"Nemo the Mormon" Speaking Out (Again)

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have run into two or three posters on this board and another one who said their testimony was so strong, that if they left, they would be going to outer darkness.  

Well-intended hyperbole, but hyperbole nonetheless.  And ironically, this is a sort of self-flattering hyperbole, of the "Man, my humility is awesome" variety.  Frankly, I think very few of us will ever reach a point where becoming a Son of Perdition is possible:

Quote

According to LDS Church theology, there are two classes of persons who will become sons of perdition:

• The pre-mortal spirit followers of Satan. It is taught that, in the pre-mortal life, they chose to follow a plan proposed by Satan, rather than that presented by God the Father (Heavenly Father).^[5] Jesus the Christ chose to follow Heavenly Father's plan (which included moral agency), volunteered to atone for the sins of all as a part of this plan/become the Savior of all, and the glory would go to the Father. Satan rejected Heavenly Father's plan and proposed his own, wanting to force all to choose the right, return to the Father, and the glory would all be Satan's. Thus ensued the War in Heaven, which resulted in Satan and his followers being cast out of heaven and denied the opportunity of receiving a physical body due to rebellion against God the Father.
• Those in mortal life who "deny the Holy Ghost" (i.e., commit the unforgivable sin), which is generally interpreted as rejecting and denying Christ after receiving a personal witness and a "perfect knowledge" of Jesus. Joseph Smith taught:

All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it.^[6]

In the Doctrine and Covenants, sons of perdition are described as inhabiting "a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory."^[7] However, it is commonly believed that since most persons lack a "perfect knowledge" of Jesus, they cannot commit the eternal sin, and are therefore incapable of becoming sons of perdition.^[8]

I have known a lot of Latter-day Saints.  Some very few have made claims to remarkable spiritual experiences, but people who go around advertising that they have had "the heavens opened unto him" are more likely to be advancing wish fulfillment than actual experience.  Again, well-intended perhaps, but still substantively misguided.

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

My experience based on many conversations were that they were immature emotionally in a few ways (all adult males, 20 and 30s if they were truthful). They were very much into the attack form of apologetics, seemed to love the fight.  Went looking for it on former member or aggressive nonLDS Christian sites and then bragged about it.  It came off as more arrogant than realistic.  One also thought he might end up as a prophet/apostle.

Yeah, that sounds more likely.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jay 4 Christ]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Faith and charity are essential

Faith and charity are not enough for entrance into the Spirit Paradise. Faith and charity alone is a path to Spirit Prison/Hell. We discussed to his a few weeks ago and with all my studying I haven't found any doctrine that says Spirit Prison has a "subsection" I think you called it, that is considered to be hell. Everything I find says Spirit Prison is hell. 

[Jay 4 Christ]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Christians" as being a group separate from "Mormons." 

Mormon doctrine separates Christians from Mormons. It seems you want to have two separate Christian histories.

On one hand you want to claim nearly 2000 years of Christianity as part of your own Christian history. But on the other hand you want to claim Christ's church was removed from the earth and then had to be restored. That claim is two distinct and separate histories. One here on earth and one somewhere else, wherever the priesthood was taken back to. 

Restoration means according to Mormon doctrine, necessary power and authority were removed from earth. That means Christianity was removed from the earth according to Mormon doctrine.

Let's remember, the gospel you follow is taught on other planets, so God apparently has the ability to remove the "true" gospel from a planet whenever he seems it necessary. If that's true, then traditional Christianity isn't part of your gospel. Your gospel was removed from the earth apparently to protect it? 

So my question is, during the 1800 year apostasy, was Christ's authorized church here on earth? If not, was his authorized gospel being taught on other earths during the 1800 year apostasy? Because if Christ gospel is taught on other earths and Christ has the authority to remove his gospel from an earth as Mormon doctrine teaches, then Christianity wasn't on earth during the 1800 years Catholicism and Protestantism was established.

 

[Jay 4 Christ]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps you could clarify what you think my reasoning is.

Your own manuals teach that because of wickedness and apostasy, authority and priesthood keys were removed from the earth. 

The link below spells it out, says the organization that Jesus established here on earth no longer existed after his death and confusion resulted. Error crept into church doctrine and soon dissolution of the church was complete. It goes on to explain that the period of time that the church NO LONGER EXISTED on earth is called the great apostasy. 

It goes on to explain pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. Explains that the Roman emperor adopted FALSE CHRISTIANITY. Then says that the church the emperor adopted was very different from the church Christ organized. 

Finally, if you read the link to the end, the article explains that traditional Christianity was the church of Christ NO LONGER; it became a church of men. 

Why are you trying to say Christianity has two distinct histories? 

[Jay 4 Christ]

Sorry here's the link.

Chapter 16: The Church of Jesus Christ in Former Times https://share.google/crr086laJhZPiZdLP

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Mormon doctrine separates Christians from Mormons.

To me, that's logically equivalent to saying "Retractable claws separate cats from mammals."  Retractable claws separate cats from dogs and elephants and dolphins and other types of mammals, I agree with that.  But they don't place cats outside of the class Mammalia.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

It seems you want to have two separate Christian histories.

No, just the one will do.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

On one hand you want to claim nearly 2000 years of Christianity as part of your own Christian history.

In the same sense that Protestants feel affinity with that history, yes.

For example, our hymnbook is full of songs of praise from Christian sources outside of the Church.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

But on the other hand you want to claim Christ's church was removed from the earth and then had to be restored.

The institution Christ established was removed when its leaders and their priesthood authority were lost to the world.  That does not mean, though, that there were no Christians

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

That claim is two distinct and separate histories.

I don't think so.  Priesthood authority was restored through Joseph Smith, and then so too was the institutional Church.  That does not mean, however, that there were no Christians prior to that time.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Restoration means according to Mormon doctrine, necessary power and authority were removed from earth.

Yes.  That is quite a different proposition than the one you are advancing, namely, that we deny the Christianity of all those people who have professed it for the last 2,000 years.  That is simply not correct.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

That means Christianity was removed from the earth according to Mormon doctrine.

No, that's not correct.  At all.  You are imputing beliefs onto us we do not hold.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

So my question is, during the 1800 year apostasy, was Christ's authorized church here on earth?

No.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

If not, was his authorized gospel being taught on other earths during the 1800 year apostasy?

Many elements of it were, yes, including most of its most basic truths.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Because if Christ gospel is taught on other earths and Christ has the authority to remove his gospel from an earth as Mormon doctrine teaches, then Christianity wasn't on earth during the 1800 years Catholicism and Protestantism was established.

That is not what Latter-day Saints believe.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Quote

Quote

 

Mormon missionaries literally knock on Christian's doors with a message that says Christianity is missing everything that is essential for a Christian church.

Should you apply your reasoning in both directions?

 

Perhaps you could clarify what you think my reasoning is.

Your own manuals teach that because of wickedness and apostasy, authority and priesthood keys were removed from the earth.

Yes.  But that is a very different proposition from the one you are advancing, namely, that Latter-day Saints believe that Christianity and its adherents were removed from the earth during this period.  That is a false characterization of our beliefs.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

The link below spells it out, says the organization that Jesus established here on earth no longer existed after his death and confusion resulted. Error crept into church doctrine and soon dissolution of the church was complete. It goes on to explain that the period of time that the church NO LONGER EXISTED on earth is called the great apostasy.

The institutional Church, and the priesthood authority by and through which it operated, was taken.  We believe that.

We do not believe, though, that there were no Christians in existence during this period.  That is an incorrect statement of our beliefs.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

It goes on to explain pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians.

Christians of various stripes have been talking about this for nearly 2,000 years.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Explains that the Roman emperor adopted FALSE CHRISTIANITY. Then says that the church the emperor adopted was very different from the church Christ organized. 

From the link:

Quote

Throughout history, evil people have tried to destroy the work of God. This happened while the Apostles were still alive and supervising the young, growing Church. Some members taught ideas from their old pagan or Jewish beliefs instead of the simple truths taught by Jesus. Some rebelled openly. In addition, there was persecution from outside the Church. Church members were tortured and killed for their beliefs. One by one, the Apostles were killed or otherwise taken from the earth. Because of wickedness and apostasy, the apostolic authority and priesthood keys were also taken from the earth. The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy.

Soon pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. The Roman emperor adopted this false Christianity as the state religion. This church was very different from the church Jesus organized. It taught that God was a being without form or substance.

These people lost the understanding of God’s love for us. They did not know that we are His children. They did not understand the purpose of life. Many of the ordinances were changed because the priesthood and revelation were no longer on the earth.

The emperor chose his own leaders and sometimes called them by the same titles used by priesthood leaders in the true Church of Christ. There were no Apostles or other priesthood leaders with power from God, and there were no spiritual gifts. The prophet Isaiah had foreseen this condition, prophesying, “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5). It was the Church of Jesus Christ no longer; it was a church of men. Even the name had been changed. In the Americas, apostasy also occurred (see 4 Nephi).

In that passage, “false Christianity” means the religion that kept the name Christian after, in Latter-day Saint teaching, the Church Jesus organized had ended. It is not a claim that later Christians were insincere.

Latter-day Saints teach that the Apostles were killed or otherwise taken, and that with them the priesthood keys left the earth. Without that authority the institution Christ had established dissolved. Error then entered the doctrine of those still called Christians. The error named here is the teaching that God has no body, parts, or passions. The Roman emperor’s adoption of that religion as the state religion, associated with Constantine and the Nicene church, is treated as the point at which the change was fixed. What followed was a church different in authority and in its doctrine of God from the one Jesus organized.

The period with no true Church on earth is the Great Apostasy. It ends, in this account, with the Restoration and the return of keys in 1830. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity fall inside that interval: real faith in Christ, scripture, and worship, but without apostolic authority, and with doctrines Latter-day Saints regard as false. The passage does not deny the sincerity of that faith. It denies that sincerity and the Christian name were the same thing as the Church.

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Finally, if you read the link to the end, the article explains that traditional Christianity was the church of Christ NO LONGER; it became a church of men. 

Why are you trying to say Christianity has two distinct histories? 

I decline to answer the question, as it is loaded.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, let's see what you have in mind.

Sure.  The Great Commission, the final instruction of Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread the Christian gospel to all nation, is one of the most important tenets of the Restored Gospel.

Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging people to "leave their current church?" 

YES.  That is exactly what missionaries do.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?

YES.  We were told to ask new member to give us a referral or invite their family members over for a discussion so they too could become members.  The youth were also encouraged to invite their friends to church activities.  Sometimes we as missionaries would help set up those activities and attend the events as a way to introduce the gospel to their friends.  

I don't think this is news to any active member of the church.  It wasn't just on my mission that youth were encouraged to bring their friends to church activities, it has always been a part of how the church operates, at least out of the Utah bubble.  Are you seriously telling me you have never heard of this kind of behavior?????

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

What "exact same thing" are you referencing here?

The exact same thing of trying to lead people including youth away from their current church and get them baptized into the LDS church.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I were your family member, and if I went out of my way to use that status and its associated proximity to your minor children in order to secretly subvert your efforts to raise your minor children as to some important social or religious or other type of issue, I think you would find that problematic.

Parent permission or notifying parents of non members was never a part of these recruitment type activities.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

"That" being what?  I am not sure what you are referencing here.

I think you are playing dumb.  The missionary program has always been designed to lead people including they youth away from their current church.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have no interest in misappropriating family relationships in order to subvert parents' efforts to raise their own children.  I find that a very troubling concept.  See, e.g., here:

AFPI Urges Supreme Court to Protect Parents’ Right to Challenge Government Interference in Their Child’s Care

This is troubling, heading into "pretty darn creepy" territory.

Broadly speaking, I have strong concerns and reservations about people making incursions into the lives of minor children with the intention of subverting the child's parental authority and decision-making.  That is very much a "Do Unto Others" thing, not a "It's not bad when I do it" sort of thing.

Then you belong to the wrong church because this effort to lead people including youth away from their current churches is still front and centter in the missionary program including using social media with no effort to first ask parents if it is ok that missionaries contact their youth.  

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Mormon doctrine separates Christians from Mormons. It seems you want to have two separate Christian histories.

On one hand you want to claim nearly 2000 years of Christianity as part of your own Christian history. But on the other hand you want to claim Christ's church was removed from the earth and then had to be restored. That claim is two distinct and separate histories. One here on earth and one somewhere else, wherever the priesthood was taken back to. 

Restoration means according to Mormon doctrine, necessary power and authority were removed from earth. That means Christianity was removed from the earth according to Mormon doctrine.

Let's remember, the gospel you follow is taught on other planets, so God apparently has the ability to remove the "true" gospel from a planet whenever he seems it necessary. If that's true, then traditional Christianity isn't part of your gospel. Your gospel was removed from the earth apparently to protect it? 

So my question is, during the 1800 year apostasy, was Christ's authorized church here on earth? If not, was his authorized gospel being taught on other earths during the 1800 year apostasy? Because if Christ gospel is taught on other earths and Christ has the authority to remove his gospel from an earth as Mormon doctrine teaches, then Christianity wasn't on earth during the 1800 years Catholicism and Protestantism was established.

 

Since I can't give you an upvote on your post, I am reposting it here.  You basically have it correct. Mormons believe that the church that Jesus established was taken from the earth, the heavens were sealed, there were no saving ordinances performed with proper authority.  While there were people who identified as Christian, they were in no way members of Christ's church.  Mormons are taught that other creeds that teach about Christ were corrupt and an abomination to God.  They believe through Joseph Smith, that the true church was reestablished.

From Joseph Smiths history

Quote

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

You're being gaslighted.  

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging people to "leave their current church?" 

YES.  

I'm skeptical of that, frankly.

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

That is exactly what missionaries do.

We all attempt to persuade people to our point of view.  You do that all the time on this board.  In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that.  The concern arises when there is secrecy and subversion involved.  The missionaries don't do that at all, let alone "exactly."

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?

YES.  

Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

You: "YES."

I don't believe you.

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

We were told to ask new member to give us a referral or invite their family members over for a discussion so they too could become members.  

What does that have to do with you as a missionary receiving specific instruction to "subvert" parents of minor children?

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

The youth were also encouraged to invite their friends to church activities.  Sometimes we as missionaries would help set up those activities and attend the events as a way to introduce the gospel to their friends.  

What does that have to do with you as a missionary receiving specific instruction to "subvert" parents of minor children?

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think this is news to any active member of the church.  

It's news to me.  And I think it's patently false, or else a gross mischaracterization.

Mission presidents and others in positions of authority over Latter-day Saint missionaries told those missionaries to "encourag{e} newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

Yeah, not buying that at all.

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

It wasn't just on my mission that youth were encouraged to bring their friends to church activities, it has always been a part of how the church operates, at least out of the Utah bubble.  Are you seriously telling me you have never heard of this kind of behavior?????

I have never heard of missionaries receiving instruction to subvert the efforts of parents to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction.

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

If I were your family member, and if I went out of my way to use that status and its associated proximity to your minor children in order to secretly subvert your efforts to raise your minor children as to some important social or religious or other type of issue, I think you would find that problematic.

Parent permission or notifying parents of non members was never a part of these recruitment type activities.

Well, I guess I'll need to ask around as to RMs' experiences of yesteryear.  Missionaries in Taiwan ('93 to '95) met with teenagers here and there, but never against the wishes of their parents.  And baptism required parental consent.  My understanding is that mission leadership guidelines encourage involving parents or families and being transparent about gospel instruction given to underage youth whenever possible.

Meanwhile, you are here claiming that missionaries receive instruction to subvert the efforts of parents to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction.  I find that claim incredible (as in lacking credibility).  I just don't believe it.

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

"That" being what?  I am not sure what you are referencing here.

I think you are playing dumb.  The missionary program has always been designed to lead people including they youth away from their current church.

Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

You: "YES."

I don't believe you.

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Broadly speaking, I have strong concerns and reservations about people making incursions into the lives of minor children with the intention of subverting the child's parental authority and decision-making.  That is very much a "Do Unto Others" thing, not a "It's not bad when I do it" sort of thing.

Then you belong to the wrong church because this effort to lead people including youth away from their current churches is still front and centter in the missionary program including using social media with no effort to first ask parents if it is ok that missionaries contact their youth.  

Utter bilge.  The Church does not teach its missionaries to subvert parents.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm skeptical of that, frankly.

We all attempt to persuade people to our point of view.  You do that all the time on this board.  In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that.  The concern arises when there is secrecy and subversion involved.  The missionaries don't do that at all, let alone "exactly."

When missionaries go online and start talking to youth who are not members of the church do they 

1. Do it with the intent of converting them away from their faith and hoping they will join the LDS church?

2. Do they ask parental permission and receive it before chatting with these youth?

 

My dorm room mate dated in high school a girl (my sisters best friend). She let him know that she could only marry. someone who is a member of the church.  So they met with the missionaries at her house.  He wasn't told anything about getting parental permission prior to receiving the discussions.  After receiving the discussions, he wanted to be baptized, which because he was a minor he was THEN required parental permission.  When they found out that he had been meeting with the missionaries, they were livid and forbade him from getting baptized.  So he attended BYU which didn't require permission from the parents to attend.  When he finally turned 18, against the wishes of his parents, he was baptized.

Every member a missionary was a mantra that was drilled into every member when I was growing up.  We were encouraged to talk to all of our family and friends to try and get them to have the discussions.  NEVER ONCE were we asked if the parents gave permission prior to taking the lessons.  

You castigated the young man for talking to his siblings about his faith experiences in the church in an effort to persuade them to his point of view.  If you can't see the blind spot that you have when you can't recognize similarities, then you have definitely drunk the Koolaid.  It's the same exact thing being done.  Swaying someone away from their faith to follow your own beliefs without, in many cases, any parental permission.

If you want more examples of missionaries trying to persuade youth away from their religious beliefs without parental permission before doing so, I have 2 years of experiences that I can share.

Edited 17 hours ago by california boy

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging people to "leave their current church?" 

YES.  That is exactly what missionaries do.

I'm skeptical of that, frankly.

We all attempt to persuade people to our point of view.  You do that all the time on this board.  In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that.  The concern arises when there is secrecy and subversion involved.  The missionaries don't do that at all, let alone "exactly."

When missionaries go online and start talking to youth who are not members of the church do they 

1. Do it with the intent of converting them away from their faith and hoping they will join the LDS church?

Yes.  But that was not my question: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging people to 'leave their current church?'"

I just don't believe that mission presidents and MTC folks teach such a thing.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

2. Do they ask parental permission and receive it before chatting with these youth?

"Receive" what?

Again, the portion of your remarks I found implausible:

Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

You: "YES."

I just don't believe that.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

My dorm room mate dated in high school a girl (my sisters best friend). She let him know that she could only marry. someone who is a member of the church.  So they met with the missionaries at her house.  He wasn't told anything about getting parental permission prior to receiving the discussions.  

A high school student talking to missionaries isn't quite the same as your affirmation of "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

I just find that very unlikely.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

After receiving the discussions, he wanted to be baptized, which because he was a minor he was THEN required parental permission.  

Yes.  Isn't that a significant point?  You are accusing the Church of attempting to subvert parents, but the Church requires parental consent for a minor to be baptized.  How is that subversive?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

When they found out that he had been meeting with the missionaries, they were livid and forbade him from getting baptized.  

And I suspect he was not baptized while a minor.  In other words, the Church did not subvert his parents.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So he attended BYU which didn't require permission from the parents to attend.  When he finally turned 18, against the wishes of his parents, he was baptized.

Yes.  And?  What does this have to do with your accusation that the Church subverts parents?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Every member a missionary was a mantra that was drilled into every member when I was growing up.  We were encouraged to talk to all of our family and friends to try and get them to have the discussions.  NEVER ONCE were we asked if the parents gave permission prior to taking the lessons.

And parental consent is required for baptism.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You castigated the young man for talking to his siblings about his faith experiences in the church in an effort to persuade them to his point of view.  

I did no such thing.

And again, you are accusing the Church of subverting parents.  I don't think that is happening.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If you can't see the blind spot that you have when you can't recognize similarities, then you have definitely drunk the Koolaid.  It's the same exact thing being done.  Swaying someone away from their faith to follow your own beliefs without, in many cases, any parental permission.

I don't think that is happening.  I think the Church has required parental consent for minors to be baptized for quite a while.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If you want more examples of missionaries trying to persuade youth away from their religious beliefs without parental permission before doing so, I have 2 years of experiences that I can share.

Subverting parents is a bad thing, and that is the accusation I found problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Notatbm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But that was not my question: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging people to 'leave their current church?'"

I just don't believe that mission presidents and MTC folks teach such a thing.

"Receive" what?

Again, the portion of your remarks I found implausible:

Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

You: "YES."

I just don't believe that.

A high school student talking to missionaries isn't quite the same as your affirmation of "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

I just find that very unlikely.  

Yes.  Isn't that a significant point?  You are accusing the Church of attempting to subvert parents, but the Church requires parental consent for a minor to be baptized.  How is that subversive?

And I suspect he was not baptized while a minor.  In other words, the Church did not subvert his parents.

Yes.  And?  What does this have to do with your accusation that the Church subverts parents?

And parental consent is required for baptism.  

I did no such thing.

And again, you are accusing the Church of subverting parents.  I don't think that is happening.

I don't think that is happening.  I think the Church has required parental consent for minors to be baptized for quite a while.

Subverting parents is a bad thing, and that is the accusation I found problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think California boy’s point is that Mormon missionaries and other Mormons engage in proselytizing to kids without parental permission. You keep emphasizing no baptism without parental consent. Two different things.

both of those things missionaries and other members have no business doing unless they have parental permission. Iirc, church policy only says minors can’t be baptized without parental permission. Teaching the discussions without parental permission?? Have at it it seems. 
 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Notatbm

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But that was not my question: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging people to 'leave their current church?'"

I just don't believe that mission presidents and MTC folks teach such a thing.

You must be in such denial you can't even see what missionaries are asked to do.  Their job is to convert others to the LDS church.  That also means leaving their former church in the past.  So yes, missionaries are encouraging people to leave their former church and join a new one.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Receive" what?

Do missionaries teach the discussions to youth without receiving permission to teach their children from the parents before starting the discussions.  

I think you are being particularly dense on purpose.  I'm pretty sure what receive was referring to.  But you gotta pick things apart, sentence by sentence until you no long have the context of what people actually say.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, the portion of your remarks I found implausible:

Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

You: "YES."

I just don't believe that.

A high school student talking to missionaries isn't quite the same as your affirmation of "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

YES.  We were never told to get parental permission to teach youth before beginning the lessons.  Most often, those lessons were given in the members home whenever possible.  Whether the youth told their parents or not before taking the lessons depended on what the youth wanted to do.  Can you honestly tell me you were required by your mission president to get parental permission before giving the discussions to the youth?  Can you show me church policy that states missionaries will only give the lessons to youth after getting signed parental approval?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I just find that very unlikely.  

Yes.  Isn't that a significant point?  You are accusing the Church of attempting to subvert parents, but the Church requires parental consent for a minor to be baptized.  How is that subversive?

And I suspect he was not baptized while a minor.  In other words, the Church did not subvert his parents.

Yes.  And?  What does this have to do with your accusation that the Church subverts parents?

And parental consent is required for baptism.  

I did no such thing.

And again, you are accusing the Church of subverting parents.  I don't think that is happening.

I don't think that is happening.  I think the Church has required parental consent for minors to be baptized for quite a while.

Subverting parents is a bad thing, and that is the accusation I found problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

YES.  I'm stating that missionaries give lessons to minors all the time without getting any parental approval before starting the lessons.   Like the example of the child, who tried to convert his siblings to leaving the church without first asking for parental approval to do so.   The missionary lessons are specifically designed to convince a person that his current religion is wrong, but the LDS religion is the right one.  

I never said that missionaries baptize minors without getting parental approval.  That is not the issue we are talking about.  We are talking about teaching youth to leave their current church and join the LDS church.  We are talking about a person teaching. his siblings about what he feels are untruths about Mormonism.  He is also not baptizing them into another religion without parental approval.  Just teaching.

If you can't see that the goal is the same in both cases, then I will leave you to sit in your denial and pretend there is some kind of subtle difference.  To me it is the same.

 

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I think California boy’s point is that Mormon missionaries and other Mormons engage in proselytizing to kids without parental permission. You keep emphasizing no baptism without parental consent. Two different things.

both of those things missionaries and other members have no business doing unless they have parental permission. Iirc, church policy only says minors can’t be baptized without parental permission. Teaching the discussions without parental permission?? Have at it it seems. 
 

 

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about.  You got it exactly right.  See, not all that difficult to understand my point.  SMAC doesn't want to get it, so plays dumb and ignores that I actually stated about parental permission required of minors in order to be baptized.

I should have read your comment first, I would have skipped my response.  I don't think what I was saying is all that difficult to acknowledge happens all the time in missionary work.

[The Nehor]

Can confirm that missionaries in my mission routinely taught discussions to minors without parental permission and that was the norm worldwide when I was out. Smac is trying to do some kind of revisionist history thing.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

You must be in such denial you can't even see what missionaries are asked to do.  

They are not asked to subvert parents.

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Again, the portion of your remarks I found implausible:

Me: "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

You: "YES."

I just don't believe that.

A high school student talking to missionaries isn't quite the same as your affirmation of "Your missionary efforts were framed to you as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction?"

YES.  

No.  You are telling falsehoods.  You are bearing false witness.  Missionaries are not instructed to subvert parents.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

Smac is there room for you to acknowledge that while there is not a lesson for the missionaries in the mtc directly teaching missionaries to pull children away from their parents and churches, that it is true that one of the realities of missionary work is that young people, teens will at times be taught and that there is not a pointed rule that missionaries must have express permission from parents first? Or if there is now, there wasn’t before? 
let’s bridge this conversation gap.  

Edited 5 hours ago by MustardSeed

[Jay 4 Christ]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

The institution Christ established was removed when its leaders and their priesthood authority were lost to the world.  That does not mean, though, that analogy,Mormonism;buses,, arebroken-downand doors openclosemaintained,aretown,junkyard. are ugly; the paintseats are. Theonhasmovemiserable-lookingdisagree,.

Let's simplify this discussion, shall we? 

For this analogy let's say each major religion on earth is a school bus. According to Mormon doctrine, the only school bus that is operational and on the road is Mormonism, all the other school buses including Christianity is in a junkyard for broken down school buses. 

The Mormon school bus has a powerful engine that allows it to be driven down the road by a bus driver with the proper authority to do so. This bus driver can swing out the little red stop sign because he's been given the authority to do so. It's a beautiful yellow bus with everything operating as it should. Lights are bright, windows go up and down, door opens and closes properly, all because the Mormon bus has been well maintained. There are other buses in town but they're all found in the local junkyard. These buses are ugly the paint is missing, rust is eating away at the metal, tires and rims have been stolen, windows are busted out, seats torn, and rats are living inside them. The red stop sign on the side of the buses in the junkyard have been removed and none of the school buses can move under their own power because the engines that moves the buses in the junkyard have been removed. It's a miserable looking junkyard with school buses that are hardly recognizable. And in the middle of these buses is the Christian bus, which is surrounded by the Jewish bus, the Islam bus, the atheist bus, the Buddhist bus, and multiple other buses.

This simple analogy is how Mormonism views Christianity! I'm sure you will disagree so please answer this question. If my analogy is wrong, then why are Christians NOT allowed in Spirit Paradise without first being baptized into the restored gospel? 

 

 

[MustardSeed]

LDS aren’t going to get with your analogy.  We don’t judge everyone else as being broken down or as flawed.  We just simply see the other bus drivers not having the state issued license

[Jay 4 Christ]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

LDS aren’t going to get with your analogy.  We don’t judge everyone else as being broken down or as flawed.  We just simply see the other bus drivers not having the state issued license

It's way more than other religions including Christianity not having a licensed bus driver.

On an individual basis, everyone here on earth that isn't a member of the restored gospel will go to hell. You may not like that wording but it's true according to how Hell is defined on the LDS website. 

In the Mormon spirit world, Christians are assigned to Spirit Prison/Hell after death with all the other religions and atheist. One of the main requirements for entrance into Spirit Paradise is baptism, isn't that true? 

That's why I'm confused about how modern Mormonism views Christianity! Your doctrine teaches that all Christians that are not part of the restored gospel end up in hell, but for some reason while here on earth Mormons want to be considered part of Christianity. 

[Jay 4 Christ]

27 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

LDS aren’t going to get with your analogy.  We don’t judge everyone else as being broken down or as flawed.  We just simply see the other bus drivers not having the state issued license

Did you view the link I posted above? It states that the church no longer existed on earth and it became a church of men. 

You can't say out one side of your mouth that you're Christians while out the other side you're saying Christ church was removed from the earth and only a church of men was left. 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that Mormons believe they are THE Christians and everyone else is a church of men like the link above spells out? I would respect Mormonism if that's the claim. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Jay 4 Christ

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

Did you view the link I posted above? It states that the church no longer existed on earth and it became a church of men. 

You can't say out one side of your mouth that you're Christians while out the other side you're saying Christ church was removed from the earth and only a church of men was left. 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that Mormons believe they are THE Christians and everyone else is a church of men like the link above spells out? I would respect Mormonism if that's the claim. 

I think this argument is really over what the definition of 'Christian' is.  You seem to be saying that a Christian is someone who will be saved and go to Heaven.  We don't use Christian in that sense.  A Christian is someone who is trying to follow Christ to the best of their abilities.  If their understand of Christ is incorrect, that doesn't matter.  If they don't have priesthood authority, that doesn't matter.  If they believe in falsehoods about Christ, that doesn't matter.  It is possible for an LDS member to not be a Christian.  Because it isn't membership of a church that defines whether you are a Christian or not.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Jay 4 Christ said:

It's way more than other religions including Christianity not having a licensed bus driver.

On an individual basis, everyone here on earth that isn't a member of the restored gospel will go to hell. You may not like that wording but it's true according to how Hell is defined on the LDS website. 

In the Mormon spirit world, Christians are assigned to Spirit Prison/Hell after death with all the other religions and atheist. One of the main requirements for entrance into Spirit Paradise is baptism, isn't that true? 

That's why I'm confused about how modern Mormonism views Christianity! Your doctrine teaches that all Christians that are not part of the restored gospel end up in hell, but for some reason while here on earth Mormons want to be considered part of Christianity. 

ill be honest, yes the church teaches that those who need directed will do so in "spirit prison"  - mormons and heathens alike (lol) but I'll tell you we are also told that we do not believe in traditional "hell for eternity' with the burning and the devil and whatnot.  

In fact, none of us have the first clue what spirit prison actually is.  We are mere mortals who have given this revelation a name, and we call it spirit prison, but any assumptions are pure conjecture.  I'm not worried about it so much myself.  And, this is important - I've never condemned anyone to 'hell' or even to 'spirit prison' - but I've had plenty, even friends, all protestants, mostly baptists, who have told me I'm going to hell unless I accept christ into my life.  (which in my mind I have because I have a conversation with Him just about every day and I set aside a whole day of worship for Him and I read my bible and I repent and Im grateful for His saving grace - what else is there besides loving my neighbor? ) 

As a Mormon I don't care much about another bus' rust.  I have enough of my own to be concerned about.  By the way I'm pretty good at bus driving, I'm just not allowed to.   do what you will with that. 

[Tony uk]

25 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

In fact, none of us have the first clue what spirit prison actually is.  We are mere mortals who have given this revelation a name, and we call it spirit prison, but any assumptions are pure conjecture.  I'm not worried about it so much myself.  And, this is important - I've never condemned anyone to 'hell' or even to 'spirit prison' - but I've had plenty, even friends, all protestants, mostly baptists, who have told me I'm going to hell unless I accept christ into my life.  (which in my mind I have because I have a conversation with Him just about every day and I set aside a whole day of worship for Him and I read my bible and I repent and Im grateful for His saving grace - what else is there besides loving my neighbor? ) 

There are always some people, who for whatever reason. That get carried away at finger pointing at other people who do not follow, or share their view or angle. If you are comfortable on the road you are taking, and the direction you are going. Stick to it, unless 'you' feel called to take an alternative road.