What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Vance]

Oh, rats! Those doggone Mormon missionaries...they made me read the last part of the Book of Mormon before I had a chance to read it from cover to cover! It's their fault I didn't meet the conditions of Moroni 10:4 as Vance, more than 30 years later, would finally explain them to me. Bummer!

Right, so reading Moroni 10:4 first some how precluded you from reading it cover to cover before you prayed about it. (More flawed logic on display.)

Got it.

I began reading the Book of Mormon in the 1970s (I don't remember the year).

Did you ever finish it?

I didn't write anything about Mormonism or engage in any other polemical activity concerning Mormonism until the mid-1980s.

Had you finished reading it before this?

I don't think that is an accurate or complete account of what I have said in the past.

Forgotten your argument against Moroni's promise already?

I have always said that we should pray about everything of importance in our lives, and that would obviously include something like an investigation of the Book of Mormon. And yes, I was quite confident that God would answer my prayers.

Well, it is amazing to behold how you try to argue against Moroni's promise and still maintain this position. Indeed it is dizzying.

Nothing there excludes parts of the Book of Mormon, but at the same time nothing there requires that a person must have read the entire Book of Mormon before receiving an answer.

I can agree that God might not wait until the reader is finished before He reveals that it is true.

But you can't claim that you met the requirements of the promise, "read these things", "with a sincere heart" and "with real intent" then can you.

Is it your position that no Mormon ever gets an affirmative answer before finishing reading the entire Book of Mormon cover to cover?

This looks like another attempt to change the subject.

No. That is not my position. But the topic at hand is YOUR claim of having met the requirements and then receiving a negative answer. We are still trying to ascertain whether YOU actually met the requirements.

Still not very convincing.

[Vance]

The very statement you underscored demonstrates that he did not meet the three criteria for getting a response. He had "no vested interest" in the truth of the Book of Mormon. Thus he did not ask with real intent. The question is, what would he have done, and what would he have given away to know it was true? How would that knowledge have changed his life?

King Lamoni's father is the quintessential example of one with real intent. He prayed, "... I will give away all my sins to know ...". that's "real intent". Casual interest doesn't even come close.

Whether it disgusts you or anyone else, the fact is that "anti-mormon" has a meaning and Rob (along with many others here) fulfills it expressly. He's "against" [anti] "Mormon". Antifreeze is against freezing, anticoagulants oppose coagulation, etc. He's against Mormons/ism: he's anti-mormon.

Lehi

Good points.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

The very statement you underscored demonstrates that he did not meet the three criteria for getting a response. He had "no vested interest" in the truth of the Book of Mormon. Thus he did not ask with real intent. The question is, what would he have done, and what would he have given away to know it was true? How would that knowledge have changed his life?

King Lamoni's father is the quintessential example of one with real intent. He prayed, "... I will give away all my sins to know ...". that's "real intent". Casual interest doesn't even come close.

This is a peculiar misunderstanding of what I said. When I denied that I had any "vested interest" in the issue of the truth of the Book of Mormon, I meant that I was not already committed to arguing against its truth (or arguing for its truth, for that matter). I was prepared to accept it as true or reject it as false. I really wanted to know, and I was willing to join the LDS Church if that was what the truth required. My interest was not "casual," as you falsely claim.

You wrote:

Whether it disgusts you or anyone else, the fact is that "anti-mormon" has a meaning and Rob (along with many others here) fulfills it expressly. He's "against" [anti] "Mormon". Antifreeze is against freezing, anticoagulants oppose coagulation, etc. He's against Mormons/ism: he's anti-mormon.

Fair enough. By that definition, you are anti-evangelical. You're against evangelicals and evangelicalism: you're anti-evangelical.

[LeSellers]

By that definition, you are anti-evangelical. You're against evangelicals and evangelicalism: you're anti-evangelical.

What have I done that evidences this: not be an evangelical myself?

If evangelicalism is your bag, have at it. I disagree with the theology and the theories and philosopies, and I think there are no legitimate grounds to choose that belief system, but I do not oppose it. If anyone cannot go beyond evangelicalism to restored Christianity, I'd encourage him to be an evangelical. Can you say the same about someone's being a Saint?

What I do is encourage other people to take that next step and get closer to God. That's not a trival difference between us.

Lehi

Edited September 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

Let me turn things around on you, with no disrespect or antagonism intended.

Evangelicals find it offensive when any religious group alters the Bible, whether by omitting books or passages from it or by adding books or passages to it. We consider the Bible the sacred word of God and regard any additions or deletions to the text of the Bible to be sacrilegious. It offends us, since we regard the Bible as our sacred book, and so we are offended when any individual or other religion alters the text of the Bible. We are also offended by the fact that Mormons think they know better than we do what the Bible (our sacred book, long before Mormonism began) teaches. Of course, we are also offended by the fact that Mormon missionaries seek to proselytize evangelical Christians, telling them that their churches are apostate and their ordinances invalid. We regard Mormonism as a form of "anti-evangelicalism," noting in support of this charge that the founder of the LDS Church was a former evangelical and that a large number, possibly even a majority, of converts to Mormonism have come from people of evangelical church backgrounds.

Now, despite these ways in which we evangelicals find the LDS religion offensive, I believe that some evangelicals and some Mormons can have respectful discussions -- as I think you also believe. I also think that we have just as much right to express our views of the LDS religion as Mormons have to express their views of ours. I do not take offense at individual Mormons expressing their sincere beliefs and their honest objections to and criticisms of the evangelical faith. I wouldn't label a Mormon "anti-evangelical" merely because he disagreed with evangelicalism, and I appreciate your stance of not labeling anyone who disagrees with Mormonism as "anti-Mormon." I also appreciate your stating that you do not necessarily regard people such as me as malicious.

Contrary to what you stated, we do link to lds.org on our website. In fact, we have prominently linked to Gospel Principles on lds.org in my series of articles called the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, and every article in that series contains links to one or more chapters of Gospel Principles. I also have a bibliography on Mormonism on the website that includes links to lds.org and other pro-Mormon websites. The fact that we as evangelicals consider various aspects of Mormonism offensive does not prevent us from providing such links and directing people to the primary sources of LDS doctrine.

[Vance]

LOL!!!

Evangelicals find it offensive when any religious group alters the Bible, whether by omitting books or passages from it or by adding books or passages to it.

You mean like the Protestants did?

We consider the Bible the sacred word of God and regard any additions or deletions to the text of the Bible to be sacrilegious.

You mean like the Protestants did?

It offends us, since we regard the Bible as our sacred book, and so we are offended when any individual or other religion alters the text of the Bible.

You mean like the Protestants did?

We are also offended by the fact that Mormons think they know better than we do what the Bible (our sacred book, long before Mormonism began) teaches.

Like the Protestants did to the Catholics?

I would go on, but that would just belabor the point.

. . . possibly even a majority, of converts to Mormonism have come from people of evangelical church backgrounds.

I would suspect that there are significantly more former Catholics amongst our membership.

[Calm]

Contrary to what you stated, we do link to lds.org on our website.

I did not say you did not link to lds.org, I said you directed those who wished to improve their knowledge of the LDS faith to your own articles, not to lds.org. That you might have some quotes from lds.org with commentary from you attached is not the same thing as letting LDS speak for themselves without the distraction of input from Evangelicals, especially if that input involves interpretation of doctrine, likely incorrect interpretation if your interpretations here on this website are any indication.

Are there any articles below that were authored by LDS?

3) Do make a sincere effort to understand Mormonism. If you don’t have an accurate understanding of Mormonism, then you give your Mormon friend(s) a reason to not take your criticism of Mormonism seriously. We recommend the following books, DVDs, and online articles:

• Is Mormonism Christian? (online article)
• Contradictions Between the Book of Mormon and the Bible (online article)
• New Light on Joseph Smith's First Vision (online article)
• Occultic and Masonic Influence in Early Mormonism (online article)
• Translation or Divination? (online article)
• Did Jesus Establish Baptism for The Dead? (online article)
• Does the Bible Teach Salvation for the Dead? (online article)
• Lost Books and Latter-Day Revelation: A Response to Mormon Views of the New Testament Canon (online article)
• The Old Testament Temple and New Testament Faith: Are Mormon Temples an Extension of the Biblical Temple? (online article)
• The Lost Book of Abraham (DVD)
• The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon (DVD)
• DNA vs. The Book of Mormon (DVD)
• “Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons” by Mark J. Cares (book)
• God's Word: Final, Infallible & Forever (book)
• “Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons” by Ron Rhodes & Marian Bodine (book)
• “By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri” by Charles Larson (book)

When I am discussing what a member of another faith believes, I try very hard to find a website that belongs to that faith that deals with it. I do not ever use a website from a religious faith that sees itself in competition with it.

I understand quite well the offensive nature of the LDS faith in the eyes of many Evangelicals. If they weren't offended for whatever reason, they wouldn't go to such great lengths to discredit the LDS faith. Many that are offended are kind enough to not go into attack mode and instead respond in positive constructive ways by teaching their own doctrine and letting LDS teach theirs, thus resulting in positive, civil discussion and sometimes conversion (both ways).

And I am willing to admit that there are some LDS out there who are attempting to discredit Evangelicals by focusing on disproving Evangelical belief rather than promoting LDS belief in discussion and I have no problem calling someone like that "anti-evangelical" (and reporting them to the mods when I read it here on this board).

However, having a small population of mavericks (we are discouraged from doing this by our leadership) is significantly different than running a ministry which has as a significant part of its mission to discredit the LDS faith. I do not call someone an "anti-mormon" if by preaching his own faith and testifying of his own witness of his faith he has helped to lead members out of the LDS faith. It is making a faith a specific target to discredit where one's works often stand independent of any positive affirmation of faith that I find very troublesome. The result most often is a complete loss of faith, not a change of one unfortunately (though I've seen a few Evangelicals celebrate someone proclaiming themselves agnostic and uninterested in Christianity in general simply because it meant they were no longer LDS and they saw that as a success even though it meant loss of faith in Christ and his redeeming power.

Edited September 2, 2011 by calmoriah

[Hughes]

Well said.

As LDS, we are fortunate in that we don't need to trash and devote ministries tearing down and railing against other faiths. We have the persuasive power of our positive message and our trust in God to rely on. Other Christian faiths may not be so lucky, and may feel the need to bring other faiths down in order to compete in the marketplace of ideas--that, or the very nature of their message is negatively oriented. I feel for them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

right...

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

I did not say you did not link to lds.org, I said you directed those who wished to improve their knowledge of the LDS faith to your own articles, not to lds.org.

Well, we're not presenting ourselves as teaching the LDS faith. We are providing resources to those who want to know what the differences are between the LDS faith and the evangelical faith, and those who want to investigate historically, biblically, and theologically the claims and teachings of the LDS faith. Many of those who seek these resources are people who grew up in the LDS religion and came to have doubts entirely apart from anything we are doing. We are not claiming that our site is for those who "wish to improve their knowledge of the LDS faith" but for those who want to study whether the LDS faith is historically true and biblically sound.

You wrote:

The result most often is a complete loss of faith, not a change of one unfortunately (though I've seen a few Evangelicals celebrate someone proclaiming themselves agnostic and uninterested in Christianity in general simply because it meant they were no longer LDS and they saw that as a success even though it meant loss of faith in Christ and his redeeming power.

I cannot answer or refute a statement like this about what unnamed evangelicals may think or say. I can tell you that we absolutely abhor such an attitude.

[Calm]

Making a general comment, not replying to any post specifically, it's just that this topic got me thinking about one accusation that is sometimes made against LDS:

There is something wrong in my opinion with attacking someone as a 'thief' when the way they have 'stolen' your customers is that your customers accepted the free meal deal that went along with the ad "best food in town" at the other restaurant and found out they liked that food better than yours and promptly changed their allegiance, making that their favourite restaurant.

Now if, otoh, the other restaurant employees has started rumours that you had rats in your kitchen, that you abused your employees and kept back some of their wages, that what was on the menu wasn't what was on the plate, that some of the food was hidden under sauces so one couldn't tell what it really was, that meals were way overpriced, etc. etc. and such rumours were untrue....then I think the term "thief" or something else is legitimate.

But accusing someone of stealing your sheep or poaching because the sheep end up in another field because they believe they are better fed and cared for there (and the sheep are actually intelligent adults capable of making their own decisions)....that looks more like trying to shift the blame to someone else.

[mfbukowski]

I believe the concepts and assumptions that are attached to the Evangelical doctrine of the "indwelling of the Spirit" and the concepts and assumptions that are attached to the LDS doctrine of having "the right to constant companionship of the Holy Ghost" need to be defined and understood before trying to equate or differentiate the two. For example, the concept that the Spirit might go dormant due to sinfulness but never actually leave for one who has the permanent "indwelling of the Spirit" given him is different than how LDS conceive of what happens when someone loses the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, which lost can be complete through excommunication. I don't think any meeting of the minds will take place on whether or not LDS do believe that nonLDS can have the same level of companionship that LDS have (in the sense of the Holy Ghost being present) until the fundamental difference it understood (which in my view is likely that the right of constant companionship does not equate to a permanent presence of the Holy Ghost---even if dormant----in our life once we have been saved in the Lord.

Above all else, one cannot take the concepts and assumptions and implications that are attached to the doctrine of the "indwelling of the Spirit" and transfer them wholesale or even piecemeal to the doctrine of the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This will only result in confusion. Definitions and assumptions should be constructed for both concepts prior to the comparison and then those should be compared to figure out just where there is overlap and where there is distance and how much between the two doctrines.

From what I've observed in this thread, LDS are discussing the Holy Ghost using their concepts and assumptions tied to the doctrine while Mr. Bowman has attached quite a few assumptions and concepts of the corresponding "indwelling of the Spirit" to our teaching and is using those inappropriate assumptions to frame his criticism, such methods result in an inefficient process at best, a quagmire of confusion and deception at worst.

I agree that we need to define our doctrine better and decide how our concepts "fit into" their concepts- in other words I think we need to clarify these positions for ourselves. At this point the discussion is pretty much about how much my subjective experience matches your subjective experience- almost as bad as a discussion about if I see the same color green that you do.

Those kind of discussions of course can go nowhere- which is precisely where this one is headed.

I myself have experienced very practical and necessary information flooding into my mind without me requesting or praying for it- information about people in distress, or what I need to do right NOW to help someone who I could not have possibly know was in need etc. This has happened while I am occupied working out, or doing things at times when the last thing on my mind was what was happening with Sister Jones or Brother Brown.

I have sat in counsel with people and had profound words come out of my mouth, helping them solve their problems, knowing full well that it wasn't me who came up with those words. I can go into difficult situations when I am doing the Lord's work confident that whatever comes up, I will say and do exactly the right things because I am about his business.

I don't know how that compares with other's experience and really I don't care. I know that I have, and do, according to my personal worthiness, experience the presence of the Holy Ghost on a continuing, abiding basis. It is a very real thing.

But I don't think we will ever be able to determine where the "overlap" is or isn't based on reports of subjective experiences- those discussions usually don't work. But there is no doubt that we need to define it all better I think as members of the church.

[Calm]

Well, we're not presenting ourselves as teaching the LDS faith....We are not claiming that our site is for those who "wish to improve their knowledge of the LDS faith"

Then I would suggest making this clear instead of stating this

"3) Do make a sincere effort to understand Mormonism. If you don’t have an accurate understanding of Mormonism......We recommend the following books, DVDs, and online articles:

This comes across like you are saying "don't bother asking your friend, we can tell you all you need to know about the LDS faith".

Edited September 2, 2011 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

You say that, but then you go and say:

and ...

and ...

So your point is you don't "need" to trash them down, you just do because you enjoy it?

No. Sorry. You got it exactly backwards.

Your rank hypocrisy aside, different goals inspire different tactics.

What is your end goal in reading my comments exactly backwards and falsely accusing me?

You want to persuade them to join mormonism.

They want to convince you to leave mormonism.

You do what you think best serves your goal.

They do what they think best serves their goal.

Sorry, Wade but that doesn't mean you are better people. Just people with different goals.

My comments had nothing to do with "good people" or not, but if someone were insecure and defensive, I can see how they might jump to that false conclusion.

Perhaps insecurity is, in part, behind some people's end goal of railing against my faith.

Perhaps their own faith is so lacking in appeal that they feel inclined to choose something beside their own faith as their end goal, like tearing down the faith of others and making lame excuses for their negativity and jumping to false conclusion, etc.

I really do feel for them. It is like the bullies in grade school and junior high, who ultimately had such a low opinion of themselves, they felt it necessary to physically and verbal bring people down to their presumed small size. There end goal lessened everyone, including, and more particularly, themselves. Whereas, had they chosen instead to elevate themselves and their self-perception, all would benefit therefrom, mostly them. It is a heartbreaking thing to observe as a child, and also now as an adult.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 2, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

right...

The exceptions prove the rule.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

No. Sorry. You got it exactly backwards.

What is your end goal in reading my comments exactly backwards and falsely accusing me?

"Exactly backwards." Huh? Now you are just making stuff up.

If you can't own up to the fact that its hypocritical to condemn evangelicals for "trashing" your faith, then suggest they are doing so, because they can't rely on God, and their faith doesn't offer a positive message, and that you "feel sorry for them"

... then how can you expect to grow and become more Christlike.

My comments had nothing to do with "good people" or not, but if someone were insecure and defensive, I can see how they might jump to that false conclusion.

Perhaps insecurity is, in part, behind some people's end goal of railing against my faith.

Perhaps their faith is so lacking in appeal that they feel inclined to choose something beside their own faith as their end goal, like tearing down the faith of others and making lame excuses for their negativity and jumping to false conclusion, etc.

There you go again. Pretending to offer insight, when we all know you are really just looking to insult them.

If you really want to gain insight in their motives, you need to begin by recognizing that evangelical sincerely believe that embracing Mormonism takes one further away from Christ. Its really not that complicated to grasp, and it has nothing to do with low self esteem.

I really do feel for them. It is like the bullies in grade school and junior high, who ultimately had such a low opinion of themselves, they felt it necessary to physically and verbal bring people down to their small size. There end goal lessened everyone, including, and more particularly, themselves. Whereas, had they chosen instead to elevate themselves and their self-perception, all would benefit therefrom, mostly them. It is a heartbreaking thing to observe as a child, and also now as an adult.

Does it make you feel good, or superior when you insult their character? If so, I have to say, I think you are going down a dark path, Wade. I didn't think it was possible, but I think I feel sorry for you.

[mfbukowski]

Well, we're not presenting ourselves as teaching the LDS faith. We are providing resources to those who want to know what the differences are between the LDS faith and the evangelical faith, and those who want to investigate historically, biblically, and theologically the claims and teachings of the LDS faith. Many of those who seek these resources are people who grew up in the LDS religion and came to have doubts entirely apart from anything we are doing. We are not claiming that our site is for those who "wish to improve their knowledge of the LDS faith" but for those who want to study whether the LDS faith is historically true and biblically sound.

Let's change that a little and see how it reads to you, let's pretend that you find this on the internet somewhere:

Well, we're not presenting ourselves as teaching the LDS Evangelical faith. We are providing resources to those who want to know what the differences are between the LDS faith and the evangelical faith, and those who want to investigate historically, biblically, and theologically the claims and teachings of the LDS Evangelical faith.

And then on that site it is clear that there are nothing but distortions of everything you believe- about the Trinity, about the Spirit, authority, predestination, about God's children burning in h*** because they never heard of Christ, attacking alleged evidence for the Bible, all its conflicts, ambiguities, and how it alone is insufficient as it is etc.?

After all, we're just teaching the "differences" as we see them.

You will never find such a site, fortunately.

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

The first missionary lesson cannot be summed up with the slogan "we have the best food in town." It would be much better summed up with the slogan "we have the only real restaurant in town." Its message could be summed up, using your analogy, in something like the following fashion:

"There was once a great restaurant chain with chefs who had the right recipes for good, wholesome meals. Unfortunately, wicked people killed off those chefs. Eventually, they were replaced with cooks who didn't know what they were doing. The great restaurant chain went bankrupt and eventually a large number of competing restaurant chains sprang up, each with their own ideas about how to prepare and serve meals. Over time the food in these restaurants tended to be spoiled or poorly prepared. Poison was sometimes served as drinks. The great traditions of the old chefs were forgotten. After years of terrible food and worse service, some people began to protest. They recognized that the old recipes had been forgotten or altered. They did not, however, claim to be great chefs themselves. Their efforts helped to prepare people for the restoration of the true culinary master chef tradition. Restoration Cafe is headed by such master chefs and is the only restaurant chain worthy of the name."

See "Preach My Gospel": A Guide to Missionary Service, 35-36, for the basis of this parable.

Making a general comment, not replying to any post specifically, it's just that this topic got me thinking about one accusation that is sometimes made against LDS:

There is something wrong in my opinion with attacking someone as a 'thief' when the way they have 'stolen' your customers is that your customers accepted the free meal deal that went along with the ad "best food in town" at the other restaurant and found out they liked that food better than yours and promptly changed their allegiance, making that their favourite restaurant.

Now if, otoh, the other restaurant employees has started rumours that you had rats in your kitchen, that you abused your employees and kept back some of their wages, that what was on the menu wasn't what was on the plate, that some of the food was hidden under sauces so one couldn't tell what it really was, that meals were way overpriced, etc. etc. and such rumours were untrue....then I think the term "thief" or something else is legitimate.

But accusing someone of stealing your sheep or poaching because the sheep end up in another field because they believe they are better fed and cared for there (and the sheep are actually intelligent adults capable of making their own decisions)....that looks more like trying to shift the blame to someone else.

[mfbukowski]

I won't link to the sites, but there are sites that speak of the following things:

Have Evangelicals sold their souls to the devil?

Evangelical Christianity: Devils in high places

There are many many more like this.

Rob-

The way you see these sites is the way we see yours. What you believe is your business - but a site completely devoted to running down someone else's religion is abominable- and just like these.

Frankly, you know me, and I think I could do a wonderful anti-Evangelical site if I wanted to, but of course I won't. When I visit anti-mormon sites I can tell you I am highly tempted to do so, but I never will.

Grrrr.

Yes, I need to grow up, but then so do others.

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

"Exactly backwards." Huh? Now you are just making stuff up.

If you can't own up to the fact that its hypocritical to condemn evangelicals for "trashing" your faith, then suggest they are doing so, because they can't rely on God, and their faith doesn't offer a positive message, and that you "feel sorry for them"

... then how can you expect to grow and become more Christlike.

Wow! You are really on a jumping-to-false-conclusions roll this morning (either that or you, like Rob, are trying to put words into my mouth).

I didn't make anything up. I know better than anyone what I was thinking and saying, and what you interpreted me to say was contrary to what I said and meant.

I didn't condemn anyone. I felt bad for them.

I didn't say they couldn't rely on God. I simply acknowledged that they might feel that they couldn't.

I didn't say that their faith didn't offer a positive message. I simply acknowledged that they might not view their faith as having sufficient positive appeal, in itself, and so to compensate, they may feel the need to go negative.

My comments were rather simple and straightforward, and so I am not sure how you managed to get them so mangled in your mind, unless you were trying. With so much cognitive distortion, how could I not feel sorry for you?

There you go again. Pretending to offer insight, when we all know you are really just looking to insult them.

An understandably insecure and defensive reaction to my relatively benign comments.

If you really want to gain insight in their motives, you need to begin by recognizing that evangelical sincerely believe that embracing Mormonism takes one further away from Christ. Its really not that complicated to grasp, and it has nothing to do with low self esteem.

Actually, I do understand that certain Evangelicals believe that embracing Mormonism takes one further away from Christ (yet again you jumped to a false conclusion--are you going for some kind of record?). I have understood this all along, and I have no problem with this since I am secure in my own faith.

My sorrow isn't with how they view my faith nor even their desire to lure me away from Mormonism. I see that as a worthy goal from their perspective.

However, had they, like we LDS, believed that their own positive message of faith were sufficient to the task, that is likely how they would have approached it--and for good reason (negative campaigns can have deleterious side affects that a positive campaign may not). They haven't, but have gone quite negative, which may reasonably be suspected of reflecting poorly on their motives and self-perceptions.

Does it make you feel good, or superior when you insult their character?

I am not insulting their character. I am acknowledging their plausible poor self-perception. Their plausible poor self-perception saddens me, and in no way makes me feel good or superior. (Are you incapable of getting anything right this morning.)

If so, I have to say, I think you are going down a dark path, Wade. I didn't think it was possible, but I think I feel sorry for you.

The thing is, unlike you, I am secure enough in my own self and faith as to see no cause to react defensively to your persistent false conclusions and unwarranted sentiments. I am okay with you feeling sorry for me.

My concern isn't with your feeling sorry for me, but your perhaps not feeling all that good about yourself. I believe you are a child of God, and that you have unlimited potential to become even like your Father, and I offer you whatever help I can in achieving that lofty goal. I will do so by offering my positive message of faith, and not by tearing down your faith, because I trust in God and the appeal of the faith God has instilled within me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

I am not insulting their character.

Right. I believe that you believe that these newest quips are merely clinical observations on your part:

They haven't, but have gone quite negative, which may reasonably be suspected of reflecting poorly on their motives and self-perceptions.

I am acknowledging their plausible poor self-perception.

Their plausible poor self-perception saddens me, and in no way makes me feel good or superior.

(Are you incapable of getting anything right this morning.)

The thing is, unlike you, I am secure enough in my own self and faith as to see no cause to react defensively to your persistent false conclusions and unwarranted sentiments. I am okay with you feeling sorry for me.

An understandably insecure and defensive reaction to my relatively benign comments.

How is that hole comming along?

[wenglund]

How is that hole coming along?

You will have to tell me since it is evidently a product of your fertile imagination--part and parcel of jumping to so many false conclusions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jo1952]

The very statement you underscored demonstrates that he did not meet the three criteria for getting a response. He had "no vested interest" in the truth of the Book of Mormon. Thus he did not ask with real intent. The question is, what would he have done, and what would he have given away to know it was true? How would that knowledge have changed his life?

King Lamoni's father is the quintessential example of one with real intent. He prayed, "... I will give away all my sins to know ...". that's "real intent". Casual interest doesn't even come close.

Whether it disgusts you or anyone else, the fact is that "anti-mormon" has a meaning and Rob (along with many others here) fulfills it expressly. He's "against" [anti] "Mormon". Antifreeze is against freezing, anticoagulants oppose coagulation, etc. He's against Mormons/ism: he's anti-mormon.

Lehi

Hi Lehi!

Excellent comments. I use the term anti-LDS once I've determined that this is the position of the poster. Otherwise, I will use identifying language such as non-LDS, believer, non-believer, etc., to fit the circumstances. As I was reading your last paragraph I was struck with how appropriate it IS to use the distinction anti-LDS. Also, it reminds me that most apologists who fight against the LDS Church do so because they believe we believe in a different Christ than the one in the Bible, and willingly and openly accuse us of this. As such, in their minds, we have placed our faith and salvation in an anti-christ; which, of course, confirms to them that we are not saved.

Regards,

jo

[Vance]

Well, we're not presenting ourselves as teaching the LDS faith.

Well, in the technical sense that you are not promoting it you are correct. But you do attempt to tell others what we believe/teach.

From you main page we find,

This page provides links to the LDS manual as well as a chapter-by-chapter study guide for understanding the subjects covered . . .

So, basically you are saying that to really understand it, people can't just read it for themselves but they need your commentary to clarify it.

On another page you say this,

It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

First, It appears to me that there isn't a p. 302.

Second, I couldn't find anything that teaches "who will worship and pray to them". (Perhaps, more of your flawed logic at work.)

And I find NUMEROUS uses of the phrase, "the Mormon Church teaches . . ."

And too often what follows is worded in a way to give impressions of our doctrine that aren't entirely correct.

BTW, I notice that you have yet to answer my questions in #651. I realize that I am not the only person here attempting to dialogue with you, but you have been avoiding clarity on that topic.

Edited to add,

Another phrase used,

"The Mormon Missionaries will tell you: " followed by a list.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Vance

[Ahab]

Ahab,

I had just about given up on this thread. Thank you for making such an effort to respond civilly and constructively.

You wrote:

Okay, I understand the distinction you are making. If this is indeed the LDS position, I certainly want to understand it to be so. I am determined to respect your right to believe what you think is right and to interpret your beliefs as you see fit.

Here's my problem (and perhaps it is my problem). I have not been able to find any statement in LDS literature, by anyone, offering this explanation or making the distinction you (and others here) make. I cannot find anyone from Smith to Monson or any recognized leader or teacher in LDS history who acknowledges that non-Mormons may have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost or who says that while the gift of the Holy Ghost bestows the right to this experience it is also possible for those who do not have the gift of the Holy Ghost. This seems to be a distinction introduced here in this thread. What I find in recognized LDS sources are statements that at least seem to me, admittedly an outsider to your religion, to preclude non-Mormons from having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. (In what follows, bold italics is my emphasis.) For example:

"People everywhere may feel the influence of the Holy Ghost from time to time in their lives. But only those who have been baptized and confirmed can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one in authority, which makes His constant companionship possible."

Elder Robert D. Hales, "Receiving a Testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ," Ensign (CR), Nov. 2003, 28.

Notice here that Elder Hales says that the gift of the Holy Ghost makes the Holy Ghost's constant companionship "possible." It is not only that it gives Saints the "right" to that constant companionship, but that the gift of the Holy Ghost makes that constant companionship possible. As best as I can figure it, honestly, this seems to mean that non-Mormons cannot have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost because it is not "possible" without the gift of the Holy Ghost, which comes to "only those who have been baptized and confirmed" by a Mormon male priesthood holder.

Victor Ludlow made the same point this way:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith has explained that the three members of the Godhead made an 'everlasting covenant' before the organization of this earth. There they planned for the progress and salvation of mankind. Because of special assignments, they would be known to us as 'God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator.' He also taught that while the temporary influence of the Holy Ghost, the divine power of witnessing gospel truths, can be received before baptism, the lasting gift or constant companionship of the Holy Ghost can be received only after baptism and the laying on of hands."

Victor L. Ludlow, Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel (Deseret, 1992), 59.

That seems rather explicit to me.

LDS teachers do say, of course, that the gift of the Holy Ghost gives the "right" to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. But this qualification in LDS teaching materials always appears to me to have the same point, which is that a baptized and confirmed Mormon does not automatically experience or enjoy that constant companionship but must remain repentant and obedient. No LDS teacher seems to have made this distinction more frequently or emphatically than Bruce McConkie. He wrote, for example:

"When we are confirmed members of the Church, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead, based on faithfulness. The actual enjoyment of this gift depends upon personal worthiness."

President Bruce R. McConkie, "The Lord’s People Receive Revelation," Ensign (CR), June 1971, 77.

McConkie contrasts the right to that constant companionship with the "actual enjoyment" of it, not with the possibility of those who are not confirmed members of the LDS Church experiencing that constant companionship despite not having the right to it. The point of the "right" qualification is that the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for experiencing or enjoying the Holy Ghost's constant companionship. But it is a necessary condition, if I understand McConkie correctly. This understanding would seem to be confirmed in another of his writings, in which he says the following:

"In the full and complete sense required to receive enduring revelations of the divine Sonship of our Lord, the Comforter, 'whom the world cannot receive' (John 14:17) and whose companionship is reserved for the saints of God, comes only to Church members. It is the faithful only who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This gift is the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead. It is received by the laying on of hands following faith and repentance. It is only then that those who love the Lord receive a fulfillment of the promise: 'By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.' (Moro. 10:5.)... When we are confirmed members of the only true and living church, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This gives us the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead based on faithfulness. The world cannot receive this priceless gift. It is to the faithful saints only that the promise is made: 'He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.' (John 14:17.)"

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ (Deseret, 1978), 75, 127.

Here's Robert Millet, apparently saying also that the Holy Ghost's constant companionship is only for baptized members of the LDS Church:

"Joseph Smith taught that one may receive promptings or impressions of the Spirit prior to baptism, but that the gift of the Holy Ghost or constant companionship is granted only after an authorized baptism."

Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Deseret, 1998), 83.

Now, perhaps I have misunderstood all of these statements. I am open to correction on this point. It would be very helpful to me if you could cite for me some known LDS prophet, apostle, theologian, or other recognized teacher who has given the same explanation you have. It would also help me if you could explain the above statements, all of which seem to me to be saying that the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is available (or even "possible," as Elder Hales puts it) only to those who have been baptized and confirmed by a priesthood holder.

Rob,

I didn't mean to give you the impression that "I" believe someone who hasn't received "the gift" of the Holy Ghost by the laying of hands of those with authority to give it (phew!) has the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, and as far as I know, no prophets of the Lord have cited an example where that has happened. I simply meant to point out the "possibiliity" that it could happen, or that it may happen at some point in the future, given the fact that it is the Holy Ghost who would make the decision about who he wanted to be with, for however long he wanted to be with them.

I can offer you an analogy of how someone wiht the "right" to have the Holy Ghost with them has a more likely possibility of having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost than someone who doesn't have that right, however.

I don't know who came up with the analogy, to begin with, but someone once told me that having the "right" to have the Holy Ghost with us is like having a key ot open the door to the presence of the Holy Ghost. Thus, someone with that "right" can open the door whenever he or she wants, as long as he or she has been obedient to the commandments of our Lord, while someone who doesn't have that "right" must wait for the Holy Ghost to open the door even if he or she is obedient to all of our Lord's commandments.

Do you see how that would make a difference? Do you see how even if someone was obedient to all of our Lord's commandments, or at least all the ones they knew about... still might not have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost?

Even if someone was obedient to all of the Lord's commandments they knew about, they still might not have had hands laid upon their head by someone with authority to give them the "right" to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost simply because there might not be anyone around at a particular time to give them that gift. Thus, they would have to wait until someone could give them that gift, and then receive it as they should, otherwise they wouldn't have the "right" to receive the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Now, the only question you need to concern yourself with in relation to this issue, personally, is whether or not you have received the gift of the Holy Ghost which would give you the right to his constant companionship, because if you didn't you wouldn't have that right even if you think you do.

[Vance]

Bump.

It appears that Bowman has fled the scene without answering the questions or acknowledging the blatant errors on his web site.

I am not really surprised by it.