bishops - Romans and Greeks and everybody in between - have the same authority in the same manner that the 12 Apostles have the same authority even as the apostle Peter, then Bishop of Rome, was given charge of establishing the Church.  Peter in Rome and John the Revelator in Patmos (Greece) were considered of the same authority.  The Roman Bishops clashed with the Greek Bishops on the subject of homoousia which is the fulcrum of Jesus' Divinity.  In the end, the Romans succeeded and the Arian Greeks were declared heretics.  And thus started the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox after the council of Nicea resulted in the established Primacy of the Bishop of Rome for future matters of faith.

 

Arius was excommunicated in the West for his heresy. He went east and found a Bishop (Eusebius) who supported him.  This same Bishop was a confidant of Constantine. Long story made short, Nicaea was attended almost entirely by Bishops from the East.  The Pope sent a legate to represent the West, who had already declared Arius a heretic. 

The Bishops in the East declared, nearly unanimously,  Arianism a heresy. The Bishop who supported Arius, the confidant of Constantine, sided with Arius. When Constantine consented to baptism, on his death bed, it was this same Arian Bishop, that baptized him.

Alexander , a Bishop in the East, and Athanasia who was a deacon at the time, are who put forward homoousia, as the explanation for existing Christian doctrine. The entire Church, East and West profess the Nicaean-Constantinople Creed. There is no division on this doctrine...except for the filioque...

...The Great Schism, that you allude to, happened nearly 700 years later. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the filioque, are the two major points that caused the schism c.1000AD. (And a large dose of ego on both sides, if you ask me.)

The filioque...

i believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The church split over the part in bold.  The East says, “who proceeds from the Father”. The Pope saying, essentially, I have primacy and you should listen to me. The Patriarch of Constantinople saying, no you don’t. To which, the Pope excommunicated the Patriarch and the Patriarch responded with an excommunication of the Pope! 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

On 11/8/2017 at 6:50 AM, Carborendum said:

I was struggling with which forum to put this in.  I suppose this one is as good as another.

Yesterday, I was having lunch with my wife at a common lunch hangout in town.  It is owned by an evangelical family.  They have "As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" painted on the main wall in the dining area.  Every time I read it, I have to tilt my head a bit at the word "household".  I'm used to the KJV wording of "house".  This, by itself, is trivial.  But it laid the groundwork for something that happened while we were eating.

Behind me were seated six men who were talking very loudly.  So loudly that we were having difficulty hearing our own conversation.  I was getting irritated to the point where I was about to get up and ask them to quiet down.  But since I've been trying to control my temper lately, I took a "celestial time out".  I started listening to what they were saying.  I signed to my wife seated across from me to be quiet and listen to their conversation.  She mentioned that the main voice among them was the minister who owned a church less than a mile from our house.  They have a large plot of land that they rent out for campground space.  Our boy scouts went on a campout there.  The ward had a ward campout there.

THE CONVERSATION

The minister mentioned that at his 'day job' (I can certainly appreciate a low-paid or unpaid minister) he was being visited by some big wigs from corporate headquarters who were all from Utah.  He naturally assumed most of them were Mormon.  He got to know them over the course of the day.  They toured the facility, audited books, inspected policies and procedures, etc.  He thought they were nice enough folks.  He talked to them professionally.  And as the day wore on, he talked to them personally.  By mid-afternoon the conversations drifted to religion.  He didn't actually find out just who was or was not a Mormon in the group.

He described to his dining companions that he never had the intention to really try to convert any of them.  He just wanted to get a conversation going.  He told the man who was his shadow for the day that he really does appreciate all the service that the Mormons are doing especially after the floods these past few years that have hit the South so hard.  But he then said that the ministry is more than just helping people.  His ministry is about helping people come to Christ.  And that is why he's so concerned about Mormons.  They do all these good things.  But they just don't have Christ in their lives.  And they will just never know the peace that comes from being a "believer".

It turned out that his shadow for the day was a man who had actually apostatized in the middle of his mission many years back.  He turned his back on the Church and his family (5 generations of Mormons) and hasn't gone back.  He also never joined any other faith.  He only had "an overarching belief in God" (His words).

The remainder of his conversation with his eating companions described how it was nice to just talk with a Mormon about religious things without bashing or trying to convert -- just get the conversation going.  And that was how he believed that Mormons would eventually come around, by loving them to Christ.

MY REACTION

I was considering that I ought to say something. But what could I say that wasn't argumentative or come off as a bully?  I took some time to consider.  I truly appreciated the fact that this minister proved that they had loving and thoughtful conversations about Mormons.  These were almost verbatim the same ones that we have about non-Mormons.  We want to love them to Christ.  They want to love us to Christ.  So, what was the problem?

I grew up with four categories of people: 1) Those who knew nothing about Mormonism  2) Those who converted  3) Those who hated our faith and felt it was their duty to save us  & 4) Those who knew, were friends, and decided to just avoid the topic of religion because they "just wanted to be friends".  So, I found it refreshing to hear him talk about finding more friendly and affable methods of reaching out to Mormons.

In my youth, there was no group of people who wanted to save us who actually loved us.  At least, from everything I saw on my end, the first words out of their mouths were always about how X, Y, or Z was wrong with this "cult" I was a part of.  Yeah, that will really "love us to Christ".  Billy Graham (or possibly Franklin Graham) said about Mormons being a cult,"We're not going to bring people to Christ by calling them names."

Now, there is a big difference between "cult" and "religion" as far as connotations go.  It is a small difference between "house" and "household".  But minor differences in wording are a major part of what separates us.  All throughout the conversation of this minister and with the words of Franklin Graham there is another word thrown about that no one even considers.  "Christian".  We consider ourselves Christians.  They UTTERLY refuse to use that appellation regarding Mormons.  So, the only thing they can call us are things like "cult" or "parasite on Christianity".  Yes, one anti-Mormon friend would constantly and quite casually call us that "a parasite".

In the end I realized that I'd be more like this guy who apostatized.  If I ever found sufficient cause to leave the faith and renounce my beliefs, I could never join an evangelical faith because of this one fact.  They absolutely refuse to call us Christians.  In fact, most actively state that we are NOT Christians.  Some have even gotten offended and angry at me for being a Mormon who believed that Jesus was my Savior.  They can only get around it by formulating definitions that allow them this delusion.  And even then it is applied inconsistently.  It is this behavior and belief that I simply could never accept.  I know we are Christians.  I know how much our beliefs and teaching center around Christ.  The level of systemic cognitive disconnect among them is just too great for me to get past.

This minster (with every few phrases) kept stating how close we were, but we simply weren't Christians.  Franklin Graham on a number of occasions has stated that we are not Christians.  So many others in my experience.  How many other ministers in TV interviews and televangelists have made similar comments?  If evangelists really want to reach out to us, they're going to have to start acknowledging the fact that we really are a Christian faith.  As it is, all they have is those who have left the Church on their own.

Years ago, whenever I travelled for business and said I was from Utah, people always assumed I was Mormon. I just let them. Didn’t want to get into my own personal beliefs (or unbelief)

I had a similar experience once, in Nashville, having dinner with coworkers who were all active LDS, and the table next to us was on a loud and merry Mormon bash. Our business hosts, who were not LDS were appalled. Apologetic and really embarrassed.