"Preaching The Same Jesus"

[Stargazer]

Well, I can tell you one thing. I am getting REALLY tired of the word "disingenuous". It has occurred way too often in this thread, and the next time I see it here I am going to SCREAM.

[randyj]

I know you want me to concede that your characterization of Mr. Ridenhour and of what he did is correct, but I'm not prepared to do that. So if you want to add me to your list of "People-an-Anonymous-Internet-Poster-Thinks-Are-Disingenuous," go right on ahead and do that, and I'll add you to the no-doubt-so-lengthy-it-borders-on-infinite list of "Anonymous-Internet-Posters-Who-Think-I'm-Disingenuous." There! We're even! Happy?

I think that the vast majority of people who sincerely apply Moroni's Promise will come to the conclusions that (1) The Book of Mormon is the Word of God; and (2) Ergo, Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God; and (3) The Church Christ restored through him is God's authorized Church and Kingdom on the Earth in these, the Latter days. To me, it makes no difference whether what spurs them to do so is the testimony of a Baptist minister who believes the Book of Mormon is inspired, or my testimony (or that of one of my fellow Saints) that the Book of Mormon is a genuine record of authentic ancient peoples that contains the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and was translated by the gift and power of God by a prophet who restored the Lord’s True Church to the earth.

It's interesting: every once in a while to go to Amazon and look at reactions to material which we both (indeed which most of the people who participate on the Board) could rightly characterize as "anti-Mormon." For example, though I haven't done so recently, I did so a few years ago with one of Ed Decker's more noted works. About nine of every ten reviews were pats on the back to Mr. Decker from his like-minded fellows: "Way to go, Ed! Thanks for telling the TRUTH about Mormons and Mormonism ..." You know the drill. But what I thought was most interesting was that perhaps one in ten or one in twenty of the reviews said something like, "I wanted to find out whether Mormonism is really as bad as you say it is, so I looked up the original sources/studied Mormonism for myself/etc., and ... I'm getting (or I got) baptized …” The Lord truly works in mysterious ways. If he can use someone like Ed Decker as his instrument (albeit unwittingly) to bring people into the Church of Jesus Christ, then why can’t he use someone like Lynn Ridenhour? (If you want to put Ed Decker and Lynn Ridenhour in the same class, go ahead; but I think that would say much more about YOU than it would about either of THEM …)

"I know you want me to concede that your characterization of Mr. Ridenhour and of what he did is correct, but I'm not prepared to do that."

I honestly do not care if you concede anything or not. Believe what you wish. As I stated clearly...as long as folks are aware of his history and agenda with respect to his joining the LDS church..thats all that matters. The choice is theirs to believe him or not. For me..after my PERSONAL interactions with him over a period of years, and knowing his Bishop..I feel I have a much firmer grasp of the facts than do you. Let's just leave it at that and agree to disagree. Thanks fer playin!

[randyj]

It doesn't show what you're claiming it shows without a good deal of interpolation from you. But thanks fer playin'!

Apparently not..according to other posts above. But again...we can agree to disagree. It's all good..no worries my good man!

[randyj]

I can see where Randy is coming from having never sat down personally with Lynn.

I have spent time with Lynn at events and one-on-one in his home. Though somewhat misguided in his reasons for joining the LDS Church, I don't believe he did it in any attempt to deceive. Coming from a Baptist background, I believe he was somewhat ignorant of the understanding that LDS, especially ardent ones like Randy, have of church membership.

Thank you for this. As I've said here, and as I expressed to Lynn...he's a good man...but in this particular circumstance he made some poor choices, some of which in my opinion were by design. One cannot go through the Missionary discussions and interview process and join the church without having answered certain questions in the affirmative. We know what the baptismal questions are. This is not rocket science. He would have had to given answers that were extremely "nuanced" (I will try to avoid the word deceitful) to the missionaries in order for the process to move forward. Regardless...in my opinion what he did mocked the baptismal covenants he had promised to keep..among other things.

[Calm]

Regardless...in my opinion what he did mocked the baptismal covenants he had promised to keep..among other things.

I am trying to understand how one can be baptized in full faith while reserving the position that the association with the Church is only to be temporary. It is a very different view of the purpose of baptism and I suppose if one assumes that the person teaching about the baptism doesn't understand baptism's true purpose or one believes it can have a different purpose instead of the assumed one, one might be able to take upon the covenants that way and then believe that resigning from the Church doesn't violate those covenants in any fashion, but it seems to me that requires either a very closed mind about the purpose of baptism in the Church today so as to ignore what one is being taught or being convinced that the missionaries don't really know what they are talking about and so can be ignored as far as their doctrine.

Coming from a Baptist background, I believe he was somewhat ignorant of the understanding that LDS, especially ardent ones like Randy, have of church membership.

I think this is key and what is troubling is that he either continued to ignore the teachings he was receiving or was so locked into his own POV he reinterpreted everything he was hearing as I think the discussions and interview make the LDS understanding clear.

It also makes me wonder about his ability to build bridges if he missed such a fundamental understanding of LDS doctrine.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I am trying to understand how one can be baptized in full faith while reserving the position that the association with the Church is only to be temporary. It is a very different view of the purpose of baptism and I suppose if one assumes that the person teaching about the baptism doesn't understand baptism's true purpose or one believes it can have a different purpose instead of the assumed one, one might be able to take upon the covenants that way and then believe that resigning from the Church doesn't violate those covenants in any fashion, but it seems to me that requires either a very closed mind about the purpose of baptism in the Church today so as to ignore what one is being taught or being convinced that the missionaries don't really know what they are talking about and so can be ignored as far as their doctrine.

I think this is key and what is troubling is that he either continued to ignore the teachings he was receiving or was so locked into his own POV he reinterpreted everything he was hearing as I think the discussions and interview make the LDS understanding clear.

It also makes me wonder about his ability to build bridges if he missed such a fundamental understanding of LDS doctrine.

I think that would probably be what happened- you have to meet Lynn is person to appreciate his unique personality.

[randyj]

I think that would probably be what happened- you have to meet Lynn is person to appreciate his unique personality.

I can understand this sentiment, but I cannot fathom how he, as well versed as he was in LDS doctrine already prior to his baptism, as well as probably having a pretty solid understanding of LDS culture...how he could simply ignore the implications of the questions being asked of him during the interview process. That is the part that is so troublesome for me personally. I just can't help but think the whole thing was orchestrated from the beginning to gain access to the LDS membership... a "field ripe and ready to harvest" as it were...to further this particular agenda, and when he was found out and started receiving some pushback from his Priesthood leaders...he bailed. Based upon my own personal interactions with him, and what I learned from him personally..and from some in his Ward that got to know him a bit...I just find his actions in this circumstance to be extremely questionable...and that's being as generous as I can be....given the facts.

[Calm]

I think that would probably be what happened- you have to meet Lynn is person to appreciate his unique personality.

If so, then it makes me very concerned about his ability to build bridges through communication. One must be able to understand sufficiently multiple POVs in order to help people connect. If one is so certain one 'gets' it that one doesn't try looking at things from the other's POV, then significant misunderstandings can be created and one is more likely to turn people off than build bridges.

Has he anywhere expressed a regret or a statement that indicates that he approached the LDS baptism in a significantly different way than what LDS see it as and apologizes for any misunderstandings or hurt feelings this may have caused? It certainly doesn't sound like he has the least indication that he may have misstepped in what he did.

Can anyone explain here why this is not like getting a false id so one participate in activities one wouldn't normally be allowed to participate in and to be seen as someone one is not?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think Lynn has learned quite a bit since then on how to appropriately interact with the LDS Community. Knowing Lynn personally, I am willing to cut him some slack. And when I feel like his is pushing an idea/agenda I don't agree with I just ignore it.

[Kenngo1969]

I think Lynn has learned quite a bit since then on how to appropriately interact with the LDS Community. Knowing Lynn personally, I am willing to cut him some slack. And when I feel like his is pushing an idea/agenda I don't agree with I just ignore it.

Now, come on, BookofMormonLuvr, RandyJ and I both know you're simply being disingenuous. Oops! [Cue bloodcurdling scream from Stargazer.] Sorry, Stargazer. My bad. Look, I'm simply looking at this from afar. Where Mr. Ridenhour is concerned, obviously, it's RandyJ's and BookofMormonLuvr's world, I just live in it. I do have to wonder, though, if RandyJ's take on Mr. Ridenhour's modus operandi is correct: (1) Why were Mr. & Mrs. Ridenhour simply allowed to resign rather than having action taken against their membership?; and (2) Why are my fellow Latter-day Saints willing to associate with Mr. Ridenhour? Are they ignorant of his apparent deception, are they overlooking it, downplaying it, ignorant of it, or what?

[Kenngo1969]

I think Lynn has learned quite a bit since then on how to appropriately interact with the LDS Community. Knowing Lynn personally, I am willing to cut him some slack. And when I feel like his is pushing an idea/agenda I don't agree with I just ignore it.

If that's true, I do have to wonder precisely when he wrote his account of his Sojourn Among The Saints.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

If that's true, I do have to wonder precisely when he wrote his account of his Sojourn Among The Saints.

Sterling hasn't updated the greaterthings site in years- so who knows when Lynn produced that.

[Kenngo1969]

... Has he anywhere expressed a regret or a statement that indicates that he approached the LDS baptism in a significantly different way than what LDS see it as and apologizes for any misunderstandings or hurt feelings this may have caused? It certainly doesn't sound like he has the least indication that he may have misstepped in what he did. ...

As much as my Natural Man might occasionally be tempted to take umbrage at what my fellow Saints sometimes do, no one can hurt my feelings without my consent, and their standing before God as a result of anything they've done (no matter how much I might think it affects me) largely is a matter between themselves and God. He doesn't employ me as a servant at the Bar of Judgment ("He employeth no servant there ...") I feel really bad: in my chronic state of vacillating between un- and underemployment, I was offered a full-time job with the Acme Judgment Company , with terrific pay and benefits. Alas, ultimately, I decided to turn it down because I didn't think I was qualified.

[Kenngo1969]

Sterling hasn't updated the greaterthings site in years- so who knows when Lynn produced that.

Hmmm ... Well, bottom line, we all live and learn. I know that I've done things a year ago, five years ago, and certainly ten or fifteen years ago that I wouldn't dream of doing today. (Thank God!)

[BookofMormonLuvr]

In the article, written in 2001, he states he joined the LDS Church in 1996. So that's nigh, 17 years ago. It didn't happen the other day.

[Kenngo1969]

In the article, written in 2001, he states he joined the LDS Church in 1996. So that's nigh, 17 years ago. It didn't happen the other day.

I don't know about you, RandyJ, but I'm certainly not the same person I was 17 years ago.

[randyj]

I don't know about you, RandyJ, but I'm certainly not the same person I was 17 years ago.

True enough, so one would think if he was sincerely attempting to build bridges between the Saints...that he would fully acknowledge his error and come clean in this matter. The reality is...according to his OWN testimony shown in the earlier post..his joining the LDS church under what I...and I think most rational thinking LDS members would agree....given the facts....was under less than honorable circumstances. The issue isn't if he's "changed" or has misgivings about what he did in 1996. He obviously does not. The issue is that he continuously attempts to justify what he did. If he has acknowledged his wrongdoing in the matter...he hasn't put in in print..nor has he said it at his various "bridge building" events. So, bottom line...when Mr. Ridenhour is breaking bread with the likes of Bro. Millet and others....it could very well be that the only version of his "LDS background" is from him...thus having them unwittingly enabling him in this particular agenda, with him all the while having his "thumb on the scales" tipping it in his favor....as you say.

Kenngo....straight up...do you honestly feel he joined the LDS church with a pure and real intent to become a faithful and believing latter-day Saint? If so...articulate for me why you feel that way, or show me something he has said that causes you to believe that. If you believe he didn't...then what do you feel that says about his character?

[Kenngo1969]

True enough, so one would think if he was sincerely attempting to build bridges between the Saints...that he would fully acknowledge his error and come clean in this matter. The reality is...according to his OWN testimony shown in the earlier post..his joining the LDS church under what I...and I think most rational thinking LDS members would agree....given the facts....was under less than honorable circumstances. The issue isn't if he's "changed" or has misgivings about what he did in 1996. He obviously does not. The issue is that he continuously attempts to justify what he did. If he has acknowledged his wrongdoing in the matter...he hasn't put in in print..nor has he said it at his various "bridge building" events. So, bottom line...when Mr. Ridenhour is breaking bread with the likes of Bro. Millet and others....it could very well be that the only version of his "LDS background" is from him...thus having them unwittingly enabling him in this particular agenda, with him all the while having his "thumb on the scales" tipping it in his favor....as you say.

Kenngo....straight up...do you honestly feel he joined the LDS church with a pure and real intent to become a faithful and believing latter-day Saint? If so...articulate for me why you feel that way, or show me something he has said that causes you to believe that. If you believe he didn't...then what do you feel that says about his character?

What part of, "He [Christ] employeth no servant there ..." don't you understand? Lynn Ridenhour's standing before God is between God and him, and no one else. My standing before God is between God and me and no one else. Your standing before God is between God and you and no one else. Please tell me you're starting to see a pattern in my response. Otherwise I'll have to question your reading comprehension skills, if not your sanity. You've already said we'll simply have to agree to disagree to a certain extent on the issue. I'm OK with that. Really. I truly am. There are thousands of anti-Mormons in the world. Many of them are professionals, and they make a good living (that is, they're well-compensated monetarily) at it. If you want to start your own professional anti-Lynn Ridenhour Ministry , go for it! I wish you all the success in the world: I hope you have T-shirts, hats, mugs, and a radio show. I hope scores of callers call into that show each week. (What? What do you mean, each week, Ken?! It'll be nationally syndicated daily!") OK. I hope scores of callers call daily! I hope you have tent revivals attended by thousands yearning to hear the "Anti-Lynn Ridenhour Gospel " I hope they come forward and proclaim to you in a loud voice (in tongues, no less!) that they've seen the light about what a duplicitous person Lynn Ridenhour is, and to thank you for saving them from whatever horrible fate would have befallen them if they hadn't come to their senses! I hope your calls of, "Can I get a 'Hallelujah?!'" are answered by thousands (if not millions, if we count those who surely will see your not-to-be-missed revivals on television) of voices responding in unison, "Hallelujah!" Likewise, I hope your calls of "Can I get an 'Amen?!'" are greeted by millions of voices returning your "Amen!" in unison. Good luck, and Godspeed!

[randyj]

What part of, "He [Christ] employeth no servant there ..." don't you understand? Lynn Ridenhour's standing before God is between God and him, and no one else. My standing before God is between God and me and no one else. Your standing before God is between God and you and no one else. Please tell me you're starting to see a pattern in my response. Otherwise I'll have to question your reading comprehension skills, if not your sanity. You've already said we'll simply have to agree to disagree to a certain extent on the issue. I'm OK with that. Really. I truly am. There are thousands of anti-Mormons in the world. Many of them are professionals, and they make a good living (that is, they're well-compensated monetarily) at it. If you want to start your own professional anti-Lynn Ridenhour Ministry , go for it! I wish you all the success in the world: I hope you have T-shirts, hats, mugs, and a radio show. I hope scores of callers call into that show each week. (What? What do you mean, each week, Ken?! It'll be nationally syndicated daily!") OK. I hope scores of callers call daily! I hope you have tent revivals attended by thousands yearning to hear the "Anti-Lynn Ridenhour Gospel " I hope they come forward and proclaim to you in a loud voice (in tongues, no less!) that they've seen the light about what a duplicitous person Lynn Ridenhour is, and to thank you for saving them from whatever horrible fate would have befallen them if they hadn't come to their senses! I hope your calls of, "Can I get a 'Hallelujah?!'" are answered by thousands (if not millions, if we count those who surely will see your not-to-be-missed revivals on television) of voices responding in unison, "Hallelujah!" Likewise, I hope your calls of "Can I get an 'Amen?!'" are greeted by millions of voices returning your "Amen!" in unison. Good luck, and Godspeed!

hahaha....okay...I hear ya. No problem! My reading comprehension skills are most adequate...although I do confess I made the mistake of thinking we were on a discussion board, and I mistakenly thought perhaps you would be interested in discussing! hahaha ...guess not. I will take your humorous...yet oddly sad theatrical rant as your way of saying you're in a tough spot and really don't know what to say". It's okay....I do understand...and have a great day! Remember...it's all good..no worries...we're on the same team! I enjoyed the spirited banter.

[Kenngo1969]

hahaha....okay...I hear ya. No problem! My reading comprehension skills are most adequate...although I do confess I made the mistake of thinking we were on a discussion board, and I mistakenly thought perhaps you would be interested in discussing! hahaha ...guess not. I will take your humorous...yet oddly sad theatrical rant as your way of saying you're in a tough spot and really don't know what to say". It's okay....I do understand...and have a great day! Remember...it's all good..no worries...we're on the same team! I enjoyed the spirited banter.

Ohhhhh! I didn't mean to make you sad! I'm sorry! And I have no particular aversion to discussion. I do quite a lot of it, here and elsewhere in cyberspace. I simply don't know what there is to discuss: neither you nor I (nor anyone else, save Christ) is in charge of what happens to Lynn Ridenhour's immortal soul. Perhaps you will be called to testify before the Judgment Bar, and you can then discourse at length about how Mr. Ridenhour apparently misrepresented himself to gain membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (If that does happen, if I were you, I would see to it that your own garden has been exceptionally well tended to).

I'm not quite sure how to take your averment that I'm "in a tough spot and don't know what to say." I'm assuming if you had your "druthers," you would prefer that dealings of your fellow Latter-day Saints with Lynn Ridenhour be limited to calling him out for his deceptiveness (if that's what it is) and refusing to interact with him beyond that. But it's not your job to dictate how your fellow Latter-day Saints interact with Mr. Ridenhour, no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

As for my part, I'm not sure how I would interact with Mr. Ridenhour if I were to get the chance: I might limit such interaction to cordial well-wishes, or I might take the opportunity to talk with him more extensively. (If I were feeling particularly bold, I might tell him how at least one Latter-day Saint of my (cyber) acquaintance feels about his erstwhile membership in the Church, and ask him what he has to say for himself in light of such criticism. Of course, while I'm fully aware that you probably feel differently, I think he would have every right to tell me that it's none of my business. In any case, it's probably a moot point, as I don't see myself getting that opportunity anytime soon, if at all.)

And if you're visualizing you and me in the center of a ring separated by a referee who has ahold of one of our gloved hands, waiting to raise it to declare who has won victory in this hard-fought (Ahem!) "contest" (although I wasn't aware until now that such a contest was occurring) I won't feel bad at all if the referee raises your hand in victory. Congratulations!!! Oh, yeah. And there's one other thing (well, actually two): and