More DVD Fun!

[jwhitlock]

The "self evident assumptions" attitude of the DVD reminded me of some of the DNA videos I've seen out there, whose only point was to parade a line of self proclaimed "experts" on the subject past the camera, basically saying that they had studied the evidence, and it proved the Church false. There was little or no attempt to get into any depth on the subject, probably because (as has been shown elsewhare) the assumptions they base their "testimony" on are pretty shallow.

In the same way, the people who produced the Joseph Smith DVD don't really want to get too deep behind the assumptions they're making, because they are so very shallow. And they build on those shallow assumptions in the hour and half or so of the DVD to the point where they call on the corrupt LDS leadership to quit perpetrating a system they know to be false, and lead all those Mormons to the true Christ!

At a certain point in the DVD, your mouth starts to hang open because you're subconsciously wondering how these people can be running such a shell game and be serious about it. The shallowness of their statements is very evident to any informed Latter-day Saint.

[Tanyan]

The Jewish president of the ADL condemns the DVD. As the Jewish people have received a large amount of anti-Semitism over the years, it makes sense that they would know whereof they speak.

CatholicGirl also gives the DVD two thumbs down. As the Catholic people have received a large amount of anti-Catholicism over the years, it makes sense that they would know whereof they speak.

I would like to express my appreciation to the ADL and to CatholicGirl and to all persons who share their sentiments for standing up for a religion that is not their own. I think this is in the best tradition of Christian conduct.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Catholics and LDS share the same bookshelf at Evangelical Protestant Christian Bookstore under the "Cult" section.

[consiglieri]

Catholics and LDS share the same bookshelf at Evangelical Protestant Christian Bookstore under the "Cult" section.

Although it does appear that the EV's have become politically savvy enough to drop the anti-Semitic collection.

To whom can I address an "open letter" demanding that they drop all such titles, I wonder?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Paloma]

And so we are. Each investigator who comes into the church examines the work, prays about it and accepts it based on what he or she feels was given.

The DVD is not an investigation into the church. It was hate mongering and it was deceptive. Many other Christians saw it similarly, so we're not alone. I'm familiar with the sourcs used and I know they were cherry picked misrepresentations expressly intended to deceive.

Teaching the apostasy is not denigrating other religions. Neither criticizing the creeds of men. Did not Jesus do the same during His mortal ministry? The focus of most protestants during the early 1800s was the damnation of others. Why else would there be such sectarian warfare in their revivals? The Restoration teaches salvation, not damnation. We do not condemn the members of other denominations to hell, but offer them the true gospel as it's been delivered to the earth. The appropriate response would be joy and acceptance, not hatred and rejection.

When I read the comments by you, Cold Steel, and Auteur (on whose previously referenced thread I spoke of my own experience with missionaries) and jwhitmore, I have to speak up out of my own personal experience.

I have been cursed to damnation by missionaries; I have been told that I couldn't possibly know Christ or have a relationship with Him. Yes, I have felt that LDS missionaries were trying to yank me out of God's embrace and completely deride the church I attend ( "ridiculous" doctrine of the Trinity; paid ministers are all about "filthy lucre", etc.). I've experienced that some LDS missionaries can whip up a frenzy of verbal abuse and negativity when they're on the hot scent of a potential-member target. (Though how they thought they'd win me by such methods, I can't imagine - but I think they mistook my quiet nature and attentive listening for compliance and a tendency to be "broken down".)

Cold Steel, you write: "The appropriate response would be joy and acceptance, not hatred and rejection."

Because I love people and really did have a sense of where these young LDS missionary men were coming from in that I'm passionate about my faith too and have an evangelical bent in wanting to share the Gospel, I truly did experience some "joy and acceptance". I did not hate nor reject them in the slightest.

But my joy and acceptance was all about them as people and about their devotion to their cause. But not at all about their message which was about tearing down my beliefs.

[consiglieri]

I have been cursed to damnation by missionaries;

I'm calling B.S. on this one.

[Paloma]

Differing opinions is the way the world would look at this. But from God's perspective, HIS WAY isn't an opinion, but an absolute WAY.

Do you believe that God has the right to have HIS ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH on earth?

If you say yes, then you have to ask why the statement from members that the LDS church is HIS one and only true church, should bother you.

If you say no, then what priveledges do you give God, and who are you to limit God?

Hammer, I've bolded these last words of yours that struck me as I read.

Indeed, who are any of us to limit God!

You believe that God's church is an organization or institution, i.e. the LDS Church.

I believe that God's church is an organism made up of believers within countless numbers of formal and informal institutions and gatherings.

[Paloma]

I'm calling B.S. on this one.

Consig, what would you call it if an LDS missionary stomped his feet while talking about "wiping the dust off his feet" and told you that you're cursed and going to hell for refusing to believe the truth you've been taught by him?

As I wrote in the earlier thread begun by Auteur (I think a couple of weeks ago), the missionary companion looked embarrassed and ashamed. And I believed at the time (and do still!) that extreme frustration was at the heart of the "offender's" action.

I find it hard to believe that you and other participants here find it hard to believe that 19-21 year old young men don't ever get caught up with outrageous or offensive talk or behaviour, whether out of frustration or personality bents, or sometimes just a need to create a bit of diversion and excitement.

Do you really believe that all of the young LDS missionaries have kindly and benevolent attitudes all the time? And that their words and actions are always expressed respectfully?

If so, I think you're very naive. (And I don't really believe you're naive, Consig!)

I know that many of you LDS participants here have been on missions. And even more of you have heard the stories!

I really find it hard to believe that you don't know what I'm talking about!

[thesometimesaint]

Press Release Christian-Jewish Relations

ADL Condemns "Mormon-Bashing" DVD

Phoenix, AZ, March 27, 2007......The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the distribution of an anti-Mormon DVD by the organization Concerned Christians as nothing more than "Mormon-bashing."

Bill Straus, ADL Arizona Regional Director, observed: "This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century. The only difference is that back then, it was the film, 'The God Makers,' and today it's the DVD, 'Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith.' It was wrong then, and it's wrong now."

ADL Regional Board Chair David Bodney added, "Hate directed at any of us is hate directed at all of us. From whomever that hate comes, and to whomever it's directed, ADL takes it very seriously and will continue to speak out against it."

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading

[jwhitlock]

Consig, what would you call it if an LDS missionary stomped his feet while talking about "wiping the dust off his feet" and told you that you're cursed and going to hell for refusing to believe the truth you've been taught by him?

As I wrote in the earlier thread begun by Auteur (I think a couple of weeks ago), the missionary companion looked embarrassed and ashamed. And I believed at the time (and do still!) that extreme frustration was at the heart of the "offender's" action.

I find it hard to believe that you and other participants here find it hard to believe that 19-21 year old young men don't ever get caught up with outrageous or offensive talk or behaviour, whether out of frustration or personality bents, or sometimes just a need to create a bit of diversion and excitement.

Do you really believe that all of the young LDS missionaries have kindly and benevolent attitudes all the time? And that their words and actions are always expressed respectfully?

If so, I think you're very naive. (And I don't really believe you're naive, Consig!)

I know that many of you LDS participants here have been on missions. And even more of you have heard the stories!

I really find it hard to believe that you don't know what I'm talking about!

The problem is not that some missionaries may respond in an un-Christlike manner at times, but that it is portrayed as the norm.

Of course there are some missionaries who react out of frustration or misguided motives. BUT, and I emphasize this, they are a very small minority, and they do NOT reflect the official stance or guidelines of the Church, or the day to day actions of the vast majority of missionaries.

To portray such a missionary reaction as the norm and to accuse us of tearing down other religions as the norm is a mischaracterization. How would you feel were I to portray Jim and Tammy Bakker as the norm for Evangelicals?

Sometimes I find that people apply a requirement of perfection to Latter-day Saints that they do not apply to their own churches. That's dangerious ground to be on.

[The Nehor]

I listened to a radio interview with the Phoenix head of the Anti-Defamation League. He compared the DVD to burning crosses on Blacks lawns and painting swastikas on Jews homes.

Does the LDS Church really want to affiliate themselves with a group that does this?

I kinda think swastikas and burning crosses is a little more honest. At least they're not professing love. They're saying exactly what they think.

[consiglieri]

Consig, what would you call it if an LDS missionary stomped his feet while talking about "wiping the dust off his feet" and told you that you're cursed and going to hell for refusing to believe the truth you've been taught by him?

Ummm . . . "fiction"?

Either that or a truth so violently wrenched from its context as to render it the equivalent of "fiction."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I kinda think swastikas and burning crosses is a little more honest. At least they're not professing love. They're saying exactly what they think.

And for that, I respect them more than the mealy-mouthed, love-professing, stab-you-in-the-back anti-Mormons.

They smilin' in your face,

All the time they wanna take yo place,

The Back Stabbers!

[Paloma]

The problem is not that some missionaries may respond in an un-Christlike manner at times, but that it is portrayed as the norm.

Of course there are some missionaries who react out of frustration or misguided motives. BUT, and I emphasize this, they are a very small minority, and they do NOT reflect the official stance or guidelines of the Church, or the day to day actions of the vast majority of missionaries.

To portray such a missionary reaction as the norm and to accuse us of tearing down other religions as the norm is a mischaracterization. How would you feel were I to portray Jim and Tammy Bakker as the norm for Evangelicals?

Sometimes I find that people apply a requirement of perfection to Latter-day Saints that they do not apply to their own churches. That's dangerious ground to be on.

Hi jwhitlock,

I do not mean to portray the offensive behaviour of some missionaries as the norm, and I think I've tried to indicate so in other threads at least - obviously, not clearly enough though.

I only mention my own personal experience of offensive LDS missionary tactics when I get the sense that there's little or no acknowledgment that the reality of rude behaviour on the part of missionaries can and does happen. Again, it certainly is NOT the norm.

Others have mentioned that the LDS missionary message itself can be seen as offensive, since it inherently attacks non-LDS Christian churches and beliefs as apostate. And I see that as well, but I was focusing on more specific inappropriateness, just as I think those negatively affected by the recent DVD endeavour have been talking about the inappropriate behaviour surrounding the distribution, as well as the content itself.

I don't think that I do expect a "requirement of perfection to Latter Day Saints" that I wouldn't expect of my own faith group. My usual approach is to get to know individuals and understand their nature and motivation - and to avoid stereotyping and "lumping".

And I appreciate that you're not ready to paint all non-LDS Christians with the same brush.

[jwhitlock]

Hi jwhitlock,

I do not mean to portray the offensive behaviour of some missionaries as the norm, and I think I've tried to indicate so in other threads at least - obviously, not clearly enough though.

I only mention my own personal experience of offensive LDS missionary tactics when I get the sense that there's little or no acknowledgment that the reality of rude behaviour on the part of missionaries can and does happen. Again, it certainly is NOT the norm.

Others have mentioned that the LDS missionary message itself can be seen as offensive, since it inherently attacks non-LDS Christian churches and beliefs as apostate. And I see that as well, but I was focusing on more specific inappropriateness, just as I think those negatively affected by the recent DVD endeavour have been talking about the inappropriate behaviour surrounding the distribution, as well as the content itself.

I don't think that I do expect a "requirement of perfection to Latter Day Saints" that I wouldn't expect of my own faith group. My usual approach is to get to know individuals and understand their nature and motivation - and to avoid stereotyping and "lumping".

And I appreciate that you're not ready to paint all non-LDS Christians with the same brush.

Fair enough.

However, it's probably not a good idea to go to far in the "inherent" perspective of what Mormons teach. It has been discussed elsewhere on this board how the approach of the recent anti-Mormon DVD differs from the Church's missionary approach; the LDS approach is a positive expression of what the Church offers, while the DVD approach is a tear down of the Church, and less of an expression of what their form of Christianity offers. You can infer anything you want from what the Church teaches; I feel it is highly subjective to equate our teachings on the apostacy with the anti-Mormon activity that occurs.

Probably a more accurate portrayal of how anti-Mormons view the Church would be in the parallel found in the radical Muslim world towards Christians in general, who are viewed as the enemy and are persecuted in physical, religious, and legal ways. Evangelicals take a dim view of the persecution of fellow Christians in those countries, but often ignore the parallels with anti-Mormon mischaracterization and persecution of Latter-day Saints. The danger in the subjective judgement of being inherent lies in that it may be carried too far, as you can infer anything you want once you have decided your opponent is a false religion.

[Hawkmoon]

Sentinus,

Your "moral equivalence" argument has never made any sense to me. Can you really believe they are equal? It astonishes me to no end. Understand the whole â??hate speechâ? band-wagon is not one you will find me jumping on as I find the concept a slippery-slope. However, to pretend that the LDS missionary program parallels this (and most anti-Mormon efforts) is quite preposterous. Do you really find the following situations equal?

1. Coca Cola decides to market itsâ?? products by advertising to customerâ??s who like soft drinks. Their slogan is: â??Try our soft drinks theyâ??re the best.â?
   
2. Pepsi then markets to Coca Cola customers. Their slogan is: â??If you try Coca Cola products you support puppy killers, liars and thieves.â?
   

Essentially this is what you are sayingâ?¦ and as I said above I find it truly preposterous.

[Teancum]

That guy is a hoot. Do you think he really believe what he says?

While his letter was audiscious and he really made it less serious be some of his railing he did make some valid and correct points. Particularly his comments about the missionary lessons and the LDS teaching about the great apostasy being offensive ot other Christians.

[maklelan]

While his letter was audiscious and he really made it less serious be some of his railing he did make some valid and correct points. Particularly his comments about the missionary lessons and the LDS teaching about the great apostasy being offensive ot other Christians.

If the belief that one holds the fullness of truth and another only holds partial truth is offensive then every religion on the face of the planet is offensive, as is every belief ever known to man. Any time you tell someone a doctrine you are then being offensive to everyone who believes otherwise, and there are people in this world who believe some crazy stuff. You say that Elvis is dead, well you offend the two million people in the world who feel that he is alive. You say that we will resurrect, well, you offend the millions on this earth who don't believe so. This is a red herring. What is offensive is telling someone they're going to hell, along with their wife and kids just because they believe in the "wrong Jesus," which is utterly idiotic. I was told on another board that I would be doing the "wailing and gnashing of teeth dance forever," that I was going to "burn in hell," that I was "pitifully deluded" and a "tool of the devil," as well as "satan's pawn," and a number of other mainstream Christian staples. Comparing the third discussion to that crap is ridiculous.

[juliann]

Consig, what would you call it if an LDS missionary stomped his feet while talking about "wiping the dust off his feet" and told you that you're cursed and going to hell for refusing to believe the truth you've been taught by him?

Stupid.

Do you really believe that all of the young LDS missionaries have kindly and benevolent attitudes all the time? And that their words and actions are always expressed respectfully?

When they are with others in a missionary capacity, of course.

If so, I think you're very naive. (And I don't really believe you're naive, Consig!)

If you think otherwise based on some exceptions you have an agenda.

I know that many of you LDS participants here have been on missions. And even more of you have heard the stories!

I really find it hard to believe that you don't know what I'm talking about!

I find it really hard to believe you can't do the math. How many missionaries go out every year and behave appropriately every day of their mission? How many "stories" are there? Get out the calculater and tell us the statistical significance of your one incident stories.

[Paloma]

Fair enough.

However, it's probably not a good idea to go to far in the "inherent" perspective of what Mormons teach. It has been discussed elsewhere on this board how the approach of the recent anti-Mormon DVD differs from the Church's missionary approach; the LDS approach is a positive expression of what the Church offers, while the DVD approach is a tear down of the Church, and less of an expression of what their form of Christianity offers. You can infer anything you want from what the Church teaches; I feel it is highly subjective to equate our teachings on the apostacy with the anti-Mormon activity that occurs.

Probably a more accurate portrayal of how anti-Mormons view the Church would be in the parallel found in the radical Muslim world towards Christians in general, who are viewed as the enemy and are persecuted in physical, religious, and legal ways. Evangelicals take a dim view of the persecution of fellow Christians in those countries, but often ignore the parallels with anti-Mormon mischaracterization and persecution of Latter-day Saints. The danger in the subjective judgement of being inherent lies in that it may be carried too far, as you can infer anything you want once you have decided your opponent is a false religion.

Again, in the interest of accuracy and reciprocal understanding, I'll respond, jwhitlock.

I don't want to go "too far" as you say in the "inherent perspective of what Mormons teach". I said that the missionary message "inherently attacks non-LDS Christian churches as apostate". Is that not true? I don't believe I've ever heard missionary teaching that doesn't include a segment on the apostasy of all other Christian churches.

I don't presume to say much about LDS teaching. But I do understand that the Apostasy is integral to LDS belief.

I hear what you're saying about how anti-Mormons view the LDS church. While this kind of determined and nasty animosity isn't within the sphere of my own personal experience or church milieu, I believe you have grounds for what you're saying, and I'm sorry for that.

[jwhitlock]

Again, in the interest of accuracy and reciprocal understanding, I'll respond, jwhitlock.

I don't want to go "too far" as you say in the "inherent perspective of what Mormons teach". I said that the missionary message "inherently attacks non-LDS Christian churches as apostate". Is that not true? I don't believe I've ever heard missionary teaching that doesn't include a segment on the apostasy of all other Christian churches.

I don't presume to say much about LDS teaching. But I do understand that the Apostasy is integral to LDS belief.

I hear what you're saying about how anti-Mormons view the LDS church. While this kind of determined and nasty animosity isn't within the sphere of my own personal experience or church milieu, I believe you have grounds for what you're saying, and I'm sorry for that.

"Inherent" as used in this context is subject to interpretation: yours and mine. We do not say that all other churches are apostate. That would require that those churches were in possession of apostolic authority at one time, and fell away from it. The apostacy we talk about began in the first century and was most likely complete at some point in the second or third century (at least from my point of view). Virtually every Christian denomination that I can think of, including Catholicism, appears to have its beginnings in the fourth century or later, and in the case of most Protestant and Evangelical denominations, much later. Hence, the discussion of an apostacy concerns a church that really no longer exists. The discussion of loss of priesthood authority is from a church that no longer exists. Denominations that exist today mostly trace authority to the Bible, with the exception of Catholicism and its offshoots.

This means that when we talk about the apostacy, it is NOT a direct or indirect attack on other churches. Indeed, most Christian denominations do not embrace the concept of one true church, as LDS do. So the discussion of apostacy by missionaries in their lessons is a discussion of a doctrine and a historical event, about a church that no longer exists. It is also a discussion of the necessity of an authoritative restoration, a concept that a number of religious leaders through the centuries have considered. It's an interesting historical study; I believe there are a number of resources at FAIR if you're interested in it further.

[Bsix]

The difference between how Evangelical countercult ministries and the LDS Church witnesses witness is like the difference between negative political advertising and positive political advertising.

The vast majority of Americans see the difference between those two forms of political advertsing quite clearly. The vast majority of Americans reject the notion of moral equivilency between these two forms of political messaging. People recognize that both approaches are attempting to convince voters to one view or another...but using vastly different standards of behavior.

The Evangelical model relies on opposition research, defining your opponent with negative and sensational characterizations, distortions of fact, half-truths, and debate-ending polemics. Negative advertising is not selling your truths...it is unselling your opponent. It is negative mud-slinging sludge. That is the Evangelical countercult ministry style.

I doubt anyone who claims that the Evangelical countercult attack methodology is the moral equivilent to the generally positive LDS approach is in denial...or blowing smoke to hide reality.

As evidenced by the AntiDefamation League and the Salt Lake Tribune...there are all sorts of folks who recognize the heavy-handed and attack oriented style of the DVD and its distribution.

Regards,

Six

[Paloma]

Stupid.

When they are with others in a missionary capacity, of course.

If you think otherwise based on some exceptions you have an agenda.

I find it really hard to believe you can't do the math. How many missionaries go out every year and behave appropriately every day of their mission? How many "stories" are there? Get out the calculater and tell us the statistical significance of your one incident stories.

Juliann, my only "agenda" here I stated in an earlier post on this thread. When it appears that there's no acknowledgment that LDS missionaries have at times (and perhaps those times are very rare) spoken and behaved in an inappropriate manner, then I feel a need to speak up from my personal experience. And my intention was to simply state that as factual truth, and NOT to bash the missionary programme or individual missionaries. I've gotten to know a number of missionaries, some as close friends. And I've been an advocate for increased understanding between LDS and non-LDS in my own small way within my own faith community, as well as within my circle of LDS friends and extended family members.

I certainly did not come to this board to argue or accuse. I came to learn more about LDS beliefs, to find commonalities and enjoy harmonious and respectful interaction with participants here. And I hope that my posting history here would reflect that.

[Kenngo1969]

Bracketing the issue of whether or not the DVD's production was morally justified, however, I don't think it possible to produce even a relatively "short" presentation of this nature without punting to foundational claims at several levels. Maybe that means the DVD shouldn't have been produced, or maybe it doesn't. Regardless, if the producers were to have provided detailed rationales for their own assumptions, and thoroughly investigated how those assumptions interface wtih Mormonism, and then presented Mormon claims, well... they would have had to have produced a twelve-DVD series or something.

Heck, donâ??t overstate what I (and I think many other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) would be satisfied with, Chris! (Howâ??s my memory? It is â??Chris,â? isnâ??t it? ) Iâ??m/weâ??re not asking for a twelve-DVD set. I just wish the DVDâ??s producers-purveyors hadnâ??t overstated (heck, Iâ??ll even dial that request back a bit and say I wish they hadnâ??t grossly overstated) the strength of their own position while grossly understating that of the Church of Jesus Christ. I wish they hadnâ??t pretended that thereâ??s unanimity among all of Christendom outside of Mormondom when nothing of the kind existsâ??despite anti-Mormonsâ?? wish that such were the case! I wish they hadnâ??t pretended unanimity of biblical interpretation when no such unity exists (else why is there more than one Christian denomination in the first place?)! I wish they hadnâ??t papered over differences that were once considered serious enough for entire new sects to be started! I wish that more than a few straw men who didnâ??t deserve to die were still alive today! I wish they hadnâ??t relied so much on character assassination in their attempts to air their disagreements with us. I wish they had allowed for at least a little of Krister Stendahlâ??s â??holy envy.â? I wish they had acknowledged that one need not be stupid, dishonest, or morally bankrupt to recognize an appeal in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints â?¦ that there has to be some deeper reason for thirteen million people to want to commit themselves, to varying degrees and at different times, to it.

I have been cursed to damnation by missionaries[.]

Wow. Accepting your account as true for the sake of discussion, I can only say, on behalf of my faith and its faithful adherents, that Iâ??m sorry you were subjected to that. I was a full-time missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for two years in San Diego, California, and I have been a part-time formally-called missionary in several other areas where I have lived. As such, I have contacted thousands of people to ascertain and to act upon their interest in learning more about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I may have thought others mistaken; I may have disagreed; I may, at times, have even disputed, particularly if their beliefs about my beliefs were mistaken. But I have never damned anyone. I hope and believe that your experience is far more the exception than the rule. The first thing I was taught as a missionary is, â??Build on common beliefs,â? and I have always tried to do that when testifying of the Restoration.

I have been told that I couldn't possibly know Christ or have a relationship with Him.

Wow. (By a Mormon, no less? Yeesh!) Again, accepting that as true, it sounds as if the person making that exclusionary assertion must revel (on some peculiar, bizarre, incomprehensible level) in his or her alleged claim to exclusivity. If so, that level of exclusivity must trump that even of all the other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints s/he knows, and that (even if it were a lofty perch) would be a very lonely one, indeed! Even if I thought that the assertion that you â??couldnâ??t possibly know Christ or have a relationship with Himâ? were true, I certainly wouldnâ??t revel in it. I would pity you and want to reach out to you, and so would all of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ I know. (I donâ??t doubt you know Christ or that you have a relationship with Him, to which I say Hallelujah!)

Yes, I have felt that LDS missionaries were trying to yank me out of God's embrace â?¦

Wow. Truly shocking and utterly incomprehensible. Ask any full-time missionary what his or her mission is, and s/he should tell you, â??To bring people to Christ.â? (If you want to try that experiment, if you donâ??t get that response, and if you want to make the missionary feel extremely guilty, you should shake your head and walk away saying, â??Gee, thatâ??s funny; I thought your mission was to bring people to Christ.â?) Personally, I hope that most of the people I came in contact with as a full-time missionary, whatever their response to the message I brought, however brief and whatever the nature of our contact, were drawn closer to Christâ??that they felt His embraceâ??in some way, whether it was that I simply brightened their day or whether they felt the Spirit of the message I brought to such a degree that they felt a desire to unite themselves with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

â?¦and completely deride the church I attend ( "ridiculous" doctrine of the Trinity; paid ministers are all about "filthy lucre", etc.).

Oh, my! That certainly flies in the face of everything I was ever taught as a missionary: build relationships of trust and build on common beliefs. I truly am sorry.

[cksalmon]

Heck, donâ??t overstate what I (and I think many other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) would be satisfied with, Chris! (Howâ??s my memory? It is â??Chris,â? isnâ??t it? ) Iâ??m/weâ??re not asking for a twelve-DVD set. I just wish the DVDâ??s producers-purveyors hadnâ??t overstated (heck, Iâ??ll even dial that request back a bit and say I wish they hadnâ??t grossly overstated) the strength of their own position while grossly understating that of the Church of Jesus Christ. I wish they hadnâ??t pretended that thereâ??s unanimity among all of Christendom outside of Mormondom when nothing of the kind existsâ??despite anti-Mormonsâ?? wish that such were the case! I wish they hadnâ??t pretended unanimity of biblical interpretation when no such unity exists (else why is there more than one Christian denomination in the first place?)! I wish they hadnâ??t papered over differences that were once considered serious enough for entire new sects to be started! I wish that more than a few straw men who didnâ??t deserve to die were still alive today! I wish they hadnâ??t relied so much on character assassination in their attempts to air their disagreements with us. I wish they had allowed for at least a little of Krister Stendahlâ??s â??holy envy.â? I wish they had acknowledged that one need not be stupid, dishonest, or morally bankrupt to recognize an appeal in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints â?¦ that there has to be some deeper reason for thirteen million people to want to commit themselves, to varying degrees and at different times, to it.

Hi Ken--

It is indeed Chris, although I truly do prefer Christopher. Good memory, though!

I hope that no one is arguing that one must "be stupid, dishonest, or morally bankrupt" to believe the claims of the COJCLDS. I wouldn't argue in that vein, to be sure.

Denominational differences are not the best way to argue for one's case at this point, I'd say. Splinter Restorationist movements are on their way to outstripping their traditional Christian peers, at this point. There are perhaps, let's say, 50-75 splinter Restorationist movements that have existed in Restorationist history over the last 170 years. Some of them are defunct; many of them are not.

I would also dispute that there are 13,000,000 active members of the official Utah-based LDS Church. There's nothing approaching unanimity in Protestant Christianity. There's nothing approaching unanimity in Restorationist movements, either.

We're on something approaching a level playing field at this point.

Best.

CKS

[Bsix]

Denominational differences are not the best way to argue for one's case at this point, I'd say. Splinter Restorationist movements are on their way to outstripping their traditional Christian peers, at this point. There are perhaps, let's say, 50-75 splinter Restorationist movements that have existed in Restorationist history over the last 170 years. Some of them are defunct; many of them are not.

Six: I think this is wishful thinking. Fact is that out of 12,000,000 million or so members on the membership rolls of restorationist Churches, about 98% of them belong to a single restorationist Church. In the here and now, Mormonism is far, far more unified as a people and in doctrine that traditional Christianity.

I would also dispute that there are 13,000,000 active members of the official Utah-based LDS Church.

Six: I don't know of any Mormon anywhere that claims that we have 13,000,000 million active members. However, I'd be willing to guess that our activity rates and retention rates are equat to...or better than the great majority of traditional Christian sects.

There's nothing approaching unanimity in Protestant Christianity.

Six: I agree.

There's nothing approaching unanimity in Restorationist movements, either.

Six: I completely disagree. 98% of all restorationists are members of a single restorationis faith. And, that faith is pretty cohesive in regards to almost all of its major defining doctrines...and most secondary doctrines as well. I think there is simply no comparison between the LDS Church and the dysfunctional level of schisms in traditional Christianity.

We're on something approaching a level playing field at this point.

Six: Sorry...that is not even close to being accurate.

Regards,

Six

[Hoops22]

There's always someone who is going to be offended, no matter how benign the intent may be. So just because someone is offended doesn't mean the message or the method is wrong. So far, that applies to both sides.

I do take issue with your opinion that Concerned Christians feel like they are building up. There is a significant difference between an organization that seeks primarily to bring people to Christ, and an organization that primarily seeks to tear down another religion first, and then possibly to bring people to Christ as a secondary effect. As has been discussed elsewhere on this board, the act of tearing down can direct people away from Christ as much as it can direct towards Christ. It is potentially damaging by its very nature and method. That's why it's wrong.

We are involved in building up the Kingdom of God. Anti-Mormons are are involved in very real ways in trying to tear it down. From Concerned Christians viewpoint, they appear to make no effort to understand the way Latter-day Saints really feel, or if any of us Mormons have any relationship with Christ. In their eyes, we have none. And it shows. Is that the way you feel about us?

You're right that there are always two sides. But that does not automatically make them equal, or alike in their motivations and methods and validity.

Let me see if i have this correct. lds believe they are Christian. if one were to show them how they are not, that is tearing them down? my goodness, you guys are awfully sensitive. if lds think they are christian then who cares. of course, i can understand how this board has responded. the entire world view of lds is based on feelings and it's persecution complex. for evidence, i note post above.