Jaybear Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 It is the language and the tone which seems to have much hatred in it.Can you be more specific. I am sure they would tell you that they love mormons, but hate mormism. As they should, if they think its leading good people away from Christ.
Pahoran Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Can you be more specific. I am sure they would tell you that they love mormons, but hate mormism.Yes, that is the standard mantra. How convincing do you find it? What if I said that I love Jaybear, but hate jaybearing?As they should, if they think its leading good people away from Christ.If that's what they think, they should make an effort to lead people to Christ. Instead, they focus their efforts in leading people away from the Church of Jesus Christ. Evidently they think Jesus can be found in every direction, except the Mormon direction.Funny, that.Regards,Pahoran
LDSToronto Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Toronto:Do you really not see the difference between someone saying they didn't feel the spirit in another church and a former leader saying that Mormons dont believe in the same jesus, the BOM is a lie, JS was a fraud, etc.Of course I see the difference. That's not the point. I am asking if blooit *really* knows what's going on at this church or if he's trusting heresy? How does he know, for certain, this ex-bishop will spew anti-mormon material? H.
LDSToronto Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Mr. Toronto, surely you are aware that there is an entire cottage industry of traveling ex-LDS (who all claim to be former bishops, it seems) going around giving talks and seminars. Some get a fee up front, others ask for donations "to keep this important ministry going" as part of the presentation. While I am not familiar with the particulars in this case, it seems pretty much par for the EV course.I am not aware of this. In my neck of the woods, I can honestly say that I've never heard of ex-LDS going to preach at other churches, for free or for pay. Maybe it's a bible-belt thing?H.
LDSToronto Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Even if it means that you use outright lies and diliberate misrepresentation. And I understand that can cut both ways. I'm not talking about the young missionary or enthusiastic pastor who doesn't know any better, these "former Bishops" should know better.So, what are these former bishops saying? Did anyone actually attend his talk? Or a talk by another former bishop? I'm curious about the foundation for these assumptions...H.
LDSToronto Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 The OP said:I think that is where the assumption that it will primarily be focused on an anti-LDS message. Apparantly they turned an Easter performance into such a fest, so it seems like that might be the motivation behind inviting a 'former LDS bishop' to talk about why he left the church.Sure, could turn out to be an exaggeration. But I've been a few of these types of talks, speeches, sermons, whatever, and they generally have a tone that is primarily meant to tear down someone else rather than primarily to build up what they believe. I realize it is a nuance that many overlook.I'd really like to hear blooit tell us what was said at this Easter performance.H.
Saints Alive Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 So, what are these former bishops saying? Did anyone actually attend his talk? Or a talk by another former bishop? I'm curious about the foundation for these assumptions...H.You should be able to find it on YouTube, that's where I saw it.
altersteve Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Then one mentioned that they are hosting an ex-bishop who will talk about why he left the church.I find it very interesting how every time someone joins the Church, it's because of things they find right about it, not because of the things they find wrong about their previous faith. It's the exact opposite for people who leave the Church and join another.I think that says a lot.
Buzzard Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 I am not aware of this. In my neck of the woods, I can honestly say that I've never heard of ex-LDS going to preach at other churches, for free or for pay. Maybe it's a bible-belt thing?H.Never lived in the Bible Belt. But I can assure you it's very much a SoCal thing. I was invited to several of them during the years I lived there.
why me Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Never lived in the Bible Belt. But I can assure you it's very much a SoCal thing. I was invited to several of them during the years I lived there.I think that it is a SoCal thing because many mormons live in southern california. It becomes a point scoring process and a tool to have people think twice before they join mormonism. Many of these talks also take this stance: When I discovered the truth about the mormon god, I left and found the true, living god.
blooit Posted April 12, 2012 Author Posted April 12, 2012 Despite? LDS have as strong a belief in the Bible and being born again as anyone else.I hope you get what I'm saying here. My point is that they see this as conflicting points, while I do not. Make sense?
blooit Posted April 12, 2012 Author Posted April 12, 2012 Blooit - can you provide a flyer, program, playbill, or other such evidence that this ex-bishop is going to be talking about leaving Mormonism?Also, how can you be sure that he will be as controversial as Pahoran makes him out to be? And how will this be any different than the standard Fast & Testimony favourite, "I attended many other churches and none of them had the spirit, but then I found the LDS church..."?I thing you are exaggerating. Please prove me wrong.H.Hmmm... I often struggle with the amount of "proof" required on a discussion board, and the limited time I have. So how about the following just off the cuff:1) I have attended this pastor's church and listened to many of his sermons. His assistant pastor's specialty is "mormon studies."2) While I do not have a flyer, a member of his congregation told me the former bishop was speaking on, "Why I left the Mormon church."3) Other members of this congregation have confronted me publicly about my faith with "information" provided to them including everything from chariot wheels in the red sea to Joseph Smith's "criminal record."4) In short, the pastor has fostered the most anti-lds congregation in our community. I realize this is a subjective judgement, but a fairly informed one nonetheless.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Mr. Toronto, surely you are aware that there is an entire cottage industry of traveling ex-LDS (who all claim to be former bishops, it seems) going around giving talks and seminars. Or they claim to be former members of bishoprics or stake presidencies, which generally means in actuality that they held some ancillary clerical position. 1
Log Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Was there ever an ex-LDS anti-Mormon who did not ever hold a calling of any consequence at all?
spartacus Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Despite? LDS have as strong a belief in the Bible and being born again as anyone else.Maybe there should be a thread for this topic. If you mean "LDS" like LDS members, maybe they have a strong belief in the Bible, but if you mean the LDS institution and historical official position, not so much. Unless you want to make "strong" really relative.
spartacus Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Yes, that is the standard mantra. How convincing do you find it? What if I said that I love Jaybear, but hate jaybearing?If that's what they think, they should make an effort to lead people to Christ. Instead, they focus their efforts in leading people away from the Church of Jesus Christ. Evidently they think Jesus can be found in every direction, except the Mormon direction.Funny, that.Regards,Pahoran1) "Jaybearing" is not equivalent to mormonism. People who invoke this mantra recognize mormons as people first, and seekers of God, even lovers of Christ, but they also see the institution of mormonism as leading these people astray. Hate is a strong word anyway. I think its possible for anyone in the LDS institution who knows better but perpetuates the status quo, but for people who don't know better it seems a bit much. But then Jesus did warn about hating.2) What's funny about your second statement is that it could just as easily be said about LDS missionary lessons - little about Christ, mostly about how there's no truth except with the LDS church. Or, "they should make an effort to lead people to Christ. Instead, they focus their efforts in leading people away from every Christian church but the LDS church. Evidently they think falsehood can be found in every direction, except the Mormon direction." 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Maybe there should be a thread for this topic. If you mean "LDS" like LDS members, maybe they have a strong belief in the Bible, but if you mean the LDS institution and historical official position, not so much. Unless you want to make "strong" really relative.Please start a separate thread and provide authoritative documentation for your insinuation that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution has ever professed that the Bible is less than the revealed word of God. And while you're at it please tell us if you are a Church member or a detractor.
spartacus Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 It is the language and the tone which seems to have much hatred in it. The hatred when they discuss mormonism is quite deep. As is the misunderstandings. Anyone who would read the Liahona or Ensign with an open mind, will see that the mormons lead good lives, keep christ at their center and attempt to be righteous in life. Nothing much to hate in the lifestyle and in the advice given in the magazines. And that is my point. I see it as being very christ centered...But it is the hatred and not the disagreement that I am amazed about. No christian love at all exhibited by many christians.There is a lot of hatred out there. There's also a lot of criticism seen as hatred. There's also a lot of reasoning that is seen as attack.The Liahona and Ensign are not the LDS religion. The magazines are not the ones going to people's houses trying to convince people that God is willing to let His Church go for 1700 years, or that God is not the Ultimate. I'm pretty sure Old Testament prophets would have been pretty outraged by someone going around trying to convince people that they represented the True God but then taught that He was small. Yeah, I don't think they would like that. The smallness of the LDS concept of God is controversial, I know. Misundrstanding seems to be rife even within the LDS membership as to the Ultimacy or smallness of Heavenly Father. Maybe a thread topic.You also say "as is the misunderstandings" being deep. But then you start talking about the Liahona and Ensign. The Liahona and Ensign are the most refined, cropped, and shallow version of the LDS religion. This is hardly the way to respond to what you claim to be misunderstandings. "No! you misunderstand our religion. Here, look at this magazine!" Just doesn't seem right, appropriate, or likely to work.I don't know of anyone who is against LDS morals - those morals are the same as any decent religious group. However, where you see things being "Christ-centered", most critics of the LDS church, at least the Christian ones, see it quite differently. At best it is a different-Christ-centered and thus not Christ-centered. I read the Ensign (not cover to cover, but several articles per mag) and watch/read General Conferences. Christ gets mentioned but not much and not for very long. Just look at the LDS witness, Christ is just a bit stuck in at the end underneath "Church" "Joseph Smith" "Book of Mormon".
spartacus Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Please start a separate thread and provide authoritative documentation for your insinuation that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution has ever professed that the Bible is less than the revealed word of God.And while you're at it please tell us if you are a Church member or a detractor.The website tells me I can't start a thread - so I can't help you there.As for "authoritative documentation for [my] insinuation that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution has ever professed that the Bible is less than the revealed word of God" - well I suppose we could run into semantics. But Article of Faith # 8 should suffice - if it is only "as far as it is translated correctly" then it is something "less than the revealed word of God". In fact it is right there in #8 "to be the word of God as far as" is a limiting or lessening of the Bible as the word of God. Surely, you knew this. I'm not quite sure why you made a thing of it. It would hardly need a thread unto itself.You are also quick to look for labels. For now, let's just say I am neither member nor detractor, by definition.
volgadon Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 I'm pretty sure Old Testament prophets would have been pretty outraged by someone going around trying to convince people that they represented the True God but then taught that He was small. Yeah, I don't think they would like that. The smallness of the LDS concept of God is controversial, I know. Misundrstanding seems to be rife even within the LDS membership as to the Ultimacy or smallness of Heavenly Father. Maybe a thread topic.Ahh, the old "my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God" bit.
spartacus Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 As for the actual topic, it's an obviously bad move to use Easter to do anything other than celebrate Christ. There's hardly a need or any real material here to make a whole thread out of this. In fact, as others have noted, this thread can only be made up of a lot of hearsay unless we know what the Easter service's actual content was and/or what the guest talk's content is. We've done an excellent job of growing a thread on thin ground. If we had this content, this thread would be much heartier.
spartacus Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Ahh, the old "my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God" bit.Ahh, name calling.As I said it is complicated as even members of the LDS church do not agree on this. But there is a difference between Heavenly Father being the original god, only Ultimate, who created the path to "godhood" and a Heavenly Father who started out as a man and became a god through the path to godhood - he's no longer the Ultimate if the path to godhood is something outside of him.This is obvious, so try to be a little slower to get to the name calling and a little more helpful with a substantive point. Thanks.
spartacus Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Ahh, the old "my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God" bit.Also, I said "the True God" not "my" or "their God". The actual God that Is is much bigger than any of our "gods" or concepts/understanding of God. So, in line with my original statement, and my own stance, it is justified to be outraged when people are out lowering other's understanding/view or concept of the God that Is, let alone their belief, even more so when these people claim to be God's followers, even more so when these people claim to be the only true fully following followers of God, let alone God's only authorized priests, etc.
altersteve Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Ahh, name calling.As I said it is complicated as even members of the LDS church do not agree on this. But there is a difference between Heavenly Father being the original god, only Ultimate, who created the path to "godhood" and a Heavenly Father who started out as a man and became a god through the path to godhood - he's no longer the Ultimate if the path to godhood is something outside of him.This is obvious, so try to be a little slower to get to the name calling and a little more helpful with a substantive point. Thanks.CFR that volgadon was "name calling."
volgadon Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 CFR that volgadon was "name calling."While I wasn't going to CFR it, I was going to ask which names I supposedly used. I am more amused thananything.
Recommended Posts