As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

[ozpoof]

Here, let me fix that for you.

There, that should be enough to show that your post is just an ignorant rant.

Why not actually try to answer ANYTHING I said instead of ignoring it, and attacking the person - both classic Mormon mechanisms for dealing with what they don't want to hear. You acted EXACTLY like the people in EQ or SS I was talking about! The sad thing is you can't see it.

Did Joseph Smith not state he was told ALL other religions were false? isn't that what has been taught since then? Wasn't the Catholic church once called the Great and Abominable Church, and Protestant Ministers represented as being in league with Satan? These are ALL facts. Why are you denying Mormon doctrine? How then can anyone state that Mormons aren't critics of other religions?

[ozpoof]

Is that why everyday 1000's of people throughout the world are reading the Book of Mormon and coming to a witness that it is true and that Jesus is Lord, even in countries where they weren't raised in "Mormonville" or anything close (non-Christian nations)?

Do you think suicide bombers don't have a testimony that what they are doing is right? They are willing to lay down their lives for their faith, so great is their conviction. Such feelings are not exclusive to Mormons, or even religion, and they are NOT an accurate guide as to whether or not what you are contemplating is true or lies.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Lets see if we can use the same style of your rhetoric to drive home a point.

Why not actually try to answer ANYTHING I said instead of ignoring it, and attacking the person - both classic Mormon mechanisms for dealing with what they don't want to hear.

Maybe if you actually had something of substance to respond to, then you might acutally get a responce back.

You acted EXACTLY like the people in EQ or SS I was talking about! The sad thing is you can't see it.

The whole "you just proved my point" canard.

Did Joseph Smith not state he was told ALL other religions were false? isn't that what has been taught since then? Wasn't the Catholic church once called the Great and Abominable Church, and Protestant Ministers represented as being in league with Satan? These are ALL facts. Why are you denying Mormon doctrine? How then can anyone state that Mormons aren't critics of other religions?

Being told that something is false is a far cry from being an abominitaion, as you insinuated. And no the Catholic chruch was never onec called the "Great and Abominable Church, and Protestant Ministers represented as being in league with Satan".

I am sure that some people in the LDS church have held that view, but I am not aware of any offical delcartions of such.

BTW Mormon Doctrine is not offical doctrine of the church.

[LeSellers]

Did Joseph Smith not state he was told ALL other religions were false? isn't that what has been taught since then?

Actually, Jesus said they were "wrong", not "false".

With that said, it kind of depends on what one means by "false". There is a long distance between "true" and "false". Even though everything that is not "true" is "not true", things that are not "false" are "not false".

Every religion I know of has some truth in it. That means it's not "false", but, because it does not incorporate all truth, and usually includes some things that are false it is not "true", either.

Wasn't the Catholic church once called the Great and Abominable Church,

By some, yes. But it was not doctrine, and was not a point everyone had to accept. Joseph Smith, the first so-called Mormon, said we should accept any truth from whatever source which includes Catholicism.

and Protestant Ministers represented as being in league with Satan?

No. And I am over 60 years old, know to what your refer, and will not go into more detail. Your interpretation of the concept is fallacious.

These are ALL facts.

No, they are not.

Why are you denying Mormon doctrine?

I'm not, but it seems you're misrepresenting it.

How then can anyone state that Mormons aren't critics of other religions?

Because we don't spend any time at all derogating other faiths. We don't pay people to denigrate them. We don't study them to find "errors" (although we do respond to their attacks by pointing out that they are usually based on misunderstanding scripture). We don't call their leaders evil and condemn them to hell. We don't tell them that the faith they follow is unchristian and will inextricably lead them to hell, too.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

I accidentally overlooked your post. You had written:

I very much appreciate your kindness and recognize that it took some courage and integrity to make such a statement in contrast to the angry accusations of some of your brethren. Thanks.

You are welcome. I am glad you are here. I think you have some really good thoughts and it seems that you are not the run of the mill critic that some times sprouts up. I think it would truely be a bad thing if you were to leave as I think some of the best threads on this board inovlve the critisms you have brought and of course the responses to those critisms.

Look forward to many more exchanges on the board. Take care.

[Gervin]

Here, let me fix that for you.

There, that should be enough to show that your post is just an ignorant rant.

It sure shows your ignorance adequately. Or perhaps you'll respond to a CFR to show me how evangelicalism, starting in the religious reform movements between 1730 and 1790, "taught that other faiths are abominations."

[Vance]

It sure shows your ignorance adequately. Or perhaps you'll respond to a CFR to show me how evangelicalism, starting in the religious reform movements between 1730 and 1790, "taught that other faiths are abominations."

And your response shows your ignorance adequately, because you were TOTALLY unable to grasp the point.

Also, if the other faiths weren't abominations, WHY did Evangelicalism start "between 1730 and 1790"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And your response shows your ignorance adequately, because you were TOTALLY unable to grasp the point.

Also, if the other faiths weren't abominations, WHY did Evangelicalism start "between 1730 and 1790"?

Careful with the abomination card.

Obviously teh EV thought that all other faiths were false. But being false does not equal being an abomination.

[ozpoof]

Being told that something is false is a far cry from being an abominitaion, as you insinuated. And no the Catholic chruch was never onec called the "Great and Abominable Church, and Protestant Ministers represented as being in league with Satan".

I am sure that some people in the LDS church have held that view, but I am not aware of any offical delcartions of such.

BTW Mromon Doctrine is not offical doctrine of the church.

Yes, Catholicism was known as such commonly in the church. Official or not, that's still criticism of other faiths isn't it? The fact a book was published - "Mormon Doctrine" - that held that view shows it was accepted by enough people in the church at the time. This thread is about critics of other people's faiths. Whether those criticisms are "official" or not is irrelevant. Try actually getting the church to make an official statement on policy other than how many earrings women can wear!

------"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the "whore of Babylon" whom the Lord denounces... as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act. If any penitent believer desires to obtain forgiveness of sins through baptism, let him beware of having any thing to do with the churches of apostate Christendom, lest he perish in the awful plagues and judgments, denounced against them. The only persons among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who have authority from Jesus Christ to administer any gospel ordinance are those called and authorized among the Latter-day Saints. Before the restoration of the church of Christ to the earth in the year 1830, there have been no people on the earth for many generations possessing authority from God to minister gospel ordinances. We again repeat. Beware of the hypocritical false teachers and imposters of Babylon!

- The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255

"The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church is the great corrupt ecclesiastic power, represented by great Babylon which has made all nations drunk with her wickedness, and she must fall, after she has been warned with the sound of the everlasting gospel. Her overthrow will be by a series of the most terrible judgments which will quickly succeed each other, and sweep over the nations where she has her dominion, and at last she will be utterly burned by fire, for thus hath the Lord spoken. Great, and fearful, and most terrible judgments are decreed upon these corrupt powers, the nations of modern Christendom; for strong is the Lord God who shall execute His fierce wrath upon them, and He will not cease until He has made a full end, and until their names be blotted out from under heaven."

- Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.84 - p.85

Ask an older relative to confirm that protestant ministers were portrayed as being in league with Satan prior to the late 80s when it was changed after temple goers answered a survey stating this made them uncomfortable. YES, a survey was needed to determine how to alter ordinances.

False/abomination - you're worried about semantics when my point was that the LDS church does criticize other faiths. It always has.

[Mars]

Joseph Smith said in the First Vision that God told him that...

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."

I can see how this would upset them.

I don't think anyone who tries with integrity and honesty to love and serve God as they see fit could be called an abomination, though. I don't think God intended to throw the babies out with the bath water. Denying revelation is the what I think God was getting at, here.

[Mars]

oz, relax...

Statements made by early Church leaders do not represent the official doctrinal policy of the Church. No one here believes that all protestant ministers (let alone even a few... or one, in my opinion) are in league with Satan. No one here believes the Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil as outlined in 1 Nephi. If they do, they're big jerks.

As far as the Temple content stuff goes, please have some respect. Posting Temple content stuff around here will quickly get you banned.

[ozpoof]

It kind of depends on what one means by "false". There is a long distance between "true" and "false". Even though everything that is not "true" is "not true", things that are not "false" are "not false".

Every religion I know of has some truth in it. That means it's not "false", but, because it does not incorporate all truth, and usually includes some things that are false it is not "true", either.

WOW! Work for FAIR at all?

Because we don't spend any time at all derogating other faiths. We don't pay people to denigrate them. We don't study them to find "errors" (although we do respond to their attacks by pointing out that they are usually based on misunderstanding scripture). We don't call their leaders evil and condemn them to hell. We don't tell them that the faith they follow is unchristian and will inextricably lead them to hell, too.

Lehi

Maybe not anymore. You do however pay people to twist Mormon doctrine so it can fit with reality, until it no longer is Mormonism at all. It has been noted that some Mormon (paid) apologists are actually in apostacy because they have had to alter the doctrine so much to explain it's problems.

[Gervin]

Careful with the abomination card.

Obviously teh EV thought that all other faiths were false. But being false does not equal being an abomination.

Please don't disagree with Vance; he's never wrong (or not able to make sense of his own charges). Was Dutch Pietism founded on the "wrongness" of other faiths? Didn't Weslyan revivals focus on the study of the Bible and Christian living? You guys make alot of hay over EVs alleged hate for everyone of differing beliefs. It's wearisome.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, Catholicism was known as such commonly in the church. Official or not, that's still criticism of other faiths isn't it? The fact a book was published - "Mormon Doctrine" - that held that view shows it was accepted by enough people in the church at the time. This thread is about critics of other people's faiths. Whether those criticisms are "official" or not is irrelevant. Try actually getting the church to make an official statement on policy other than how many earrings women can wear!

Oh boy, I think since you are new here I will cut you some slack. You really need to read the first couple of pages of Mormon Doctrine and tell me what it says.

If your criticism are going to be this unresearched, I will not waste my time with you. And actually weather a criticism is official or not is at the very heart of the matter. I am (or anyone but that author of said work) under no obligation to defend that which is not official. In the first couple of pages BRM states that this work (Mormon Doctrine) is his own work and the he will be held accountable for the things in his book and that it is not official doctrine and represents his own opinion. Also when BRM wrote the book he was not an Apostle. And the 2nd edition also edited out many parts of your passages about the Cahtolic church.

BTW the church has many many official statements on policies. Stop making such juvenile arguments.

So if you really want a serious response, please present a serious criticisms, not just some lame argument from the critics hand book 101.

[ozpoof]

oz, relax...

Statements made by early Church leaders do not represent the official doctrinal policy of the Church. No one here believes that all protestant ministers (let alone even a few... or one, in my opinion) are in league with Satan. No one here believes the Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil as outlined in 1 Nephi. If they do, they're big jerks.

As far as the Temple content stuff goes, please have some respect. Posting Temple content stuff around here will quickly get you banned.

I was trying to refute the assertion that Mormonism doesn't criticize other faiths. This was one example I used and I tried to make it so those who knew would know, but the point was lost. Sorry, I didn't want to offend.

Statements made by early church leaders DID or still do represent official doctrine. To state that Mormonism never attacks other religions cries out for early examples. The entire religion was begun on the assumption that all other faiths were false.

[Nathair/|\]

A critic is anyone who expresses a value judgement.

Informally, criticism is a common aspect of all human expression and need not necessarily imply skilled or accurate expressions of judgement. Critical judgements, good or bad, may be positive (in praise of an object of attention), negative (in dispraise), or balanced (weighing a combination of factors both for and against). Since all criticism must be regarded as having a purpose, a critic may also be definable by his or her specific motivation. At its simplest, and for whatever reason, a critic may have either constructive or destructive intent. My link

Granted, this forum has more "honest critics" than what I have seen in other forums and being rare are very welcomed. Yet, I continue to see "cheap shots" toward our sacred faith with "questions" disguised as "gotchas" or the elusive trail to the "nail in the coffin" for the Lord's Church.

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

I only ask because I know of no one in the LDS Church who plays the role as a "critic" for other's beliefs and I completely don't understand the need to be one. I am open to understand.

I don't think I am who you are speaking to, since I don't criticize the church (though I think we as a people are not living up to our promises). I am, however, a critic of the world view that denies the magic in the world around us and the inherent divinity of human beings. I opose it strongly because I think it is at the root of most of the greatest problems of the past century or more.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please don't disagree with Vance; he's never wrong (or not able to make sense of his own charges). Was Dutch Pietism founded on the "wrongness" of other faiths? Didn't Weslyan revivals focus on the study of the Bible and Christian living? You guys make alot of hay over EVs alleged hate for everyone of differing beliefs. It's wearisome.

I don't think that EV's in general (Some do) hate all other faiths. They are zelous to point out that which they think is wrong, but hate is a strong word.

And not every faith was born because they thought everything else was false.

[mfbukowski]

A person makes a decision to accept Christ because the Holy Spirit moves that person to do so. That is, the Holy Spirit convicts the individual of his or her sin and of the need for salvation, brings the individual to a point of being convinced not just about facts concerning Jesus but convinced to put faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, and so changes that person's mindset from unbelief to faith. If you want to call that "personal revelation," fine.

Thank you.

As I predicted, you don't see the difference. Somehow in your mind, an evangelical praying for God to give them wisdom in making a decision about what job to take, what ministry calling to pursue, or other life decisions requiring wisdom is no different than a Mormon asking God to give them a private revelation that the Book of Mormon is true.

Stressing your phrase "other life decisions requiring wisdom" AND including the above admonition that the Holy Spirit can and does admonish us to change our lives, AND including the various admonitions in the Bible to "ask God for wisdom", you are completely right- I see no difference whatsoever.

I agree that you are confused, but the problem is not that I am avoiding any question. The difference is obvious to me. A person who is a believer already in Jesus Christ and in the Bible as God's Word is invited by the Lord to ask him for wisdom in handling difficult decisions and trials. I agree with that idea. A person who is not a believer in Jesus Christ or in the Bible as God's Word is not invited by the Lord to read the Bible and ask the Father for a private revelation that will be the sole convincing basis for accepting Christ as Savior or the Bible as God's Word. That is a totally different idea and one that I reject. A person who doesn't yet believe in Christ can't pray with sincere faith in Christ (as the Moroni test instructs) because he doesn't yet have faith in Christ!

The problem here is that by privileging "believers" you leave no way for a non-believer to become a believer. If non-believers cannot be guided by the Spirit, they could never become believers. They could never receive a testimony of Christ. And what you DON'T understand is that a belief in Christ is not a pre-requisite for the Moroni experience, and it doesn't say that it is:

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ASK GOD, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost."

"All" it says is to ASK IN THE NAME OF CHRIST- it says nothing about believing in Christ. The entire point is that the experience can GIVE you a testimony of Christ AND the church in one fell swoop.

I know that because it happened that way to me. It is no different than an altar call, where one receives an invitation, (from the minister at the altar, or by reading the Moroni promise) taking action on the invitation, which manifests some level of faith (by approaching the altar- or for that matter saying the sinners prayer, or by asking sincerely in prayer about the Book of Mormon)and then receiving one's answer- "the testimony" for the Evangelical, that they are "saved" or for the Mormon that 1-(if they didn't already know) that Jesus is the Christ and 2- that the church is the Lord's church.

I am sure it is very similar also for Evangelicals- once one is "saved"- what church would one attend? The church which taught them salvation!

No difference. Guess I am just to dumb according to you, to see it.

All you are doing here is taking the CBN.com article's teaching out of context, just as you do the Bible's teaching. "Checking with God's word" means seeing if what you are doing agrees with the Bible. It presupposes that the Bible is our final authority for knowing what God's truth and will are, not what we feel we know from our private religious or spiritual experience. This is a standard point in evangelical belief, and you clearly do not agree with it.

I took nothing out of context- in fact I quoted most of the article in its entirety. And this may be a surprise to you, but we also think that the Book of Mormon fits just fine with our interpretation of the Bible.

Now, I am asking you to stop claiming that I am avoiding your questions. If you say this again, I will notify the moderators that you are harassing me with constant and false claims that I am avoiding answering you. I will then REALLY avoid answering you, by simply ignoring your posts, knowing that whenever I do answer you I can expect you to try to pull me into a never-ending exchange in which you will keep claiming that I avoid answering you no matter what I say.

Notify anybody you like about anything- this is an empty threat because I am certainly not harassing you in any way. Ignore me all you like- it will just prove my assertions.

But I do have good news and bad news.

The bad news is that I find your alleged "distinctions" between the Evangelical testimony and Mormon testimony to be so confused as to be virtually unintelligible, and the good news is that I finally really do believe it is the best explanation you can give.

That is the good news for now- I won't bother you with it again until you bring it up again.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I was trying to refute the assertion that Mormonism doesn't criticize other faiths. This was one example I used and I tried to make it so those who knew would know, but the point was lost. Sorry, I didn't want to offend.

Statements made by early church leaders DID or still do represent official doctrine. To state that Mormonism never attacks other religions cries out for early examples. The entire religion was begun on the assumption that all other faiths were false.

Mormonism does not equal Mormon Doctrine. And no, statements made by early church leaders do not represent offical church doctrine. CFR please.

Under board guide lines you are obligated to provide a source for you claim.

And again, believing something is false does not mean that we attack other faiths. You need to try a little harder if you wish to have any credibility.

[cion]

I'm just trying to figure out a way to feel justified in sleeveless dresses for dates with my spouse. That is my sole purpose as a critic. Once I find a way, I will be happy....

[ozpoof]

Oh boy, I think since you are new here I will cut you some slack. You really need to read the first couple of pages of Mormon Doctrine and tell me what it says.

If your criticism are going to be this unresearched, I will not waste my time with you. And actually weather a criticism is official or not is at the very heart of the matter. I am (or anyone but that author of said work) under no obligation to defend that which is not official. In the first couple of pages BRM states that this work (Mormon Doctrine) is his own work and the he will be held accountable for the things in his book and that it is not official doctrine and represents his own opinion. Also when BRM wrote the book he was no an Apostle.

BTW the church has many many official statements on policies. Stop making such juvenile arguments.

So if you really want a serious response, please present a serious criticisms, not just some lame argument from the critics hand book 101.

Don't patronize me. This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with whether criticisms of other faiths are "official" or not. Read the first post. It's about INDIVIDUALS because it asks critics of Mormonism their opinions who do not belong to any organization so therefore have no "official" statements or position. To deny that Mormonism was founded on the notion that all other faiths were false is to deny Joseph Smith's own testimony. Also, whether Mormon Doctrine was BRM's own opinion or not, it CLEARLY was shared by many other members of the LDS faith who attacked other faiths. This thread is about critics, NOT official doctrine.

Please don't attack me when you clearly have not understood what the poster was asking. If you have nothing to say of substance, just say nothing.

[mfbukowski]

And as for the last part, I am suggesting that if you're going to lance the accusation that all of my religious experiences are the results of neurons firing, then all of my experiences are the results of neurons firing. All of it would be 'in my head,' right? The way I feel about love, music, my children, and reality TV. That mud sticks on you as well. In the face of the question "How do I know it's real?" I suggest the answer is "You get to choose." I don't downplay your experiences with whatever you've done in life because it was all neurons firing, and I don't appreciate you downplaying my spiritual experiences for the same reasons. It's disrespectful.

:good:

[Eldwynn]

Is that why everyday 1000's of people throughout the world are reading the Book of Mormon and coming to a witness that it is true and that Jesus is Lord, even in countries where they weren't raised in "Mormonville" or anything close (non-Christian nations)?

Oh please, Islam is spreading far faster than Mormonism. However, changing ones faith happens from all ends, which is more evidence that everyone is just misunderstanding normal psychological processes. Either that, or god just has multiple personalities.

[ozpoof]

Mormonism does not equal Mormon Doctrine. And no, statements made by early church leaders do not represent offical church doctrine. CFR please.

Under board guide lines you are obligated to provide a source for you claim.

And again, believing something is false does not mean that we attack other faiths. You need to try a little harder if you wish to have any credibility.

What CFR? I said statements made by early church leaders DID and some still do represent official church doctrine. Do I need to remind you that there are early "revelations" such as that on plural marriage, that did represent official church doctrine, and other scriptures in the D&C that were made by early church leaders that still do represent official church doctrine?!?!?!? What references do you need?

And YES! Stating someone's beliefs are false is most definitely an attack on their faith! Wow......

[Eldwynn]

Could God have actually done it "that way" if he wanted to? Are you prepared to tell me miracles don't ever happen?

I have seen enough to know better. I have seen miracles. If you don't believe that, there isn't much I can do about it is there?

If you define miracles as events that have no natural explanation, then by definition, they can not happen. If you define a miracle as an event with a low probability of happening, then fine. I can't think of a single story you could hypothetically tell that would convince me of the first one. Did you have cancer, pray, and recover? Okay, that's type 2. Pray for rain and it came? Okay, another number 2. Did you pray for god to talk to you in the forest and saw him?

Well that sounds a lot like what happened to a guy I met yesterday in Seattle. Perhaps he should start a church.