My Letter To Mormon Research Ministry

[jskains]

So the MRM is trying to defend that Preacher who declares us a cult. I sent a few letters to Bill, of which he continued to defend the idea that the LDS Church does the same thing to other religions.

He admitted we don't actively target specific religions or actively bash, but he claims the words of past leaders is the same thing... He then told me when I get serious, come back to him. So I wrote this:

Haven't had time to respond to your copout, but now I do... There is nothing silly about the question. It's a problem even politics suffers from.

A man wants to be in political office. Of course in his mind, all other opponents are wrong for the job, only he is the right guy. And his goal is to convince people that he is the right man for the job. It impresses me more if a candidate can promote himself without actively bashing his opponents. It says to me, "here I am, this is what I offer, chose me if you believe in your heart I am the right guy". That demonstrates an honest man.

A man who spends his time trashing the opponents, that is different. And I would ask of him the same question. What is it about your opponent that scares you. What is the flaw in your message that makes it so you must tear down your opponent first, before you can present your own ideas.

You are in the same boat. Instead of just presenting your message on what you believe Christ to be, and what your theology is, you target Mormonism, creating an entire campaign against it. It begs the question, why? What is it about Mormonism that doesn't allow your message to stand on its own?

If you came to my house and said, "Hi, I am

Bill

McKeever, and I want to present my message about Christ", I'd take a moment. If I felt that the Lord guided you to my door, then I would listen further. Mormon Missionaries did not ONCE ask me what religion I was, or what theology I had once... They asked if they could share their message, and I listened. No bashing, no comparisons. Just a presentation of that which they believe.

That is the difference I see. You would NEVER see a Mormon Mission to Catholics, or the Mormon Mission to Scientologists (and I despise that religion). We just present our message and let the chips fall where they may.

Jehovah Witnesses came to my door. They did the same thing you do. They specifically targeted my religion and started a bash session in my home. When I asked if we could have a prayer, they said only if they could say the prayer. I promptly tossed them out. They lost me because they wanted to push the idea that their religion was right and mine was wrong in a very non-Christian way.

Did you notice that Hinduism is not mentioned once in the Bible? And Hinduism is far older in terms of existing actively on the planet. Why not? Why is there not a section on how Hinduism is wrong? That is because God had faith in His own message. He didn't need to bash on certain religions to get His word out. He felt it did well standing on its own.

So I ask again. What about Mormonism is so frightening to you that you have to smash it before you can present what you believe is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ? It is a simple question.

JMS

I was wondering what the thoughts here are? Is my position sound?

JMS

[Stargazer]

I like it.

However, he might want to say that presenting the LDS belief in the Great Apostasy is in itself bashing, but all this does is say that we believe there was a disconnect between the divine authority their denomination claims actually doesn't exist -- that's the EV position as far as I've been able to figure it out. If divine authority existed, then it either resided with the Catholic Church or it was lost, thus either they are wrong because they left the RCC, or it was lost before long before Luther was even born. In the latter case, since they don't claim that Luther or any reformer obtained any authority, they must perforce admit that they have none. It's a killer position, so they must claim that there is no authority, or that the authority comes about in some undefinable way, perhaps a matter of grace. But if their position is that there is no authority, then our claim that it was lost is merely a contention, and cannot possibly be bashing. IMHO.

[Storm Rider]

Logic is seldom a tool of conversion. Those that stir up contention and dissension among the saints or disciples of Christ are working without any assistance from the Holy Spirit. The fundamental kernal of their motivation comes from the Father of Lies. Though your words may fall on deaf ears, the fact that you wrote it is enough. Our unceasing prayer should be that the seeds we sow may take root in the hearts of all men and that the Holy Spirit convicts them of their truth and that the shackles that bind their minds, freeze their hearts, and blind their eyes will be broken that the Light of the Holy One of the Israel shines in.

Have no expectations, but faith in tomorrow.

[diglot]

I like it.

However, he might want to say that presenting the LDS belief in the Great Apostasy is in itself bashing, but all this does is say that we believe there was a disconnect between the divine authority their denomination claims actually doesn't exist -- that's the EV position as far as I've been able to figure it out. If divine authority existed, then it either resided with the Catholic Church or it was lost, thus either they are wrong because they left the RCC, or it was lost before long before Luther was even born. In the latter case, since they don't claim that Luther or any reformer obtained any authority, they must perforce admit that they have none. It's a killer position, so they must claim that there is no authority, or that the authority comes about in some undefinable way, perhaps a matter of grace. But if their position is that there is no authority, then our claim that it was lost is merely a contention, and cannot possibly be bashing. IMHO.

I think a standard EV/Protestant position is that the Church has always had authority because it is found in every believer; it is not found in an institutionalized church (e.g. RCC).

[diglot]

In regards to the opening post: I like your letter. I dislike ministries whose sole purpose is to set up fences in order to exclude people from "orthodoxy." Especially when they don't bother to try and show why a certain doctrine is correct and why absolutely has to be believed (and the ones who do, usually reference the creeds as if they are they automatically the final arbiter on such matters).

[Freedom]

A number of years ago I communicated with Bill on a few of his criticisms. I found him to talk in circles and to constantly change the topic. He became enraged so easily that I found it exhausting responding to him. I recall asking for evidence that BYU was a cesspool of poverty because of all the married students having children before they started their careers.

[Ariarates]

Just a few minor errors in your reasoning, imho:

A man wants to be in political office. Of course in his mind, all other opponents are wrong for the job, only he is the right guy.

I doubt that this is true of most politicians. They may think they are the right person for the job, but they probably don't think they're the only ones right for the job.

A man who spends his time trashing the opponents, that is different. And I would ask of him the same question. What is it about your opponent that scares you. What is the flaw in your message that makes it so you must tear down your opponent first, before you can present your own ideas.

This is a non sequitur. The guy may be genuinely concerned about some perceived dangers of Mormonism. That would make his perceptions wrong, but not necessarily (though possibly) his other beliefs. Many people spend their time fighting perceived opponents. I've seen this type of reasoning applied in the prop 8 debate: what flaw is there in the Mormon concept of marriage that makes them afraid of gay marriage? It's not sound reasoning.

Did you notice that Hinduism is not mentioned once in the Bible? And Hinduism is far older in terms of existing actively on the planet. Why not? Why is there not a section on how Hinduism is wrong? That is because God had faith in His own message. He didn't need to bash on certain religions to get His word out. He felt it did well standing on its own.

Rather selective reading. Plenty of idol-bashing in the Bible.

[Zakuska]

I was listening to KSL last night at about 11pm and there was a Evangelical Christian ministry on the radio (Can't remember the name) and the Radio Pastor told this story I thought I would share here:

Mahatma Gandhi and Christianity

by Dibin Samuel

Posted: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 23:50 (IST)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If not Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Indian Independence struggle would have taken longer with more blood shed, division and war. When senior leaders of the Hindu political groups urged Gandhi to respond 'violence with violence' and 'sword with sword', he opposed insisting and exhorting the path of non–violence and peace, which was Gandhi's biggest sword to combat the trained and fully equipped forces.

For sure this great man is one of the most respected leaders of modern history, for not only his life, but also his ideals and his message to the people.

Although Hindu, Gandhi had a very close connection with Christianity and admired Jesus very much, often quoting from his favorite 'Sermon on the Mount' chapter in Mathew 5–7.

When the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Gandhi he asked him, "Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?"

Gandhi replied, "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

“If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today,” he added.

Gandhi's closeness with Christianity began when he was a young man practicing law in South Africa. Apart from being attached with the Christian faith, he intently studied the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, and was also seriously exploring becoming a Christian, which led him to his discovery of a small church gathering in his locality.

These strongly entrenched Biblical teachings have always acted a panacea to many of India's problems during its freedom struggle.

After deciding to attend the church service in South Africa, he came across a racial barrier, the church barred his way at the door. "Where do you think you're going, kaffir?" an English man asked Gandhi in a belligerent tone.

Gandhi replied, "I'd like to attend worship here."

The church elder snarled at him, "There's no room for kaffirs in this church. Get out of here or I'll have my assistants throw you down the steps."

This infamous incident forced Gandhi to never again consider being a Christian, but rather adopt what he found in Christianity and its founder Jesus Christ

http://in.christiant...int.htm?id=2837

He then went on to quote some surprising statistics about Evangelicals.

[thesometimesaint]

Sure. Everytime I've interveiwed for a job. I've told my potential employeer than any number of people are better than I am, and they'd be just as well off hiring them.

There can only be one man(woman) at a time for all political offices in the US.

Sure. When I want to buy new car I go to a competing company to just to hear them trash their opponent car.

What LDS ever claimed that we should do whatever is in the Bible?

[orion88]

I think a standard EV/Protestant position is that the Church has always had authority because it is found in every believer; it is not found in an institutionalized church (e.g. RCC).

I agree with this assessment. The true church is the body of believers with

female and male members acting as priests in the royal priesthood. However,

the Roman Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-day Saints, Iglesio

Ni Christo, Seventh-day Adventists, etc believe the true church is found in a

visible organization - and that they are it.

When someone says to me "I am a Christian" I ask them "which Jesus do

you believe in?" The Jesus who is eternally God, the Jesus who is Michael

the Archangel, or the Jesus who is the first spirit child of heavenly parents

who progressed into becoming a god like his father before him?

[altersteve]

When someone says to me "I am a Christian" I ask them "which Jesus do

you believe in?" The Jesus who is eternally God, the Jesus who is Michael

the Archangel, or the Jesus who is the first spirit child of heavenly parents

who progressed into becoming a god like his father before him?

You'll get the first answer if you ask a Latter-day Saint. We don't believe Christ "progressed into becoming a god like his father before him." This has been explained on this board countless times.

[bluebell]

I agree with this assessment. The true church is the body of believers with

female and male members acting as priests in the royal priesthood. However,

the Roman Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-day Saints, Iglesio

Ni Christo, Seventh-day Adventists, etc believe the true church is found in a

visible organization - and that they are it.

When someone says to me "I am a Christian" I ask them "which Jesus do

you believe in?" The Jesus who is eternally God, the Jesus who is Michael

the Archangel, or the Jesus who is the first spirit child of heavenly parents

who progressed into becoming a god like his father before him?

If they answered "I believe in the Jesus who suffered and died for my sins on the cross, was resurrected on the third day, and makes it possible through His grace for me to be saved" would it matter what they thought he was before the earth was created?

[DJBrown]

Bill McKeever banned me from Mormon Coffee because I would not answer a question from him about grace the way he wanted me to. Seriously.

I insisted that we believe that we must keep the commandments to be saved, but that our obedience was not what created our salvation- only Christ did that.

Bill would not allow me to dialogue with anybody else on the site until he felt I had satisfactorily answered his question- he removed my comments to others about other topics.

I remained calm and I think reasonable in our dialogue. But ultimately, he kicked me off the site because I would not agree that we earn our salvation.

I have since looked back to see if he had removed the discussion between us and found that he had indeed removed it.

It was truly grotesque. They are all about smear and spin.

[Robert F. Smith]

I like it.

However, he might want to say that presenting the LDS belief in the Great Apostasy is in itself bashing, but all this does is say that we believe there was a disconnect between the divine authority their denomination claims actually doesn't exist -- that's the EV position as far as I've been able to figure it out. If divine authority existed, then it either resided with the Catholic Church or it was lost, thus either they are wrong because they left the RCC, or it was lost before long before Luther was even born. In the latter case, since they don't claim that Luther or any reformer obtained any authority, they must perforce admit that they have none. It's a killer position, so they must claim that there is no authority, or that the authority comes about in some undefinable way, perhaps a matter of grace. But if their position is that there is no authority, then our claim that it was lost is merely a contention, and cannot possibly be bashing. IMHO.

Not all sectors of Protestantism claim that the sole and only authority is the priesthood of the believer. Some Protestant churches, such as Anglican (Episcopal), have a very formal claim to hierarchical authority going back to St. Peter via the bishops and archbishops, and the Roman Catholic Church even accepts that priesthood authority (as part of a chain going back to Peter), so that an Anglican priest can transfer to the RCC and keep his priesthood -- and his wife and children!! In other branches of Protestantism, such as the Presbyterian Churches, there is tight control of the training, acceptance, licensing, and ordination of pastors -- there is an elite group of what can only be understood as a hierarchical priesthood. The same for Lutheranism.

[Libs]

Bill McKeever banned me from Mormon Coffee because I would not answer a question from him about grace the way he wanted me to. Seriously.

I insisted that we believe that we must keep the commandments to be saved, but that our obedience was not what created our salvation- only Christ did that.

Bill would not allow me to dialogue with anybody else on the site until he felt I had satisfactorily answered his question- he removed my comments to others about other topics.

I remained calm and I think reasonable in our dialogue. But ultimately, he kicked me off the site because I would not agree that we earn our salvation.

I have since looked back to see if he had removed the discussion between us and found that he had indeed removed it.

It was truly grotesque. They are all about smear and spin.

That's truly terrible. I have seen critics accuse LDS of being "liars" when they don't get the response they expect or believe is "true". Honestly, I thought better of Bill McKeever. Sad.

[Storm Rider]

I have had some very remarkable conversations with other Christians that belonged to other churches. They have been filled with the Spirit, enlightening, and resulted in great fellowship. However, not a single anti-Mormon has ever offered me anything similar to this quality of discussion.

The Christian that rejoices in their relationship in Christ is a joy to talk with. They love their Father in Heaven and the Savior and it shows. They have no interest in tearing down the beliefs of others, but are so excited about their own love of God, they don't have time to attack my beliefs. What a pleasure to meet those kind of people.

If someone is seraching for answers about my beliefs I am more than happy to talk, but if they are just attempting to "prove" that my beliefs are false, I don't have time for them.

[CQUIRK]

When someone says to me "I am a Christian" I ask them "which Jesus do

you believe in?" The Jesus who is eternally God, the Jesus who is Michael

the Archangel, or the Jesus who is the first spirit child of heavenly parents

who progressed into becoming a god like his father before him?

There is only ONE Jesus Christ, so your argument makes no sense.

[diglot]

If they answered "I believe in the Jesus who suffered and died for my sins on the cross, was resurrected on the third day, and makes it possible through His grace for me to be saved" would it matter what they thought he was before the earth was created?

I concur

[orion88]

We don't believe Christ "progressed into becoming a god like his father before him." This has been explained on this board countless times.

According to this LDS manual, Jesus became a god:

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence which

ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" (Religion

430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 2004, page 10.

[orion88]

If they answered "I believe in the Jesus who suffered and died for my sins on the cross, was resurrected on the third day, and makes it possible through His grace for me to be saved" would it matter what they thought he was before the earth was created?

Yes. It matters a lot in whether you preach the true Jesus or "another" Jesus as the Apostle

Paul warned about.

Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians too when they teach Jesus is Michael

the Archangel?

[diglot]

Yes. It matters a lot in whether you preach the true Jesus or "another" Jesus as the Apostle

Paul warned about.

Do you really believe that Paul preached a Jesus that was of one substance with the Father and eternally begotten of the Father (as the Nicene Creed puts it)?

Do you really believe that Paul preached a Jesus whom is to be acknowledged in two natures which come together into one person/hypostasis (as the Chalcedonian Definition puts it)?

Edited October 30, 2011 by diglot

[maklelan]

Yes. It matters a lot in whether you preach the true Jesus or "another" Jesus as the Apostle

Paul warned about.

But the Jesus you call the "true Jesus" is a view of Jesus that developed centuries after the New Testament was composed. Whether one believes in the Nicene Jesus, the Latter-day Saint Jesus, or the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses, they're referring to post-biblical christological developments. They all have the Jesus of the New Testament as the referent, they just tack on their own post-biblical interpretations of his nature. I see no real value in distinguishing between the different kinds of "Jesuses" when they can all be distilled down to the same Jesus of the New Testament.

[CQUIRK]

Yes. It matters a lot in whether you preach the true Jesus or "another" Jesus as the Apostle

Paul warned about.

There is only ONE Jesus Christ that died for our sins. Again, I'm still not following you here.

You're sounding like someone that's asking a Star Wars fan whether he likes Luke Skywalker the Jedi Knight, or Luke Skywalker the starfighter pilot, or Luke Skywalker the hero of the Rebel Alliance, or Luke Skywalker the son of Anakin Skywalker?

Its the same guy, period. Why can't you understand that?

Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians too when they teach Jesus is Michael

the Archangel?

Yes they are Christian, but they're not part of the True Church; basically they're on the same playing field as Catholics, protestants, and EV's.

Edited October 30, 2011 by CQUIRK

[Flyonthewall]

There is but one individual who is Jesus Christ. Different people have different perceptions of that person and conclude different things about Him. Iit is not a difficult thing to understand, but I have seen some people try their darndest not to understand.

A simple analogy is the 5 blind men and the elephant. Each thought different things about the elephant but each of them had in their mind an elephant. The elephant to each was they same physical animal though their perceptions differed..

Just like Jesus Christ, to each of the groups that claim to be Christian, each have the same individual in mind, but have differing perceptions of Him.

There are some groups of "Christians" that boldly make the claim that because you do not have the same concept in mind as them, you must be thinking of a different person.

[altersteve]

According to this LDS manual, Jesus became a god:

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence which

ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" (Religion

430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 2004, page 10.

And that makes it doctrine? It's only doctrine if the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve declare it as such. If there is any disagreement among them, it's not doctrine. And current and past prophets have always clearly taught that Jesus has been God for eternity. LDS manuals are to be used as guides only, not as the final word on official doctrine.

Edited October 30, 2011 by altersteve