What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

YES! The Holy Spirit's illumination can enable you to see that the LDS religion is true. All you need to do is sincerely ask with real intent and faith in Christ. Thank you for asking this question.

Well then, if you're right, either I am not sincere or am lacking real intent, or I don't have faith in Christ. Either way, it doesn't look good for my claim to have the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

I had asked you: "And how can I at the same time be misled into thinking that I am assured of eternal life with God the Father?" You replied:

Because this belief doesn't agree with scripture.

Perhaps I didn't word my question with sufficient clarity. I realize you think this belief doesn't agree with scripture. My question is, how can I have the illuminating, convicting, guiding presence of the Holy Spirit and yet not realize that I am on course to miss eternal life, and instead believe the lie that I am assured of getting it? Apparently, I'm not getting much illumination or conviction, assuming Mormonism is correct.

You wrote:

Sorry, I missed that. Either way, it didn't really seem like it was emphasized. Saying "in addition" to something can imply that it is not as important as the rest. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the first and most important principle in the Church.

I don't deny that is your belief, and I wasn't disagreeing with it. My emphasis was on the fact that according to LDS doctrine I don't have enough to be assured of eternal life.

You wrote:

I never said otherwise. I agree with you. One cannot obtain eternal life with God the Father without the principles and ordinances of the gospel that are offered in His Church. So you are correct by saying that according to LDS doctrine, you are missing something; the fullness of the gospel is only contained within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then what I claim to be the testimony of the Holy Spirit within me is wrong.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

I regretfully decline to continue trying to discuss this issue with you any further, lest you and I get derailed and stuck together in a little semantic rabbit tunnel. That's just too much of a mixed metaphor for me to risk it.

But now of course we are going down another little semantic rabbit tunnel of yours which has nothing to do with the question at hand. It is yet another derail.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[altersteve]

Sorry, Rob, I revised portions of my post after you responded. My apologies. Anyway:

Well then, if you're right, either I am not sincere or am lacking real intent, or I don't have faith in Christ. Either way, it doesn't look good for my claim to have the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

You seem to believe that there is no point in asking God about the Book of Mormon, since you already know it's false, right? I'm not questioning your sincerity or your faith in Christ. You simply haven't put Moroni's Promise to the test, as far as I can see at least.

Perhaps I didn't word my question with sufficient clarity. I realize you think this belief doesn't agree with scripture. My question is, how can I have the illuminating, convicting, guiding presence of the Holy Spirit and yet not realize that I am on course to miss eternal life, and instead believe the lie that I am assured of getting it? Apparently, I'm not getting much illumination or conviction, assuming Mormonism is correct.

Are you absolutely, 100% positive that it came from the Spirit? Or did it come from your reading of the Bible?

I don't deny that is your belief, and I wasn't disagreeing with it. My emphasis was on the fact that according to LDS doctrine I don't have enough to be assured of eternal life.

According to LDS doctrine, no one is really "assured of eternal life." We can always reject it if we so choose. However, saying that you "don't have enough" is too pessimistic for me. I would rather say that although you don't know the fullness of the gospel, you can bring what good you have and see if the gospel's fullness can enhance it.

Then what I claim to be the testimony of the Holy Spirit within me is wrong.

Again, we have to define what "the testimony of the Holy Spirit" is. What are you testifying of? If it is the saving grace of Jesus Christ, that by Him and through Him all men can be saved, of which every Christian's testimony should be the focus, then your testimony is 100% true. That is what this thread is about, that the Holy Spirit witnesses to all people that Jesus is the Christ, and that whether He testifies of that fact to a Mormon, to a Catholic, or to a Protestant, it is the same testimony and it comes from the same source. All truth comes from and points to God, and God does not limit Himself to only revealing those truths to His Church's membership. There may be false doctrines in the world, but if there is truth, then it is the Spirit of the Lord that is its witness.

Edited September 1, 2011 by altersteve

[wenglund]

Hi Wade!

I believe that what helps to distinguish the LDS Church from other denominations is that she provides the atmosphere which allows us continual opportunity to develop our relationship with Father and Jesus through the guidance of the Holy Ghost. I am not saying that all LDS are righteous, or that we are more righteous than any other denomination. However, the way that the Church is organized, gives each member the challenges to be able to spread their wings and grow. From the basic three classes we attend each Sunday, to the callings we receive to serve God and one another, the never ending encouragement to pray always, to study regularly, the examples we see of our peers through their talks, the chances we have to share our understanding with others via talks and teaching opportunitites we are given; so much of this is unique to the LDS Church. It is a way of life.

One of the most important aspects of life in the Church, is that we are constantly encouraged to repent. Outsiders ofter view this as ridiculous. Many believe that once you have accepted Christ, repentence takes on a different definition. Some think it isn't an admonition to ask for forgiveness, but rather a method to allow you to be able to fellowship with other believers. Some think that if you ask for forgiveness of your sins after you are baptized, that you are crucifying Christ again.

Reading Bruce R McConkie's comments about Christ's righteousness providing a vessel for the Holy Ghost helps to clarify why the Church does what she does. She is helping each of us to provide that righteous vessel where the Holy Ghost WILL be able to dwell. We don't have more access to the Holy Ghost than any other church does; we help create the vessels where the Holy Ghost is able to be. Thus, He is more actively guiding members of the LDS Church than is usually seen or experienced elsewhere.

When my husband (he was my boyfriend at the time) was trying to find a church he felt comfortable in, he was so impressed by the LDS Church. He knew immediately that the Holy Ghost was guiding and leading the members. He knew because he was being guided by the Holy Ghost and saw and felt what was going on the moment he walked into his first Sacrament meeting. He had not experienced this recognition in any other denomination or non-denominational church he had attended. When I first met the group of Mormons in the musical I was involved in, I knew there was something different about them than the other denominations represented. But I wasn't astute enough at that time to know that what was different, was the overwhelming presence of the Holy Ghost with them.

So, how is that the Holy Ghost's guidance and presence is felt by the faithful LDS? Our vessels are prepared. Again I would like to point out that is possible for anyone to achieve, regardless of the church they go to. It is the vessel that allows the companionship of the Holy Ghost. I praise God that Jesus' church was Restored which provides the organization, teachings, and method whereby our tabernacles of flesh can be prepared for the Holy Ghost (if we are obedient and remain worthy) as a way of life.

Regards, jo

Thanks for sharing that with me, and for the most part I agree.

The point and opinion I have been trying to express is that as a general rule God and the Church aren't in the business of comparative or negative advertising. We present and testify in the marketplace of ideas as to what the restored gospel has to offer (as you, yourself, have eloquently done above), and we allow others to do the same, leaving it to God, through his Spirit, to confirm to each individual one way or the other. We speak for ourselves, and let others do likewise, leaving it to God to judge--at least that is what I sense the Spirit has directed me to do.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

I regretfully decline to continue trying to discuss this issue with you any further, lest you and I get derailed and stuck together in a little semantic rabbit tunnel. That's just too much of a mixed metaphor for me to risk it.

Well I am not quite sure which of the several issues we are discussing you are referring to, and besides, in my experience, ignoring someone just hinders the one who is ignoring to respond properly, allowing the "ignoree" to remain unchallenged.

But suit yourself.

On a personal note, I want you to know that I have nothing against your personally, nor even your beliefs. It is more your style of response than anything. I once had a lengthy, cordial, and fun conversation with Richard Abanes over lunch and I think we both emerged better people for it and I wouldn't rule out that possibility with you either, should you be amenable to such a thing.

I have the impression that you are So Cal based as am I of course.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Sorry, Rob, I revised portions of my post after you responded. My apologies.

No problem.

You wrote:

You seem to believe that there is no point in asking God about the Book of Mormon, since you already know it's false, right? I'm not questioning your sincerity or your faith in Christ. You simply haven't put Moroni's Promise to the test, as far as I can see at least.

Actually, I have prayed about the Book of Mormon. When I first began investigating Mormonism, having no opinion or vested interest in the question either way, I asked God to guide me in my quest to know the truth about the Book of Mormon. If it was true, I wanted to know it, and I expressed that to God in prayer. I did this as someone who believed in Christ. And I'm not the only person I know who did this and who did not get the "right" answer. How do you explain our experiences? Mustn't you take the position that we were either not sincere or didn't really have faith in Christ--or that we are not telling the truth when we say we prayed about it?

You wrote:

Are you absolutely, 100% positive that it came from the Spirit? Or did it come from your reading of the Bible?

I'm not sure what "it" is in this context. But I wouldn't drive a wedge between these two. The Bible is the Holy Spirit communicating in writing; the inner witness of the Spirit always agrees with the revelation of the Spirit in Scripture.

You wrote:

Again, we have to define what "the testimony of the Holy Spirit" is. What are you testifying of?

I'm sure you would agree that we evangelicals should be allowed to define what we mean by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, just as you Mormons should be allowed to define what you mean by it. And I have already stated what I understand the testimony of the Holy Spirit to be for evangelicals.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

I used to live in Southern California, but haven't since 2005. I have lived in Michigan for three years now.

[mfbukowski]

Rob said:

I did this as someone who believed in Christ. And I'm not the only person I know who did this and who did not get the "right" answer. How do you explain our experiences? Mustn't you take the position that we were either not sincere or didn't really have faith in Christ--or that we are not telling the truth when we say we prayed about it?

I think God directs us to the path which will allow us to best understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ, due to our individual foibles and experiences and backgrounds. If I were not LDS I would not have a testimony of Christ- I find that LDS doctrine fits the best with my personal philosophy and in fact, I had my personal philosophy before I joined the church- and found what put it all together for me the best.

But I believe that eventually, "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ", and that we will all be judged by the intents of our hearts.

The basic LDS understanding of the redemption of the dead- that our learning will continue after death, is crucial to this and says explicitly what I believed early in my life implicitly anyway.

So the fact that we get "conflicting" revelations is that because one is right and one is wrong- it is because our paths are personalized teaching tools to help us arrive at our destination. If we analogize reaching the Celestial Kingdom- or whatever terminology you like- to getting a PhD, it would be like asking "well, why did the Spirit direct you to get your PhD in philosophy instead of math? The spirit directed me to a path in philosophy- so your revelation must be wrong!"

Clearly we all have different strengths, weaknesses and aptitudes - and to say that God doesn't know this and gives us a "one-size-fits-all" path makes no sense at all to me.

Yet of course I do in fact believe- (as one would who has chosen the right path for them- just as I think MY political party is the most "truthful") that the LDS church is the most correct of any. I think there is no conflict in those views- it is just seeing it all from a different perspective.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

I used to live in Southern California, but haven't since 2005. I have lived in Michigan for three years now.

Ah, well sometime when I am visiting relatives perhaps then!

[Vance]

Actually, I have prayed about the Book of Mormon.

Did you read it first?

When I first began investigating Mormonism, having no opinion or vested interest in the question either way, . . .

That is a bit hard to believe.

I asked God to guide me in my quest to know the truth about the Book of Mormon.

Ok, but did you actually read it first?

If it was true, I wanted to know it, and I expressed that to God in prayer.

Ok, but did you actually read it first?

I did this as someone who believed in Christ.

Ok, but did you actually read it first?

And I'm not the only person I know who did this and who did not get the "right" answer.

Did they actually read it first?

How do you explain our experiences?

There are several possible explanations.

Mustn't you take the position that we were either not sincere or didn't really have faith in Christ--or that we are not telling the truth when we say we prayed about it?

Based on the information you have provided, no I don't have to take that position. But you haven't provided enough information to rule out that possibility.

[blueadept]

Vance,

Your consistent question you posted for Rob definitely made me chuckle of the need that HF must have for the invention of the printing press to best understand if the BoM is true.

[TAO]

Vance,

Your consistent question you posted for Rob definitely made me chuckle of the need that HF must have for the invention of the printing press to best understand if the BoM is true.

Well, we could read it orally. It'd be more traditional.

It'd just be a bit old. And long. And... well you get the idea.

Edited September 1, 2011 by TAO

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You asked:

Did you read it first?

Ok, but did you actually read it first?

Ok, but did you actually read it first?

Ok, but did you actually read it first?

I prayed before, during, and after reading it (well, there is no "after" in the sense that I continue to read it to this day).

Is that good enough?

By the way, CFR that a person must read the whole Book of Mormon before praying about it (if that is your position).

You wrote:

Did they actually read it first?

According to what they told me, yes.

Regarding my statement that I had no opinion or vested interest when I first investigated the Book of Mormon, you wrote:

That is a bit hard to believe.

I'm stunned that you would be skeptical of my personal testimony.

Maybe you'd like to defend the claim that Mormons have no opinion or vested interest when they pray about the Book of Mormon in hopes of obtaining a witness of the Holy Ghost.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[CV75]

I won't forget it, for sure.

I wish you well!

[jo1952]

Thanks for sharing that with me, and for the most part I agree.

The point and opinion I have been trying to express is that as a general rule God and the Church aren't in the business of comparative or negative advertising. We present and testify in the marketplace of ideas as to what the restored gospel has to offer (as you, yourself, have eloquently done above), and we allow others to do the same, leaving it to God, through his Spirit, to confirm to each individual one way or the other. We speak for ourselves, and let others do likewise, leaving it to God to judge--at least that is what I sense the Spirit has directed me to do.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade!

BTW, you have done a fine job of making your point. When we go to the Deseret Book Store, we don't find books that teach us how to dismantle the beliefs of others; nor are we taught this at Church. Instead, we find books that help us defend our beliefs against those who bash ours. However, if you go into a "Christian" book store, you will find entire sections dedicated to trashing and fighting against the LDS Church.

Persecution was something else which caught Frank's attention when he was investigating the Church. To him it was just another indicator that the Church WAS of God for the very reason it has been so agressively persecuted against.

Best regards,

jo

[CV75]

Actually, I have prayed about the Book of Mormon. When I first began investigating Mormonism, having no opinion or vested interest in the question either way, I asked God to guide me in my quest to know the truth about the Book of Mormon. If it was true, I wanted to know it, and I expressed that to God in prayer. I did this as someone who believed in Christ. And I'm not the only person I know who did this and who did not get the "right" answer. How do you explain our experiences? Mustn't you take the position that we were either not sincere or didn't really have faith in Christ--or that we are not telling the truth when we say we prayed about it?

I think you are being too hard on yourself.

Receiving truth depends on a) the spiritual characteristics of the individual (see the parables of the sower and the talents); b) the opportunities he has to exercise those characteristics on specific principles of truth (Acts 17:26-28); and c) his openness to receiving the new or next undiscovered truth (Matthew 9:16-17; 18:4). The same would be true for the imperceptible stages one undergoes in developing characteristics and opportunities that eventually lead to acquiring the full truth (John 8:31-32; 1 Peter 5:6-11).

The parables show that anyone can consciously prepare to receive more truth by honoring the truth he possesses (John 7:17). Because this preparation appears to be relative to one’s circumstances (Luke 12:48), only the Lord can judge what one has or hasn’t done to receive the truth in a time and place that accords with His plan and will for him.

While we rightly invite one another to partake of the truth that we possess, and invite each other to try the methods by which that truth may be known, no man can rightly tell the other what he has or has not done to know the truth, unless he has been given the keys to do so. So it is safest to assume that John 9:3 applies when assessing that one has rejected the truth.

On the other hand, in assessing ourselves, I think Galatians 5:19-26 might be a good starting place for a believer to judge whether he truly enjoys the fruit(s) of the Spirit, and to what degree. His conclusions would explain his expectations and his subsequent experiences.

Asking “if it is true, let me know it” is contrary to James 1:5-8. It is like saying, “If I’m not doing right by God, or if I persist in the wrong direction, or misinterpreting the Bible as my standard, or neglecting the promptings of the Spirit, I have faith that God will stop me, and I will persist until He does.” This seems to smack of having a suspicion that one is on the road to Damascus but expecting the Lord to miraculously stop him and convince him otherwise. So I really do not see this approach as being much in line with Moroni 10.

[wenglund]

Hi Wade!

BTW, you have done a fine job of making your point. When we go to the Deseret Book Store, we don't find books that teach us how to dismantle the beliefs of others; nor are we taught this at Church. Instead, we find books that help us defend our beliefs against those who bash ours. However, if you go into a "Christian" book store, you will find entire sections dedicated to trashing and fighting against the LDS Church.

Persecution was something else which caught Frank's attention when he was investigating the Church. To him it was just another indicator that the Church WAS of God for the very reason it has been so agressively persecuted against.

Best regards, jo

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-

[Vance]

I prayed before, during, and after reading it (well, there is no "after" in the sense that I continue to read it to this day).

Is that good enough?

Maybe not. Did you actually read it cover to cover? Or did you just bounce around. Did you read it before or after you started your anti-Mormon polemics? Did you actually believe that God would answer prayers in this regard? (I ask that because in the past you have made it rather clear that there was no need to pray about it because you already knew the answer.)

By the way, CFR that a person must read the whole Book of Mormon before praying about it (if that is your position).

Oh, I don't know, what part of "I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things" (See Moroni 10:3) would exclude part of "these things"?

Ok, so you think that someone, who has "a sincere heart" and "real intent", wouldn't be willing to read it all?

I had my doubts that you really met the requirements and so far you haven't given me anything to change those doubts. In fact all you have done so far is reinforce them.

I'm stunned that you would be skeptical of my personal testimony.

I am sure.

Maybe you'd like to defend the claim that Mormons have no opinion or vested interest when they pray about the Book of Mormon in hopes of obtaining a witness of the Holy Ghost.

Did someone make that claim?

Besides, I don't need to, we are discussing YOUR claims.

[altersteve]

Did you read it before or after you started your anti-Mormon polemics?

Rob specifically said, "When I first began investigating Mormonism, having no opinion or vested interest in the question either way, I asked God to guide me in my quest to know the truth about the Book of Mormon." Furthermore, accusing Rob of being an "anti-Mormon" is absurd. True, he's critical of the Church, many people are, but that does not constitute as an "anti-Mormon." That term disgusts me.

I think you need to tone down the sarcasm a little and start answering questions the way a Latter-day Saint should, Vance. Your attitude does not invite the Spirit into these discussions.

[Vance]

Rob specifically said, "When I first began investigating Mormonism, having no opinion or vested interest in the question either way, I asked God to guide me in my quest to know the truth about the Book of Mormon." Furthermore, accusing Rob of being an "anti-Mormon" is absurd. True, he's critical of the Church, many people are, but that does not constitute as an "anti-Mormon." That term disgusts me.

I think you need to tone down the sarcasm a little and start answering questions the way a Latter-day Saint should, Vance. Your attitude does not invite the Spirit into these discussions.

Thanks, nanny!

Edited to add,

1) Sorry but saying that he had no opinion on the BOM does not preclude other anti-Mormon activity.

2) Sorry but Bowman participates in numerous anti-Mormon activities. Apparently you are unaware.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Vance

[Calm]

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.

[Jaybear]

As LDS, we are fortunate in that we don't need to trash and devote ministries tearing down and railing against other faiths.

You say that, but then you go and say:

We have the persuasive power of our positive message and our trust in God to rely on.

and ...

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.

and ...

I feel for them.

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

Your rank hypocrisy aside, different goals inspire different tactics.

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.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Maybe not. Did you actually read it cover to cover? Or did you just bounce around.

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!

You wrote:

Did you read it before or after you started your anti-Mormon polemics?

I began reading the Book of Mormon in the 1970s (I don't remember the year). I didn't write anything about Mormonism or engage in any other polemical activity concerning Mormonism until the mid-1980s.

You wrote:

Did you actually believe that God would answer prayers in this regard? (I ask that because in the past you have made it rather clear that there was no need to pray about it because you already knew the answer.)

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

You wrote:

Oh, I don't know, what part of "I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things" (See Moroni 10:3) would exclude part of "these things"?

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

[LeSellers]

Did you actually read it cover to cover? Or did you just bounce around. ...

Ok, so you think that someone, who has "a sincere heart" and "real intent", wouldn't be willing to read it all?

I had my doubts that you really met the requirements and so far you haven't given me anything to change those doubts. In fact all you have done so far is reinforce them.

Rob specifically said, "When I first began investigating Mormonism, having no opinion or vested interest in the question either way, I asked God to guide me in my quest to know the truth about the Book of Mormon."

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.

Furthermore, accusing Rob of being an "anti-Mormon" is absurd. True, he's critical of the Church, many people are, but that does not constitute as an "anti-Mormon." That term disgusts me.

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

[Calm]

True, he's critical of the Church, many people are, but that does not constitute as an "anti-Mormon."

I would agree that is not the sole criterion for being an "anti-Mormon" and I personally never use it that way and wish that others wouldn't.

OTOH, he also works for a ministry whose stated purpose is to help those being "wooed" by LDS in order for them to escape the "web of spiritual deception". The website also posts explicit temple content on the site and while Mr. Bowman has promoted attaching a disclaimer to the page where the temple endowment is 'exposed', IIRC he does not feel it is inappropriate to publicize it as long as it is done in a respectful manner (refusing to acknowledge the LDS position that there is no respectful manner in which the endowment could be publicized, to publicize it is to show disrespect). IIRC, the mods removed a link to his website in his signature because of the explicit temple content and possibly other anti-mormon material (I call it "anti-mormon" because it is done with full knowledge of how offensive it is to LDS and because it is done to discredit the LDS faith).

I do not see how someone can read the IRR site with all its extensive articles on what's wrong with the LDS faith, where it appears that they think they are better at teaching LDS doctrine than we are since they direct people to their own articles about what LDS believe rather than sending them to LDS to ask or even just lds.org, where sacred beliefs meant to be shared in sacred settings are placed for unlimited public viewing with no context being a bow in the direction of respect, etc. etc. and conclude the site is anything but "anti-mormon" meaning for me having the intent to discredit and ultimately destroy the LDS faith (though not necessarily directly, at least indirectly by persuading its adherents it is false, deceptive, will lead them to h***, etc).

I believe people who are critical of the Church for the purpose of discrediting it do qualify for the label "anti-mormon". However, I do not attach any assumptions of automatic deception, maliciousness, etc. to the term and thus do not use it except rarely save among those who understand how I limit it and limit it that way themselves (which means not on this board). I would think that Mr. Bowman would be comfortable with the label, at least in its technical sense minus the emotional and derogatory baggage many force upon the title, I would hope he corrects me if I am wrong.

Edited September 2, 2011 by calmoriah