A very Strang finding

[teddyaware]

7 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

.Error

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by teddyaware

[AtlanticMike]

18 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Now I see why you’ve gone from being 80% Mormon (whatever that’s supposed to mean) down to 65%, with an active fear that your percentage of being Mormon is soon going to drop even lower. Only woeful ignorance of the true doctrine of Christ, the Father’s wondrously merciful plan of salvation, and the perfect eternal love of God for each one of his children could cause someone to come up with such a warped and uncharitable depiction of the beliefs and attitudes of the faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints.

I don’t know of a single active member of the Church who has ever either directly or by roundabout inference expressed a “thank God I’m not a sinner like those people” attitude. As king Benjamin so powerfully testified, the true followers of Christ will always possess a genuine broken heart and contrite spirit, considering themselves to be even “lower than the dust of the earth.”

One of the very purposes of the Gospel of Christ is to strike a mortal blow to the disgusting “us and them attitude” that’s derived from the sins of self righteousness, boasting in one’s own strength and deadly pride, and further, by a lack of insight into the true nature of the unimaginable sorrow and agony of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

By your own admission you said that you were, at best, 80% Mormon, and perhaps it’s time to consider that it’s that missing essential 20% that caused you to express such an unkind portrayal of the Latter-Day Saints.

 

What have I said that's unkind to latter day Saints?

[InCognitus]

I think the "us and them attitude" idea is disputed in a rather matter-of-fact way in our latter-day scriptures, including some of the very verses we studied this last week in the lesson plan.

 For example, in late 1829 or early 1829 the Lord said this regarding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the prayers of the prophets who kept the record:

Quote

52 And now, behold, according to their faith in their prayers will I bring this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up.
53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.
54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;
55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.
56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.
(Doctrine and Covenants 10:52–56)

This revelation was given before the church was organized. So which church is the Lord talking about when he says "I do not say this to destroy my church"?

Also in Section 18 which is a revelation given in June 1829 about sending missionaries out into the world to teach the gospel, the Lord admonishes them to "Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil." (Doctrine and Covenants 18:20).  It would be absurd to read this statement to mean that missionaries SHOULD contend with all churches, because all of them are the church of the devil.

I understand this to mean that there are many of "us" in "them", and it is very unproductive to draw a line and put ourselves on one side or the other, and we need to be careful not to do that.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

I dont know if I've ever been asked what my number one concern is tell you the truth.

I've asked you a couple of times in a couple of threads, like here Posted yesterday at 01:33 PM, but haven't gotten an answer yet. Not that I expect you read every post, but here's an opportunity for you.

[AtlanticMike]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I've asked you a couple of times in a couple of threads, like here Posted yesterday at 01:33 PM, but haven't gotten an answer yet. Not that I expect you read every post, but here's an opportunity for you.

Sorry about that, I'm doing this from a phone, I wasn't ignoring you. Please feel free to ask again in the future if I forget to answer you.

      Honestly, the history, dna, Joseph having 30 some wives doesn't bother me that much to tell you the truth. I've been studying that alot, actually way to much according to my wife, all religions have problems when they first start out and the restored gospel is only 190 years young. Still alot of kinks to work out in my opinion. I know this might seem weird but what probably bothers me the most is the brethren dedicating 51 temples from 1998 to the end of 2000. They doubled the amount of temples in 3 years at the 2nd millennium. I see no good reason for that accept someone thought the lord was coming back. Also, food storage, atleast where I live is hardly even mentioned. Why? If we are getting closer and closer to the return of christ shouldn't we be talking about that even more? It worries me. It doesn't make sense to me at all. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I see no good reason for that accept someone thought the lord was coming back. 

You don’t think building more temples so everyone who wants to (and whose government allows it) can go to the temple for themselves and their family members is a good idea?

We became a worldwide church at that point and should imo act like one, building temples where there are Saints who will use them even if not heavily. 
 

If someone thought the Lord was coming back then, it would make more sense to wait as it would be easier and probably cheaper to build temples in the Millennium rather than struggle with zoning boards, etc. 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

1996 was when we passed the landmark more members outside the US than inside. Makes sense to me that there would be a shift to get temples out there as it has been demonstrated that having temples supports growth (I will try and remember where I read this) and retention (do I need to find support for this or are you familiar enough with this, as getting new converts to start going for temple baptisms as well as aiming for families to be sealed is often talked about important for retention).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1996/03/news-of-the-church/more-members-now-outside-u-s-than-in-u-s?lang=eng

Edited February 8, 2021 by Calm

[AtlanticMike]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

You don’t think building more temples so everyone who wants to (and whose government allows it) can go to the temple for themselves and their family members is a good idea?

We became a worldwide church at that point and should imo act like one, building temples where there are Saints who will use them even if not heavily. 

I do think building temples is a good idea, yes ma'am. But from the beginning in 1800s up till 1997, we had 51 temples. And then in 3 years 1998 to 2000 the brethren dedicated 51 temples, doubling the amount. Do you remember all the hype around the year 2000? Everyone was stocking food, toilet paper, gold, silver, we had food storage classes at the church in the 90s. I dont no about in Utah but out here food storage is hardly talked about. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

we had food storage classes at the church in the 90s.

Not in my wards. I haven’t seen food storage classes since early 80s in wards I have been in, at least not like I remember in my youth (slant as a young married was in being a prudent shopper which meant buying sales, etc and safety financially if medical issues or loss of job hit families). I think it likely depends on local leaders. 
 

There was a massive Y2K bug fear outside the Church and those who tried to make a buck off of it in the Church (Roger Young). I think that needs to be separated out from what Church leaders in SLC were expecting imo. 
 

President Hinckley stated he had received inspiration about building smaller temples in 1997 as the solution of how to help Saints in Mexico. Makes sense the next few years would see the inspiration being followed. 
 

My parents flew up to visit us in Canada on New Year’s Eve 1999. Said the airports were pretty empty. I remember being slightly nervous just because of all the hype and claims, including that planes would fall out of the sky because of the so called Y2K bug. 
 

The increase in temple building was announced multiple times with the intent to decrease hardships to visit the temple (outside of the Mormon corridor).  There was a stat about how 85% of the church’s membership lives within 200 km of a temple now.  I see no reason not to assume the announced intent to be the actual intent. 
 

Temples are being built at an increased rate now and it can’t be fear of the turn of the century causing the increase. It can be having the financial means to build temples in places that can’t fully support a temple through tithes, but can support them through individual temple endowments, sealings, etc....the same situation the Church has been in since the mid 1990’s. 
 

Quote

During the mid-1990s, members lived an average of 450 miles from a temple. Between 1999 and 2002, 61 temples were dedicated dropping the average distance to 220 miles. Today, the average world-wide distance for members to their nearest temple has been reduced to only 90 miles!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.heraldextra.com/special-section/provocitycentertemple/story/the-150th-temple-milestone/article_d111b57a-0718-51ea-a28a-1761130eff71.amp.html

Edited February 8, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

What was the impetus for temple building in the 80s?  I assume you (Mike) don’t believe it was rushing to get 100 temples built before 2001 hit.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1985/10/rejoice-in-this-great-era-of-temple-building?lang=eng
 

Quote

In little more than two and a half years we have dedicated sixteen new temples and rededicated the restored Manti Temple. Before the end of the year, we shall dedicate at least one more, so that we will have dedicated six in 1983, six in 1984, and six in 1985. This great impetus in temple building was given by President Kimball under revelation from the Lord, whose work this is. The sacred and important work that goes on in temples must be accelerated, and for this to happen, it is necessary that temples be taken closer to the people rather than having the people travel so far to temples.

If the reason now to build temples is to bring them closer to the people and the reason in the 80s was to bring them closer to the people, why not in the late 1990s?

[Calm]

For those interested in the topic, including stories of hardships in traveling to temples in some areas and issues of government regulation previously limiting church growth and temple building:

https://rsc.byu.edu/colonia-juarez-temple-prophets-inspiration/president-hinckleys-revelation-recent-temple-building

[2BizE]

How can this witness be denied as there are multiple witnesses of its authenticity?

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

How can this witness be denied as there are multiple witnesses of its authenticity?

From what I've read, a lot of the witnesses later recanted or even said they helped him make the plates to commit fraud.  Plus, the witnesses didn't testify to anything divine.  No angels or anything like that.  They did testify to seeing and handling the plates, which at least one witness (iirc) said appeared to be common brass (and another eventually admitted that they made the plates from an old brass tea kettle that they aged with acid, so it does seem like there's continuity there).

So from my perspective, it's not that difficult to deny the authenticity of the Strang plates.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Sorry about that, I'm doing this from a phone, I wasn't ignoring you. Please feel free to ask again in the future if I forget to answer you.

      Honestly, the history, dna, Joseph having 30 some wives doesn't bother me that much to tell you the truth. I've been studying that alot, actually way to much according to my wife, all religions have problems when they first start out and the restored gospel is only 190 years young. Still alot of kinks to work out in my opinion. I know this might seem weird but what probably bothers me the most is the brethren dedicating 51 temples from 1998 to the end of 2000. They doubled the amount of temples in 3 years at the 2nd millennium. I see no good reason for that accept someone thought the lord was coming back. Also, food storage, atleast where I live is hardly even mentioned. Why? If we are getting closer and closer to the return of christ shouldn't we be talking about that even more? It worries me. It doesn't make sense to me at all. 

Are you saying your faith crisis primarily concerns strategy on how to prepare for the Second Coming? Or perhaps is it over the timing, or whether there is a Second Coming at all?

Edited February 8, 2021 by CV75

[AtlanticMike]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

One of the very purposes of the Gospel of Christ is to strike a mortal blow to the disgusting “us and them attitude” that’s derived from the sins of self righteousness, boasting in one’s own strength and deadly pride, and further, by a lack of insight into the true nature of the unimaginable sorrow and agony of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

On a day to day basis I deal with Christians 90% of the time. And the vast majority of them think we mormons, have a "us and them attitude ". Some of my earliest memories are listening to my Christian family bible bashing with my mom and dad over religion. Let me give you some of my Christian families main complaints about how they see us as a "us vs them" religion. 

1. Without a doubt the #1 complaint from my Christian  family is taking a 4 hour round trip to go to our temple, then stand outside with a group of 25 to 30 people while maybe 8 to 10 "worthy" family members get to go inside and watch the actual ceremony. 3 weddings ago I actually changed my mind and started staying outside with the "not worthy enough family" because at the ring ceremony after the wedding, instead of talking about the bride and groom, most were talking about how the brides dad was standing outside of the temple balling his eyes out. He never told us why, but you could tell it was because he couldn't see his only daughter get married. 

 2.   We declare that our church is the only Christian church that holds the power to speak for God. 

3. That we joke on how the trinity is a incomprehensible view of the god.

4. That we send out missionaries to knock on doors. About 20 years ago I had an aunt who was probably 85 or so and she asked me why the missionaries keep knocking on her door. She said in the 40 years she lived in her house the missionaries had probably come to visit her atleast once a year. She said she keeps telling them she's a Christian but they always come back.

5. That we breakdown heaven into groups based on someone's righteousness. That mormon are the only ones who can live with God in their very own special kingdom. 

6. Ooops, I probably should of put this as #1or2, but I just remembered. Actually the #1 reason most of my Christian family sees us as separated from the Christian world is the fact that we think we're the only ones who will be able to live as families in heaven. I've seen more heated conversations over that subject than anything else. 

    So please, if you wouldn't mind, explain to me how everyone who doesn't think like you is probably woefully ignorant like you suggested in a post.

   Also, please explain to the people on this board who have the ability to marry the gospel of jesus christ and realism, please explain how we're wrong. Because in a post on Saturday at 10:58am, you said "of course the correct answer for any truly faithful,testimony bearing member of the church is to be 100% mormon and 0% realist." Is your faith so fragile hearing a different point of view sets you off in a tizzy?

[smac97]

15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

Funny how both points upon which the Church is being criticized (that 1) Latter-day Saints purportedly "{consider} everyone who's not mormon is a worse sinner than {they} are" and 2) that we purportedly "tend to say it's an us vs. them") are quite out-of-step with the teachings of the Church.

I'm confused, if I'm not mistaken we break sin down into different categories, don't we?

Well, not particularly.  There are two sins that are "unforgivable."  And there are, I think, differences in severity of sin.  But I'm generally not familiar with the Church "break{ing} sin down into different categories."  As King Benjamin put it: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."  (Mosiah4:29)

15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

First you have everyone who's not mormon,

The vast majority of humanity, then.  Most of whom have not had a meaningful opportunity to hear about, let alone accept, the Gospel.

What does the Lord say about these folks?  Perhaps th emost succinct answer is in D&C 123:

11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart—
12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—
13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—
14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness.

There is nothing in the scriptures or in the counsel from the General Authorities that, in my view, justifies the notion that "everyone who's not mormon is a worse sinner than we are."  

There is also nothing advancing an "us vs. them" mentality.  To the contrary, the Church has tens of thousands of missionaries spread throughout the world, and otherwise moves heaven and earth to create good relations and feelings between "us" and "them."

To be sure, there are some who are opposed to the Church.  That is where the "Great and Abominable Church" comes into view.  But it would be profoundly inaccurate to equate this with, as you put it, "everyone who's not mormon."

15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

we send out approximately 60 to 70 thousand missionaries everyday to try to convince these people to join our church so they have an opportunity to repent and deal with their sin. If they join, they still cant enter the temple, they wait approximately a year when their sin is evaluated again, if they pass, they get to go into the temple with all the "good" sinners. 

Yes.

15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

   So yes, we do think they're worse sinners because they dont have the ability to repent, we believe other denominations cant take care of sin, we have a monopoly on that dont we?

We have a monopoly on saving ordinances, yes.

We don't have a monopoly on repentance.  

15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Can a Baptist preacher judge and help someone take care of their sin?

To an extent, such a person can help a person forsake sin.  But "judge?"  No to much.  But then, that's not really our gig, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are you saying your faith crisis primarily concerns strategy on how to prepare for the Second Coming? Or perhaps is it over the timing, or whether there is a Second Coming at all?

Right now I honestly dont know. I can tell you for some reason, the things Joseph did dont bother. Also, church history doesn't bother me that much, I can allow for mistakes, these men are human. But for some reason the realist side of me has a hard time with the fact that the brethren chose to double the amount of temples 2 years before the 2nd millennium.  So yes I'm starting to question if there's a second coming. Food storage was huge in the 80s and 90s. But now, atleast in my area, we never talk about it. Shouldn't food storage be extremely important if we're preparing for the 2nd coming, like it was in the 80s and 90s?

[AtlanticMike]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not particularly.  There are two sins that are "unforgivable."  And there are, I think, differences in severity of sin.  But I'm generally not familiar with the Church "break{ing} sin down into different categories."  As King Benjamin put it: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."  (Mosiah4:29)

Here's what I'm talking about when I say we break sin down into categories. First, our version of heaven/outer darkness.  Celestial kingdom is for people who overcame sin by following the commandments and endured till the end. Terrestrial kingdom, the people who fell short but were still good people. The telestial, basically people who didn't care about sin. Then outer darkness for the deniers of the truth. And then we break down the celestial kingdom even further based on our actions here on earth which our sin is used to determine how righteous we were in mortality. Mormons categorize everything 🤣🤣. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. We're a very legalistic religion. Example, once someone dies and goes back to heaven, not even God can help them until someone here on earth gets baptized on their behalf. Even God is governed by certain rules in Mormonism, I'm a looking at that wrong?

[AtlanticMike]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We don't have a monopoly on repentance

If a catholic repents to their priest,that's not seen as truly repenting because that priest holds no authority according to mormon teachings. According to our teachings only a judge of Israel (mormon bishop) has the proper authority to judge sin. Which means all other religous leaders are basically giving glorified pep talks when trying to forgive sin. That's why we dont accept other religions baptism,  the investigator has to be vetted by a man with proper authority, because no matter how many times they might of repented in the past as a catholic, baptist, Methodist and so on, the repenting they did with their ecclesiastical leader was done without confessing to a man who holds the correct priesthood keys to forgive sin on Gods behalf. Am I looking at this incorrectly? Also, is this the definition of what a monopoly would be as far as mortal sin is concerned?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

Well, not particularly.  There are two sins that are "unforgivable."  And there are, I think, differences in severity of sin.  But I'm generally not familiar with the Church "break{ing} sin down into different categories."  As King Benjamin put it: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."  (Mosiah4:29)

Here's what I'm talking about when I say we break sin down into categories. First, our version of heaven/outer darkness. 

Okay.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Celestial kingdom is for people who overcame sin by following the commandments and endured till the end.

Yes.  And that will include all sorts of people who never joined the Church.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Terrestrial kingdom, the people who fell short but were still good people.

Sort of.  See here.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

The telestial, basically people who didn't care about sin.

Well, not really.  See here.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Then outer darkness for the deniers of the truth.

Sort of, but not really.  See here.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

And then we break down the celestial kingdom even further based on our actions here on earth which our sin is used to determine how righteous we were in mortality.

Sort of.  See here.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Mormons categorize everything 🤣🤣.

But I don't think we categorize everyone outside the Church as "worse sinner{s} than we are."  That was the point with which I disagree.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. We're a very legalistic religion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "legalistic."

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Example, once someone dies and goes back to heaven, not even God can help them until someone here on earth gets baptized on their behalf. Even God is governed by certain rules in Mormonism, I'm a looking at that wrong?

You seem to be overlooking the Atonement.  Mercy.  Grace.  The love of God.  The central tenets of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Are these part of your understanding of "legalism?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "legalistic

Oh wow, I've put myself in a situation where I'm getting ready to explain my definition of legalistic to a lawyer. This is probably going to end really bad for me🤣🤣🤣. When is say legalistic, I mean we have to adhere to alot of laws and policies if we desire to live with Heavenly father and mother again. We are a religion of laws, ordinances and policies. I'm sure you've read the handbook of instruction. 

 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I don't think we categorize everyone outside the Church as "worse sinner{s} than we are."  That was the point with which I disagree.

Then why do we send missionaries to preach the gospel? Missionaries aren't sent out to increase the membership of the church. Missionaries are sent out to teach repentance, repentance and repentance. Because we believe nonmembers have never had a chance to repent to a man with the proper authority to judge them. Yes/no?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

We don't have a monopoly on repentance.

If a catholic repents to their priest,that's not seen as truly repenting because that priest holds no authority according to mormon teachings.

Latter-day Saints don't "repent" to their bishops.  They confess to their bishops serious transgressions.  And then God forgives.

2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

According to our teachings only a judge of Israel (mormon bishop) has the proper authority to judge sin.

Not really.  I can, in most instances, judge for myself whether I have sinned or not.  I don't need a bishop to tell me that.  The bishop "{a}s the common judge ... determines the worthiness of all members of his ward and directs the performance of sacred ordinances (D&C 107:68-76)."

2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Which means all other religous leaders are basically giving glorified pep talks when trying to forgive sin.

As I understand it, apostles have authority to declare sins forgiven (by God), but they don't utilize this authority much. 

2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

That's why we dont accept other religions baptism,  the investigator has to be vetted by a man with proper authority, because no matter how many times they might of repented in the past as a catholic, baptist, Methodist and so on, the repenting they did with their ecclesiastical leader was done without confessing to a man who holds the correct priesthood keys to forgive sin on Gods behalf. Am I looking at this incorrectly?

Yes, I think you may be incorrect to an extent.  Bishops don't have authority "to forgive sin."

2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Also, is this the definition of what a monopoly would be as far as mortal sin is concerned?

"Mortal sin" is a Catholic concept.  See here:

Quote

A mortal sin (Latin: peccatum mortale), in Catholic theology, is a gravely sinful act, which can lead to damnation if a person does not repent of the sin before death. A sin is considered to be "mortal" when its quality is such that it leads to a separation of that person from God's saving grace. Three conditions must together be met for a sin to be mortal: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." The sin against the Holy Ghost and the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance are considered especially serious. This type of sin should be distinguished from a venial sin that simply leads to a weakening of a person's relationship with God. Despite its gravity, a person can repent of having committed a mortal sin. 

We don't really have something comparable to it in our beliefs.  We have two "unforgiveable sins," which - unlike mortal sins - are, well, unforgiveable: murder and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  And even these are differentiated from each other.  Murderers will, in the end, receive the Telestial Kingdom, but those who commit the "undpardonable sin" will be consigned to Outer Darkness.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Oh wow, I've put myself in a situation where I'm getting ready to explain my definition of legalistic to a lawyer. This is probably going to end really bad for me🤣🤣🤣. When is say legalistic, I mean we have to adhere to alot of laws and policies if we desire to live with Heavenly father and mother again. We are a religion of laws, ordinances and policies. I'm sure you've read the handbook of instruction. 

Again, you seem to be overlooking the Atonement.  Mercy.  Grace.  The love of God.  The central tenets of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

But I don't think we categorize everyone outside the Church as "worse sinner{s} than we are."  That was the point with which I disagree.

Then why do we send missionaries to preach the gospel?

Because everyone needs it in their lives.

I submit that there are many people outside of the Church who are living more virtuous and godly lives that some people within the Church.  

Again, I cannot get on board with the notion that everyone outside the Church are "worse sinner{s} than we are."  

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Missionaries aren't sent out to increase the membership of the church.

Yes, they are.  That is a a central purpose of their mandate.

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Missionaries are sent out to teach repentance, repentance and repentance. Because we believe nonmembers have never had a chance to repent to a man with the proper authority to judge them. Yes/no?

No.  We don't "repent to a man."  We repent of sins.  We seek forgiveness from God.  These efforts may involve confession of sin to "a man with the property authority," but that's just a part of repentance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Which means all other religous leaders are basically giving glorified pep talks when trying to forgive sin.

As I understand it, apostles have authority to declare sins forgiven (by God), but they don't utilize this authority much. 

What I'm saying is a catholic priest, a Christian pastor, minister, Jewish rabbi and so on, dont hold the proper Authority to judge sin. Proper repentance has to be done by talking to a judge of Israel (mormon bishop, stake pres. Apostle, prophet). Correct?

[AtlanticMike]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, you seem to be overlooking the Atonement.  Mercy.  Grace.  The love of God.  The central tenets of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm not over looking anything,  I agree with what you said, but we also believe in works, keeping the commandments. Your above statement is correct if one is striving for only salvation, but our religion isn't concerned about the 2 lower kingdoms, we strive for exaltation, the celestial kingdom, anything else is falling short of our purpose here on earth. If I'm wrong, tell me now so I can go by some normal underwear.