Hoops22 Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 FYI Revelation is a WELS Lutheran-- and they believe that they're the true Lutherans and they're forbidden to pray with those who aren't members of their denomination. I've never met a fundamentalist Protestant who wasn't willing to pray any time, with any one, as long as it was in Jesus' name. I give them the cred they deserve on that score.Folks on this board probably don't remember - but, as you've written it, consider us as having met.
prisonchaplain Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 You -- whoever "you" are -- are welcome to believe that stars are God's daisy chain, that we're not Christian, and that leprechauns live under your kitchen sink, but you would have a very difficult time mounting a coherent case to demonstrate these claims.I wrote a book, some years back, entitled Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints. With extensive documentation, I demonstrated that no coherent argument can be formulated to expel Mormons from Christendom that doesn't also expel other groups (e.g., Martin Luther, the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, all Christians prior to the Council of Nicaea) from Christendom at the same time.I challenge you to rebut the argument of Offenders for a Word. To this day, nobody's made so much as a serious attempt to do that.I know that reviews have been written, probably by FAIR, but I'm fairly new to this area, so perhaps you could direct me to sources...but on the surface, it would seem that Prof. Craig Blomberg's chapter in The New Mormon Challenge addresses this subject. Ironically, he attempts to include your church into the realm of Christian faith, using four different apporaches, but finds himself unable to make a conclusive case. Have you seen this chapter? If so, any thoughts?
prisonchaplain Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 I've always wondered why anti-Mormon books tend to have titles like that?("Maze of Mormonism", "The Mormon Facade", "Smoke and Mirrors", "Shadow or Reality?")I've always felt that the Church is fairly transparent about what it teaches. It just happens to disagree with Nicene Christianity, but we've always been fairly up front about that.They make it sound like we're some con man out on the street corner playing some elaborately orchestrated shell game.It's not like someone is going to join the Church and then, only after years of painstakingly making their way into the deep inner circle of those really (really really) in the know, suddenly discover that the Church really, (really, really) worships Boltar from the Planet Fong. I mean seriously, what is the Mirage here?I read one account of an adult convert who hit his stumbling block after being approved for the Temple. The rituals, which he did not describe in any detail, struck him wrong. He sought counsel and was told to keep going, that the Spirit would bring it all together for him. So, if I remember right, he went roughly seven times in a fairly short amount of time. Nevertheless, he could not shake his discomfort. Eventually he left the church. "Milk before meat," but what if someone's a vegetarian? All that to say that every faith has advanced truths, but could it be that some of the LDS ones are surprising--especially to converts?
ed2276 Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Well, here I am. I was invited on twitter by you. Let's see, you had never heard of me and characterized me as "Another bitter anti-mormon spewing hate! Gotta love you guys, you really have nothing better to do with your time..."Then you alluded to my Website as full of "garbage."Then you quoted Daniel Petersen when I asked you to look to see if other people who have read my books ever called me any such thing. (Just in case any of the rest of you would care to look at the reviews on latayne.com the one thing people say about me is that I am not bitter.)I feel so welcome. Gee, don't know why I don't want to stick around here. Latayne C Scottwww.latayne.comnovelmatters.blogspot.comYeah. Don't know why you bothered to come here in the first instance. See ya.
ED500 Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Yeah. Don't know why you bothered to come here in the first instance. See ya.ed,The lady was invited by matthew!Is that how you treat a woman in your religion?I assumed you are aware of this board:http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...isplay.php?f=29ed
revelation Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 FYI Revelation is a WELS Lutheran-- and they believe that they're the true Lutherans and they're forbidden to pray with those who aren't members of their denomination. I've never met a fundamentalist Protestant who wasn't willing to pray any time, with any one, as long as it was in Jesus' name. I give them the cred they deserve on that score.Thank you
MatthewG Posted March 22, 2009 Author Posted March 22, 2009 ed,The lady was invited by matthew!Is that how you treat a woman in your religion?I assumed you are aware of this board:http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...isplay.php?f=29edI've already explained my myself. I was on twitter and saw the lady posting an ANTI-MORMON link. I had 0 idea she was an author or was the owner of the website. I acted a bit prematurely from having had my fill of anti-mormons over at CRAM. In the end I invited her to come here if she "really wanted to learn something". She actually did show up, and register and found this thread. She lasted 2 posts and didn't stick around long enough to get a chance to talk with "the smart people" on this board. I will ask Revelation to go start your own thread. If you're not talking about the author's books your not talking about the topic of this thread.
littlechild Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Ah!! the old I love you so I'll just have to beat some sense into your head. Pardon me if I don't have much faith in your professions of love.This is going to hurt me worse than it hurts you!
littlechild Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 I know that reviews have been written, probably by FAIR, but I'm fairly new to this area, so perhaps you could direct me to sources...but on the surface, it would seem that Prof. Craig Blomberg's chapter in The New Mormon Challenge addresses this subject. Ironically, he attempts to include your church into the realm of Christian faith, using four different apporaches, but finds himself unable to make a conclusive case. Have you seen this chapter? If so, any thoughts?Really? How hard did he try? HOW IMPRESSIVE - that he would make the attempt! I'm truly charmed. That a Professor (wow, he must be REALLY intellectual) would - as a Christian no less - try to include Mormons in his wide umbrella of believers - and find himself UNABLE to do so! Truly remarkable.
CQUIRK Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 How does my comment "smack of hypocrisy"? I am not judging the motives of Mormons. Yes you are, stop contridicting yourself!Certainly it's possible that there are "false teachings about the LDS Church and it's History" out there.It's not a possiblity, its a fact of life. But that doesn't mean that everything out there that incorrectly portrays LDS teachings is done with Malicious intent. Don't judge motives.I will concede that a few may have good intential motives when criticising LDS beliefs, but still are malicious and don't even realize it. I judge because you keep judging me and my beliefs, so how do you like it when I return the favor? It also doesn' t mean that everything out there that you feel are "lie's" about LDS teachings are in reality lie's.No, THEY ARE! I did the research, I looked under every rock to make sure; and they are bold-face lies alright. A example would be claims about Joseph Smith's 'Jupiter Talisman'. Maybe God has revealed something to them about false LDS teachings and you have believed the lie that they are lying. Don't judge motives.Nope, did all the research, and I also read about some of the horrible things that the most vocal critics of the Church have done, like Ed Decker's speaking trip to South America and all the violence it caused against the Church afterwards. If someone warns you against going to Hell, that doesn' t mean it's because they see wrong or evil motives in you.It was the same thing when anti-semetism got started in Europe- at first they attacked the jews only because of their religion and their refusal to believe in Christ, and tried to work on converting as many of them as they could to Christianity. When that failed and then they realized it, they singled them out as a race and their hatred of jews became even more intense and violent as time went on.It's because all humanity falls short of the glory of God and those who don't believe in free and full forgiveness have been misled or decieved into unbelief when God wants them to believe.We pretty much believe upon His Name and believe that only in His Name are All saved. We are believers, so there is no need for us to be 'converted' since we are already Christians. No motives being judged here because we all are in the same boat.Because we are all Christians, even if we believe and worship Jesus in a different manner, we are still Christian, irregardless.
CQUIRK Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 If we wanted to express how you are doing it all wrong... we could. But THAT wouldn't be christlike.It is very much Christlike:Mark 12:38 "As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces,"Mathew 11:21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes"Mathew 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."Mathew 23:15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.Mathew 23:16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'"Mathew 23:23 ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spicesâ??mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the lawâ??justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."Mathew 23:25 ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence."Mathew 23:27 ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean." Etc.LDS can use the same verses for their behalf too. And the verses also can very much describe people of your beliefs as well.We're true believers, whether you like it or not.
revelation Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Yes you are, stop contridicting yourself!It's not a possiblity, its a fact of life.I will concede that a few may have good intential motives when criticising LDS beliefs, but still are malicious and don't even realize it. I judge because you keep judging me and my beliefs, so how do you like it when I return the favor? No, THEY ARE! I did the research, I looked under every rock to make sure; and they are bold-face lies alright. A example would be claims about Joseph Smith's 'Jupiter Talisman'.Nope, did all the research, and I also read about some of the horrible things that the most vocal critics of the Church have done, like Ed Decker's speaking trip to South America and all the violence it caused against the Church afterwards.It was the same thing when anti-semetism got started in Europe- at first they attacked the jews only because of their religion and their refusal to believe in Christ, and tried to work on converting as many of them as they could to Christianity. When that failed and then they realized it, they singled them out as a race and their hatred of jews became even more intense and violent as time went on.We pretty much believe upon His Name and believe that only in His Name are All saved. We are believers, so there is no need for us to be 'converted' since we are already Christians.Because we are all Christians, even if we believe and worship Jesus in a different manner, we are still Christian, irregardless.We have been asked to take it to a different thread.
CQUIRK Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 I read one account of an adult convert who hit his stumbling block after being approved for the Temple. The rituals, which he did not describe in any detail, struck him wrong. He sought counsel and was told to keep going, that the Spirit would bring it all together for him. So, if I remember right, he went roughly seven times in a fairly short amount of time. Nevertheless, he could not shake his discomfort. Eventually he left the church.Funny because when I went through the Endowment the first time, as odd as it was, I already understood half of it and saw how a lot of it was tied in with the scriptures, which I cannot go into detail on.Obviously people think differently, and have different and sometimes incorrect perspectives on things (Revelation is a example), but when we stand before God, the choices we made with our free agency will either save or doom us, regardless of our perspectives.
ed2276 Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 ed,The lady was invited by matthew!And? Given her views of LDS, I still don't know why she would bother to come here. She seems to already "understand" Mormonism and rejects it, so what would she come here to learn?Is that how you treat a woman in your religion?To question why she would come here? What's wrong with that? Or, are you just employing some form of political correctness here to try and drive me to my knees, sobbing uncontrollably in remorse for my manly and Mormonly insensitivity? Is that how you treat a man in your religion, or unreligion?I assumed you are aware of this board:http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...isplay.php?f=29edYes, I am aware of CARM's existence. I am also aware of the pointlessness of your assumption.
mpschmitt Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I read one account of an adult convert who hit his stumbling block after being approved for the Temple. The rituals, which he did not describe in any detail, struck him wrong. He sought counsel and was told to keep going, that the Spirit would bring it all together for him. So, if I remember right, he went roughly seven times in a fairly short amount of time. Nevertheless, he could not shake his discomfort. Eventually he left the church. "Milk before meat," but what if someone's a vegetarian? All that to say that every faith has advanced truths, but could it be that some of the LDS ones are surprising--especially to converts?True, but in my view, there is no covenant or obligation placed upon any person in an LDS temple that would run contrary to principles already held by anyone who is a true disciple of Christ and familiar with the LDS Cannon of scripture. My first impression of the temple was that, though I did not understand everything, it was the most beautiful ceremony I had ever seen anywhere. Sometimes the temple preparation classes are not well taught (or not taught at all) and converts who are used to the very straight forward way Sunday church goes are surprised by the symbolic nature of the temple endowment. But the temple teaching is symbolic in nature so that it can be used by the Spirit to teach an unlimited number of spiritual lessons. For this reason, Joseph taught that it was only to be received in that sacred environment and only by the spiritually minded. If it is not received in that way, the full beauty of the ceremony will not be experienced and confusion, not peace, will be the result. If converts are properly prepared to be taught in this higher and more refined way, they will not generally be surprised when they have the actual experience.A man cannot be obedient to the commandments of God without gaining a testimony of the truthfulness of his dealings. One must however pay the price to become acquainted with God. When a person prepares and genuinely lives to have the Spirit of God with him, he will have the experience intended to be had in the temple. But it is a refining experience to be fostered by repeated encounters, and is not a singular event. When I've returned to the temple after a brief period of not attending, I've needed to attended a number of times before that level of true Spirit to spirit teaching could occur again in my life. I needed to be refined for a while before I was ready for it again.I don't believe there are vegetarians in the sense you describe. There are those who are being tenderized (to extend the meat analogy ) by the Spirit of God and those who may not yet have understood how to bring that tenderizing influence into their lives yet.
jadams_4242 Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Steve Benson went the same route...is there a pattern? Of course theres a pattern; and its always started by "money".
prisonchaplain Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Really? How hard did he try? HOW IMPRESSIVE - that he would make the attempt! I'm truly charmed. That a Professor (wow, he must be REALLY intellectual) would - as a Christian no less - try to include Mormons in his wide umbrella of believers - and find himself UNABLE to do so! Truly remarkable.Normally, I'd understand your response. However, Blomberg is the same professor who co-authored the book How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Dialogue (with Prof. Robinson, BYU). He's earned favor for being resp ectful, and the book was sold by both Deseret Books and Christianbook.com. Additionally, garnered quite a bit of criticism for being too nice, and for not addressing the question of whether LDS theology could be called Christian or not. The whole tone of The New Mormon Challenge is one of respect for LDS scholarship, while offering an evangelical assessment of your theology. In other words, your sarcasm probably isn't justified in this particular instance.
CQUIRK Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 We have been asked to take it to a different thread.Be sure to let me know where its at.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Normally, I'd understand your response. However, Blomberg is the same professor who co-authored the book How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Dialogue (with Prof. Robinson, BYU). He's earned favor for being resp ectful, and the book was sold by both Deseret Books and Christianbook.com. Additionally, garnered quite a bit of criticism for being too nice, and for not addressing the question of whether LDS theology could be called Christian or not. The whole tone of The New Mormon Challenge is one of respect for LDS scholarship, while offering an evangelical assessment of your theology. In other words, your sarcasm probably isn't justified in this particular instance.While I disagree with it in major ways, The New Mormon Challenge is a vast improvement over traditional evangelical criticisms of Mormonism; I say so on the jacket of the book.I've met Craig Blomberg on several occasions, eaten with him, etc., and read a portion of his work (and not merely the Mormon-related stuff). He's a good fellow and a fine scholar.
Tarski Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Of course theres a pattern; and its always started by "money". What? Money? Here is my theory: If there is a pattern ( a big if) it might have something to do with a journalist's urge to uncover things.
ttribe Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 What? Money? Here is my theory: If there is a pattern ( a big if) it might have something to do with a journalist's urge to uncover things.I have no idea what jaadams' point was and I was speaking tongue in cheek with regard to my original comment on the "pattern"...BTW, Steve Benson is NO journalist.
MatthewG Posted March 23, 2009 Author Posted March 23, 2009 I have no idea what jaadams' point was and I was speaking tongue in cheek with regard to my original comment on the "pattern"...BTW, Steve Benson is NO journalist.Nope he isn't he's just a cartoonist gone wild. Anyone get in contact with this lady yet? I sent her an email, no response yet.
prisonchaplain Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 While I disagree with it in major ways, The New Mormon Challenge is a vast improvement over traditional evangelical criticisms of Mormonism; I say so on the jacket of the book.I've met Craig Blomberg on several occasions, eaten with him, etc., and read a portion of his work (and not merely the Mormon-related stuff). He's a good fellow and a fine scholar.Perhaps the single aspect of the chapter I reference that is useful for me is that he draws a clear distinction between theology and people. We want to embrace correct theology, of course, but it is a much dicier exercise to judge the souls of people than it is to appraise the accuracy of particular teachings.
mikwut Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Nope he isn't he's just a cartoonist gone wild. Anyone get in contact with this lady yet? I sent her an email, no response yet.What on earth would make you think that she would return? And for what motive would you request it after showing your insincere motives originally?my regards, mikwut
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.