Local Congregation Hosting Former/Apostate Bishop

[zerinus]

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.

That is a false dichotomy. In reality, LDS members and LDS institution are one and the same. The institution is composed of its members. If the members did not support, approve of, or agree with the leadership, they wouldn't be there. The members and leaders are all part of the same package. It is the members that make up the institution. And as far as the Bible is concerned, it is part of the LDS scriptural canon. No part of the canon is superior or inferior to the other. You are creating a false dichotomy to drive home a false perception to suit your own ends, but which has no reflection in the world of reality.

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."

Mormon missionaries focus on leading people to the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ. While truth can be found in all churches and religions, they are often mixed with errors, or lack the fullness of the truth that Restoration brings. They try to educate people about the Apostasy of the early Christian Church, which has led to the plethora of Christian sects and denominations which are often at odds with each other; and show an alternative way forward, which is made possible by the Restoration. If you think that your gospel is superior, you are welcome to preach it to the Mormons; nobody is going to stop you. If your claims had any substance, that is exactly what you would do. The fact that you prefer to resort to other tactics, proves that your claims are hollow.

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.

That is equally true of the Book of Mormon. It is true of any translated scripture. The only difference is that the Book of Mormon has been translated by the gift and the power of God, rather than by human agency alone, therefore the result is a more reliable translation. But as far as canonicity is concerned, there is no difference between the two from the LDS perspective.

Ahh, name calling.

Which "name" was that?

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.

That is the case of the kettle calling the pot black. When you have resolved the absurdities and contradictions inherent in your own Trinitarian theology, let us know, and we will talk about the theological complexities of the LDS doctrine of the Godhead.

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.

Hmmm, still wondering what "name" that was.

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.

When you have sorted out your three-headed monstrosity which you call the Trinity, let us know, and we will talk about it more:

Edited April 12, 2012 by zerinus

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't think LDS are in any position to criticize the quality of "Easter services" at other churches. While I recognize that each ward makes a different level of effort, I have sat through more than one Easter Sacrament Meeting that was almost indistinguishable from a regular meeting (and that wasn't because our regular meetings are overflowing with talks about Jesus and the atonement).

One of the joy's of being an American, I can say what i won't. Unless he was there to teach about Christ on Easter and only their to talk about how Mormons are not Christians...wrong message on the wrong day.

[Jaybear]

While I wasn't going to CFR it, I was going to ask which names I supposedly used. I am more amused thananything.

I am curious if you disagree with the substance of his comment.

[volgadon]

I am curious if you disagree with the substance of his comment.

Yes, I disagree and will respond to it, but his accusation doesn't bode well.

[volgadon]

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.

None of this means that LDS teach a small God. What it does mean is that our concept of the divine differs from yours. When you insist on seeing our perception as small, that is where the discussion becomes a futile exchange of "my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God." You said that the ancient prophets would be outraged. On p. 221 of Abraham Joshua Heschel's The Prophets, there is a very insightful statement. "To the prophets, the attributes of God were drives, challenges, commandments, rather than timeless notions detached from His Being. They did not offer an exposition of the nature of God, but rather an exposition of God's insight into man and His concern for man. They disclosed attitudes of God rather than ideas about God." Did God create the world? Is he active in it? Does he control its destiny? Does he bring peace and order to chaos? Does he provide salvation for those who keep his commandments? Will he annihilate death and sin? Does he make the sun to rise and set, the rain to fall, plants to grow and give food? Does he heal, protect and and bless? Does he give life and also take it away? Does he care for the weak, the poor, the helpless, the oppressed? Can he purify the impure?

These are things that concerned the prophets.

God does all that in LDS teachings, this is hardly a small God, your philosophising notwithstanding

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.

Well, when you say thatwe have a different Jesus and that our God is small, placing it in opposition to your own "correct" notion of God, then it really boils down to "my God" versus "your God."

[volgadon]

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.

The 8th article of faith address a concern of a body of believers whose sacred texts were originally in a different language or languages. If the translation (itself an act of interpretation, on which see in detail Steiner's "After Babel") isn't in keeping with the meaning of the text, whatever that may be, then the believers aren't required to accept it.

For example, if I were to translate Exodus 30:7 in keeping with the modern Hebrew meaning of "samim," would you be required to accept doing drugs as God's Word?

"And Aaron shall burn on it incense of drugs; each and every morning, when he puts the lamps in order, he'll burn the drugs on it."

If you don't accept it, is the 8th article of faith really all that different from what you believe?

[TJayT]

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.

Nice to see you slumming on this side of the net spartacus!

I have to agree with you that it is all hearsay as of now, but past experience leads me to suspect the Lds faith wasn't cast in a neutral or slightly negative light.

A few times growing up we had a few different converts in our ward talk at youth firesides about there conversions. Never once did these people try and put down there former religions, unless you count them saying they felt like they were missing something as an attack. When I compair those meetings to the few Ex-Mormon conversion meetings that I've been to there was a vast difference in tone and intent.

[why me]

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".

This is not true at all. The last conference had much to do about Christ and leading a Christ filled life. The point is very simple: most lds know that they should emulate Christ by living righteously. This idea is in most magazines in the lds church. To attempt to live the commandments, show love to neighbor and enemy, pray to the father in the name of Christ, be kind, be charitable, be humble, and be service minded etc. All this is very Christ centered. And the book of mormon is also very Christ centered.

[why me]

The Liahona and Ensign are not the LDS religion.

Not true. The Liahona and the Ensign are about how to live the religion. And this is very much apart of a Christ centered life.

[Calm]

Just look at the LDS witness, Christ is just a bit stuck in at the end underneath "Church" "Joseph Smith" "Book of Mormon".

What do you mean by "LDS witness"?

[why me]

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.

And this was the point of the OP. Other christians talk about the mormon god being small in stature and the smallness of the lds concept of heavenly father. But this is not true at all. The lds can pray often to heavenly father and when they pray to Him, he is not small at all but all powerful and personal. And all this is done in the name of his son Jesus Christ. In fact, Heavenly Father is huge within the lds faith. He is the Father, our father. And Christ is his son, the saviour of humankind. Both play a huge role in the life of the lds.

[blooit]

I've decided they should call this discussion board Mormon Tangent...

Update** So two members of my friends congregation just came and invited me to attend their services Sunday. What a great opportunity to ask...

[Pahoran]

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.

Spartacus,

Welcome to the forum.

There is a minimum number of posts you have to have to be able to edit your posts, start new threads, etc.

I'm not sure where I've seen you posting before (CARM, perhaps?) but it's a good idea to be aware that this forum is a little different than where you have been before. You are approximately the 9,827th poster to show up presuming to tell us(!) what our(!) doctrines are and mean. Be aware that there are numbers of informed Latter-day Saints here, who by and large are not muzzled from defending their faith, and who understand the Church and its teachings rather better than you do. If you cannot say anything without first casting the teachings of the Church in a light that is most helpful to your argument, then you probably won't get very far, because we know better.

So instead of presuming to tell us what happens in our Sacrament Meetings, at General Conference etc., you might like to talk about your own faith tradition. Chances are you understand that better than we do, so you may have something to contribute on that subject.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

And this was the point of the OP. Other christians talk about the mormon god being small in stature and the smallness of the lds concept of heavenly father. But this is not true at all. The lds can pray often to heavenly father and when they pray to Him, he is not small at all but all powerful and personal. And all this is done in the name of his son Jesus Christ. In fact, Heavenly Father is huge within the lds faith. He is the Father, our father. And Christ is his son, the saviour of humankind. Both play a huge role in the life of the lds.

I think of the Christus statue in the rotunda of the North Visitors Center on Temple Square. It is placed against the backdrop of a huge mural representing the universe. Visitors hear a recording of Christ's words in scripture, "Worlds without number have I created." If that is God's Son talking, How glorious and magnificent His Father must be. Those who speak of the "Mormon god" being small lack understanding, to put it mildly.

By the way, when I hear this anti-Mormon reference to "the Mormon god," I think of the line from the movie "The Ten Commandments," in which Pharoah is at long last compelled to acknowledge that "Moses's god Is God."

LIkewise, "the Mormon god" is God.

[Pahoran]

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.

They are official publications of the Church. That doesn't mean they are infallible, but it does mean that their reliability in representing what the Church is and does is in a completely different ballpark than the polemically-driven opinions of the Church's critics.

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.

Caricatures of other people's beliefs can be like that.

Misundrstanding seems to be rife even within the LDS membership as to the Ultimacy or smallness of Heavenly Father. Maybe a thread topic.

Maybe.

When you're ready, you can start one. You can tell us your misconceptions and we will correct you.

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 a technique known as "Poisoning the Well." To informed people, all it does is tip your hand.

Whatever the shortcomings of those publications may be, they are still infinitely more reliable than the distortions of the Church's critics.

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.

We've found it to be quite successful when talking to those who are actually interested in the truth.

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.

Really?

I believe in the Christ who was born to Mary in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, was baptized by John, preached throughout Judea and Galilee, healed the sick, raised the dead, was betrayed by Judas, was tried before Herod Antipas and Pilate, was crucified by Pilate's order and rose from the dead the third day.

So tell us: what Christ do you believe in, since it's a different one?

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".

I do not know what "the LDS witness" is. But you clearly watched a different General Conference than I did.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

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".

Last July, I tested this rather persistent anti-Mormon mythology that Joseph Smith is mentioned more frequently in LDS worship services than is Christ. I did a word search of the previous general conference comparing occurrences of the mention of Joseph Smith with the mention of Christ. I reported the results of my search in an editorial in the LDS Church News.

Here is an excerpt from my editorial:

An examination of the most recent general conference, held in April of this year, showed that occurrences of the name Christ in the conference sermons far outnumbered occurrences of the name Joseph Smith. To avoid skewing the results, instances were excluded whenever a talk was, according to custom, closed in the name of Jesus Christ or whenever the name appeared as part of the formal title The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Even with those exclusions, 136 occurrences of the name Christ were counted, contrasted with only 28 occurrences of the name of Joseph Smith. If other names for Christ had been included in the count — such as Savior, Redeemer, Lord, Master, Jehovah, the count surely would have been significantly higher.

Dramatic as it is, this does not give the full picture. When one considers that Christ underpins all the doctrines and teachings of Mormonism, one could posit that we spend virtually all our time at Church talking of Christ. This is expressed well in an editorial printed in Elder's Journal, a publication edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth" (quoted in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, pp. 49-50).

Edited April 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[selek1]

I think of the Christus statue in the rotunda of the North Visitors Center on Temple Square. It is placed against the backdrop of a huge mural representing the universe. Visitors hear a recording of Christ's words in scripture, "Worlds without number have I created." If that is God's Son talking, How glorious and magnificent His Father must be. Those who speak of the "Mormon god" being small lack understanding, to put it mildly.

By the way, when I hear this anti-Mormon reference to "the Mormon god," I think of the line from the movie "The Ten Commandments," in which Pharoah is at long last compelled to acknowledge that "Moses's god Is God."

LIkewise, "the Mormon god" is God.

Last July, I tested this rather persistent anti-Mormon mythology that Joseph Smith is mentioned more frequently in LDS worship services than is Christ. I did a word search of the previous general conference comparing occurrences of the mention of Jospeh Smith with the mention of Christ. I reported the results of my search in an editorial in the LDS Church News.

Here is an excerpt from my editorial:

Dagnabit.

Still outta rep points.

+2 points, Scott.

[Scott Lloyd]

Dagnabit.

Still outta rep points.

+2 points, Scott.

I'll take a promissory note on the rep points. I need all I can get. You can give them to me tomorrow when your account is replenished.

[selek1]

I'll take a promissory note on the rep points. I need all I can get. You can give them to me tomorrow when your account is replenished.

Done and done.

[why me]

I think of the Christus statue in the rotunda of the North Visitors Center on Temple Square. It is placed against the backdrop of a huge mural representing the universe. Visitors hear a recording of Christ's words in scripture, "Worlds without number have I created." If that is God's Son talking, How glorious and magnificent His Father must be. Those who speak of the "Mormon god" being small lack understanding, to put it mildly.

By the way, when I hear this anti-Mormon reference to "the Mormon god," I think of the line from the movie "The Ten Commandments," in which Pharoah is at long last compelled to acknowledge that "Moses's god Is God."

LIkewise, "the Mormon god" is God.

Those who speak of the mormon god may not know god at all. If they did, they would not use such an expression.

[kolipoki09]

I have a pretty good relationship with several of my local pastors. One of the local congregations had an Easter performance that was designed primarily to counter LDS doctrine. Some of the members of this church were offended at how anti-LDS it seemed, but I can respect our differences. Then one mentioned that they are hosting an ex-bishop who will talk about why he left the church.

If you're referring to the one coming to Idaho Falls, I too have heard about it. As far as I know, the guy hasn't been excommunicated, or at least he hadn't been when I saw him last year. In fact, he still held his temple recommend. His knowledge of early Mormon history is a hybrid between Work and the Glory and the "facts" as presented by Shawn McCraney on The Heart of the Matter.

I am tempted to ask the pastor if he'd like to also interview me on why I am still in the church despite having a strong belief in the Bible and being born again. I realize it would be an ambush, but I am tempted nonetheless just so that my side can be represented. If nothing else, I want the congregation to see that we may just have an argument as well, and how unchristian and pharisaical it is to have this sort of meeting.

There will be a Q&A Session with him Sunday evening, but I doubt you'd be able to field a question or two without being cut off. Rick Brown takes an "ends justify the means" approach to evangelizing with former Mormons. It doesn't matter what they say (truth, falsehood, or straw man), as long as you leave Mormonism and embrace fundamentalist Protestantism.

Tempting.. because I think he may just go for it, but I doubt he would let me speak much other than to answer straw-man questions.

Earl's reasons for leaving Mormonism and embracing fundamentalist Protestantism aren't all that different from those who have gone the Evangelical route, including my own brother.

Having seen Earl speak before, most of his arguments are softballs. It reminded me of how truly valuable Seth Payne's work in documenting trends in ex-Mormon narratives has been. It was textbook. A shorthand list of main claims Earl makes include:

1. After 2005 BoM challenge, read 1830 edition of BoM and learned there were differences with current version.

2. Finds conflicting accounts in First Vision.

3. “Lectures of Faith” (sic) Godhead issues.

4. Luke 10:22 JST issues.

5. "All of the original Joseph Smith Papyri are now owned by the Church" and Mormons know "little or nothing about this amazing discovery.”

6. “Masonic rituals in the temple”

7. Changes to temple endowment ceremony

8. Joseph Smith practicing polygamy before 1843 Revelation

9. No mention of Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthoods prior to 1834, with all 1829 dates added later.

10. Dead Sea Scrolls support the accuracy of the Old Testament and don’t support the JST revisions.

11. "God had a physical relationship with Mary."

12. "Mormon aversion to the Cross."

13. No archaeological, metal, DNA, linguistic support for BoM, also BH Roberts account that he couldn’t find support either.

14. The Mormon God was a “previously sinful man who developed into a god.”

So Blooit, if you plan on going, make sure to tell us how things went. I for one, would be interested in hearing whether Earl has really changed anything since he first started his ministry last year. Thanks!

Edited April 14, 2012 by kolipoki09

[blooit]

I am headed there now, for the morning services. This is the one. My friend assures me that Pastor Rick doesn't tolerate bashing. I trust my friend, but not necessarily what actually happens. I'll give an update later, and maybe attend Q&A later. We'll see.

[why me]

I am headed there now, for the morning services. This is the one. My friend assures me that Pastor Rick doesn't tolerate bashing. I trust my friend, but not necessarily what actually happens. I'll give an update later, and maybe attend Q&A later. We'll see.

Look forward to your update. I think that bashing can take on many meanings. Lets see what happens. I still think that the gist will be: when I left the mormon church I found the one true god and left the mormon god behind. But lets see...

[Buzzard]

It must be quite the event. They are talking about it even on Cougarboard.com. I guess they made a big show of inviting "all your mormon friends".

[blooit]

Calvary chapel is the largest single congregation in our area, with several thousand attendees. Services are also broadcast on local television. I have attended Calvary Chapel before. I have many friends and neighbors who attend church there, as well as many students. I have always appreciated the opportunity to attend worship services with people of other faiths. I am told that bringing in this former mormon bishop was a request by the high number of former members in the congregation. In short, something of a support group for former mormons.

I was invited by a group of my students to attend services. A friend from Calvary had told me that a former mormon bishop was coming to town, and another close friend warned me that today was the day. This wasn't a big deal since I figured this was the real reason I was invited. Doesn't matter - I love those kids and wanted to support them. I sat two seats behind the pastor in the sanctuary that holds probably 1200 people or so.

I enjoyed the opening music. Obviously it was much more active than usual for me, but I had a great time with the opening performances. Pastor Rick then stood up and discussed some business and gave a prayer, at which time my IPOD began playing an LDS song very loudly. It literally froze and wouldn't turn off. My daughter laughs that it was divine intervention, but I think it was my own stupidity. Of all things, it was playing the EFY song, "In All Places" LOL

Pastor Rick gave a very nice, short sermon and explained that it was not normally his practice to have guest speakers, but sometimes it becomes important to discuss the differences between faiths. So far, I had a hard time disagreeing. Earl (forgot his last name) was then invited to speak. He laid out ten arguments against the church for about an hour and spoke only of his problems with mormons. He did not speak much of his current position. His arguments were not new. DNA, Archaeology, changes in the BOM, Papyri, etc. I began to struggle when he began to make jokes mocking mormons. It seemed unnecessary. Jokes about polygamy and temple ceremonies. He also spoke authoritatively, as in "we mormons believe" despite having been excommunicated. He cherry picked scriptures, in fact even cut off phrases of LDS scripture that clarified themselves, and openly mocked Joseph Smith and current church leaders, although mostly at the local level.

There was a question answer tonight that I had hoped to attend. However, Pastor Rick asked that all questions be submitted up front. I found this interesting since he openly stated that Mormons can't ask questions at their church but Calvary Chapel members always can in theirs.

After the services, a group of friends and friends friends gathered around me in the cafe and asked me about the presentation. I politely explained that I think there are fundamental differences between our faiths, and even issues that LDS people might question, but that this presentation did not fairly or honestly represent my faith. I explained that it was full of manipulations and misrepresentations. I further explained that I felt it was unchristian and unChristlike to bear false witness.

My relationships with my friends is stronger, and several agreed that they felt they "know nothing more about mormons today than we did yesterday." I explained that I would be happy to answer any questions any time.

I left with some very strong feelings. I respect our differences, and do not see EVs as automatically anti-mormon. In fact, I see Pastor RIck as a very caring, well intentioned individual who I feel gave into the sentiments of disgruntled former members for the good of his career and income. I think he was hesitant to have this today, but gained money and prestige from it. Something that a lay leadership generally restricts. My friends were a little uncomfortable with the presentation, but as they don't feel there is a "one true church" on the earth, they see it as a questionable choice by an otherwise decent pastor.

The one other thought that I really left with was this: the claims made by my faith are significant enough on their own. Living prophets, modern revelation, polygamy, temples, exaltation, etc. So if these differences are enough, why do other faiths often feel the need to caricaturize the church, and even out-and-out deceive? To me, as a latter day saint, the answer seems clear. If our outlandish claims are false, they would be sufficient. If they are true, then they must be blurred through mischaracerizations and deception, or their truthfulness will become apparent.

I plan on writing a very nice, respectful letter to Pastor Rick, and sharing my feelings with him. I hope that maybe he will hear me out, or even come over for dinner. I plan on serving green jello and funeral potatoes.

Edited April 16, 2012 by blooit