My Letter To Mormon Research Ministry

[Jesterss]

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.

So by saying someone is attempting to deny others their Christianity what is it you really mean? Because when you believe your faith or religion is the only true Christian religion, isn't that the same as saying the others are not Christian? how can you be a false Christian and still be true? If you aren't following the right path of Christ, are you really following Christ or someone else? You can spin it all you want as to say that you are compassionate and believe they may be Christians, but by the Christian standard, isn't being a Christian about following the one and only true Christ?

So logically, anyone not following the right Christ, is not a Christian. And your faith, just as you said everyone else's, believes they are following the correct and true Christ, so therefore, the others are not and are therefore not Christian, they are lost...

but as you said, this is about the denying others of their Christianity... Any act of not believing in the same faith, means that by definition, you are in a disagreeance, and therefore, cannot be following the same path... Perhaps you and others may believe that there are multiple paths, but Jesus himself says there is only one right path, and that is through him, so the argument isn't really about denying anyone their right of beliefs. It's about a claim of being Christian, more accurately, True Christian... So I think we can all agree that everyone is guilty of believing they are right and following the right path.. JW's are no different..

Edited November 1, 2011 by Jesterss

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

I have $5 bill, you have a $10 bill. They are differing amounts representing differing values, but they both are legal tender in the US. Both are real money.

[ERayR]

So by saying someone is attempting to deny others their Christianity what is it you really mean? Because when you believe your faith or religion is the only true Christian religion, isn't that the same as saying the others are not Christian? how can you be a false Christian and still be true? If you aren't following the right path of Christ, are you really following Christ or someone else? You can spin it all you want as to say that you are compassionate and believe they may be Christians, but by the Christian standard, isn't being a Christian about following the one and only true Christ?

Believing ones religion is the one true Christianity you are saying that anothers religion has erred in one or more of their precepts. You are not saying they are not Christians but only Christians who have erred.

My compassion has nothing to do with your Christianity. As long as one is emulating the Savior, Jesus Christ, one is a Christian. An errant Christian, perhaps, but a Christian nevertheless.

So logically, anyone not following the right Christ, is not a Christian. And your faith, just as you said everyone else's, believes they are following the correct and true Christ, so therefore, the others are not and are therefore not Christian, they are lost...

Your gross ignorance of LDS doctrine and concepts coupled with Orthodox Christianities erronious doctrines of what happens after death has led you to a false assumption. They are not lost.

Edited November 1, 2011 by ERayR

[Jesterss]

Jesterss:

I have $5 bill, you have a $10 bill. They are differing amounts representing differing values, but they both are legal tender in the US. Both are real money.

Can you claim that you have a $10 Bill? No. If you did, you would be lying... If I said that I think you have a $10 Bill, I would be deceiving myself and anyone who believed me... The truth is, you have a $5 Bill and I have a $10 Bill..

[Jesterss]

Believing ones religion is the one true Christianity you are saying that anothers religion has erred in one or more of their precepts. You are not saying they are not Christians but only Christians who have erred.

My compassion has nothing to do with your Christianity. As long as one is emulating the Savior, Jesus Christ, one is a Christian. An errant Christian, perhaps, but a Christian nevertheless.

Your gross ignorance of LDS doctrine and concepts coupled with Orthodox Christianities erronious doctrines of what happens after death has led you to a false assumption. They are not lost.

How can one emulate Christ and also be errant? You are contradicting the truth. You cannot be both..

If one is emulating Christ, then they are by definition, being a true believer and follower of Christ.. They cannot be displaying anything erroneous, unless of course, you believe Jesus did some things just to mess with us... I mean c'mon... Your argument is based on a foundation of kindness, not of logic..

You are basically telling me that I am ignorant of LDS doctrine, yet I would like a CFR from anything you can find that says someone who emulates and follows Christ, can also be erroneous.. lol seriously, you made me laugh on that one.. Isn't that the goal? To emulate Christ? Because if you are emulating Christ you are not being errant...

Edited November 1, 2011 by Jesterss

[LeSellers]

I have $5 bill, you have a $10 bill. T... they both are legal tender in the US. Both are real money.

"Legal tender" is not necessarily "real money"; fiat money is a purposeful deception.

That aside, I believe another apt comparison would be that Elizabeth Regina speaks English. I speak English. They are not the same language, but they are both English. Or, as Geo. B. Shaw said: "The English and the Americans are two people separated by a common language."

Lehi

[Jesterss]

"Legal tender" is not necessarily "real money"; fiat money is a purposeful deception.

That aside, I believe another apt comparison would be that Elizabeth Regina speaks English. I speak English. They are not the same language, but they are both English. Or, as Geo. B. Shaw said: "The English and the Americans are two people separated by a common language."

Lehi

This is a strawman.. We are not discussing whether any individual agrees that other individuals can be christian, we are discussing how JW's as a religious group, do not believe other groups are true Christians. Just as the LDS church claims it is the only true church, therefore denying the right of any other church to be true christians..

As your comparison even says, England and America are two people seprated by a common language. LDS and JW are two religions separated by a common goal. Doesn't mean they are one and the same...

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I'll remeber that the next time I go to the grocery store.

Jesterss:

Function of mathmatics. A,B, and C comprise the whole universe of D. B can not claim that A and/or C are not part of D.

[ebeddoulos]

How can one emulate Christ and also be errant? You are contradicting the truth. You cannot be both..

If one is emulating Christ, then they are by definition, being a true believer and follower of Christ.. They cannot be displaying anything erroneous, unless of course, you believe Jesus did some things just to mess with us... I mean c'mon... Your argument is based on a foundation of kindness, not of logic..

You are basically telling me that I am ignorant of LDS doctrine, yet I would like a CFR from anything you can find that says someone who emulates and follows Christ, can also be erroneous.. lol seriously, you made me laugh on that one.. Isn't that the goal? To emulate Christ? Because if you are emulating Christ you are not being errant...

So you, like the Catholic depiction of Mary, are the perfect follower of Christ? If not then you, too, are errant and therefore by your own logic you are not Christian, correct?

[LeSellers]

This is a strawman.. We are not discussing whether any individual agrees that other individuals can be christian, we are discussing how JW's as a religious group, do not believe other groups are true Christians. Just as the LDS church claims it is the only true church, therefore denying the right of any other church to be true christians..

That's categorical male bovine feculence.

First, the OP was not about Jehovah's Witnesses at all, but about the self-styled Mormon Research Ministry's abuse of its arrogated power to define what "Christian" actually is. Thomas Szasz reminds us that "In the animal kingdom it's kill or be killed. In the human kingdom, it's define or be defined." Letting one's enemies define him is a certain path to losing the battle.

That said, however, I, personally, will stop calling myself a Christian as long as you all call us "Saints".

As your comparison even says, England and America are two people seprated by a common language. LDS and JW are two religions separated by a common goal. Doesn't mean they are one and the same...

Who has suggested that we are "one and the same"?

adjective

1.of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2.of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3.of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4.exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

noun

7.a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8.a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

9.a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

10.the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

11. a male given name.

We are focusing on the seventh definition. Please show how I am not a Christian by that usage.

Lehi

Edited November 1, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

I'll remeber that the next time I go to the grocery store.

Just hope that the grocer doesn't catch on too soon. And that he speaks English.

Lehi

[bluebell]

This is a strawman.. We are not discussing whether any individual agrees that other individuals can be christian, we are discussing how JW's as a religious group, do not believe other groups are true Christians.

If i'm following the conversation correctly, this line of discussion began with Orion claiming that someone had to believe in the 'right' Jesus to be considered Christian. He used the example of JW's to make his point in THAT line of discussion.

Therefore, the discussion IS about whether someone agrees that someone else can be a Christian.

Maybe a new line of discussion pertaining to JW's claims to Christianity has developed and i missed it i guess.

Edited November 1, 2011 by bluebell

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I've been going to the same grocery stores for over 20 years now. None have turned down the cash yet, and it doesn't look like they will any time soon. They have bi-lingual speakers in them. But the universal language is green.

[Vance]

Because when you believe your faith or religion is the only true Christian religion, isn't that the same as saying the others are not Christian?

No.

how can you be a false Christian and still be true?

I don't know. I also don't see any relevance to the topic.

If you aren't following the right path of Christ, are you really following Christ or someone else?

False dichotomy. I suspect that every Christian is following his understanding/interpretation of Christ. By what authority do you tell them they are wrong?

You can spin it all you want as to say that you are compassionate and believe they may be Christians, but by the Christian standard, isn't being a Christian about following the one and only true Christ?

I suspect that every Christian is following his understanding/interpretation of the one and only true Christ. By what authority do you tell them they are wrong?

So logically, anyone not following the right Christ, is not a Christian.

Nah, your logic is faulty.

[Jesterss]

So you, like the Catholic depiction of Mary, are the perfect follower of Christ? If not then you, too, are errant and therefore by your own logic you are not Christian, correct?

Many fall short of the grace of God. But again, we are talking about religions, not a single person. Those who teach a certain doctrine.

[ERayR]

How can one emulate Christ and also be errant? You are contradicting the truth. You cannot be both..

If one is emulating Christ, then they are by definition, being a true believer and follower of Christ.. They cannot be displaying anything erroneous, unless of course, you believe Jesus did some things just to mess with us... I mean c'mon... Your argument is based on a foundation of kindness, not of logic..

You are basically telling me that I am ignorant of LDS doctrine, yet I would like a CFR from anything you can find that says someone who emulates and follows Christ, can also be erroneous.. lol seriously, you made me laugh on that one.. Isn't that the goal? To emulate Christ? Because if you are emulating Christ you are not being errant...

You are assuming someone can emulate Christ perfectly. Your argument would have some validity if this were so but since it isn't I can think of a lot of ways one can emulate

Christ but still fall short. Unless you have forgotten that is what Christs Atonement was about.

Somehow though I think you are well aware of all this.

[Jesterss]

That's categorical male bovine feculence.

First, the OP was not about Jehovah's Witnesses at all, but about the self-styled Mormon Research Ministry's abuse of its arrogated power to define what "Christian" actually is. Thomas Szasz reminds us that "In the animal kingdom it's kill or be killed. In the human kingdom, it's define or be defined." Letting one's enemies define him is a certain path to losing the battle.

That said, however, I, personally, will stop calling myself a Christian as long as you all call us "Saints".

Nothing I have posted referenced Orion or his initial post. Everything I have said was in response to Bowman and ERyAR's conversation on JW's beliefs...

Who has suggested that we are "one and the same"?

We are focusing on the seventh definition. Please show how I am not a Christian by that usage.

You seem lost. Or are you purposefully arguing in a circle?

[Jesterss]

If i'm following the conversation correctly, this line of discussion began with Orion claiming that someone had to believe in the 'right' Jesus to be considered Christian. He used the example of JW's to make his point in THAT line of discussion.

Therefore, the discussion IS about whether someone agrees that someone else can be a Christian.

Maybe a new line of discussion pertaining to JW's claims to Christianity has developed and i missed it i guess.

You know the topic and some of the conversation but not mine apparently. Read my initial post to understand who I was commenting to...

[Jesterss]

False dichotomy. I suspect that every Christian is following his understanding/interpretation of Christ. By what authority do you tell them they are wrong?

I don't. But it also doesn't mean that I believe they are right.

I suspect that every Christian is following his understanding/interpretation of the one and only true Christ. By what authority do you tell them they are wrong?

I don't. But it also doesn't mean that I believe they are correct.

Nah, your logic is faulty.

I don't even see any in yours.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Those who teach a certain doctrine.

Such that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are co-equal or one substance?

Nothing like drawing circles in the sand.

[LeSellers]

You seem lost. Or are you purposefully arguing in a circle?

Neither option applies to me.

How, according to a reasonable definition of "Christian" can anyone deny us Saints the label of "Christian"? Only by a contrived, explicitly exclusionary definition, can one arrive there.

Again Thomas Szasz gives us the key: "In the animal world, it's kill or be killed. In the human world, it's define or be defined." I, and millions of other Saints, refuse to be defined, irrespective of what any self-appointed, self-anointed religious hack claims.

Lehi

Edited November 1, 2011 by LeSellers

[Jesterss]

You are assuming someone can emulate Christ perfectly. Your argument would have some validity if this were so but since it isn't I can think of a lot of ways one can emulate

Christ but still fall short. Unless you have forgotten that is what Christs Atonement was about.

Somehow though I think you are well aware of all this.

No but see, you were talking on behalf of "religions". Perhaps I didn't word everything perfectly. But I thought it would be understood that we were discussing JW and LDS and Catholic religions, not the individuals.

[Jesterss]

Such that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are co-equal or one substance?

Nothing like drawing circles in the sand.

If it's with your fingers, better in the sand than the pavement right?

But yeah. Sure. That would be a taught doctrine in some religions.

[Pahoran]

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

Josh, this is a splendid letter. I heartily endorse it.

Bill McKeever is a bog-standard anti-Mormon; IOW, a bigot with a tiny mind, who is so desperately insecure in his own beliefs that he has an emotional need to censor the beliefs of others.

And it seems to me that if Mr Bowman really wants to differentiate his own brand of anti-Mormonism from the generic brand of the McKeevers et al, he might want to try a little harder to put some daylight between himself and them. However, it seems that, when push comes to shove, the EV's and Fundies all line up to present a united front.

Perhaps they're afraid to show any cracks in the facade.

Or perhaps there really isn't any substantial difference between the brands after all.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jesterss]

Neither option applies to me.

How, according to a reasonable definition of "Christian" can anyone deny us Saints the label of "Christian"? Only by a contrived, explicitly exclusionary definition, can one arrive there.

Again Thomas Szasz gives us the key: "In the animal world, it's kill or be killed. In the human world, it's define of be defined." I, and millions of other Saints, refuse to be defined, irrespective of what any self-appointed, self-anointed religious hack claims.

Lehi

Maybe I go by definition 4. Maybe 2.. Maybe anything but #7. It's by your will that you choose #7, because it fits what you want it to fit. The joy of many meanings huh? I know you enjoy it.

I could care-less to define you. But the point was that no matter what, people are going to define each other, just as your quote says. LDS Saints have decided that the LDS church is the only true church.

Now with that in mind, if the LDS church is the true church, wouldn't that then imply that the JW got it all wrong? This isn't about whether or not they can still get in heaven based on your religious beliefs, this is about the simple stating of right and wrong. If LDS claim their church is the one and only true church, then that has to mean they believe all the other churches are wrong. How do you not follow that logic?