My Letter To Mormon Research Ministry

[ERayR]

ERayR,

You wrote:

Your statement is contrary to fact.

You wrote:

Okay, let's compare. I've been studying the Watchtower and its publications since 1975. There is also the matter of how intensive one's study has been. I have easily spent thousands of hours studying Jehovah's Witness literature and discussing theological matters with Jehovah's Witnesses.

OK. I got married in 1959 and set ap a houshold. It was not long after that the Jehovah Witness began calling. I believe that tops you by more than 15 years. I believe intensity of study would be a subjective measurement so I won't challenge you if you really think your study was more intensive than mine. It does bring up the question if it was so bad why in the world would you waste so much precious time on it. I must admit I found some interesting articles, which led to some serious study but nothing like thousands of hours. On the other hand I have spent thousands of hours studying The COJCOLDS.

Edited October 31, 2011 by ERayR

[Rob Bowman]

Ray,

Okay, you first encountered Jehovah's Witnesses when I was two years old. Had you studied their position long enough, you would have had no trouble finding out that they consider themselves to be the only true Christians and everyone else in "Christendom" (including Mormons) not to be Christians.

OK. I got married in 1959 and set ap a houshold. It was not long after that the Jehovah Witness began calling. I believe that tops you by more than 15 years. I believe intensity of study would be a subjective measurement so I won't challenge you if you really think your study was more intensive than mine. It does bring up the question if it was so bad why in the world would you waste so much precious time on it. I must admit I found some interesting articles, which led to some serious study but nothing like thousands of hours. On the other hand I have spent thousands of hours studying The COJCOLDS.

[CQUIRK]

So now behavior defines who is "more 'Christian'" than another, and you feel quite comfortable judging us as less "Christian" than others, even as you complain if anyone denies that you are true "Christians."

For me, I feel comfortable judging such prejudiced people as 'less Christian' then us, since many of them behave in a hostile and unchristian manner when attacking us- Matt Slick and Ed Decker being perfect examples; therefore they are indeed less christian then us not because they don't share our beliefs, but because of their actions and attitude as well that is un-Christ like.

On the second part, you are comparing apples and oranges here, because while we still view Catholics, protestants, EV's, JW's and other christian denominations as still Christian and believers in Jesus Christ (even if they don't have the whole truth as we do), yet on the other hand EV's and many other Christian denominations out there do not view us as being Christian at all in the first place.

Our beef is that we are still frequently viewed as non-Christian, despite of the title of our Church, or the many beliefs that we do share with other Christian churches- especially how Jesus Christ, the Savior of Mankind, died for our sins.

However I don't have beef myself for such a simpleton view, since its quite apparent that we are becoming more accepted by others as we truly are these days- Christian and morally-correct, while religious anti-Mormonism moves further and further out of the mainstream as time passes.

[Pahoran]

Ray,

Okay, you first encountered Jehovah's Witnesses when I was two years old. Had you studied their position long enough, you would have had no trouble finding out that they consider themselves to be the only true Christians

In that, I believe you are right.

and everyone else in "Christendom" (including Mormons) not to be Christians.

Do they say so explicitly? Because I've never heard them say so, and that doesn't automatically follow from the previous statement.

But if they do say so, then all that proves is that they are just as bad as every other Protestant with no authority who arrogantly goes about presuming to pronounce upon who is or is not a Christian.

Which is to say, their Christianity is defective. But whose isn't? They're still Christians, with all their defects.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

In that, I believe you are right.

Do they say so explicitly? Because I've never heard them say so, and that doesn't automatically follow from the previous statement.

But if they do say so, then all that proves is that they are just as bad as every other Protestant with no authority who arrogantly goes about presuming to pronounce upon who is or is not a Christian.

Which is to say, their Christianity is defective. But whose isn't? They're still Christians, with all their defects.

Regards,

Pahoran

Said well so if you don't mind I will just second this and let it be my answer to Mr. Bowman.

[maklelan]

If any of you had bothered to study what Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe, you would know that they don't regard Mormons as Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are the only true Christians.

So what? Are you suggesting that because they claim we're not Christian, we must retaliate by insisting that it is they who are not Christian? I've never done that with Evangelicals who've claimed I'm not Christian (and many of them do believe they are the only true Christians). Why would I do it for Jehovah's Witnesses?

[maklelan]

bluebell,

The posts to which I was responding contrasted the Jehovah's Witnesses as supposedly Christ-like people with the "religious bigots" who deny that Mormons are Christians (i.e., evangelicals). My point is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are also "religious bigots" by this standard, because they also deny that Mormons are Christians.

My post was certainly not intended to communicate any such contrast. My point was that appealing to Jehovah's Witnesses is an appeal to perceived sectarianism on my part. Simply put, the assumption is that no one in their right mind could think Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, so if parallels can be identified, I can rhetorically trap my antagonist. James White does something similar in his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy. He describes a broad definition of Christianity that people suggest in an effort to include Catholicism, then he says we can't have that because if we did then we'd have to include Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Full stop. The obvious underlying assumption: no one in their right mind could think Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, so if parallels can be identified, . . . You get the idea. It draws upon an assumed sectarianism. My concern has nothing whatsoever to do with how Christ-like Jehovah's Witnesses are.

[orion88]

First, I disagree that Joseph Smith taught that Heavenly Father "became God." Second, the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, are clear that Jesus is the Eternal God, the Everlasting Father of heaven and earth. Something can't contradict what the scriptures say and still be official doctrine.

These are quotes from training manuals published by the LDS Church. They appear to teach

that Jesus and Heavenly Father became Gods through the doctrine of eternal progression.

These teachings are either the truth or they are lies -- take your pick.

I don't want to be in a position where I'm telling you what you believe. I'm just quoting what

the LDS Church teaches. If you don't want to accept these as "doctrines" or "gospel principles"

then maybe the LDS Church needs to rename these books as "Religion 430-431 - Speculations

of the Gospel" and "Gospel Speculations".

The Religion 430-431 book even states, "In Doctrines of the Gospel courses, students will

study principles and doctrines of the gospel as revealed in the standard works."

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

The Gospel Principles (2009) states:

Page 2 - "Before you teach from a chapter, study it thoroughly to be sure you understand the

doctrine ... If you have been called to teach a quorum or class using this book, do not substitute

outside materials, however interesting they may be. Stay true to the scriptures and the words

in the book."

Page 3 - "Encourage participants to live according to the principles ... Each chapter in this book

contains one or two notes for teachers. These notes include ideas that can help you in your

efforts to love those you teach, teach by the Spirit, teach the doctrine, and invite diligent learning

among those you teach."

There are no disclaimers that these "gospel principles" are false.

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and

ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you

must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a

great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is

not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and

exaltation even beyond the grave" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of

the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God

himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of

the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

Source: http://lds.org/libra...1-13-59,00.html

"Through a continual course of progression, our Heavenly Father has received exaltation and

glory, and He points us out the same path..."

Source: http://institute.lds...sp-31-37-33.asp

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him

as a God."

Source: http://institute.lds...osp-01-10-4.asp

Thanks,

Tony

[Pahoran]

These are quotes from training manuals published by the LDS Church.

"Training manuals?" Really?

Who calls them that?

We don't.

They appear to teach that Jesus and Heavenly Father became Gods through the doctrine of eternal progression. These teachings are either the truth or they are lies -- take your pick.

Thank you for that textbook example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. I have noticed that it is a very popular ploy among dishonest manipulators.

I don't want to be in a position where I'm telling you what you believe.

Then I suggest you stop.

I further suggest that you get a life, and maybe some beliefs of your own. Instead of telling us what's wrong with our religion, you could try telling us what's right with yours.

Personally, I suspect (along with C. S. Lewis) that if all you can talk about is what's wrong with our religion, and you've got nothing to say about what's right with yours, them there probably isn't much that is right with it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

My post was certainly not intended to communicate any such contrast. My point was that appealing to Jehovah's Witnesses is an appeal to perceived sectarianism on my part. Simply put, the assumption is that no one in their right mind could think Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, so if parallels can be identified, I can rhetorically trap my antagonist. James White does something similar in his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy. He describes a broad definition of Christianity that people suggest in an effort to include Catholicism, then he says we can't have that because if we did then we'd have to include Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Full stop. The obvious underlying assumption: no one in their right mind could think Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, so if parallels can be identified, . . . You get the idea. It draws upon an assumed sectarianism. My concern has nothing whatsoever to do with how Christ-like Jehovah's Witnesses are.

I just know there's more to White's argument than that. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of his book handy.

Let me give you an example of how the argument usually runs. Someone says "Any group that affirms that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for our sins, and that he rose from the grave, is a legitimate Christian denomination." By this definition, Catholics, Orthodox, traditional Protestants, etc., qualify. But then someone points out that Jehovah's Witnesses could say all these things. The evangelical does not respond, "Oh no! Not the JWs! I don't like them! We can't have that!" and then changes the definition ad hoc to exclude the JWs. No, what happens is this. The evangelical says, "Well, what do the JWs mean when they say these things?" Turns out, by "the Son of God" the JWs mean the first angel God ever created; by "dying for our sins" they mean that his death gives us a second chance to prove ourselves worthy; and by "rising from the dead" they mean that Christ ceased to exist when he died and was then re-created as a spirit being (no physical resurrection at all). Thus, even though the JW can use many of the same words, they don't mean the same thing by them. In view of this semantic confusion, it becomes necessary for those who wish to be clear about the essential doctrines of the Christian faith to state more precisely what those essentials are.

Now, I happen to be to the "left" of White on the subject of the Catholic Church. But not very far to the left. I am a former Catholic, and I know firsthand what the doctrinal, spiritual, and religious problems are in Catholicism. I don't deny that Catholicism is orthodox, but I do maintain that its orthodoxy has been severely compromised by various errors. I have some good friends who are Catholics and whom I regard as brothers in Christ. Sadly, their grasp on the gospel is unusual in modern Catholicism.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

So what? Are you suggesting that because they claim we're not Christian, we must retaliate by insisting that it is they who are not Christian? I've never done that with Evangelicals who've claimed I'm not Christian (and many of them do believe they are the only true Christians). Why would I do it for Jehovah's Witnesses?

No, no, no. I've already explained my point.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

No, no, no. I've already explained my point.

The comment of mine you quoted has nothing to do with your point, then. Read my next post.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You agreed with me that Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only true Christians, but then you asserted that it "doesn't automatically follow" that in their view non-JWs are not Christians.

If it doesn't follow, then nothing does. To assert that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only true Christians is necessarily to draw a circle labeled "Christians" and to place JWs inside that circle and everyone else outside it. "True Christians" is a redundancy for emphasis; it means exactly the same thing as "Christians" and entails that anyone else who claims to be a Christian is a false Christian, i.e., not a Christian.

Now, if you'd be more comfortable with evangelicals saying that Mormons are false Christians, I for one could be willing to accommodate you. But there would be no difference in meaning.

And for the record, for the umpteenth time, I don't object to Mormons calling themselves Christians. Call yourselves anything you want. I never discuss this question unless someone else brings it up.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

So, did you agree or disagree with ebeddoulos, to whose post you seemed to be responding (you quoted it) and by your response seemed to be agreeing?

The comment of mine you quoted has nothing to do with your point, then. Read my next post.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You agreed with me that Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only true Christians, but then you asserted that it "doesn't automatically follow" that in their view non-JWs are not Christians.

If it doesn't follow, then nothing does. To assert that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only true Christians is necessarily to draw a circle labeled "Christians" and to place JWs inside that circle and everyone else outside it. "True Christians" is a redundancy for emphasis; it means exactly the same thing as "Christians" and entails that anyone else who claims to be a Christian is a false Christian, i.e., not a Christian.

While I agree that it is possible to use it that way, I wish to point out that that construction is not automatic, and needs to be actually elucidated by them, and not merely projected upon them by others for polemical purposes.

I remind you that the Lord has designated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30) a revealed truth you choose to reject. Nobody in their right mind really supposes that that "true" is just a "redundancy for emphasis" and there really aren't any other churches at all. Latter-day Saints have certainly never read it that way.

Now, if you'd be more comfortable with evangelicals saying that Mormons are false Christians, I for one could be willing to accommodate you. But there would be no difference in meaning.

And for the record, for the umpteenth time, I don't object to Mormons calling themselves Christians. Call yourselves anything you want. I never discuss this question unless someone else brings it up.

It's so wonderfully magnanimous of you to let us call ourselves whatever we want; actually bringing yourself to admit that we are Christians in fact is a different thing. Be that as it may, the point of this particular branch of the thread is to point out that Orion88's casual assumption that we would be so horrified at the thought of JW's being Christians too that we would be falling over ourselves in our eagerness to join him in "drawing a circle" to shut them out was a complete blunder on his part.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

I am willing to concede I consider Mr. Bowman to be a false Christian, if that makes him feel better.

[maklelan]

Dan,

So, did you agree or disagree with ebeddoulos, to whose post you seemed to be responding (you quoted it) and by your response seemed to be agreeing?

I was agreeing with his comment, "I do," in response to the question of whether or not he felt Jehovah's Witnesses were Christian in light of the fact that they believed Jesus was Michael. It's common to see people respond to objections on the part of Latter-day Saints to the notion that we're not Christian by assuming that we don't think Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. That's the sectarian assumption to which I keep referring.

Regarding the rest of his post, I have known very few Jehovah's Witnesses very well, so I can't really comment on how Christ-like they are, nor can I comment on the degree to which they reject Mormons as Christians. I certainly haven't seen them on TV, on the radio, in local conferences, or on the internet telling me that I'm in a cult, that I worship the wrong Jesus, and that I better start believing that there's nothing I can do to be saved or else I won't be saved.

[KevinG]

I think Mr Bowman is a well studied and faithful Christian. He's just missing some Latter-day Revelation to round out his light and knowledge. He would disagree with me on that point but ours is an honest disagreement.

I suspect I would be happy to allow my children to hang with his family and if sectarian issues were respected we'd have a great time discussing our love for Christ. (I loved his post the other day).

As far as what we teach I have strong feelings about ministering "against" anyone and I've taken him to task frequently enough on that point. He feels differently but he comes from a place of wanting to save souls - which we have in common.

If Mr Bowman is wrong I will be happy to take his name to the Temple and provide proxy ordinances so he can return to the presence of the God he loves. If I am wrong I suspect despite after a career of trying to show how wrong I am he might take up a plea to the Savior to accept me despite my flaws.

At least I hope that is the case. After all I hear he's a great lunch companion!

[ERayR]

These are quotes from training manuals published by the LDS Church. They appear to teach

that Jesus and Heavenly Father became Gods through the doctrine of eternal progression.

These teachings are either the truth or they are lies -- take your pick.

I don't want to be in a position where I'm telling you what you believe. I'm just quoting what

the LDS Church teaches. If you don't want to accept these as "doctrines" or "gospel principles"

then maybe the LDS Church needs to rename these books as "Religion 430-431 - Speculations

of the Gospel" and "Gospel Speculations".

The Religion 430-431 book even states, "In Doctrines of the Gospel courses, students will

study principles and doctrines of the gospel as revealed in the standard works."

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

The Gospel Principles (2009) states:

Page 2 - "Before you teach from a chapter, study it thoroughly to be sure you understand the

doctrine ... If you have been called to teach a quorum or class using this book, do not substitute

outside materials, however interesting they may be. Stay true to the scriptures and the words

in the book."

Page 3 - "Encourage participants to live according to the principles ... Each chapter in this book

contains one or two notes for teachers. These notes include ideas that can help you in your

efforts to love those you teach, teach by the Spirit, teach the doctrine, and invite diligent learning

among those you teach."

There are no disclaimers that these "gospel principles" are false.

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and

ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you

must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a

great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is

not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and

exaltation even beyond the grave" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of

the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God

himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of

the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

Source: http://lds.org/libra...1-13-59,00.html

"Through a continual course of progression, our Heavenly Father has received exaltation and

glory, and He points us out the same path..."

Source: http://institute.lds...sp-31-37-33.asp

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him

as a God."

Source: http://institute.lds...osp-01-10-4.asp

Thanks,

Tony

Tony, let me suggest that you all may be having a little trouble with what you have presented here because of your lack of understanding of what man is. Man is the literal offspring(children if you will) of God. It is not degrading to be a man. Man is the same kind, the same specie, yes kids of Heavenly Father sent on a training mission but still of noble birth. If you can't understand that then you are bound to have comprehnsion problems with that.

[CQUIRK]

Tony, let me suggest that you all may be having a little trouble with what you have presented here because of your lack of understanding of what man is. Man is the literal offspring(children if you will) of God. It is not degrading to be a man. Man is the same kind, the same specie, yes kids of Heavenly Father sent on a training mission but still of noble birth. If you can't understand that then you are bound to have comprehnsion problems with that.

Well, he doesn't seem to respond to me; so I guess he can't handle sophisticated arguments.

[KevinG]

Well, he doesn't seem to respond to me; so I guess he can't handle sophisticated arguments.

throwers don't usually stick around to converse about the results.

Edited November 1, 2011 by DaddyG

[Jesterss]

Well, he doesn't seem to respond to me; so I guess he can't handle sophisticated arguments.

That's the issue here, you all chime in on other peoples posts and expect doubters of your faith to respond to every single come back, when they don't you claim you have won the argument or presented the most logical conclusion because someone didn't take the time to repeat themselves to someone else's (who wasn't addressed) trivial points..

edit: why not let a conversation play itself out for once, then if you feel there were issues not addressed, ask away... but to keep piling on one-line zingers gets you nowhere and just starts taking the thread down the wrong argumentative path..

Edited November 1, 2011 by Jesterss

[Jesterss]

To add to Bowman's point about JW's, I don't claim to be as well studied as he is, but I will add that I agree with his point that JW's believe they are the only true christians, just as your faith believes they are the only true church. My best friend is JW and so are a few family members. It is what it is..

[ebeddoulos]

bluebell, The posts to which I was responding contrasted the Jehovah's Witnesses as supposedly Christ-like people with the "religious bigots" who deny that Mormons are Christians (i.e., evangelicals). My point is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are also "religious bigots" by this standard, because they also deny that Mormons are Christians.

Rob Bowman,

We have talked of this before but still I find it amusing and highly entertaining that you have difficulty in presenting any argument without wrapping it in a fallacy. Again in this case it is the strawman.

Just because the blind man cannot see the color red does not mean that the color red cannot be seen.

Just because the red ant is not a black ant does not mean that the red ant is not an ant.

Just because a Jehovah’s Witness says that he is a true Christian does not mean he does not consider others to be Christian.

Published just one month later than your carefully selected article, in Awake! the sister publication to the Watchtower, we find the following.

“Moses is respected by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. Yet, in recent decades some scholars and theologians have challenged whether he ever really existed. What does the evidence show? And what impact does Moses have on our lives today?” (Awake! – 4/8/2004 – Page Two)

A few years before the Watchtower published this:

“Under instruction from Jehovah, Jonah had made his way to the city of Nineveh to preach about God’s impending judgment upon its inhabitants. The happy result was that the entire city of Nineveh repented and put faith in the true God. (Jonah 3:5-10) Jehovah felt that their repentant attitude merited forgiveness, so he spared them. “To Jonah, though, it was highly displeasing, and he got to be hot with anger.” (Jonah 4:1) Jonah’s response to Jehovah’s mercy was surprising. Why should Jonah be angry with Jehovah? Apparently, Jonah had become preoccupied with his own feelings, thinking that he had lost face in the community. He failed to appreciate Jehovah’s mercy. Kindly, Jehovah led Jonah through an object lesson that helped him change his attitude and see the excelling value of God’s mercy. (Jonah 4:7-11) It is clear that Jonah’s attitude, not Jehovah’s, needed altering.

Could we at times likewise need to change our own attitude toward a matter? The apostle Paul admonishes us: “In showing honor to one another take the lead.” (Romans 12:10) What did he mean? In one respect, he is encouraging us to be reasonable and to treat other Christians with deep respect and dignity. This involves recognizing that each individual has the privilege of free choice. Paul also reminds us: “Each one will carry his own load.” (Galatians 6:5) Hence, before differences cause a rift, how wise it would be to consider whether our own attitude needs to be adjusted! We must work hard to reflect the thinking of Jehovah and preserve peace with others who truly love God.—Isaiah 55:8, 9.” (Watchtower 8/15/2000)

The emphasis is mine. It would appear that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a bit more charitable than your rather extreme and well known biases would have us believe.

[ERayR]

To add to Bowman's point about JW's, I don't claim to be as well studied as he is, but I will add that I agree with his point that JW's believe they are the only true christians, just as your faith believes they are the only true church. My best friend is JW and so are a few family members. It is what it is..

It is not the belief/claim that they are the only true Christians, even Mr. Bowman believes that about his own Christanity, It is when one attempts to deny others their Christianity. As far as I know Evangelicals are the only ones trying to deny others their Christianity.