mfbukowski Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Read the D&C, it is an ice bridge not a tunnel.Oh gosh- do I have to explain EVERYTHING?I don't know what urroner was talking about with his NASA thingy- that must be secret, but the ice bridge is for the City of Enoch, the tunnel is for the European Saints escaping Socialist oppression in Europe. And now I hear they are extending the tunnel from Europe to Jerusalem so there will be a link all the way from Salt Lake through the New Jerusalem to plain old Jerusalem.They could have just tunneled through the center of the earth but that was deemed too risky so they kept it fairly near the surface- about 20 miles down for most of it. Any other questions?
thesometimesaint Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 So now we're not even a religious group.
MormonMason Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Boy, I'm glad we're not a cult!In general, cults differ from Christian churches first of all in what they believe. Cults always deny some part of what the Bible teaches (which is why some add other so-called "sacred" books to the Bible). Many deny the deity of Jesus, or believe His work on the cross wasn't sufficient to save us from our sins.Cults also differ from Christian churches by the way they act. Cults often stress absolute and total obedience to their leader (instead of to Jesus), and threaten anyone who wants to leave the group by claiming they will be lost if they do.http://www.billygrah...?articleid=4291Yeah, that totally doesn't describe Mormonism. It doesn't, completely. Like the Bible, Mormonism stresses obedience both to Jesus and to his prophets.20 ¶And they rose early in the morning, and went forth into the wilderness of Tekoa: and as they went forth, Jehoshaphat stood and said, Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; aBelieve in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; bbelieve his prophets, so shall ye cprosper.(2 Chronicles 20:20)17 aObey them that have the rule over you, and bsubmit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.(Hebrews 13:17)As to other books of scripture, sure that could be applied in some way under the definition of the above linked page but none of our additional scriptures are replacements for the Bible. They are more supplements and clarifications. I am sure that the Jews felt the same way when Christians started using the New Testament as scripture when the Old Testament was The Bible. But, under the above definition regarding scripture, we would have to include all early Christians under the label of cult because their Bible was not the Bible we use today--unless you are Greek Orthodox. Their Bible included what we now call Apocrypha and exclude from the majority of Bibles today.And, would they also force people to believe in or ignore translation errors? I think not.As to the deity of Christ, we don't deny that. The Book of Mormon establishes that clearly in agreement with the Bible.But, the cross being all sufficient is a can of worms for Evangelicals. The moment you admit one insufficiency, the argument about the cross being all-sufficient is lost and nullified. If there is even one unpardonable sin, the cross cannot be said to be all-sufficient. The moment we admit, like Paul and Peter, that baptism through the resurrection saves us (1 Peter 3:21) and that without the resurrection we would yet remain in our sins in spite of the cross (1 Corinthians 15:12-17), the cross is shown to be not all-sufficient.That is why the above definition is useless in defining a cult, in any case.
DH Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Whew, what a relief to know that I'm not in a cult! This really sets my mind at peace.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 What can I say? Billy Graham’s Evangelical Group Removes Mormonism From Cult ListHe has always been kind to us...many groups have thrown him under the bus for this and his views on hell, which is much like our own.
Law22 Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 People are entitled to repent. and I am glad Billy Graham has changed on this. im happy to see this and hope others will follow suit.Repent of what?
spartacus Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Oh, come on. "not believing like us"? Please post right here, right now, for all to see, that Judaism is a cult. After all, they don't believe like you. I suspect you won't, because you know full well that people use cult in a far more negative, even menacing sense.I was paraphrasing a previous post which equated cult with "not us". I was referring to a whole position (dealing with traditional Christian/LDS relations) by that small little statement. I was not actually agreeing with the definition as sufficient, but stating that the "not us" part of the theological definition, being referred to and derided, should in fact not be scorned so.I have posted a link to a good, very short but efficient article that I believe explains the respectable motives of traditional Christians in using the theological term and these motives being common to LDS as well. I can find it again and repost it or send it directly to you, if you like. LDS choose not to use the word "cult", but they have other equivalent terms from equivalently valid motives (except the double standard LDS give against those same motives in traditional Christianity).In the end, all the hoopla is about the common, social, non-theological use of the word "cult". That criticism is valid. And that's why Graham's organization has made the TEMPORARY change to their website. The theological use of the word is still valid, even if relative (and able to be criticized and reduced unfairly to "not us").I believe LDS harm their position when they make silly criticisms in the form of "'cult' just means that we're not them". When I posted that small piece describing the different uses of "cult" and the valid motives involved, no one on that thread responded to it - positively or negatively. So maybe it was ignored and never read. If it was read then it would seem some just don't want to understand.I am strongly surprised by the LDS here who have managed to read so blatantly too much into this article and action.
blackstrap Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 So you are saying that there was a list of cults and the LDS were on it. That means that they were deemed a cult. Now , however, the LDS have been removed from the cult list for political reasons and not because they are not considered a cult because they are. Right, we are the ones who are confused.
spartacus Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 So you are saying that there was a list of cults and the LDS were on it. That means that they were deemed a cult. Now , however, the LDS have been removed from the cult list for political reasons and not because they are not considered a cult because they are. Right, we are the ones who are confused.Maybe you didn't read my original post, it's at the top of this page of the thread.I'm just going by the stated reason that was given by the representative of the organization:“We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign."That obviously does NOT say "we believe that the LDS Church is not a cult". What it does say is that they "removed the information". It also gives qualifications "something that has become politicized" and, if that wasn't clearly limited and temporary, they also say "during this campaign". What do you think will happen once the "thing" is no longer "politicized" or the "campaign" is over?Blackstrap, how is it so hard to believe that the removal was for political reasons instead of conviction? That's obviously possible. But then you have the reason given by the Graham rep, it's a political reason.Now is it possible that Graham et al. have changed their minds but don't want to get the heat for it from their neighbors and so cover it as a political move only? Sure, but much more far-fetched.Rather, I shall take them at their word, and no further.
Zakuska Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Last week, directly following the momentous meeting-slash-prayer between Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and supervangelist Billy Graham, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed “Mormons” from its Web site’s list of cults. In a fell, Internet-mediated swoop, the BGEA legitimized a group that has been excoriated for decades as anathema to good ol’ American values. In a simple—and, perhaps precipitous—move, the BGEA has made Mormons like me normal.Now what are the evangelical types going to do?! DOH!http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/mormon-says-hell-miss-cult-lifestyle/2012/10/19/70b91c0c-1a23-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1
Saints Alive Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 As has been said elsewhere, just because they took it down doesn't mean that's not how they still feel
Deborah Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I think they are concerned about the political implications of their stand and it's politically motivated for that reason.
Mehrdad Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Tis sad when politics become the dictates of our religious beliefs.
Calm Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I am not sure a desire to present a temporary neutral position on cult status is demonstrating that they are allowing religion to take a second place to politics, especially if they are concerned and believe (correctly or not) that one of the candidates will protect religious positions and the other may threaten the full practice of their faith. Perhaps it would have served their purpose more clearly to simply remove the entire list from their site for the next threeish weeks so that it would be clear what they are doing...if they are trying to make a statement that they don't endorse having a theological religious test for candidates.However if they are simply attempting to present the candidate of their choice in a more positive way by de-emphasising his connection with an organization they consider a cult and have intent to put the listing back up after the election even if Romney wins, thus restoring the cause of distrust for some, it seems they are more concerned about winning a political contest than taking a stand for the truth as they see it (since for them, unlike some of the others they consider cults, the cult status of the LDS faith is primarily based on doctrinal differences). Though this is seen most likely by them as a win for their practice of their religious faith and thus they justify their action....in the long run it will allow them to better teach the truth, etc. in their view, to me if the status of being a cult is recognised by them as having that much influence on how some view cult members, if they have removed the LDS faith from their list to avoid people wrongly judging Romney as unfit for the presidency, they are being intentionally reckless in their treatment of those they view as cult members, knowingly setting them up to be wrongly judged by others based on being labeled a cult.
Saints Alive Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 They also consider Unitarians cultists and there have been more Unitarian presidents than any other denomination besides Episcopal.
rodheadlee Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 I understand Spartacus, it's the anybody but Obama syndrome.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Repent of what?For consigning us to hell and calling a cult for decades. But with age comes wisdom.
Hestia Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 I merged this topic with another on the same topic.
urroner Posted October 21, 2012 Author Posted October 21, 2012 I merged this topic with another on the same topic.Without my permission of course.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 What can I say? Billy Graham’s Evangelical Group Removes Mormonism From Cult ListPoor Mitt...
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Without my permission of course.Wow...and I don't mean Word of Wisdom.
Calm Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Without my permission of course.Pink brings out the colour of your eyes.
urroner Posted October 22, 2012 Author Posted October 22, 2012 Pink brings out the colour of your eyes.Why thank you Cal!!!. Did you happen to notice how young and smooth my skin looks also?
Saints Alive Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Why thank you Cal!!!. Did you happen to notice how young and smooth my skin looks also? You might want to mop up that drool though.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.