A Unique Angle Of Leaving Christ's Church

[Rob Osborn]

Those who leave the church with utter disgust have been called "anti-Mormons". But, seeings how we were never members of Mormon's church it makes it rather unique. We are members of Christ's church. So, in reality shouldnt those utterly disaffected be called "anti-Christs"? This is proof in yet another unique prophetic way that President Nelsonn is correct in identifying the use of Christs name as powerful. Now, of course the anti-Christs will deny this label but by that same standard they judge with so too must the logic stand. Of course, they dont want to be labeled as anti-Christs but yet their very fruits show they truly have forsaken Christ.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Vort]

33 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is proof in yet another unique prophetic way that President Monson Nelson is correct in identifying the use of Christ's name as powerful.

 

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

Thanks. I will change it

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Those who leave the church with utter disgust have been called "anti-Mormons". But, seeings how we were never members of Mormon's church it makes it rather unique. We are members of Christ's church. So, in reality shouldnt those utterly disaffected be called "anti-Christs"? This is proof in yet another unique prophetic way that President Nelsonn is correct in identifying the use of Christs name as powerful. Now, of course the anti-Christs will deny this label but by that same standard they judge with so too must the logic stand. Of course, they dont want to be labeled as anti-Christs but yet their very fruits show they truly have forsaken Christ.

As I understand things, the value of any label is critically tied to the perceived purpose of the label and the effective realization thereof.  

On this basis, I would surmise that the value of your suggested label above is as low (or high, depending upon one's perspective) as the past effort by Evangelical Christians to label members of our faith as "non-Christian" or even "anti-Christ,"  It is at high risk for preventing productive interfaith dialogue. If dismissive and thought-terminating discussions and  counterproductive exchanges are the intent, then your suggested label would likely work quite well. Whereas, if one wishes to maintain civil relations and keep open the door to reconciliation, then it is most likely ill-advised.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

As I understand things, the value of any label is critically tied to the perceived purpose of the label and the effective realization thereof.  

On this basis, I would surmise that the value of your suggested label above is as low (or high, depending upon one's perspective) as the past effort by Evangelical Christians to label members of our faith as "non-Christian" or even "anti-Christ,"  It is at high risk for preventing productive interfaith dialogue. If dismissive and thought-terminating discussions and  counterproductive exchanges are the intent, then your suggested label would likely work quite well. Whereas, if one wishes to maintain civil relations and keep open the door to reconciliation, then it is most likely ill-advised.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It kind of proves a point though. (BTW, I agree that anti-Christ dialogue is not productive to positive conversation with those disaffected)

We have come to associate "Mormon" as a generic label. Mormon however is/was a real person who we revere as a great prophet that led his nation in a final spiritual and temporal  struggle of his people. The problem is we have kind of relegated his name down with the dogs in many ways. In many disaffected circles the name "Mormon" has become kind of a hiss and byword. It's thus why in these circles it's easy to disassociate oneself from anything to do with "the Mormons". But, things change rather drastically when we interject the name "Jesus Christ". But why should it be any different? It's because words/names have power. And, some words or names have more power than others. In that same context the name "Mormon" has lost its reverence. 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Suzie]

"Those who leave the church with utter disgust have been called "anti-Mormons". But, seeings how we were never members of Mormon's church it makes it rather unique. We are members of Christ's church. So, in reality shouldnt those utterly disaffected be called "anti-Christs"?"

I would much rather call them brothers/sisters.

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

It kind of proves a point though.

Yes, though perhaps not the one you may assume.

In my multi-decade experience interacting with disaffected members and antagonist towards the Church, they have, for the most part, stridently objected to the term "anti-Mormon," likely no less so than were the label changed to what you proposed. In fact, that is what moved me to discourage use of "anti-Christ" because of my familiarity with the counter-productivity of using "anti-Mormon" in the past.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

Yes, though perhaps not the one you may assume.

In my multi-decade experience interacting with disaffected members and antagonist towards the Church, they have, for the most part, stridently objected to the term "anti-Mormon," likely no less so than were the label changed to what you proposed. In fact, that is what moved me to discourage use of "anti-Christ" because of my familiarity with the counter-productivity of using "anti-Mormon" in the past.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Humm, that's not been my experience. Most go by either the anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon. Doing a search on the internet and there are many many sites/people that claim to be "anti-Mormon" and "ex-Mormon". This truly is Christ's church on the earth. If they are against our church they are against Christ's church, plain and simple. This is my point. It seems like it's one thing to say they are against Mormons but totally different to be against Christ. It proves to me that the name "Mormon" has no real power, or has lost its power over time. 

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

Yes, though perhaps not the one you may assume.

In my multi-decade experience interacting with disaffected members and antagonist towards the Church, they have, for the most part, stridently objected to the term "anti-Mormon," likely no less so than were the label changed to what you proposed. In fact, that is what moved me to discourage use of "anti-Christ" because of my familiarity with the counter-productivity of using "anti-Mormon" in the past.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

I expect most anti-Christs would object to the term. But a spade is a spade, I believe, is the point.

Now calling them names isn't very kind. But if one is to call them a name -- then accurately, the appellation fits.

[wenglund]

On 10/23/2018 at 9:36 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

I expect most anti-Christs would object to the term. But a spade is a spade, I believe, is the point.

Now calling them names isn't very kind. But if one is to call them a name -- then accurately, the appellation fits.

I agree with you to a point,. However, such "spades" beg the question within interfaith dialogue, and tend to be counterproductive in that  context,--not unlike what I witnessed for decades with Evangelicals denying my Christianity. Their "spade"  was anything but a "spade" to me. Again, it is all about one's objective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

[Guest]

On 10/23/2018 at 1:10 AM, wenglund said:

Yes, though perhaps not the one you may assume.

In my multi-decade experience interacting with disaffected members and antagonist towards the Church, they have, for the most part, stridently objected to the term "anti-Mormon," likely no less so than were the label changed to what you proposed. In fact, that is what moved me to discourage use of "anti-Christ" because of my familiarity with the counter-productivity of using "anti-Mormon" in the past.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Not unlike sectarians calling us a "cult" or saying we're not Christians.