Why Are You Here? -for Non-lds Christians

[Moksha]

Elf, on the bright side, at least your dog is not a finicky eater. He would be happier at McDonalds than Chez Maison.

:)

[Snow]

In the last 6 years, I have asked some questions of the LDS Faith and people just seem to look the other.

1. After finding out that the LDS church owns the Marriot chain, a thought crossed my mind. The LDS church does not allow their members to use alcohol, watch rated R movies/porn, or gamble, yet, the church supplies this to all the other people who are not LDS.

False. The LDS Church does not own the Marriott chain. The Marriott chain is owned by Marriott Internation which is publically owned corporation traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

How can a person/organization supply this filth and call themselves a member of the Church and live with them self.

How's that self-righteous, judge-mentality thing working out for you. It's not so attractive from here.

You can't go down to the local Baptist church and find them selling all this filth out of their back door.

So. You can't go down to the local Church of Jesus Christ chapel and buy anything at all. What do you want? A medal?

[Snow]

_____________________________

I am reminded of a phrase (partly coming from the Bible) that goes something like this:

"By your traditions, ye have made void the Word of Truth."

I see some supercilious traditions in the LDS Church that I'd like to throw swiftly out the window: because they "void" all kinds of truths, through people following them.

Using your twisted logic, anyone who owns stock in any company that deals with alcohol or sexy movies is guilty of the same. Care to tell me how many Baptists own Marriott or other such stock?

[Snow]

Then why would you want to be Christian when you do not believe the main principles of Christianity? Like the trinity and saved by grace not Works. Works should be the fruit of the spirit not the root.

Wrong.

We do believe the biblical principles of Christianity as defined by the bible. We just don't buy your silly argument that we also have to believe creeds that were developed later.

What is lame is that you think you are Christian just because you have Christ in your name of your church. It is clear that J Smith said all other churches are apostate. How can you suddenly be Christian? See you can be a Christian without believing the fundamentals, yet, I can't be a mormon. Have you ever considered this could offend the

Christian community? Oh yeah, were nothing to you. What if the Christians started calling themselves mormons, how upset would you get?

Oh please don't call us lame - it's ever so insulting. Why, you are just a big ole meany.

[Guest Malcolm]

I think we should make clear when somebody joins the forum that the ONLY purpose for doing so, if they are not members of our faith, is to inquire, to exchange thoughts and ideas. All in a fashion that implies respect in the spirit of fellowship and sharing.

The ignorant, ill-intended accusations brought up by some rob the forum of the intended spirit. We have no interest in contention and those that desire to do so should find a different venue to entertain such urges.

[Misshalfway]

KTfords,

The LDS church does not call all other churches in the Christian community or the world an abomination. We respect all other churches. We give each person the freedom to believe according the dictates of conscious. Joseph Smith himself said that we should seek after truth wherever we can find it. (not the exact quote, forgive me). We have different and contradictory beliefs of other churches. But don't wish to offend anyone. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. We believe he calls and speaks to prophets. We believe that the authority to administer the church was lost in the years after the Saviors death and that they needed to be restored. It is thru Joseph Smith that the restoration occurred. Many other Christians do not believe these things. But we can share in our reverence for the Bible and our conviction in the atonement of Jesus Christ. If you or other members of the Christian world are offended by our testimony and our conviction, I don't think any of us can do anything about that other than to say that perhaps to invite you to look a little closer at who and what you find so threatening. If this isn't a true church, why worry about it? Just go about your life and live it. And if you find the actions of the Marriott corporation so disturbing, why not take it up with the stock holders? Go and call them hypocrites. I am not sure all of the administration of that company are LDS. And they certainly have nothing to do with the average member. They certainly are not affiliated with the church. What I will tell you is that the church won't even allow caffinated drinks on the BYU (and other) college campuses. I think if you look a little closer at the churches businesses, which are out there for the world to see, then you may gain a little more perspective. I hope so.

I don't think any of us who believe in Jesus benefit at all by these kinds of conversations. I sometimes look at other churches and am concerned about the actions of clergy or of people in those churches. But I never in my heart condemn the church because of the actions of an individual.

You need to know also, that the tithing of the church is only used for the administration of the church affairs. Such as building churches and temples, and maintaining them. No one profits from them. No church leader gains incredible wealth. No big cars or mansions. No one takes home that kind of benefit. In fact, the church maintains a lay ministry. All volunteers. And when a person pays tithing, it is on the honor system. No one checks where you made the money or proof such as tax records. It is all about trusting the individual. And have you taken a look at the humanitarian effort of the church? How could an organization like that be condemning the very people it is serving? THe church doesn't just serve its own. It serves throughout the world in times of crisis to large groups and to lonely individuals. And we all contribute to the church to help move this effort forward.

I hope that helps you stand back and consider a little.

[shadowhunter]

I am here to learn about Mormonism

[Guest Malcolm]

I am here to learn about Mormonism

You came to the right place!! Fire away your questions. There are tons of information in the forum and some of the members can provide you with links to information of all sorts.

Welcome and keep the faith.

[CJchick84]

I was raised Catholic but have gone to the "dome churches" and baptist churches just to get an idea how different everyone worships...it was definitely different that what I'm used to..(the boring mass) but I feel comfort in it. One church I went to was a Christian church called Christian Life which had a college attached to it. I went with a friend of mine and some of the members came up to me and after finding out that I was raised Catholic bombarded me with rude comments, telling me that my faith was bogus and I needed to turn away...that I was brainwashed. This I thought was not very Christian.

[sjdean]

Im here, and a lurker, some concepts I struggle with, some holier than thou attitudes I struggle with, and those that choose to look down on me for doing nothing legally, morally, or religiously wrong according to my local laws and my current religious understanding really gets me.

Still, Im trying to build a faith, trying to learn. LDS has been one of those ones that fascinated me ever since my encounter with a couple of Missionaries who offered me a copy of the Book of Mormon.

Im reading the Bible, and will move onto the BoM again for the fifth time. I just don't have the confidence to go and actually dip the proverbial toe in the water.

[abqfriend]

I am a Roman Catholic and feel very welcome here.

Most members here are respectful of other faith traditions-so I think you will learn much and meet some very nice people.

-Carol

Im here, and a lurker, some concepts I struggle with, some holier than thou attitudes I struggle with, and those that choose to look down on me for doing nothing legally, morally, or religiously wrong according to my local laws and my current religious understanding really gets me.

Still, Im trying to build a faith, trying to learn. LDS has been one of those ones that fascinated me ever since my encounter with a couple of Missionaries who offered me a copy of the Book of Mormon.

Im reading the Bible, and will move onto the BoM again for the fifth time. I just don't have the confidence to go and actually dip the proverbial toe in the water.

[Over43]

I am a Roman Catholic and feel very welcome here.

Most members here are respectful of other faith traditions-so I think you will learn much and meet some very nice people.

-Carol

My grandmother was Roman Catholic, and when my Mormon parents quit attending church she paid for me to attend Catholic school and keep some semblence of religion in my life. I returned to my Mormon "roots" in high school but have always been thankful that the Our Fathers kept me in line during my early teen years when I could have ended up being a lot worse off than I did.

Plus, I have a lot of respect for Benedict IVX. He's a tell it like it is kind of guy.

O43

[goofball]

Milo is good. Been many years since i had that drink down under

[bytor2112]

If yall want to hear the truth about mormonism, email me at [email protected]

Or better still...try LDS.ORG or attend a local meetinghouse.

[bytor2112]

Where in the Bible does it say the book of mormon is true?!?!?!?

Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is true?!?!?!?!?!

[prisonchaplain]

Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is true?!?!?!?!?!

BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 2 tim 3:16;;

[bytor2112]

BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 2 tim 3:16;;

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It reads...All Scripture...not "the Bible is true"...which of course, I believe the Bible is true. I can easily apply this scripture interpretation to mean BOM, D&C POGP and Bible.

[prisonchaplain]

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It reads...All Scripture...not "the Bible is true"...which of course, I believe the Bible is true. I can easily apply this scripture interpretation to mean BOM, D&C POGP and Bible.

If the Bible is considered Scripture, than the Bible is true, according to the verse. Technically, it could be argued that Timothy was only considering the Old Testament, I suppose...but I see myself being on safe ground applying this to the Bible.

As for the other Sacred Works, I would imagine that you do apply the verse to them as well. They are Scripture to you. On the other hand, 2nd Tim. is hardly a prooftext you could use on evangelicals.

[Traveler]

If the Bible is considered Scripture, than the Bible is true, according to the verse. Technically, it could be argued that Timothy was only considering the Old Testament, I suppose...but I see myself being on safe ground applying this to the Bible.

As for the other Sacred Works, I would imagine that you do apply the verse to them as well. They are Scripture to you. On the other hand, 2nd Tim. is hardly a prooftext you could use on evangelicals.

Sorry to enter this discussion late: Timothy related to scripture rather than to the Law or other designations used by the Jews. What we now call the Dead Sea Scrolls is quite interesting because of the scrolls found in cave #4. These scrolls all were “kept” in a different manner. Most agree that these scrolls were the scriptures to those that lived in the community by the Dead Sea.

The question I would like to openly ask is: What was the ancient designation of that settlement by the Dead Sea?

This is a very important question and the answer should be known by all Christians. The name was Damascus. There are compelling arguments that this is the very Damascus where Paul was going when he was converted to Christ and that this is the very place where he studied the scriptures for two years before beginning his contribution to what we now call the Bible. What this means is that the Christians of this day and time now have access to the exact text that Timothy called scripture. Not just a copy of a copy of some later time but some of the exact same text that was the scripture as understood and used by Christ and his apostles.

The Bible tells us of a day when the word of G-d will speak from the dust. A description I find interesting. What I also find interesting is that most Christians have no interest in reading the scriptures used by Christ and make all kinds of excuses to either read only commentary about the scrolls rather than the scriptures themselves or translations of the text or they read nothing at all from the ancient Jewish Damascus.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, goodness! You are an intelligent, well-traveled individual, with an obvious interest in ancient texts and canonization issues. For the first 1600 years of church history, most Christians did not read...I mean anything. Most were subsistance farmers, and were illiterate. The church told them what the truth was. Praise God, the glory of God's written word began to open up, with the printing press, with the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and with translations becoming widely available.

Most Protestant Christian churches quickly realized that the best route to developing disciples was to spread literacy, so people could read and study the Bible. And, over the centuries, now most Christian homes have Bibles, and access to a variety of study helps and devotionals. All wondrous stuff.

BUT...do you really see it encumbant upon individual Christians to grapple with archeological issues, so they can individual decide which books and editions are Scripture and which are not? This, while your church has already declared the KJV and the Triple to be the main body??? I'm not following you...you seem to be suggesting adding quite an academic burden to folks--one that seems totally unnecessary.

[Islander]

PC - Your question raises some interesting points, but Traveler is right. Just as the scriptures were kept from the people for 1600 years, soon after they became readily available groups and denominations began to form with similar claims. They (the doctors of theology) claim to know with certainty what was truth and how to interpret the scriptures.

You do remember how scriptures were chosen and how many times the early christian fathers had to go around the table to finally agree on the cannon that we have today. I think Paul's position remains critical today. All scripture, IF inspired of God, is profitable. Allowing others to decide which one is or not is still dangerous ground. As we have no absolute proof or evidence of the truthfulness of the bible, we MUST rely on the Holy Ghost to witness to our heart that the account of the Savior's life, purpose, death, resurrection and divinity are in fact true.

The veracity and accuracy of a message does not rest with the messenger but on the content thereof. In time the message and messengers, if truthful, are vindicated.

[prisonchaplain]

They (the doctors of theology) claim to know with certainty what was truth and how to interpret the scriptures.

I'm sensing an anti-intellectualism here. God has raised some to be teachers. They are not inerrant, but they are ordained to teach. Why must that be portrayed as an arrogant calling?

You do remember how scriptures were chosen and how many times the early christian fathers had to go around the table to finally agree on the cannon that we have today.

I believe God ordained and anointed the process, and your church has reached the same conclusion, concerning the Bible. It is canon.

I think Paul's position remains critical today. All scripture, IF inspired of God, is profitable.

Is this a word play? There's no "if" in Paul's writing. Scripture is inspired of God. You church has a declared canon. Are you suggesting that it is not authorized to declare canon?

Allowing others to decide which one is or not is still dangerous ground. As we have no absolute proof or evidence of the truthfulness of the bible, we MUST rely on the Holy Ghost to witness to our heart that the account of the Savior's life, purpose, death, resurrection and divinity are in fact true.

Is this true. Does every LDS member pray over the Bible, to decide if it is true, rather than accepting that if the church is true, then its declared canon is Scripture??? If so, must you pray over each of the 66 books individually?

[Islander]

I'm sensing an anti-intellectualism here. God has raised some to be teachers. They are not inerrant, but they are ordained to teach. Why must that be portrayed as an arrogant calling?

Well, I would point to the fact that the prophets were simple men, not theologically educated and by far not part of the clergy elite. We can say almost equivocally that Paul (perhaps Isaiah) were the exception to the rule. When the Savior came ALL the doctors of the Law failed to see the fulfillment of prophesy in Christ. I think that speak for itself. I am not anti-intellectual but my money (if I were a betting man) is always on the prophets and not the theologians.

I believe God ordained and anointed the process, and your church has reached the same conclusion, concerning the Bible. It is canon.

I do believe God directed the process. It took several rounds and I just pointed to how shaky the process even with divine intervention. We do uphold and believe the scriptures are true.

Is this a word play? There's no "if" in Paul's writing. Scripture is inspired of God. You church has a declared canon. Are you suggesting that it is not authorized to declare canon?

I think you should check the variety of translations on that scripture (2 Tim). Some suggest that Paul is saying that all scripture inspired of God is profitable, to the exclusion of those scriptures which are not. We could argue this point but I think everybody understand that the ONLY possible scripture he could have been referring to was the OT. But, by then there were also dozens of other writing circulating among the early Christians. He could be excluding those if he knew of some which he believed not to be of value. Heresy and contention within the church had already started by then.

Is this true. Does every LDS member pray over the Bible, to decide if it is true, rather than accepting that if the church is true, then its declared canon is Scripture??? If so, must you pray over each of the 66 books individually?

We certainly hope and expect that EVERY ONE gains a testimony of ALL scripture as indeed revealed truth. Blind acceptance can not provide a foundation that could withstand the storms of life. Just like we exhort ALL to read the Book of Mormon and pray to The Father in the name of Christ if it is a true record.

PC, I know with equal certainty that Isaiah saw the temple of the latter days as I know that Christ appeared to the early inhabitants of the Americas. I have never relied on the teachings of others to gain such a witness and do not expect anyone to do so. We ALL should seek to receive personal revelation in regards to the things of God. We are entitled to it.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Islander

[prisonchaplain]

We may not disagree here as much as it seems. IF your focus is primarily upon revelation, and discerning what is true, then I would agree that the leading and guidance of the Holy Spirit is necessary. On the other hand, most church members do assume that the Sacred Works (or Holy Bible for us Protestants/Catholics) is true. It would likely take a witness of the Spirit to question any particular section of those writings, vs. needed a spiritual manifestation/confirmation each time.

When it came to canonization, there were some agreed upon guidelines, and ultimately it was the Spirit of God.

Those professors and doctors of theology are invaluable servants of God, however. They deserve respect for answering God's call on their life. Further, while they can be confident-sounding about their areas of study, most theology teachers are very humble in the way they live, and they way they serve their churches. I don't like anti-intellectualism in my own movement (it is prevelent, yes!), so I'm a bit saddened when I see it in others as well.

[Yekcidmij]

Well, I would point to the fact that the prophets were simple men, not theologically educated and by far not part of the clergy elite. We can say almost equivocally that Paul (perhaps Isaiah) were the exception to the rule. When the Savior came ALL the doctors of the Law failed to see the fulfillment of prophesy in Christ. I think that speak for itself. I am not anti-intellectual but my money (if I were a betting man) is always on the prophets and not the theologians.

I don't understand how being "trained" or "educated" is a bad thing. Presumably, most theologians today start as simple men and work from there. I'm not aware of a theologian class.

You should also be aware that more than just Paul were trained. Moses was a member of the Egyptian court. No doubt he was trained, and probably wealthy and elite to boot. Ezekiel was a priest and theologian. Ezra was a priest and theologian. Jeremiah was a priest and theologian. It's arguable, due to his writing style, that Matthew had scribal training. The author of Hebrews was an obvious theologian since he quotes heavily from the OT.

What's even more alarming are the words from Jesus' own mouth concerning the most distrusted groups in all of scripture, the Torah experts and the Pharisees:

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 23:2 “The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. 23:3 Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach.

Jesus' complaint isn't that the Pharisees and experts of the Law were teaching wrongly, it's that they weren't practicing what they preached. Refering to why they didn't recognize Jesus as Messiah, Paul makes it clear why:

1Cor 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The implication is that Jesus' death was necessary for the sacrifice of sin. If they had understood that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, there would be no final sacrifice for sin.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was diligently seeking, but the elect obtained it. The rest were hardened, 11:8 as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,

eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear,

to this very day.”

11:9 And David says,

“Let their table become a snare and trap,

a stumbling block and a retribution for them;

11:10 let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see,

and make their backs bend continually.”

11:11 I ask then, they did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, did they? Absolutely not! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous. 11:12 Now if their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration bring?

Edited September 15, 2008 by Yekcidmij