Mars Hill Church In Phoenix

[Five Solas]

MrSola, the way to resolve this argument seems pretty clear. Since the hateful passages that have been quoted come from published MarsHill literature, but you don't consider us your enemy, or you ours, all you have to do is renounce them. Not your religion, just the statements.

So do those statements represent your feelings toward LDS people and their religion, or not?

I've said this a couple times on the thread, Buzzard. Please do a little word search if you (and jwhitlock) are having trouble keeping up, as appears to be the case. Sometimes things get said by non-LDS regarding LDS that are "sensational" "unfair" and even "misleading." I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

I'm NOT going to demand jwhitlock renunce his belligerent and misleading comments on predestination (a word that, despite his denial, really is in his Bible--unless he ripped those pages out). That's how he sees the world, and why shouldn't he be permitted to give full vent to his opinions, however flawed or absurd? And I won't label him a hater or an enemy--no matter how desperately he wants to think he is (or that I am his). It just ain't true here on my side. Those labels only appear from the keyboards of LDS posters--an irony that so far has been overlooked by the partisans on this board.

Should Pastor Mark Driscoll, I, or anyone else apologize to LDS for things that have been said along the way? Perhaps. But honestly, I'm not sure what such an apology would look like. Any more than I know what an apology from jwhitlock should look like. I suggest we just discuss our differences, as time permits, and try avoid the labels from Mein Kampf as we go.

How about it?

--Erik

Edited August 6, 2013 by Five Solas

[halconero]

I've said this a couple times on the thread, Buzzard. Please do a little word search if you (and jwhitlock) are having trouble keeping up, as appears to be the case. Sometimes things get said by non-LDS regarding LDS that are "sensational" "unfair" and even "misleading." I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

I'm NOT going to demand jwhitlock renunce his belligerent and misleading comments on predestination (a word that, despite his denial, really is in his Bible--unless he ripped those pages out). That's how he sees the world, and why shouldn't he be permitted to give full vent to his opinions, however flawed or absurd? And I won't label him a hater or an enemy--no matter how desperately he wants to think he is (or that I am his). It just ain't true here on my side. Those labels only appear from the keyboards of LDS posters--an irony that so far has been overlooked by the partisans on this board.

Should Pastor Mark Driscoll, I, or anyone else apologize to LDS for things that have been said along the way? Perhaps. But honestly, I'm not sure what such an apology would look like. Any more than I know what an apology from jwhitlock should look like. I suggest we just discuss our differences, as time permits, and try avoid the labels from Mein Kampf as we go.

How about it?

--Erik

"I'm sorry. In the past I have made some statements that have mocked and insulted things held sacred by the LDS faith. These statements may have also caused a misunderstanding of what Latter-day Saints actually believe."

Feel free to edit this apology template as you see fit. I haven't copyrighted it yet.

[Five Solas]

"I'm sorry. In the past I have made some statements that have mocked and insulted things held sacred by the LDS faith. These statements may have also caused a misunderstanding of what Latter-day Saints actually believe."

Feel free to edit this apology template as you see fit. I haven't copyrighted it yet.

Have to reject your premise that if someone holds an idea or an object as "sacred" it shouldn't be made fun of by anyone else. If you stopped and thought about what you asked, I think you'd reject it too.

But here's what I would apologize for. I have said things to LDS (family, friends) on occasion that were motivated by pride and not love. And likewise my pride has manifested itself on this very board and I have written things that did not reflect the Grace my God has shown to me. And for those things, I ask forgiveness in all sincerity.

Now let's try the shoe on the other foot, halconero. In response to a prominent LDS apologist, Dr. Louis Midgley, labeling Calvinism as "demonic" a few months back, do you think LDS should make use of your "apology template" (before you copyright it, of course)?

Not to suggest a double-standard, but I would like to know--if not, why not?

--Erik

[Buzzard]

Have to reject your premise that if someone holds an idea or an object as "sacred" it shouldn't be made fun of by anyone else. If you stopped and thought about what you asked, I think you'd reject it too.

But here's what I would apologize for. I have said things to LDS (family, friends) on occasion that were motivated by pride and not love. And likewise my pride has manifested itself on this very board and I have written things that did not reflect the Grace my God has shown to me. And for those things, I ask forgiveness in all sincerity.

Now let's try the shoe on the other foot, halconero. In response to a prominent LDS apologist, Dr. Louis Midgley, labeling Calvinism as "demonic" a few months back, do you think LDS should make use of your "apology template" (before you copyright it, of course)?

Not to suggest a double-standard, but I would like to know--if not, why not?

--Erik

If a member of the Quorum of the 12 came out in conference and called Calvinism demonic, you would have a point. But what a poster who self-identified as Louis Midgley types extemporaneously on an internet board, that's a bit of a reach. So, do the pronouncements of your Pastor reflect your feelings towards Mormons and Mormonism? Based on what you have typed, and what you have declined to type, it would seem the answer is in the affirmative.

[Tacenda]

If a member of the Quorum of the 12 came out in conference and called Calvinism demonic, you would have a point. But what a poster who self-identified as Louis Midgley types extemporaneously on an internet board, that's a bit of a reach. So, do the pronouncements of your Pastor reflect your feelings towards Mormons and Mormonism? Based on what you have typed, and what you have declined to type, it would seem the answer is in the affirmative.

You're right, our prophet would never do that. But our sending thousands and thousands to preach a different gospel, so they say, is probably a lot worse in their opinions. I think the non LDS Christian or EV might feel threatened or feel their families would be swayed to join the LDS church. They are retaliating I guess. But in a not so nice way. The LDS are a threat, just look at the youth programs, the attendance records and the structure to help live good lives. You can't help but see that they feel threatened, that if in their belief that believing a different Jesus leads to hell, no wonder they do what they do. In their organizations, there isn't the help needed to perform like our church does. They are a bunch of little churches, just struggling to make ends meet. They don't have the mainline church supporting them either with funds or with curriculum or set up rules, handbooks etc. Everything in our church is done so well because of the set up programs put in place. Sure our programs change and we change with them. Other non LDS churches, specifically little EV churches don't have that luxury. It is left to the individual to get their own religion, so to speak. And therefore the reason their pews aren't as filled each Sunday. We as LDS have choice, but it is laid for us so neatly and makes it easier to get on the bandwagon.

[bluebell]

Have to reject your premise that if someone holds an idea or an object as "sacred" it shouldn't be made fun of by anyone else. If you stopped and thought about what you asked, I think you'd reject it too.

But here's what I would apologize for. I have said things to LDS (family, friends) on occasion that were motivated by pride and not love. And likewise my pride has manifested itself on this very board and I have written things that did not reflect the Grace my God has shown to me. And for those things, I ask forgiveness in all sincerity.

Now let's try the shoe on the other foot, halconero. In response to a prominent LDS apologist, Dr. Louis Midgley, labeling Calvinism as "demonic" a few months back, do you think LDS should make use of your "apology template" (before you copyright it, of course)?

Not to suggest a double-standard, but I would like to know--if not, why not?

--Erik

Midgley does not speak for the church or it's members. He's not in any leadership position, but is one LDS man giving his opinion.

That is different than a pastor in a church, who is in a leadership position and who is, as I understand it, representing the church itself, teaching something similar.

[Vance]

I'm NOT going to demand jwhitlock renunce his belligerent and misleading comments on predestination (a word that, despite his denial, really is in his Bible--unless he ripped those pages out).

--Erik

It would be nice, if you can (which I doubt), if you would provide support for this claim. How exactly were his comments "misleading" and "belligerent"???

[Vance]

I think the non LDS Christian or EV might feel threatened or feel their families would be swayed to join the LDS church.

Yes, in the FREE market of ideas, they are very afraid. That is why they resort to deception, fabrication, misrepresentation, demonization and mockery to prevent people from making an open and honest comparison.

Everything in our church is done so well because of the set up programs put in place.

Nah, it is because it is the LORDs church and is guided by the Spirit.

[bluebell]

I'm NOT going to demand jwhitlock renunce his belligerent and misleading comments on predestination (a word that, despite his denial, really is in his Bible--unless he ripped those pages out).

It's not in the KJV of the bible, so could you give us the references to the verses of scripture which use the word 'predestination' so that we understand where you are coming from?

[Vance]

In response to a prominent LDS apologist, Dr. Louis Midgley, labeling Calvinism as "demonic" a few months back, do you think LDS should make use of your "apology template" (before you copyright it, of course)?

Well, Let's look at what Midgley ACTUALLY said.

I lean in that direction rather than towards Calvinism, which I think is demonic. I know some who claim to be Five-Point TULIP type Calvinists, but since I know them, I respect them far too much to believe what they say. The reasons is that I see something in their lives that generates, despite their theology, good deeds and am aware of their prayers when they face trials and I sense that, despite what they preach, they plead with God to do for them and those they love what their theology rules out.

I am still looking for the mocking of sacred things.

[Vance]

It's not in the KJV of the bible, so could you give us the references to the verses of scripture which use the word 'predestination' so that we understand where you are coming from?

Actually, the word "predestinate" is found in Rom 8:29&30. And "predestinated" is found in Eph 1:5&11. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4309&t=KJV It appears that the definition of the Greek word isn't quite as strong as the English word "predestinate" implies. Even the 1828 English dictionary softens the definition somewhat. http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,predestinate

Edited August 6, 2013 by Vance

[bluebell]

Actually, the word "predestinate" is found in Rom 8:29&30. And "predestinated" is found in Eph 1:5&11.

Sorry, I looked for the word 'predestination' which I couldn't find.

Edit to add-if someone starts a new thread on this topic, it looks like it could be an interesting topic to discuss, especially since it looks like the Greek word translated as 'predestinate' in English in those verses also means 'foreordain' which is very much an LDS doctrine.

Edited August 6, 2013 by bluebell

[Vance]

I have found it interesting that those that subscribe to Calvinism also believe they are among those chosen few who God "predestined" to be saved. They also believe (based upon their rhetoric) that those that reject Calvinism are among those God has "predestined" to go to hell. Which, itself, is inconsistent with Calvinism.

A true Calvinist would be unconcerned with trying to convince anyone that their (the Calvinist) theology was correct or that their (the non-Calvinist) theology was incorrect.

I mean, if it really is based upon God's whim, then NOTHING we do can or will change the outcome. So, why try to change anyone's theology?

Edited August 6, 2013 by Vance

[bluebell]

I have found it interesting that those that subscribe to Calvinism also believe they are among those chosen few who God "predestined" to be saved. They also believe (based upon their rhetoric) that those that reject Calvinism are among those God has "predestined" to go to hell. Which, itself, is inconsistent with Calvinism.

I must admit, that I would be more open to discussing Calvinism with someone, if they believed in it and also believed that they themselves were not predestined to be saved.

[BlueDreams]

So a funny story that digging through the website reminded me of. This was the quote that brought it back to mind:

Some of you have a picture of Heaven that comes maybe from a Mormon background, where if you die and you’re a Mormon, then the man gets his own planet, and he becomes God, and the woman has the privilege of being eternally pregnant and populating the planet. Which, again, is a hard sell for the woman.

(Laughter)

Some men are like, “Hey, I’m all for being God.” You won’t be. But telling a wife she’s gonna be eternally – morning sickness, stretch marks – I don’t see where that’s a sell. It’s not gonna go that way, either. There’s only one God, and that’s not you.

Ah....humor. So anyways on my mission I told my companion about growing up in TX/bible belt area for high school. That from time to time there would be a pretty good indication that a certain church had a special on the mormons because my friends would bring up the weirdest questions all at once. I was not my best at the time and certain concerns (like eternal pregnancy) would just make me laugh....in their face. They at least got the picture. Anywho the next day we're walking and run into to ev's there going door-to-door too to hand out youth ministry flyers. We started a very uncomfortable conversation where the one guy would ask a pointed question we would try to answer it carefully (not wanting to bash) and before half the answer was out the other guy would answer for us with answers that were generally very false. One of their false responses near the end entailed the guy going off for a bit about the various (incorrect) things we believed climaxing with him leaning in and stating: and you all believe that you two will be eternally pregnant. I tried really hard not to smirk, but then my companion looked at me and we both just burst out laughing....side splitting laughter. Apparently the humor worked quite well on us....it was strange they didn't see it that way. I gasped somewhere in between and stated my apologies for laughing, but that they were completely wrong. And we left them probably very confused after.

My problem with this "humor" or simply consistent misleading statements is the results after when interacting with LDS. I've met a number of very kind, loving evangelicals. But to be frank I had a very poor view of a number (especially certain baptists/non-denom's) because of the treatment that I'd witnessed growing up. They consistently got it wrong about our beliefs, a number of teens would mock the other mormon kids, dismiss my opinions, and I would practically blow some of their brains just by existing (who's heard of a brown mormon?). It was similar on my mish. A number of odd and frankly prideful behavior would ensue that made me sad that they thought this was somehow christ-like. It's not humor, it's mockery, and it not only is incorrect but abuses power of leadership and misleads groups of people....Groups of people that then may interact with mormons at certain points. It's not innocuous to consistently belittle, misrepresent, and disrespect a group of people, especially in a place of religious authority. And the results are certainly not benign, from prejudicial interactions to a poor grasp of God's love for others and what it means to be examples of Christ.

Besides, they look quite silly when my big mouth just can't seem to hold back my...umm....commentary.

With luv,

BD

Edited August 6, 2013 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

So a funny story that digging through the website reminded me of. This was the quote that brought it back to mind:

Ah....humor. So anyways on my mission I told my companion about growing up in TX/bible belt area for high school. That from time to time there would be a pretty good indication that a certain church had a special on the mormons because my friends would bring up the weirdest questions all at once. I was not my best at the time and certain concerns (like eternal pregnancy) would just make me laugh....in their face. They at least got the picture. Anywho the next day we're walking and run into to ev's there going door-to-door too to hand out youth ministry flyers. We started a very uncomfortable conversation where the one guy would ask a pointed question we would try to answer it carefully (not wanting to bash) and before half the answer was out the other guy would answer for us with answers that were generally very false. One of their false responses near the end entailed the guy going off for a bit about the various (incorrect) things we believed climaxing with him leaning in and stating: and you all believe that you two will be eternally pregnant. I tried really hard not to smirk, but then my companion looked at me and we both just burst out laughing....side splitting laughter. Apparently the humor worked quite well on us....it was strange they didn't see it that way. I gasped somewhere in between and stated my apologies for laughing, but that they were completely wrong. And we left them probably very confused after.

My problem with this "humor" or simply consistent misleading statements is the results after when interacting with LDS. I've met a number of very kind, loving evangelicals. But to be frank I had a very poor view of a number (especially certain baptists/non-denom's) because of the treatment that I'd witnessed growing up. They consistently got it wrong about our beliefs, a number of teens would mock the other mormon kids, dismiss my opinions, and I would practically blow some of their brains just by existing (who's heard of a brown mormon?). It was similar on my mish. A number of odd and frankly prideful behavior would ensue that made me sad that they thought this was somehow christ-like. It's not humor, it's mockery, and it not only is incorrect but abuses power of leadership and misleads groups of people....Groups of people that then may interact with mormons at certain points. It's not innocuous to consistently belittle, misrepresent, and disrespect a group of people, especially in a place of religious authority. And the results are certainly not benign, from prejudicial interactions to a poor grasp of God's love for others and what it means to be examples of Christ.

Besides, they look quite silly when my big mouth just can't seem to hold back my...umm....commentary.

With luv,

BD

I've had this experience as well.

If they are going to mock our beliefs, the very least they could do was to try to get the beliefs right.

[Vance]

If they are going to mock our beliefs, the very least they could do was to try to get the beliefs right.

The problem is that most of them get their false information from "trustworthy" sources, like their pastor, or the "Christian" anti-Mormon ministry the pastor got his information from (for money no doubt). Their pastor or those "Christian" anti-Mormon ministries, would "NEVER" lie or misrepresent, because they are "true" "Christians". We know this because they say so. They wouldn't lie about something like that would they? Edited August 6, 2013 by Vance

[Buzzard]

I've had this experience as well.

If they are going to mock our beliefs, the very least they could do was to try to get the beliefs right.

Ah, but if they got the beliefs right, there would be a much smaller target to mock.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've said this a couple times on the thread, Buzzard. Please do a little word search if you (and jwhitlock) are having trouble keeping up, as appears to be the case. Sometimes things get said by non-LDS regarding LDS that are "sensational" "unfair" and even "misleading." I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

I'm NOT going to demand jwhitlock renunce his belligerent and misleading comments on predestination (a word that, despite his denial, really is in his Bible--unless he ripped those pages out). That's how he sees the world, and why shouldn't he be permitted to give full vent to his opinions, however flawed or absurd? And I won't label him a hater or an enemy--no matter how desperately he wants to think he is (or that I am his). It just ain't true here on my side. Those labels only appear from the keyboards of LDS posters--an irony that so far has been overlooked by the partisans on this board.

Should Pastor Mark Driscoll, I, or anyone else apologize to LDS for things that have been said along the way? Perhaps. But honestly, I'm not sure what such an apology would look like. Any more than I know what an apology from jwhitlock should look like. I suggest we just discuss our differences, as time permits, and try avoid the labels from Mein Kampf as we go.

How about it?

--Erik

Hey Erik,

Lets try it your way and see how far it goes? Are you game. We will mock your religion and treat you the way PM has treated ours. Anyway I have opened a lovely thread on Predestination. WE can discuss the merrits of that theology there.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[bluebell]

Ah, but if they got the beliefs right, there would be a much smaller target to mock.

For most members of such churches, I think that Vance is probably right, but as far as the paid clergy who teach them this stuff, I think that you probably are.

[Calm]

Five Sola, do you believe that the LDS faith is a false religion? Do you believe it deceives?

Was hoping to get an answer to this....?

[danielwoods]

One of the things I've been thinking about lately is having some sort of clear and concise list of comparable differences between LDS and Evangelical beliefs for example. The reason I've been thinking about this is because often someone will represent the other point of view incorrectly. Such as representing the LDS view incorrectly, then teaching others the same makes matters worse.

I mean, it's clear we have differences, but sometimes it's not so clear what those differences are. We often get distracted by wording differences, which often amount to a very minor difference. Or maybe not? But, having a clear and concise list of comparable differences would be helpful in situations like these.

[Vance]

One of the things I've been thinking about lately is having some sort of clear and concise list of comparable differences between LDS and Evangelical beliefs for example. The reason I've been thinking about this is because often someone will represent the other point of view incorrectly. Such as representing the LDS view incorrectly, then teaching others the same makes matters worse.

I mean, it's clear we have differences, but sometimes it's not so clear what those differences are. We often get distracted by wording differences, which often amount to a very minor difference. Or maybe not? But, having a clear and concise list of comparable differences would be helpful in situations like these.

Perhaps a topic for another thread.

[jwhitlock]

I've said this a couple times on the thread, Buzzard. Please do a little word search if you (and jwhitlock) are having trouble keeping up, as appears to be the case. Sometimes things get said by non-LDS regarding LDS that are "sensational" "unfair" and even "misleading." I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

I'm NOT going to demand jwhitlock renunce his belligerent and misleading comments on predestination (a word that, despite his denial, really is in his Bible--unless he ripped those pages out). That's how he sees the world, and why shouldn't he be permitted to give full vent to his opinions, however flawed or absurd? And I won't label him a hater or an enemy--no matter how desperately he wants to think he is (or that I am his). It just ain't true here on my side. Those labels only appear from the keyboards of LDS posters--an irony that so far has been overlooked by the partisans on this board.

Should Pastor Mark Driscoll, I, or anyone else apologize to LDS for things that have been said along the way? Perhaps. But honestly, I'm not sure what such an apology would look like. Any more than I know what an apology from jwhitlock should look like. I suggest we just discuss our differences, as time permits, and try avoid the labels from Mein Kampf as we go.

How about it?

--Erik

Well, I gather that you're not going to denounce Pastor Mark's hate comments against Mormons.

I did find his little rant about predestination interesting because he just had to link it to Mormons somehow. And of course, Mormons are all going to the Burning Underworld, according to Pastor Mark, because they are, well, Mormons. According to Pastor Mark, Mormons aren't Christians, so they are going to burn.

I don't know about you, but where I come from that kind of generalization about a group of people without regard to individuals is called bigotry.

So I do find it interesting that you won't renounce Pastor Mark's teachings that clearly portray Mormons as The Enemy. Link that in with the Mars Hill belief in predestination, where anybody but a Mormon can be saved in the Great Celestial Roll-of-the-Dice and it paints a fascinating portrait of what your church is really all about.

[jwhitlock]

Was hoping to get an answer to this....?

The crickets are chirping...