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

[AmorLibertas]

As a critic, I am motivated by my desire to see libertarian principles and values prevail in government, especially where I live and hope to persuade members and non-members alike to those same principles and values and how they may be harmonized with their religious beliefs.

[bookofmormontruth]

I share my opinions/evaluations/critiques mostly because I like the conversation, and also to let the person who has questions, and may be observing, that they aren't the first person to ever have doubts, and to share the answers I, personally, have found. Also, I big goal for me is to help the exiting LDS member not to "throw the baby out with the bath water" so to speak. Too many people who leave the LDS Church think rejecting the Book of Mormon is part of the package- I want them to know that it is not.

Makes sense on why you are here, but I wouldn't define you as a critic. My OP was in regards to those outside of the Lord's Church. Those within who have left, would fit in a different category IMO. Also, there are other categories, those within who find fault with leaders, etc..

Do you feel describing yourself as a "friendly apostate" would be derogatory to most?

And is it wrong to put people in categories? If not, what categories are out there? I am in the category of TBM whether derogatory or not. It at least helps me understand where someone is coming from. For example, someone constantly finding fault with our current and past leaders, nothing positive about their Church they profess to belong - would be an "apostate in training" or something along those lines.

Granted, there is nothing wrong to question within the Lord's Church, but there is a fine line when you don't sustain the current leaders and constantly find fault with them. A lot fit in this category, but they weren't part of my original post.

[bookofmormontruth]

As far as the Church goes, I'm a critic in the firm belief that our leaders are fallible men, and as such, they make mistakes. I'm interested in the kinds of mistakes our leaders make, and why.

As far as apologists go, it's my impression that sometimes their zeal for the faith oversteps their arguments, or their zeal for their arguments (and evidences) oversteps their faith. And it's fascinating to me when that happens.

See above post. Thanks for sharing.

[Mudcat]

Of course, I would hope they wouldn't tell you anything different. It isn't the missionaries' view, it is the Lord's view, they are just the messengers and as always - they encourage to verify their message with the source of all truth. I respect and understand how that is hard to swallow, but we as members should not be ashamed to proclaim this truth no matter how much it offends the world including members of other churches.

There is absolutely nothing inherently critical in telling someone they are "wrong" especially if it involves salvation. Hopefully it is done with love, compassion and understanding. It sounds like you aren't too offended and have some understanding since you are having them over for supper. Hopefully you can give them a hard time though, to keep them on their feet.

In response, I would say that your failure to see LDS missionaries as critics towards the beliefs of non-LDS is simply some sort of special pleading that you are allowing for them.

I can't quite understand why you are doing that?

The fact that you associate LDS beliefs as "true", and the missionaries are trying to spread the "truth". To do so, they must hold a critical view of what they believe is "false".

A critical view and a correct view don't have to be mutually exclusive terms.

[LeSellers]

I would say that your failure to see LDS missionaries as critics towards the beliefs of non-LDS is simply some sort of special pleading that you are allowing for them.

Missionaries are not critics in that they do not criticize.

They do point out that our belief is that churches outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have the whole of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but we do not tell anyone (and never have) that their entire system is wrong, and that they are, ipso facto, going to hell because of it.

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ routinely do just that to us. They mock what we consider sacred, and openly attack the very foundations of the Restoration of the Gospel and Priesthood. At worst, our defense may point out that those who established the churches of our critics were no less human than, say, Joseph Smith.

We say to them all, "Come, bring the good you have and let's build on that." If that's criticism, then what happens to us is a different category altogether. What to call it escapes me.

Lehi

[Jaybear]

They do point out that our belief is that churches outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have the whole of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, ...

Criticize: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly;

2: to find fault with : point out the faults of

Telling someone that their church: "does not have the whole of the Gospel" is by definition a criticism of their church.

[Dr.JD]

Simply put: I don't believe Area 51 contains the preserved bodies of little green men, however I don't waste my life trying to prove my opinion. It makes no difference to me what they believe on the subject. Honestly, I would rather spend my time hunting and fishing. I really believe there are other hobbies out there that critics would enjoy more than trying to destroy others faith. Thus, any critic that wishes to come coyote hunting with me is more than welcome. I just feel bad about all the time you wasted.

[blueadept]

In response, I would say that your failure to see LDS missionaries as critics towards the beliefs of non-LDS is simply some sort of special pleading that you are allowing for them.

I'm curious Mudcat. Have you gone through the missionary lessons? I can't say the LDS missionaries were ever critical of my faith. I would say they were simply misinformed about it though. Even the missionaries that came from a Catholic background, I can't say that I was impressed by their working knowledge. I remember when we had someone local who was to be ordained a deacon in the local church. Someone invited the LDS missionaries to the event and I felt obligated to sit with them to answer their questions. We were to get together at my home for when we had them over to feed the missionaries and they were to bring their questions. Unfortunately, the bishop changed their plans that evening and we never connected. Oh well. I never viewed the missionaries as critics, but it was a free for all in regards to talking about religion..

I can't quite understand why you are doing that?

The fact that you associate LDS beliefs as "true", and the missionaries are trying to spread the "truth". To do so, they must hold a critical view of what they believe is "false".

A critical view and a correct view don't have to be mutually exclusive terms.

Of course they believe they have the 'truth'. But it's also why they don't hang around too long if they don't view you as a potential convert. They're not too interested in open debate if it's not going to lead to a new convert. I don't blame them but wished it wasn't so. Much can be learned from one another and it starts with dialog and hopefully ecumenism. Unfortunately, this isn't the goal of the missionaries. Oh well.

[blueadept]

Criticize: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly;

2: to find fault with : point out the faults of

Telling someone that their church: "does not have the whole of the Gospel" is by definition a criticism of their church.

While LDS church members may rattle that one off a lot, I don't recall the missionaries using that line too much unless they get frustrated. I would agree that such a statement would tend to shutdown a conversation. That's definitely not the missionaries intent.

[bookofmormontruth]

In response, I would say that your failure to see LDS missionaries as critics towards the beliefs of non-LDS is simply some sort of special pleading that you are allowing for them.

I can't quite understand why you are doing that?

The fact that you associate LDS beliefs as "true", and the missionaries are trying to spread the "truth". To do so, they must hold a critical view of what they believe is "false".

A critical view and a correct view don't have to be mutually exclusive terms.

I completely understand why you don't understand.

I know the Lord leads his Church. I know LDS missionaries represent Him and are authorized to preach His gospel.

I know He visited Joseph Smith with the Father and in Joseph Smith's inquiry to which church to join: "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.' ” My link

These are the Lord's words. Not Joseph Smith's. Not LDS missionaries'. If these are truly His words, would you expect Him to say anything less?

As stated previously, and with personal experience, a missionaries' job is not to criticize. Their job is to testify of truth and bring people to the truth that is only found in one Church. Does that make other Churches false/wrong? Yes. Completely false/wrong? No.

[bookofmormontruth]

Of course they believe they have the 'truth'. But it's also why they don't hang around too long if they don't view you as a potential convert. They're not too interested in open debate if it's not going to lead to a new convert. I don't blame them but wished it wasn't so. Much can be learned from one another and it starts with dialog and hopefully ecumenism. Unfortunately, this isn't the goal of the missionaries. Oh well.

They will have plenty of time to "open debate" when they get home, but they have been commissioned to find those who are ready to accept the Gospel and to find those who are only kept from the truth because they do not know where to find it.

[Ceeboo]

Hi BoMT,

I completely understand why you don't understand.

Are you sure?

I know the Lord leads his Church. I know LDS missionaries represent Him and are authorized to preach His gospel.

Is it possible to agree to disagree with what you know?

I know He visited Joseph Smith with the Father and in Joseph Smith's inquiry to which church to join: "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.' ” My link

Sounds a lot like ctiticism to this critic.

These are the Lord's words. Not Joseph Smith's.

Are you sure?

As stated previously, and with personal experience, a missionaries' job is not to criticize. Their job is to testify of truth and bring people to the truth that is only found in one Church.

Are you sure?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[LeSellers]

Criticize: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly;

2: to find fault with : point out the faults of

Telling someone that their church: "does not have the whole of the Gospel" is by definition a criticism of their church.

However, missionaries do not "point out the faults of", they "point out the benefits of", which is a very different proposition.

It is only by contrast (implicit, not explicit), that there is anything remotely like criticism. And, as others have said more forcefully than I, we have no ministries dedicated to tearing down others' faiths.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Bookofmormontruth wrote:

"Bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it". That is our true intentions and motivation.

And Lehi wrote:

We say to them all, "Come, bring the good you have and let's build on that."

I don't see why evangelicals cannot say the same to Mormons. Please, by all means, bring the good you have. Bring your belief in the sinless life, sacrificial death, and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, your values of the sanctity of human life and of marriage being between a man and a woman, and anything else that is true and good in Mormonism. Bring it all with you as you come embrace the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Bring it with you as you come to know the true God as the infinite, transcendent, triune Creator of everything that exists. Bring it with you as you come accept the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, with the hope of all God's people living together in one eternal kingdom in his presence.

[LeSellers]

I don't see why evangelicals cannot say the same to Mormons. Please, by all means, bring the good you have. Bring your belief in the sinless life, sacrificial death, and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, your values of the sanctity of human life and of marriage being between a man and a woman, and anything else that is true and good in Mormonism. Bring it all with you as you come embrace the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Bring it with you as you come to know the true God as the infinite, transcendent, triune Creator of everything that exists. Bring it with you as you come accept the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, with the hope of all God's people living together in one eternal kingdom in his presence.

The difference is your version of the Gospel requires that we give up a great deal to accept that incomplete story.

To accept the creedal version of the Gospel, we must deny the sealing power of the Priesthood, the Priesthood itself along with all blessings that come with it. We must reject the literal, universal Fatherhood of God, the knowledge we have of the Plan of Salvation, that those who went before us, who laid the foundations that led us to the knowledge of the divinity of Jesus Christ. We must reject the fact of God's knowledge and love for us.

We'd have to reject the idea that the work and glory of God, our heavenly Father, is to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man. We'd have to accept a seriously restricted view of heaven itself.

Sorry, there is an enormous difference between our asking people to come with what is good from their religious (or philosophical) background and build their castle and asking us to tear down the castle we have to live in a three-bedroom, two-bath split-level.

Lehi

[bookofmormontruth]

Are you sure?

I am

Is it possible to agree to disagree with what you know?

Yes and it is possible for you to know too.

Sounds a lot like ctiticism to this critic.

Define it as you want, but words coming directly from the Lord, we better heed. In the least, call it "constructive criticism".

Are you sure?

Yes

Are you sure?

Yes

That was fun.

[bookofmormontruth]

Bookofmormontruth wrote:

And Lehi wrote:

I don't see why evangelicals cannot say the same to Mormons. Please, by all means, bring the good you have. Bring your belief in the sinless life, sacrificial death, and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, your values of the sanctity of human life and of marriage being between a man and a woman, and anything else that is true and good in Mormonism. Bring it all with you as you come embrace the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Bring it with you as you come to know the true God as the infinite, transcendent, triune Creator of everything that exists. Bring it with you as you come accept the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, with the hope of all God's people living together in one eternal kingdom in his presence.

But that is the problem I see with the majority of EV's and their tactics, they are too busy tearing us down for our beliefs. They believe we worship a "different" Lord, but will never invite us to come unto what they consider is the "correct" Lord, let alone show that they really care about our salvation.

In complete contrast, the LDS missionaries don't tear down a person's beliefs, but share with them a new message of restoration and invite them to come unto the Lord. They are even bold enough to ask the person to take the message to G-d and ask Him for an answer.

[Vance]

They are even bold enough to ask the person to take the message to G-d and ask Him for an answer.

EXACTLY!!!

They tell the individual HOW they can know the truth FOR THEMSELVES!!!

Bowman claims to have the complete truth, BUT HE WON'T EXPLAIN HOW he "knows" that what he believes is true.

He keeps avoiding that topic. Makes me wonder why.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

But that is the problem I see with the majority of EV's and their tactics, they are too busy tearing us down for our beliefs. They believe we worship a "different" Lord, but will never invite us to come unto what they consider is the "correct" Lord, let alone show that they really care about our salvation.

Imagine how you would feel if I were to issue a broad generalization about "the majority of Mormons," one for which no evidence was presented and against which it is impracticable to offer any provable defense. This is the position in which you put me. How many evangelicals have you met? Obviously, not a majority, and probably not even a representative sample. And if you're counting evangelicals in an online forum like this one, that is hardly a representative setting. Forums like this one thrive on disagreement; that's an essential component of their purpose.

In any case, I am an evangelical, and I am inviting you to come to the true Lord Jesus Christ, the one revealed authentically, historically, faithfully, and authoritatively in the Bible. You will find salvation in him alone.

You wrote:

In complete contrast, the LDS missionaries don't tear down a person's beliefs, but share with them a new message of restoration and invite them to come unto the Lord. They are even bold enough to ask the person to take the message to G-d and ask Him for an answer.

If the people to whom the missionaries are teaching the missionary lessons express beliefs differing from LDS doctrine, are you saying that the missionaries will ignore those differing doctrinal beliefs?

On a side note: why the Orthodox Jewish "G-d"? This isn't LDS practice, and you aren't talking to an Orthodox Jew. So why use this orthographic convention?

[Vance]

In any case, I am an evangelical, and I am inviting you to come to the true Lord Jesus Christ, the one revealed authentically, historically, faithfully, and authoritatively in the Bible. You will find salvation in him alone.

Been there, done that, thanks.

I would have to give up truth and go backwards to accept Evangelism.

[bookofmormontruth]

Imagine how you would feel if I were to issue a broad generalization about "the majority of Mormons," one for which no evidence was presented and against which it is impracticable to offer any provable defense. This is the position in which you put me. How many evangelicals have you met? Obviously, not a majority, and probably not even a representative sample. And if you're counting evangelicals in an online forum like this one, that is hardly a representative setting. Forums like this one thrive on disagreement; that's an essential component of their purpose.

In any case, I am an evangelical, and I am inviting you to come to the true Lord Jesus Christ, the one revealed authentically, historically, faithfully, and authoritatively in the Bible. You will find salvation in him alone.

It isn't a fair generalization, I know. It is only based on my experiences on my missions, walking to general conference and with a sweet friend of mine who arranged a "trap" at her home which yes I admittedly enjoyed slicing through all the anti-Mormon regurgitation, but she got the idea from her EV church leaders who sent a "surprised" reinforcement to "help" her out and to convince me the "errors" of my ways.

I just don't get it Rob. I appreciate you invitation, but my relationship with the Savior is undeniable and it is baffling how you don't see that when you meet fellow LDS faithful in person and see the fruits by the LDS Church. If it is the work of man it will fall, if it is the work of God - well feel in the blanks.

I don't get EV's tactics. They have failed a long time ago, yet they continue on and on with them. Is it just the money aspect? A good living? Why even focus on the LDS? We are such a small percentage and there are people that really need the Lord in their lives. It really saddens me how much time is focused on the Lord's Church. So many people don't even know the Lord or have heard of Him - all this wasted time on us, could help these people. Sorry, just don't get it, at all.

If the people to whom the missionaries are teaching the missionary lessons express beliefs differing from LDS doctrine, are you saying that the missionaries will ignore those differing doctrinal beliefs?

No. They are actually taught in the MTC to address any concerns and build on common beliefs. As missionaries we don't expect an investigator to give up all their beliefs and ideas. This isn't the missionaries' role and so it is left in G-d's hands and it is their personal conversion.

On a side note: why the Orthodox Jewish "G-d"? This isn't LDS practice, and you aren't talking to an Orthodox Jew. So why use this orthographic convention?

I saw someone doing it and I liked it. I think it is important to not repetitively use their names and to try to use them with reverence. I try to use "Lord" over Jesus the Christ and etc.. To me "G-d" is just a symbol which everyone knows, but it avoids the repetition.

[cdowis]

If the people to whom the missionaries are teaching the missionary lessons express beliefs differing from LDS doctrine, are you saying that the missionaries will ignore those differing doctrinal beliefs?

No. They are actually taught in the MTC to address any concerns and build on common beliefs. As missionaries we don't expect an investigator to give up all their beliefs and ideas. This isn't the missionaries' role and so it is left in G-d's hands and it is their personal conversion.

Of course each missionary is an individual.

When I was a missionary, someone invited us to their home. When we arrived, there were a room full of JW's with various books and articles on the Mormons.

I first told them about the Book of Mormon, how it was a suppliment to the Bible. I gave an example on how the church was run, and the priesthood was governed by a prophet. I cited several scriptures in the BOM.

"Well, that's what the BOM teaches," responded one of them.

I then showed them the same concept as taught in the Bible, and showed how these two books gave us a greater understanding of the gospel.

Now we can do the same thing with baptism. Even with the Bible, some question whether baptism is necessary for salvation. We can now read in the BOM which gives us greater clarity on the issue, as well as the modern prophets.

So, the issue is not the priesthood, or even baptism, but whether the BOM is scripture, like the Bible. If so, then we know that JS was a prophet. And we find that out by reading it, and asking the Lord whether it is His word.

It all comes down, not to arguing over a particular doctrine, but direct revelation from the Lord to confirm modern revelation.

[Brant Gardner]

First of all, every religion has those outside it that criticize it. . . .

To put the matter positively, what motivates me is concern for the truth about God, about Christ, about the Bible, about the gospel, about the church, and about salvation.

Brother Bowman:

I tried to find a different way to address you, but with your post this felt most right. I have seen threads like this on this board periodically over several years. Yours is the first response that I think captures the right spirit of such interactions. I doubt that any one who truly believes should have admiration for anyone who believes so little that they don't share their belief in one way or another. When there are two different ideas and proponents of each, criticism happens (as you noted).

I'm positive that there are many issues on which we disagree, but in this one--I think I am with you.

Thank you.

[Mudcat]

Missionaries are not critics in that they do not criticize.

They do point out that our belief is that churches outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have the whole of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but we do not tell anyone (and never have) that their entire system is wrong, and that they are, ipso facto, going to hell because of it.

Bold mine. This is a non sequitur Lehi. The fact that missionaries do point out that they belief another persons beliefs are in error makes them critical, no matter how nicely they state it. The fact they don't think a person they think is in error is not going to hell is practically irrelevant considering who qualifies for the "Telestial" Kingdom, Christ rejectors... "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie."

I don't see the belief in the eternal destination of an individual you believe to right/wrong in their beliefs does much in the way or making them more or less critical. It is at the point that a person believes another persons beliefs to be wrong in some way that they are being critical. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but I think to say that LDS missionary is not critical is a wholesale dodge, regardless of the fact that they are very cordial about it.

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ routinely do just that to us. They mock what we consider sacred, and openly attack the very foundations of the Restoration of the Gospel and Priesthood. At worst, our defense may point out that those who established the churches of our critics were no less human than, say, Joseph Smith.

The concept of the LDS Restoration makes a mockery of Restorationists and seeks to invalidate the salvation of those affiliated with it.

The BoM itself, via JS, makes a mockery of folks like myself as well.

2 Nephi 29

3And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

4But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people.

Here it is stated that God himself says that anyone who believes in a closed canon is a fool.

This statement is part and parcel of the message delivered by LDS missionaries. The only reason you don't see it as a mockery of the beliefs of another is that you agree with what is being said.

We say to them all, "Come, bring the good you have and let's build on that." If that's criticism, then what happens to us is a different category altogether. What to call it escapes me.

Lehi if you can honestly point to a particular place where LDS have said something like, "Joe the EV, or Catholic, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or atheist, and so on..actually brought with them some truth we didn't already know and we decided to add it to part of doctrine and build upon it." Then this statement doesn't hold much weight...if any at all.

IMO, such a phrase is more of slogan than of meaningful value. In short they mean that the CoJCoLDS will agree with any truth claim someone brings as long as it is consistent with the views of the CoJCoLDS. If you can show me an example of where someone outside the CoJCoLDS brought additional "truth" to what the CoJCoLDS perceives as truth into the mix I'll give that a rethink.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

I'm curious Mudcat. Have you gone through the missionary lessons?

Yes, though I don't know if I have ever finished to completion. I don't know where completion is.

The longest discourse I have had with LDS missionaries was a married couple..."senior missionaries". I think we hosted them 9 or 10 times, dunno if it was the conversation or my cooking that kept them coming by. Wonderful people, still keep track of them even though it's been several years since they left. They served about 18 months in our area.

The Elder was a real peace of work. Love that guy.

The younger guys that come by.. I think about three times at the house is the most any have managed before moving on. They have shorter stints in our area and I don't think they typically put me on the short list.

I can't say the LDS missionaries were ever critical of my faith.

I think anyone who holds a view that considers my faith to be wrong on some level is critical of it. This may be the difference we have on the matter.

I would say they were simply misinformed about it though.

In regards to the beliefs of other Christians, I would agree based upon experience. I think every LDS missionary set that I have met so far has been misinformed about my beliefs. For example, I have yet to meet one that has actually understood how non-LDS Christians that were Trinitarians actually percieved the Trinity. IIRC, most of them would think I thought God was one person.

Respectfully,

Mudcat