UtahTexan Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 thing is......according to Protestant Faith, Mormons are "saved". All we have to do it have faith and believe. We do. The Bible answers this in Matthew 19. 16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. So....if Mormons believe and we do what Jesus said, we have eternal life. That is why I see no reason to ever leave the LDS Church again...not only are we "saved" according to Protestant beliefs, but we have eternal life if we do what Matthew 19 says. We do this....we are taught this...we teach this. And we have the Prophet. But.....even if Joseph was a fraud, we meet the Biblical requirements to be saved.
rongo Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 On 8/25/2016 at 0:06 PM, ttribe said: "M-E-T-C-A-L-F-I-S-A-B-U-T-T-H-E-A-D"-type sophomoric antics; The larger point has been lost in the apoplexy over the word "butthead." The article in question was making a point about hidden acrostics, and also contained the phrase" [someone else --- I forget who] is Beavis." Notice that you had to supply the missing "a" to turn this into a "sophomoric" name-calling instance. The FARMS Review editors weren't incompetent in missing an indefinite article ("a"), "butthead" was intended to be a predicate nominative. No one was being called "a" butthead. I find "sophomoric," intentional (maybe not with you, but it originates with people who know better) feigned ignorance to be as bad, or worse, than the sins that the FARMS Review people were supposed to have committed.
Tacenda Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 2 hours ago, cdowis said: "Thanks, friend, for your concern. Let's say you have me convinced, so where should I go to find salvation? Now, I've been fooled already, so how can I make sure that this new church is the real thing. I need to check it out like you did the Mormons. I discovered that the Southern Baptists quoted the Bible to justify slavery AND segregation, so how can they show the way to salvation?? Other church disagrees on basic salvatiooon, whether baptims is necssay for salvation -- some agree with what Christ said, others do not. Others say it doesn't matter as long as my mouth confesses Christ == but Satan and his angels confessed Christ, and how did that work out? "Please help me. Thanks to you, I don't want any more Smithism, but what exactly do YOU have to offer? Can we check out their history -- did they burn people at the stake, etc, and with the Bible?" H-E-L-P me!!!!! my friend. You got me out of Mormonism, now what?????? My thought exactly.
ttribe Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 34 minutes ago, rongo said: The larger point has been lost in the apoplexy over the word "butthead." The article in question was making a point about hidden acrostics, and also contained the phrase" [someone else --- I forget who] is Beavis." Notice that you had to supply the missing "a" to turn this into a "sophomoric" name-calling instance. The FARMS Review editors weren't incompetent in missing an indefinite article ("a"), "butthead" was intended to be a predicate nominative. No one was being called "a" butthead. I find "sophomoric," intentional (maybe not with you, but it originates with people who know better) feigned ignorance to be as bad, or worse, than the sins that the FARMS Review people were supposed to have committed. Given the sensitivities involved at the time, you don't find the very act of placing Metcalf's name in the vicinity of the term "butthead" to be a sophomorically stupid action and terrible idea? Really?
juliann Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, ttribe said: Given the sensitivities involved at the time, you don't find the very act of placing Metcalf's name in the vicinity of the term "butthead" to be a sophomorically stupid action and terrible idea? Really? But here's the thing. You don't have to go back 20 something years to find critics trashing Mormons. Never mind that Brent was, at the time, insulting trained scholars as "apologists" while those who agreed with him were "critical scholars" regardless of credentials or training. He was also misusing the term "liberal" in the same manner. I wrote a 90s essay for FAIR on that. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/critics-in-wonderland-throught-the-liberal-looking-glass [formatting has been obliterated making it hard to follow] I'd change some stuff now, of course, but my conclusion was prophetic, if I don't say so myself: Quote LDS scholars have recently participated in ground-breaking conferences dedicated to the discussion of Mormonism at Yale Divinity School and Fuller Theological Seminary. As with the recent publicity over Tom Murphy’s claim of imminent excommunication because of his search for “truth,” the fringe group of iconoclasts will increasingly find themselves having to appeal to the media for exposure as they are marginalized by the expanding interchange between liberal scholars. I'll ask again, when are the critics going to get behind Hardy and Mason? Edited August 27, 2016 by juliann 1
Five Solas Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 1 hour ago, juliann said: ... I'll ask again, when are the critics going to get behind Hardy and Mason? Forgive me for saying it, juliann, but maybe they just need an example. ;0) --Erik ____________________________________________________ And I am nothing of a builder But here I dreamt I was an architect And I built this balustrade To keep you home, to keep you safe From the outside world But the angles and the corners Even though my work is unparalleled They never seemed to meet This structure fell about our feet And we were free to go --The Decemberists
BCSpace Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 On 8/24/2016 at 10:41 PM, Five Solas said: One of the highlights from your link, Calm, and one which I suggest you give real, personal consideration-- And I would recommend retiring the term “Anti-Mormon,” unless people are happy to claim the label for themselves; it’s not helpful in any of the four conversations I will be describing. Generally, it is far better to assume good will than bad faith; kindness and generosity are always in order. I can't help but note the irony that this, your thread, came on the heels of you sallying forth to defend Scott Lloyd's use of that term against me. For any who may have missed it, Scott's "designation" for me is here. Calm's defense of Scott is here (and it got 3 rep points!). In all seriousness, will Grant Hardy's advice cause you to reconsider, or will you stand by yours and Scott's previous posts? What he wrote was offensive--I'm NOT against people, Mormons or otherwise, and there are many LDS in my extended family. I love them--and I've given no one here cause for doubt. It would be great to read you've reconsidered. I'd certainly appreciate it if Hardy's advice could be taken to heart on the board--it could & would be a better place. --Erik I certainly wouldn't apply the term "antiMormon" to everyone opposed to the Church, but there needs to be a stigma and a cost associated with people who willfully lie and deceive others about the LDS Church; especially after having received evidence that they are doing so and they still engage in it. It should also be applied to doctrines, philosophies, political stances, etc. that are in direct opposition to the Church for the same reasons. The Church hasn't retired the term "church of the Devil" et. al. and so likewise there is no need to retire a perfectly cromulent word like "antiMormon". 1
RevTestament Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 14 hours ago, BCSpace said: I certainly wouldn't apply the term "antiMormon" to everyone opposed to the Church, but there needs to be a stigma and a cost associated with people who willfully lie and deceive others about the LDS Church; especially after having received evidence that they are doing so and they still engage in it. It should also be applied to doctrines, philosophies, political stances, etc. that are in direct opposition to the Church for the same reasons. The Church hasn't retired the term "church of the Devil" et. al. and so likewise there is no need to retire a perfectly cromulent word like "antiMormon". There are antiChrists in the world too, but I think it is is people who consider themselves Christians who mostly fight against the Church. People like the Tanners who willfully twist quotes to make something say what they want out of context etc. I have never met the Tanners, but would have no problem referring to them as antiMormon. Rather, I just find that most people are not like this. Most I believe are honestly looking for the truth. These types of critics I usually don't have too much problem with, and I don't call antiMormon. Often they are just scholars stating what they believe scientifically, etc. 1
cdowis Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) 22 hours ago, CountryBoy said: But.....even if Joseph was a fraud, we meet the Biblical requirements to be saved. You are mistaken. If we believe in a false Christ, there is no salvation for us. Jophn 17 [3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. They would argue that It is necessary for us to believe in the "one substance entity" of the Nicene Creed to be saved. Speaking as one who has been there. Edited August 27, 2016 by cdowis
UtahTexan Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 1 hour ago, cdowis said: You are mistaken. If we believe in a false Christ, there is no salvation for us. Jophn 17 [3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. They would argue that It is necessary for us to believe in the "one substance entity" of the Nicene Creed to be saved. Speaking as one who has been there. Since we do not believe in a False Christ (We believe in the one from the Bible that we always read and quote) we are fine
Jeanne Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 On 8/26/2016 at 3:03 PM, carbon dioxide said: The average member does not spend much time on defense at all. If we are to be good missionaries, we need to be able to answer questions and "defend" the Church against attacks when they do occur. I hope this means that those young men and women in the mission field are fully prepared to "defend"..I feel for them. I have young missionaries in my store all the time and when we converse, I will ask them once in a while what they feel about the new essays from the church...I get this horrific blank stare...and of course, back off. Of course, I give them that free cookie they came for!! Sometimes they look so sad.
UtahTexan Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I hope this means that those young men and women in the mission field are fully prepared to "defend"..I feel for them. I have young missionaries in my store all the time and when we converse, I will ask them once in a while what they feel about the new essays from the church...I get this horrific blank stare...and of course, back off. Of course, I give them that free cookie they came for!! Sometimes they look so sad. I suppose we see what we want to see. I see missionaries daily. They are incredibly cheerful.
Atheist Mormon Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 On 8/25/2016 at 0:30 PM, ttribe said: Oh, give it a rest. Militant LDS apologetics is dead. Good riddance to it. It never worked in any form to begin with......
Atheist Mormon Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 On 8/21/2016 at 5:24 PM, Calm said: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/more-effective-apologetics Grant writes; "Today, however, it feels like we’re on the defensive. " If I was him I'd pack that baggage & leave, defend none of it... Oh....I forget that is exactly what I did because facing a vicious assault from every aspect of reality, science, verifiable evidence, what I was defending could not stand any scrutiny.......
cdowis Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Grant writes; "Today, however, it feels like we’re on the defensive. " If I was him I'd pack that baggage & leave, defend none of it... Oh....I forget that is exactly what I did because facing a vicious assault from every aspect of reality, science, verifiable evidence, what I was defending could not stand any scrutiny....... There are indeed some in our midst who are silly enough to "defend the faith". It is my experience, with those I have a discussion, that they are the ones on the defensive. But I guess that is just me. PS I find it sometimes helpful to admit that I do not have all the answers, but neither do they.
Recommended Posts