Derogatory terms part deux

[Pahoran]

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

Granted that this is the position of the board, why must Latter-day Saint followers of Jesus of Nazareth tacitly ***ent to what they rightly view as a canard in order to participate here?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Billyray]

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.


You have a nasty habit of using derogatory names--so it is quite interesting that of all people you are the one to raise this issue.

[Vlad III]

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

Granted that this is the position of the board, why must Latter-day Saint followers of Jesus of Nazareth tacitly ***ent to what they rightly view as a canard in order to participate here?

Regards,
Pahoran

I wonder if you are referring to this:


mod edit.

Andy

Some LDS use the term "LDS Christian" to differentiate themselves from non-LDS Christians; the obvious implication that LDS fall under the unbrella of Christianity. Most people who are critics of the LDS church will deny that LDS are Christians and would consider the term LDS-Christian to be a non-sequitur or an oxymoron.

But TMK there is no "rule" that states that such a term is prohibited here.

[Pahoran]

I wonder if you are referring to this:



Some LDS use the term "LDS Christian" to differentiate themselves from non-LDS Christians; the obvious implication that LDS fall under the unbrella of Christianity. Most people who are critics of the LDS church will deny that LDS are Christians and would consider the term LDS-Christian to be a non-sequitur or an oxymoron.

But TMK there is no "rule" that states that such a term is prohibited here.
Thanks Vlad. That does sound a lot like what was alleged to have been said.

But there is a difference between an argument and an enforced rule. If it's just aka being a ****hard, I can understand that. Although, of course, he is clearly wrong; there's nothing "derogatory" about a Latter-day Saint claiming to be a Christian, but that's another issue.

So can we take it that there is no such rule?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Sentinus]

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

Granted that this is the position of the board, why must Latter-day Saint followers of Jesus of Nazareth tacitly ***ent to what they rightly view as a canard in order to participate here?

Regards,
Pahoran


While we are on the trek of derogatory terms lets add "anti" to the list. Additionally "Apostate" as I have affectionately been called elsewhere.

[Vlad III]

While we are on the trek of derogatory terms lets add "anti" to the list. Additionally "Apostate" as I have affectionately been called elsewhere.

I think "anti" is already on the list. :p

The bottom line is that if anyone calls someone a name in a negative way it probably should not be used.

[Sentinus]

FOR ALL


I agree with Vlad, Additionally if others find something offensive it should be avoided as well. But then that becomes the slippery slop I believe Pahoran is complaining about. Indeed many LDS find the term Mormon offensive, while others do not. Christian was intended to be offensive but has since become embraced. And many "Mainstreamers" indeed find it offensive to hear LDS refer to themselves as Christian. Hence, LDS posters should remember where they are posting and be aware that they have chosen to post on a site that has a clear bias on the matter. If you don't like the way they play the game my advice is to post elsewhere.

No one stood up for me at MADB when I was labeled, an "anti" "apostate" or many other offensive terms. I pointed out that I felt it was such, but as I already knew I wasn't on homefield so I didn't complain. Additionally I am sure that if I publicly questioned any banning at MADB I would have been suspended, warned or even possibly banned myself..

At Walter Martin LDS members are labeled as being a cult, what other type of response would you expect?? The best course of action would be for LDS to simply ignore these sites and give the supposed "antis' nothing to do, instead LDS members flock to these sites to represent "the one true church" and in the process continually feed the flames that you all cry out against.. And when LDS posters get banned for poor behavior they run back to their "homeboard" and call for reinforcements, giving their own very biased version of why they were banned.

This entire thread is an example of this poor behavior, and is in itself an off topic issue that has nothing to do with Mormonism, its doctrine, and the teachings of those that claim to be "prophet, seer, and revelator". Hopefully Jill locks this thread and warns Pahoran about this type of behavior...

[OceanCoast]

But TMK there is no "rule" that states that such a term is prohibited here. A memo did go out about how LDS-Christian was offensive and shouldn't be used... didn't you get it?

[Billyray]

No one stood up for me at MADB when I was labeled, an "anti" "apostate" or many other offensive terms. I pointed out that I felt it was such, but as I already knew I wasn't on homefield so I didn't complain. Additionally I am sure that if I publicly questioned any banning at MADB I would have been suspended, warned or even possibly banned myself..


They threw the same terms at me as well, even questioning my honestly by stating that I was not telling the truth about my LDS membership. But one of the biggest name callers from MADB was Pahoran IMO, especially if he got a little bit angry.

Here is Pahoran doing what he does best--name calling in his post directed at me.

Pahoran states,
Now I realise you don't see too many ocean fish up in them Ozarks, but that there is a red herring, Billy from the Hills. We're not quite ready to be distracted by it just yet.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/42138-what-would-you-know-if-you-had-the-golden-plates/

[Libby]

Billy, they didn't give you any reason for being banned over there?

I have an account there, but haven't used it in a long time. I think it would be too much effort to have to tippy toe around issues over there. Not worth it.

[Billyray]

Billy, they didn't give you any reason for being banned over there?

For the most part I was respectful--at least I thought so. And to their credit they did give me a long run with over 3400 posts. But the bottom line--I think that I finally got under their skin. Since I am banned I can't use the search feature so I don't recall my last several posts that lead up to my banning.

[Billyray]

I think that this was my post that got me banned. It was initially a suspension that they simply later changed into a ban.


http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/42216-testimony-and-the-only-real-proof-of-mormonism/ page 27
Billy, on Apr 5 2009, 01:17 PM, said:
You obviously have not read LDS Apologetics 101.

1. Change the subject, especially if you are getting pinned in the corner
2. Fall back to Testimony, who can argue against ones testimony.
3. Instead of arguing the issues, try to make it personal. If you make the other guy mad, he is more likely to say something that can be used against him.
4. Use ad hominem attacks. But be sneaky about it. "you were never a member" "you were never a missionary" "you do not understand mormonism even on the most basic level". In other words, you are either a liar OR you are too s t u p i d to grasp basic principles.

Remember these points. And like they say at Lagoon, "Have Fun"


Hermes replies
billy you forgot rule number 5: "suspend billy for two weeks." to the rest of you: stick to the topics and dont make things personal. that goes for lifeonaplate, deb, aqui and jeff ricks. please, egging billy on only encourages him~hermes

[Libby]

I think that this was my post that got me banned. It was initially a suspension that they simply later changed into a ban.


http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/42216-testimony-and-the-only-real-proof-of-mormonism/
Billy, on Apr 5 2009, 01:17 PM, said:
You obviously have not read LDS Apologetics 101.

1. Change the subject, especially if you are getting pinned in the corner
2. Fall back to Testimony, who can argue against ones testimony.
3. Instead of arguing the issues, try to make it personal. If you make the other guy mad, he is more likely to say something that can be used against him.
4. Use ad hominem attacks. But be sneaky about it. "you were never a member" "you were never a missionary" "you do not understand mormonism even on the most basic level". In other words, you are either a liar OR you are too s t u p i d to grasp basic principles.

Remember these points. And like they say at Lagoon, "Have Fun"


Hermes replies
billy you forgot rule number 5: "suspend billy for two weeks." to the rest of you: stick to the topics and dont make things personal. that goes for lifeonaplate, deb, aqui and jeff ricks. please, egging billy on only encourages him~hermes

That doesn't look worthy of a ban, to me. It's actually a pretty good observation. I have seen those techniques at work fairly often.

[Mesenja]

No one stood up for me at MADB when I was labeled, an "anti" "apostate" or many other offensive terms. I pointed out that I felt it was such, but as I already knew I wasn't on homefield so I didn't complain. Additionally I am sure that if I publicly questioned any banning at MADB I would have been suspended, warned or even possibly banned myself.
They threw the same terms at me as well, even questioning my honestly by stating that I was not telling the truth about my LDS membership. But one of the biggest name callers from MADB was Pahoran IMO, especially if he got a little bit angry. Here is Pahoran doing what he does best--name calling in his post directed at me. Pahoran states,


Now I realise you don't see too many ocean fish up in them Ozarks,but that there is a red herring,Billy from the Hills. We're not quite ready to be distracted by it just yet. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/42138-what-would-you-know-if-you-had-the-golden-plates/



If the name applies why not use it? Also Pahoran may have been sarcastic here but calling someone for using the fallacy of red herrings is again if true only stating the facts.

[Vlad III]

A memo did go out about how LDS-Christian was offensive and shouldn't be used... didn't you get it?

Apparantly not. But I've been banned for a month and just got back. :D

[Jill]

Pahoran,

Please review the "Derogatory Terms" thread. I updated it today to address the term "LDS Christian." I do not consider it a derogatory term, I consider it inaccurate and misleading based upon biblical theology and an extensive historical record.

LDS Members are not forced to "consent" to anything. Most people joining this board know Walter Martin's theology, and members automatically consent to follow board rules, whatever they may be. This includes respecting moderator decisions regarding inaccurate and misleading terminology. If some Christians on this board started referring to themselves as LDS Christians, they would be informed of the problem and told to respect the board rules. Posting on any board is a privilege, not a right.

I will leave this thread up briefly, and then it will be deleted.

[Vlad III]

Pahoran,

Please review the "Derogatory Terms" thread. I updated it today to address the term "LDS Christian." I do not consider it a derogatory term, I consider it inaccurate and misleading based upon biblical theology and an extensive historical record.

LDS Members are not forced to "consent" to anything. Most people joining this board know Walter Martin's theology, and members automatically consent to follow board rules, whatever they may be. This includes respecting moderator decisions regarding inaccurate and misleading terminology. If some Christians on this board started referring to themselves as LDS Christians, they would be informed of the problem and told to respect the board rules. Posting on any board is a privilege, not a right.

I will leave this thread up until tonight, and then it will be deleted.

Wow! So it seems the updates on what can and cannot be said is getting longer. I stand corrected.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Please review the "Derogatory Terms" thread. I updated it today to address the term "LDS Christian." I do not consider it a derogatory term, I consider it inaccurate and misleading based upon biblical theology and an extensive historical record.
So, IOW, this board is committed to a long-discredited canard (see here (http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=58&chapid=)) which no-one is permitted to challenge.

Got it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Sentinus]

If the name applies why not use it? Also Pahoran may have been sarcastic here but calling someone for using the fallacy of red herrings is again if true only stating the facts.


Ok I get it. Why not define the two terms you so affectionately applied to me out the side of your mouth. In a thread devoted to understanding derogatory terms and even after I told you I found the terms offensive you choose to label myself and another as such anyway. POOR FORM...

In Christ,
Sentinus

[Mesenja]

Ok I get it. Why not define the two terms you so affectionately applied to me out the side of your mouth. In a thread devoted to understanding derogatory terms and even after I told you I found the terms offensive you choose to label myself and another as such anyway. POOR FORM...

In Christ,
Sentinus


You know that it is against the rules here to use that particular term as it is considered a pejorative term. Are you trying to trick me into getting penalized or banned? "POOR FORM..." I also never called you by those terms. My point was that if someone falls under that category that calling them by that term is not offensive only stating the truth.

[Sentinus]

You know that it is against the rules here to use that particular term as it is considered a pejorative term. Are you trying to trick me into getting penalized or banned? "POOR FORM..." I also never called you by those terms. My point was that if someone falls under that category that calling them by that term is not offensive only stating the truth.


I am sure you can provide a definition, you are just deflecting again..


I also never called you by those terms.

You insinuated as much...

So I ask again what is your definition of an "Anti" or an "Apostate"?

[Jill]

Vlad, please review the long list of "cannots,"--made necessary by people with impulse control issues. :rolleyes:


Wow! So it seems the updates on what can and cannot be said is getting longer. I stand corrected.

[Vlad III]

Vlad, please review the long list of "cannots,"--made necessary by people with impulse control issues. :rolleyes:

Well if you guys weren't so impulsive to flip-out whenever a LDS calls himself a Christian you wouldn't need that rule! :p

[Billyray]

Well if you guys weren't so impulsive to flip-out whenever a LDS calls himself a Christian you wouldn't need that rule! :p

I know that Joseph is a false prophet, I know that Monson is leading you down to the path to destruction, I know that you worship a false god and a false gospel. With that said would you be OK it I called myself Mormon?

[Vlad III]

I know that Joseph is a false prophet, I know that Monson is leading you down to the path to destruction, I know that you worship a false god and a false gospel. With that said would you be OK it I called myself Mormon?

Sure.

You can call yourself what you want. If you want to call yourself a Mormon while denying what Mormonism teaches, so be it.

If I want to call myself a Christian, and affirm my belief in Jesus Christ as my savior, you ought to not have a problem with that.

Yes I know the whole argument that you will now make - that it's the wrong Jesus and yada yada....whatever.

I won't deny your right call yourself what you want even though you guys have a problem with others doing that. ;)

[Libby]

I know that Joseph is a false prophet, I know that Monson is leading you down to the path to destruction, I know that you worship a false god and a false gospel. With that said would you be OK it I called myself Mormon?

Only if you put "apostate" in front of it. ;)

[Jill]

So, IOW, this board is committed to a long-discredited canard (see here (http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=58&chapid=)) which no-one is permitted to challenge.

Got it.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran--I hope IOW stands for "in other words" and not "id*iot*s on wheels." :cool:

Two points:

First, although you are welcome here, no one is twisting your arm to remain a member. You have the freedom as a Mormon to argue against our stated position that the term "LDS Christian" is an oxymoron. You do not have the freedom to use the term LDS Christian, just as a Jehovah's Witness would not have the freedom to use misleading and inaccurate terms.

A heart pumps blood and a lung processes oxygen; you cannot redefine them and still be considered credible. The same is true with theological terms. The God of the Bible is not married and never mentions Kolob (edited to correct misstatement).

Christians hold the Bible to be the infallible, only Word of God, with all writings held to its standard--Mormons do not. Christians categorize Joseph Smith Jr. as a liar and a false prophet--Mormons do not. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Logically, Mormons are not Christians.

Second, the only ones claiming that our argument is "long discredited" are Mormons, so why would I consider Daniel Peterson's arguments to be valid, when he is a Mormon apologist?

[Billyray]

You can call yourself what you want. If you want to call yourself a Mormon while denying what Mormonism teaches, so be it.


Would you be OK if I dug out my LDS missionary badge and went around teaching others my current beliefs while at the same time claiming I was a Mormon?

[Vlad III]

Would you be OK if I dug out my LDS missionary badge and went around teaching others my current beliefs while at the same time claiming I was a Mormon?

Sure! Of course the problem with your ****ogy is that you want to be called a Mormon, and yet go around telling everyone that Mormonism is wrong and its leaders and tenants are false.

Mormons go around telling people they are Christians and tell them why they believe Jesus Christ is TRUE, the Savior of the world, the Redeemer, Son of God, etc....

Most people with common sense will see the difference in someone who calls themself one thing but professes another and someone who calls themself one thing and verifies it by word and deed.

[Vlad III]

Pahoran--I hope IOW stands for "in other words" and not "id*iot*s on wheels." :cool:

Two points:

First, although you are welcome here, no one is twisting your arm to remain a member. You have the freedom as a Mormon to argue against our stated position that the term "LDS Christian" is an oxymoron. You do not have the freedom to claim to be Christian, just as a Jehovah's Witness would not have the freedom to claim this.

A heart pumps blood and a lung processes oxygen; you cannot redefine them and still be considered credible. The same is true with theological terms. The God of the Bible is not married and doesn't mention Kolob (edited to correct misstatement). Christians hold the Bible to be the infallible, only Word of God, with all writings held to its standard--Mormons do not. Christians categorize Joseph Smith Jr. as a liar and a false prophet--Mormons do not. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Logically, Mormons are not Christians.

Second, the only ones claiming that our argument is "long discredited" are Mormons, so why would I consider Daniel Peterson's arguments to be valid, when he is a Mormon apologist?

Too many problems to address here.

But let me get this one aspect right. LDS are not allowed to call themselves Christians here anymore or claim they are Christian?

[Billyray]

Sure! Of course the problem with your ****ogy is that you want to be called a Mormon, and yet go around telling everyone that Mormonism is wrong and its leaders and tenants are false.


I just interpret it differently than you and thus would give others a clearer understanding of true Mormonism.

BTW is that what YOU are doing to Christians when you go around and teach investigators that Christianity is wrong and you are right?

[Vlad III]

I just interpret it differently than you and thus would give others a clearer understanding of true Mormonism.

LOL...If you want to go around appearing to be a representative of the Mormon church, and then telling people that the things the Mormon church believe in and its leaders are false, I'm not too worried about the numbers of followers you will have.

Of course Christianity is defined as those who profess in and believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. Since LDS do this they have more right to be called a Christian than you would to be called Mormon.

EDIT to ADD: I'm sure there will be a litmus test of the criteria required to be called a Christian, right? Jill indicated that a Christian is someone who denounces Joseph SMith. Is that one of the new extra-biblical requirements for being a Christian?

[Billyray]

LOL...If you want to go around appearing to be a representative of the Mormon church, and then telling people that the things the Mormon church believe in and its leaders are false, I'm not too worried about the numbers of followers you will have.


I would tell them that the LDS church is changing from the inside out and moving more mainstream. And that they have officially changed their beliefs somewhat such as the Book of Mormon is not a true history but a feel good book that has good religious principles and stories, particularly good stories to help your kids fall asleep really fast.

[Billyray]

Sounds like you are okay about lying, deceiving, and telling people falsehoods. So, no, I wouldn't fear you calling yourself a Mormon since as I said before, people see through those that talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

You see it is all about perspective. You interpret the Bible differently than I do. I interpret Mormonism differently than you do. I would tell them the truth about Mormonism the way that I interpret it.

[Vlad III]

You see it is all about perspective. You interpret the Bible differently than I do. I interpret Mormonism differently than you do. I would tell them the truth about Mormonism the way that I interpret it.

Yes, but you just got through claiming that:


I would tell them that the LDS church is changing ...And that they have officially changed their beliefs somewhat such as the Book of Mormon is not a true history but a feel good book that has good religious principles and stories....

That is not just your perspective. You are claiming the LDS made an official statement to support your "perspective", which is false and would be lying.

But the issue is much more simple: You want to call yourself a Mormon and then tell everyone why from your perspective Mormonism is false and a satanic-cult.

LDS call themsleves Christian and then tell everyone why they believe in Jesus Christ and look to Him for their salvation.

Your argument only makes sense if the issue is that LDS call themselves Christian and then go around telling people that Jesus Christ is false, not the Savior, a fraud, and you shouldn't follow Him, etc...

[Libby]

He could just tell them that Mormonism has been "re-restored".

[Billyray]

That is not just your perspective. You are claiming the LDS made an official statement to support your "perspective", which is false and would be lying.


You guys can't seem to agree on what is and what is not doctrine (teaching), and doctrine shifts through time anyway in the LDS church, I will just tell them it is true but from an unofficial source similar to FARMS etc.

[Vlad III]

He could just tell them that Mormonism has been "re-restored".

LOL....again, for those that can't seem to grasp this simple concept: You can call yourself what you want, but if you call yourself something only to denounce everything it entails, you only fool yourself and nobody really cares. ANd if you want to call yourself a Mormon and then tell people false things about Mormonism, that really says more about the type of Christian you really claim to be.

And again, for Libby, Billy's attempt at making a cogent ****ogy only works of LDS call themselves Christians while denying the very Christ. That isn't the case (even though you'll argue it is by virtue of our different interpretations of scripture).

I don't think even Gumby could stretch as far as you guys are trying to here!

[Libby]

LOL....again, for those that can't seem to grasp this simple concept: You can call yourself what you want, but if you call yourself something only to denounce everything it entails, you only fool yourself and nobody really cares. ANd if you want to call yourself a Mormon and then tell people false things about Mormonism, that really says more about the type of Christian you really claim to be.

And again, for Libby, Billy's attempt at making a cogent ****ogy only works of LDS call themselves Christians while denying the very Christ. That isn't the case (even though you'll argue it is by virtue of our different interpretations of scripture).

I don't think even Gumby could stretch as far as you guys are trying to here!

I do believe that the LDS church denies "the very Christ" of the Bible. They absolutely do. That's why Billy's ****ogy is right on the mark.

[Billyray]

ANd if you want to call yourself a Mormon and then tell people false things about Mormonism, that really says more about the type of Christian you really claim to be.

ANd if you want to call yourself a Christian and then tell people false things about Christianity, that really says more about the type of Christian you really claim to be.

[Vlad III]

You guys can't seem to agree on what is and what is not doctrine (teaching), and doctrine shifts through time anyway in the LDS church, I will just tell them it is true but from an unofficial source similar to FARMS etc.

LOL....you just tell them that then. ;)

Your argument seemed to change in just one post. Why would anyone fear you calling yourself Mormon! :p

How funny, though, that this whole conversation is about you calling yourself a Mormon only to profess negativity about the Mormon church, and LDS calling themselves Christians only to profess a belief in Jesus Christ.

Most people will see the difference here.

[Jill]

Too many problems to address here.

But let me get this one aspect right. LDS are not allowed to call themselves Christians here anymore or claim they are Christian?

Vlad, I feel the same way every time I read your posts. :)

For the last time, the term LDS Christian is contradictory, misleading, and inaccurate. Don't use it here.

[Vlad III]

ANd if you want to call yourself a Christian and then tell people false things about Christianity, that really says more about the type of Christian you really claim to be.

Zing!!!
You win.

Go ahead and call yourself a Mormon.

I'll continue to call myself a Christian.

You deny Mormonism.

I affirm Jesus Christ as my Savior.

Let the people decide who is more worthy of the ***le they have taken upon themselves. :)

[Vlad III]

I do believe that the LDS church denies "the very Christ" of the Bible. They absolutely do. That's why Billy's ****ogy is right on the mark.

Of course you "believe" this way. :rolleyes:

[Billyray]

How funny, though, that this whole conversation is about you calling yourself a Mormon only to profess negativity about the Mormon church,.
Not negativity. I still like funeral potatoes, green jello, and I occasional break out in song like one of my old time favorites "popcorn popping on the apricot tree".

[Libby]

Funeral potatoes...yum! :) I loved a lot of things about Mormon culture, including a lot of the music. Plus, I am still on the rolls, so technically I am still LDS...even though I "profess negativity about the Mormon church".

[Billyray]

Go ahead and call yourself a Mormon.

Vlad you may like MormonThink's website, it has a lot of very good information. Below is a little snippet about who they are

http://MormonThink.com/
How do you differ from the New Order Mormons?
Very similar in beliefs, but one difference is that many New Order Mormons (NOM) remain affiliated with the church primarily for the benefit of their individual families and are not necessarily actively engaged in trying to 'change' the church. Those that follow the MormonThink philosophy generally take a more active role in promoting true history over the commonly-held beliefs that are generally taught in the church.

MormonThink followers recognize that staying in the church, in an effort to help educate others and course correct the church towards total honesty, is an altruistic endeavor designed to help others receive more knowledge so they can make informed decisions regarding the church.

Both NOMs and MormonThink followers generally enjoy being ***ociated with the church and its members and don't wish to abandon a group that they still feel they identify with even if they have religious views not in harmony with most mainstream LDS congregations."

[Vlad III]

Funeral potatoes...yum! :) I loved a lot of things about Mormon culture, including a lot of the music. Plus, I am still on the rolls, so technically I am still LDS...even though I "profess negativity about the Mormon church".

There you go. See? You can call yourself a Mormon or LDS but people will know if you really adhere to that name/ label/ etc or not. The problem you and Billy have is that your own words condemn your calling yourselves "Mormon". Yet you can only use your own perspectives and ideologies to try and justify why a Mormon who professes a belief in Jesus cannot be calle a follower of Jesus ie. Christian.

[Billyray]

There you go. See? You can call yourself a Mormon or LDS but people will know if you really adhere to that name/ label/ etc or not. The problem you and Billy have is that your own words condemn your calling yourselves "Mormon".

Take a look at the my post just prior to yours about the Mormon Think Mormons. They call themselves Mormon yet they do not believe in traditional Mormonism. Also New Order Mormons consider themselves Mormon but don't believe in Mormonism as a TBM would.

[Mesenja]

I am sure you can provide a definition, you are just deflecting again..





You insinuated as much...so I ask again what is your definition of an "Anti" or an "Apostate"?


Here is what Jill posted on the use of derogatory terms. I can't even refer to myself as a Christian as that is misleading because the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. And not only that but addressing other board members as "Mormon" is construed as derogatory.





The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults,belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. This applies to terms like "anti-Mormon" and "Circuit Mormon".

As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board.

One more thing: Do NOT address other board members as "Mormon" or by any other term that can be construed as derogatory. Refer to other members by their USERNAME only. This warning should be quite clear and anyone who does not listen to it will have their account suspended without warning.

Effective immediately,members who use derogatory terms will be warned once, and the second time they will be banned indefinitely without warning. A third infraction will result in a long term account suspension.

[Vlad III]

Here is what Jill posted on the use of derogatory terms. I can't even refer to myself as a Christian as that is misleading because the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. And not only that but addressing other board members as "Mormon" is construed as derogatory.

Jill says the term LDS Christian is misleading and inaccurate, yet in the same post claims the LDS believe God lives ON Kolob with a harem of wives.
The LDS must be doing something right to be getting continually censored and getting their hands tied behind their backs a little at a time. :)

[RealFakeHair]

Jill says the term LDS Christian is misleading and inaccurate, yet in the same post claims the LDS believe God lives ON Kolob with a harem of wives. :rolleyes:

The LDS must be doing something right to be getting continually censored and getting their hands tied behind their backs a little at a time. :)

It tells how more than 120 pioneers, families traveling from Arkansas to California in 1857, were attacked and slaughtered by Mormons at Mountain Meadows, a gr***y oasis in southern Utah.

Most of the victims, which included infants in their mothers' arms, were executed after the travelers surrendered their weapons.

"One reason so few people know about it is that it was very effectively covered up by the Mormon church," Hutton said. "Another reason is nobody in this country likes to criticize religious organizations. It makes people nervous."

Santa Fe resident and former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, great-great-grandson of the only person convicted in the killings, appears in "Mountain M***acre."

So does Ferenc "Frank" Szasz, a UNM professor whose specialty is history of American religion.

"Frank calls the m***acre the greatest act of religious violence on American soil up until the Sept. 11 (2001) terrorist attacks," Hutton said.

As cruel coincidence would have it, the Mountain Meadows executions happened on Sept. 11, 1857.

tie one hand behind your back, oh lets make it two!:mad:

[Vlad III]

It tells how more than 120 pioneers, families traveling from Arkansas to California in 1857, were attacked and slaughtered by Mormons at Mountain Meadows, a gr***y oasis in southern Utah.

Most of the victims, which included infants in their mothers' arms, were executed after the travelers surrendered their weapons.

"One reason so few people know about it is that it was very effectively covered up by the Mormon church," Hutton said. "Another reason is nobody in this country likes to criticize religious organizations. It makes people nervous."

Santa Fe resident and former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, great-great-grandson of the only person convicted in the killings, appears in "Mountain M***acre."

So does Ferenc "Frank" Szasz, a UNM professor whose specialty is history of American religion.

"Frank calls the m***acre the greatest act of religious violence on American soil up until the Sept. 11 (2001) terrorist attacks," Hutton said.

As cruel coincidence would have it, the Mountain Meadows executions happened on Sept. 11, 1857.

tie one hand behind your back, oh lets make it two!:mad:

Wow....Oooooooooookay.:rolleyes:

[Jill]

Here is what Jill posted on the use of derogatory terms. I can't even refer to myself as a Christian as that is misleading because the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. And not only that but addressing other board members as "Mormon" is construed as derogatory.

Mesenja, I didn't say you personally could not claim to be a Christian--in a debate format you may argue whatever you wish. I said you couldn't use misleading terms like LDS Christian or LDS Christians. The issues here are terminology and context. The general characterization of Latter Day Saints as Christians is inaccurate and misleading.

[RealFakeHair]

I wonder if RealFakeHair has a sense of humor. Oh I am so scared at the upcoming response.

I know where you liveeeeeeee. boo!:(

[Jill]

Jill says the term LDS Christian is misleading and inaccurate, yet in the same post claims the LDS believe God lives ON Kolob with a harem of wives. :rolleyes:

The LDS must be doing something right to be getting continually censored and getting their hands tied behind their backs a little at a time. :)

Vlad--you got me there--that's what I get for posting late at night. :o Not on Kolob, then...but I'm sticking to the harem (Doctrine and Covenants 132). :)

[Father_JD]

I am a Christian whether you like it or not. The issue here is that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Yeah. I don't believe what Mormonism teaches, but that makes me "Mormon".

Get real, M. :rolleyes:

[Jill]

Zing!!!
You win.

Go ahead and call yourself a Mormon.

I'll continue to call myself a Christian.

You deny Mormonism.

I affirm Jesus Christ as my Savior.

Let the people decide who is more worthy of the ***le they have taken upon themselves. :)

Which Jesus? The one conceived by the Holy Spirit as the one and only Son of God, Second Member of the Trinity, or Lucifer's brother--most definitely not conceived by the Holy Spirit?

Journal of Discourses 1:50,51, Brigham Young – “The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary . . . .When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost . . . . Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.”


Matthew 1:19-20
"Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

[James Banta]

Zing!!!
You win.

Go ahead and call yourself a Mormon.

I'll continue to call myself a Christian.

You deny Mormonism.

I affirm Jesus Christ as my Savior.

Let the people decide who is more worthy of the ***le they have taken upon themselves. :)

(mod edit) They are the only beings in all of creation that try to make themselves look like something they are not.. For they can appear as an angel of light and deceive many. Those that follow them transform themselves into the apostles of Christ they are not following the requirements the Holy Spirit gave for that office in Acts 1:21-22no they take that honor unto themselves by a vote of mere men..

Your Jesus is a creation of a another created being. Neither one an be called the God of the Bible.. For the God of the Bible is a Being who has been God from everlasting and will be so to everlasting.. The mormon god is NOT that God (2 Cor 11:13-14).. IHS jim

[Vlad III]

Which Jesus? The one conceived by the Holy Spirit as the one and only Son of God, Second Member of the Trinity, or Lucifer's brother--most definitely not conceived by the Holy Spirit?



The Jesus conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Son of God the Father. He that came to earth, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, led by example, taught with power and authority of God, gave his gospel, paid the price for my sins, died on the cross and was resurrected 3 days later, ascended on high and sits on the right hand of the Father.

So again, if you want to take issue with the silly argument of "which Jesus?", be my guest. Your only recourse as a Mormon-critic is to try and persuade that we believe in a false Jesus. So I understand your need to tread down that beaten path. :D

[Father_JD]

Why can't you answer HONESTLY??

Why have you EVADED the TRUTH that your "jesus" is Lucifer's "spirit brother"???

[Jill]

The Jesus conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Son of God the Father. He that came to earth, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, led by example, taught with power and authority of God, gave his gospel, paid the price for my sins, died on the cross and was resurrected 3 days later, ascended on high and sits on the right hand of the Father.

So again, if you want to take issue with the silly argument of "which Jesus?", be my guest. Your only recourse as a Mormon-critic is to try and persuade that we believe in a false Jesus. So I understand your need to tread down that beaten path. :D

Brigham Young didn't think it was silly, Vlad, he took the time to comment on it.

And for the record, the Jesus of the Mormons does not have the power to take away all of your sins.

Journal of Discourses 4:54, Brigham Young - “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.”



(Btw, I am a critic of Mormonism, not Mormons.)

[Sentinus]

Sure! Of course the problem with your ****ogy is that you want to be called a Mormon, and yet go around telling everyone that Mormonism is wrong and its leaders and tenants are false.

Mormons go around telling people they are Christians and tell them why they believe Jesus Christ is TRUE, the Savior of the world, the Redeemer, Son of God, etc....

Most people with common sense will see the difference in someone who calls themself one thing but professes another and someone who calls themself one thing and verifies it by word and deed.


One thing I have found to be true in life is that common sense does not exist, that which one determines is common can easily be considered uncommon by another.

[Vlad III]

Brigham Young didn't think it was silly, Vlad, he took the time to comment on it.

Well, sure. I agree with BY that the HG is not the one that conceived JC. It was through the power of the HG, but the Father is literally the father.


And for the record, the Jesus of the Mormons does not have the power to take away all of your sins.

Really? Does YOUR Jesus have the ability to take away all of YOUR sins? What about the sin against the Holy Ghost? No? You mean there is at least 1 sin that your Jesus won't forgive you for?




(Btw, I am a critic of Mormonism, not Mormons.)

Yes, we LDS have heard that song many times. ;)

[Sentinus]

Well, sure. I agree with BY that the HG is not the one that conceived JC. It was through the power of the HG, but the Father is literally the father.



Really? Does YOUR Jesus have the ability to take away all of YOUR sins? What about the sin against the Holy Ghost? No? You mean there is at least 1 sin that your Jesus won't forgive you for?





Yes, we LDS have heard that song many times. ;)


Define "literally" and the process by which you believe this occurred..

[Vlad III]

Define "literally" and the process by which you believe this occurred..

Literally, as in, Jesus received half of his chromosomes from the Father, not the HG.

How it occurred? Miracle. I don't know. Critics like you will tell people that the Father had sex with Mary. But of course critics like you will also NEVER prodice ONE quote that states that. Not one person has ever produced a quote to state that "God had sex with Mary". So I don't plan on running down that rabbit trail either.

[Sentinus]

Literally, as in, Jesus received half of his chromosomes from the Father, not the HG.

How it occurred? Miracle. I don't know. Critics like you will tell people that the Father had sex with Mary. But of course critics like you will also NEVER prodice ONE quote that states that. Not one person has ever produced a quote to state that "God had sex with Mary". So I don't plan on running down that rabbit trail either.

No need we can all read what was said by "prophets seers and revelators" and allow each to judge for him or her self. However, like I have been told so many times before when discussing Joseph Smiths behavior by LDS, "you must consider the context and social climate". While no quote may be found containing what you have said it is clear that at some point it was readily accepted that Mary was one of Elohims plural wives and that he begat Jesus just as we are begotten. Lately LDS apologists have tried to redefine the intent of "the brethren's" word choice to avoid the uncomfortable conclusion anyone reading can clearly see.

I indeed understand your desire to avoid this rabbit hole (I would too if I were still LDS), and since I believe it will get us no where I agree to move on.

[Jill]

Literally, as in, Jesus received half of his chromosomes from the Father, not the HG.

How it occurred? Miracle. I don't know. Critics like you will tell people that the Father had sex with Mary. But of course critics like you will also NEVER prodice ONE quote that states that. Not one person has ever produced a quote to state that "God had sex with Mary". So I don't plan on running down that rabbit trail either.

Here are the quotes, Vlad:

Journal of Discourses 8: 116; J of D 8: 211; J of D 8: 115; Mormon Doctrine p.546-547.

[Vlad III]

Here are the quotes, Vlad:

Journal of Discourses 8: 116; J of D 8: 211; J of D 8: 115; Mormon Doctrine p.546-547.

care to post the quotes, not just the references?

And do any of them say that God had sex with mary? :rolleyes:

[Sentinus]

care to post the quotes, not just the references?

And do any of them say that God had sex with mary? :rolleyes:

OK lets see if you will answer this seriously...

Vlad how exactly were you begotten? Before you answer make sure you understand that you need to answer as if you were around in the middle 19th century, a time period where our scientific knowledge was slim to none regarding genetics, and procreation. When your past leaders spoke everyone understood clearly what was being taught..

Within this context of 19th century thought without apologetic armor it was clearly taught and is STILL taught by many in Bishopric and Stake Presidency members that God had Physical intercourse with his wife Mary to procreate Jesus. This I have heard admitted by many LDS people in unabashed ways. I even asked one Stake pres how he felt about the idea that God artificially inseminated Mary without the use of sexual intercourse. He was shocked that any LDS member would embrace God ( A glorified man) ignoring natural laws that He was governed by to produce (Sire) His only begotten son.. Now I am ok with you not believing it, but clearly there is reason for non LDS to question this teaching. BTW I thought you weren't interested in going down this rabbit hole. How much value or stock do you put in personal diaries and journals that catalog LDS teaching on this matter?

[Libby]

care to post the quotes, not just the references?

And do any of them say that God had sex with mary? :rolleyes:


The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers. -JD 8:115 Brigham Young


In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it.
JD 8:211 - p.212, Heber C. Kimball, September 2, 1860


"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." -Bruce McConkie

I know that most LDS do not believe this, anymore (that Jesus was "naturally" begotten, but it seems to have been a belief of early Mormons, and even much later, up until very recently, this belief seems to have been fairly common.

[Father_JD]

I know that most LDS do not believe this, anymore (that Jesus was "naturally" begotten, but it seems to have been a belief of early Mormons, and even much later, up until very recently, this belief seems to have been fairly common.

Is it any wonder why the Tanner's re-named their book to, "The Changing World of Mormonism"??

Not really, huh? ;)

[Jill]

I know that most LDS do not believe this, anymore (that Jesus was "naturally" begotten, but it seems to have been a belief of early Mormons, and even much later, up until very recently, this belief seems to have been fairly common.

That may be true, but unfortunately most LDS do not run their church or approve its doctrine. It's the official Church Doctrine that determines what Mormonism is--not the people.

I remember when we were going through the Mormon temple in Oakdale, Minnesota a few years ago. They flew in a high level Mormon from Salt Lake for the opening, and he met with the area pastors and gave them a tour. We questioned him in front of everyone there about Joseph Smith's doctrine--he was trying to present Mormonism as Christian--and he came out and said unequivocally that we did not need to believe in Joseph Smith to be Mormon. I'm not kidding. You should have seen the shock on the faces of the Mormons standing next to him. Unbelievable. But then, he was only answering the question I should have asked. :rolleyes:

[Libby]

That may be true, but unfortunately most LDS do not run their church or approve its doctrine. It's the official Church Doctrine that determines what Mormonism is--not the people.

I remember when we were going through the Mormon temple in Oakdale, Minnesota a few years ago. They flew in a high level Mormon from Salt Lake for the opening, and he met with the area pastors and gave them a tour. We questioned him in front of everyone there about Joseph Smith's doctrine--he was trying to present Mormonism as Christian--and he came out and said unequivocally that we did not need to believe in Joseph Smith to be Mormon. I'm not kidding. You should have seen the shock on the faces of the Mormons standing next to him. Unbelievable. But then, he was only answering the question I should have asked. :rolleyes:

Wow. You have got to be kidding! If one doesn't believe in or have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet...there is no Mormonism. That's truly shocking. Just when I think I have heard it all...

[Jill]

Not kidding, honest. It was like something from the Twilight Zone. :eek:

[Richard]

I just interpret it differently than you and thus would give others a clearer understanding of true Mormonism.

BTW is that what YOU are doing to Christians when you go around and teach investigators that Christianity is wrong and you are right?

We don't teach Christianity is wrong, we show that the precepts, creeds and theories are wrong as taught by man. We believe the Bible to be true as it is interpreted correctly.

[RealFakeHair]

We don't teach Christianity is wrong, we show that the precepts, creeds and theories are wrong as taught by man. We believe the Bible to be true as it is interpreted correctly.

I believe Joseph Smith jr and his creation to be true as it is interpreted correctly?:confused:

[Richard]

I believe Joseph Smith jr and his creation to be true as it is interpreted correctly?:confused:

I believe that Christians now days are not the Christians of the NT. :D

[RealFakeHair]

I believe that Christians now days are not the Christians of the NT. :D

I haven't sold all I have and given it to the poor.
I don't meet for religious meetings in strangers houses each week.
I don't attend meetings where the sick are healed. '
I have yet to witness any miracles, ie walking on water, healing the leprosy.
I have yet to hear any man, woman give prophecy that came true.
I only read the Holy Bible, believe in the Jesus of the Holy Bible and His Heavenly Father, and do my best, which is never enough to please man, but always forgiven by said, Jesus of the Holy Bible.

[James Banta]

Well, sure. I agree with BY that the HG is not the one that conceived JC. It was through the power of the HG, but the Father is literally the father.



Really? Does YOUR Jesus have the ability to take away all of YOUR sins? What about the sin against the Holy Ghost? No? You mean there is at least 1 sin that your Jesus won't forgive you for?





Yes, we LDS have heard that song many times. ;)

You should hear it until you see that you are denying the Scriptures and the power of the God of the Bible to forgive sins..

Here it is right from God's word:

Matthew 1:18-20
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Twice in as many verses It is said that Mary conceived Jesus of the Holy Ghost. You can deny that but it is you not the Christian here that are denying the Scripture..

God could even forgive the sin against the Holy Spirit. He won't do it! Jesus Said that all sin will be forgiven but the sin against the Holy Spirit.. Know what that sin is? It is saying that Jesus can't forgive that He is not God. That there is something a person can do to save themselves.. If those beliefs are held unto death there is NO FORGIVENESS.. It is the Sin of denying the Holy Spirit who time and time again pointed you to Jesus.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

We don't teach Christianity is wrong, we show that the precepts, creeds and theories are wrong as taught by man. We believe the Bible to be true as it is interpreted correctly.

And we are to trust a church that can't even give the correct interpretutation whenit is given right in the p***age? You are the ones that shoud listen you take the meaning of scripture a twist it to sat what you want instea of what it says .
EXAMPLE:

Ezekiel 37:15-24
The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.
And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Not one word of writings or a book.. But two sticks that represent the two divided kingdoms and how God will unite them into one people with one King.. And we should listen to your false teachings on how the Bible should be interpreted? We could not do that and stay true to God and His revelation to us, the Bible.. We will not cast truth away for the false teaching of a false god and his false prophet.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

We don't teach Christianity is wrong, we show that the precepts, creeds and theories are wrong as taught by man. We believe the Bible to be true as it is interpreted correctly.

Come on Richard we both know that your statement is false. Mormons do teach that Christianity is wrong and they are supposedly right.

[James Banta]

Not kidding, honest. It was like something from the Twilight Zone. :eek:

Seems that mormonism keeps changed not just with time but from person to person.. This "spokesmen" of the mormon church you ran into is in driect contradiction to today's first presidency of the mormon church.. President said:

Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are at the very heart of the Lord Jesus Christ’s latter-day work. Joseph Smith and his work were known prophetically in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. (President James E. Faust, Ensign, January 1996)
If he being in the Central of the central cores of mormonism said that then that tour guide was flat out LYING. No one could be so uninformed about their own church as to say something like that and mean it..

Even the question for a temple recommend contradict such a statement.

Questions 3 and 4 read:
Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet,
Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to
exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of
the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General
Authorities and local authorities of the Church?
IHS jim

[nrajeff]

Come on Richard we both know that your statement is false.
---No-- you don't know that.



Mormons do teach that Christianity is wrong and they are supposedly right
---False. Mormons teach that SOME ASPECTS of apostate, post-apostolic, traditional Christianity are wrong.

Mormons believe that Christianity is RIGHT--it's just that you guys aren't a perfect representation of Christianity.

So your accusations are wrong... again.


Do not attack directly the founders of any particular cult, either on moral or intellectual grounds. --Walter Martin

[Father_JD]

LOL.

"Some aspects..."??

jeff...you keep forgetting that everyone here KNOWS current and past statements of LDS leaders. You're not fooling anyone.

[nrajeff]

LOL.

"Some aspects..."??
Yes. (duh) Take a poll of the LDS: "Is post-apostolic Christendom wrong on EVERYTHING?

I bet you a case of Crown Royal--or Royal Crown cola, your choice--that you will get few or no "yes" answers.

jeff...you keep forgetting that everyone here KNOWS current and past statements of LDS leaders.
---I can't forget what is not true. It's not true that everyone here knows squat. Some of the people know many things, and many people know some things, and some people think they know stuff and are wrong.


You're not fooling anyone
--I don't need to fool anyone. Let's debate this ***ertion: Is it true that LDS doctrine is that post-apostolic Christendom has ZERO correct beliefs?

I am ready to debate that anytime you are.

[Father_JD]

Ya want me to qualify my remarks, jeff?

Fine.

Most, if not "everyone", are familiar with LDS leaders comments.

And should you really read BY, and the Pratt boys, they pontificate that historic Christianity had NO TRUTH AT ALL.

[nrajeff]

Ya want me to qualify my remarks, jeff?
---It's not for MY benefit if you qualify them, but YOURS, since otherwise your remarks seem patently untrue.


And should you really read BY, and the Pratt boys, they pontificate that historic Christianity had NO TRUTH AT ALL.
---So you're claiming that what BY and the Pratt boys said on the subject is LDS doctrine? Can you support that claim with evidence? 'Cause I thought what I WANTED to debate was:

Is it true that LDS doctrine is that post-apostolic Christendom has ZERO correct beliefs?

Now, are you up for taking the affirmative position in that debate? Or not?

[Father_JD]

LOL. I'm not saying Mormon leaders' statements were or are OFFICIAL church "doctrine", jeff.

This is yet another convenient Mormon ESCAPE when it gets too hot:

Deny, deny, deny by invoking the "official church doctrine" tactic, or whether it's in the D&C.

Cop outs, cop outs. And you guys wonder when we point out that getting LDS to really pinpoint their doctrine is exactly like nailing Jell-O to a tree!!

I guess you could provide some statements by JS, BY, et al wherein they state that "post-apostolic Christendom" has ANY CORRECT BELIEFS.

This would be quite a trip, jeff. Considering how Mormonism has radically re-defined virtually EVERY major Christian doctrine...

[nrajeff]

LOL. I'm not saying Mormon leaders' statements were or are OFFICIAL church "doctrine", jeff.
---You saw the hole you'd dug for yourself and decided it might be a good idea to stop digging. Good for you. SO, let's summarize what you're NOT saying, then:

1. You are NOT saying that LDS doctrine teaches that historic Christianity has no truth at all.

2. You are NOT saying that a substantial number of LDS people BELIEVE that historic Christianity has no truth at all.

What does that leave you TO say, then? Why did you even **** into my response to Billy, if all you wanted to say is stuff with no substance and no relevance to my re****al?


This is yet another convenient Mormon ESCAPE when it gets too hot:
Deny, deny, deny by invoking the "official church doctrine" tactic, or whether it's in the D&C.
---LOL! So when you make an unfounded accusation, and we DENY the allegation and show how false it is, that's an ESCAPE that is somehow not legitimate? L-O-L !!

"Why won't you stop worshiping Satan?"
I DON'T worship Satan, and I challenge whatever evidence you think you have that supports your accusation."
"Ohhh, what a CONVENIENT ESCAPE--by DENYING the correctness of my accusation, merely because it was a false one!"

Sounds like Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Trial reasoning there, FJD.
"The fact that you deny the allegations is proof that you're GUILTY!"


I guess you could provide some statements by JS, BY, et al wherein they state that "post-apostolic Christendom" has ANY CORRECT BELIEFS.
---Sure, but better than that, I can provide official LDS doctrine--scriptures, even--to support that. Or, I can do a survey of the LDS here--people who are apologists for the LDS church, and thus probably have more negative things to say about "historic Christendom" than the AVERAGE LDS member does. And STILL, the poll results would show that LDS don't BELIEVE that "historic Christianity" was TOTALLY DEVOID of any true beliefs. Come on, you picked a loser of an accusation here. You haven't realized that yet?

Do you really think that the average convert from Protestantism to LDSIsm came to some "realization" that NONE of his former beliefs was right? Please. Typically, they probably saw that the LDS offer truth in a few places where their former church's teachings were lacking. Do you REALLY think they say, "Wow, when I was a Methodist, I didn't believe that Jesus was my Savior, but now that I'm LDS, I DO" ???

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD
LOL. I'm not saying Mormon leaders' statements were or are OFFICIAL church "doctrine", jeff.


---You saw the hole you'd dug for yourself and decided it might be a good idea to stop digging. Good for you. SO, let's summarize what you're NOT saying, then:

1. You are NOT saying that LDS doctrine teaches that historic Christianity has no truth at all.

I'm NOT saying that at all. Your past leaders have made their stance public (thanks to their ****-retentiveness to enshrine their words for all time and eternity) plenty of times, as duly noted in the JOD, etc. What I AM saying is whether "official" or not, that IS MORMON TEACHING.



2. You are NOT saying that a substantial number of LDS people BELIEVE that historic Christianity has no truth at all.

You must have misunderstood, jeff. I maintain that indeed, a substantial number of LDS people DO believe that hsitoric Christianity has NO truth at all despite Mormon LIP SERVICE to the contrary. So tell me, jeff, WHAT do YOU think is TRUE in historic Christianity? Can you even name one Christian doctrine you believe is TRUE??



What does that leave you TO say, then? Why did you even **** into my response to Billy, if all you wanted to say is stuff with no substance and no relevance to my re****al?


Who made you master and commander of the board, jeff? As you oughtta know, everyone is FREE (reflect upon your "free agency" doctrine, 'k?) to jump in at any point.


Quote:
This is yet another convenient Mormon ESCAPE when it gets too hot:
Deny, deny, deny by invoking the "official church doctrine" tactic, or whether it's in the D&C.



---LOL! So when you make an unfounded accusation, and we DENY the allegation and show how false it is, that's an ESCAPE that is somehow not legitimate? L-O-L !!


You've made the baseless ***ertion that LDS actually believe historic Christianity has "some truth". You've NEVER stated what those Christian beliefs are that you supposedly find "true", jeff. C'mon and feel free to pony up instead of engaging in "Glittering Generalities", the hallmark of Mormon thinking!!!


"Why won't you stop worshiping Satan?"
I DON'T worship Satan, and I challenge whatever evidence you think you have that supports your accusation."
"Ohhh, what a CONVENIENT ESCAPE--by DENYING the correctness of my accusation, merely because it was a false one!"

Sounds like Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Trial reasoning there, FJD.
"The fact that you deny the allegations is proof that you're GUILTY!"


Where did I make this statement in my posts here on WM? I think you owe me an apology, jeff. :cool:

Oh, btw...I think you've never considered your actions in the temple ceremonies wherein you place the figleaf aprons (the sign of Lucifer's whatever) on your torsos. :eek:


Quote:
I guess you could provide some statements by JS, BY, et al wherein they state that "post-apostolic Christendom" has ANY CORRECT BELIEFS.



---Sure, but better than that, I can provide official LDS doctrine--scriptures, even--to support that. Or, I can do a survey of the LDS here--people who are apologists for the LDS church, and thus probably have more negative things to say about "historic Christendom" than the AVERAGE LDS member does. And STILL, the poll results would show that LDS don't BELIEVE that "historic Christianity" was TOTALLY DEVOID of any true beliefs. Come on, you picked a loser of an accusation here. You haven't realized that yet?

And just WHAT are those Christian beliefs, jeff?? Please do a survey! I'd love to see the "results". ;)



Do you really think that the average convert from Protestantism to LDSIsm came to some "realization" that NONE of his former beliefs was right? Please. Typically, they probably saw that the LDS offer truth in a few places where their former church's teachings were lacking. Do you REALLY think they say, "Wow, when I was a Methodist, I didn't believe that Jesus was my Savior, but now that I'm LDS, I DO" ???

Oh, finally. "Jesus as SAVIOR". Well, duh. Even though the ontology of the Christian Jesus and the Mormon jesus are radically DIFFERENT, you're gonna include THAT as if that's "evidence", huh?

The differences between WHAT is MEANT by "SAVIOR" by Christians and LDS are as wide as the Grand Canyon, jeff. :rolleyes:

[nrajeff]

Just for FJD: Doctrines/practices in "traditional Christianity" that I think are correct:

1. Jesus is the Son of God.
2. Jesus is the savior of mankind.
3. Jesus is the only way to salvation.
4. Jesus died for people's sins.
5. Jesus was resurrected.
6. Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.
7. Jesus taught a gospel of faith, repentence, charity, etc.
8. Baptism is a good thing.
9. Jesus established a church in the first century, and appointed apostles to help lead, teach, and run it.
10. The Nativity didn't really occur in December.
11. Arianism is not a 100%-correct theology.
12. Some kind of rapture will occur at some point in the future.
13. Jesus will return to Planet Earth and fix our messes and reign in peace for a long time.
14. When wicked people die, they have to go to a place where they hang out with others like themselves until Resurrection and Judgment Days.
15. When the righteous die, they get to await Resurrection and Judgment in a place that's nicer than the place where the wicked go to wait.

See? You guys got a lotta things right. Of course, the list of things you got WRONG might be a longer list, but still...you got SOME right!

[Father_JD]

With the exceptions of points 5 and 12, all else has been radically re-defined by Mormonism and has nothing in common with historic Christianity, jeff.

You've had to "pull your punches" on at least six or seven as well...steering clear of any real depth of the differences, but demonstrating superficial agreement.

If you'd like me to contrast/compare each so-called commonalities, I'll be happy to do so, but right now I'm getting kicked off of this fine, public library computer on Foothill Blvd. in SLC, UT...just about a mile from where I grew up. :p

[James Banta]

So, IOW, this board is committed to a long-discredited canard (see here (http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=58&chapid=)) which no-one is permitted to challenge.

Got it.

Regards,
Pahoran

How can it be discredited? The Jesus of mormonism is a created being.. The Jesus of Christianity is God. The God that has been God from everlasting the God who will be God to everlasting.. Mormonism isn't that this created person mormons call Jesus. Mormonism had denied the Jesus of Christianity for as long as I can remember. Even your prophet denied Him Mormons believe in the same Jesus as Christianity:

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).
After such an admission how do you dare insist that you are a Christian? Even your leaders say that they don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible because He is the ONLY traditional Christ.. IHS jim

[Blueskies]

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

Granted that this is the position of the board, why must Latter-day Saint followers of Jesus of Nazareth tacitly ***ent to what they rightly view as a canard in order to participate here?

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran,
I am sorry that you feel this way but I am not Jill and it is not my place to tell her how to run this website. Mormons want so badly to look Christian and be part of Mainstream Christianity but you're not and here's why:

Is There More Than One True God?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

2. Was God Once a Man Like Us?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God — all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).

3. Are Jesus and Satan Spirit Brothers?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that Jesus is the unique Son of God; he has always existed as God, and is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 14:9; Colossians 2:9). While never less than God, at the appointed time He laid aside the glory He shared with the Father (John 17:4, 5; Philippians 2:6-11) and was made flesh for our salvation; His incarnation was accomplished through being conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (D&C 93:21; Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51; Gospel Principles, p. 11-13; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742; Ezra Taft Benson, Come unto Christ, p. 4; Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity, p. 31). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus, all angels, Lucifer, all demons, and all human beings are originally spirit brothers and sisters (Abraham 3:22-27; Moses 4:1-2; Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

4. Is God a Trinity?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost are not separate Gods or separate beings, but are distinct Persons within the one Triune Godhead. Throughout the New Testament the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father are separately identified as and act as God (Son: Mark 2:5-12; John 20:28; Philippians 2:10,11; Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3,4; 2 Corinthians 3:17,18; 13:14); yet at the same time the Bible teaches that these three are only one God (see point 1).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).

5. Was The Sin Of Adam and Eve a Great Evil Or a Great Blessing?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the disobedience of our first parents Adam and Eve was a great evil. Through their fall sin entered the world, bringing all human beings under condemnation and death. Thus we are born with a sinful nature, and will be judged for the sins we commit as individuals. (Ezekiel 18:1-20; Romans 5:12-21).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Adam’s sin was "a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us" (Gospel Principles, p. 33; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 2:25; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-115).

6. Can We Make Ourselves Worthy Before God?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are spiritually "dead in tresp***es and sins" (Ephesians 2:1,5) and are powerless to save ourselves. By grace alone, apart from self-righteous works, God forgives our sins and makes us worthy to live in His presence (Ephesians 2:8-9; ***us 3:5-6). Our part is only to cling to Christ in heartfelt faith. (However, it is certainly true that without the evidence of changed conduct, a person’s testimony of faith in Christ must be questioned; salvation by grace alone through faith, does not mean we can live as we please — Romans 6:1-4).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms "exaltation in the celestial kingdom") must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the "celestial kingdom") — Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price — Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 25:23).

7. Does Christ's Atoning Death Benefit Those Who Reject Him?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the purpose of the atoning work of Christ on the cross was to provide the complete solution for humankind’s sin problem. However, those who reject God’s grace in this life will have no part in this salvation but are under the judgment of God for eternity (John 3:36; Hebrews 9:27; 1 John 5:11-12).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christ’s atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669).

8. Is The Bible The Unique and Final Word of God?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the Bible is the unique, final and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1,2; 2 Peter 1:21) and that it will stand forever (1 Peter 1:23-25). God’s providential preservation of the text of the Bible was marvelously illustrated in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been corrupted, is missing many "plain and precious parts" and does not contain the fullness of the Gospel (Book of Mormon — 1 Nephi 13:26-29; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 190-191).

9. Did The Early Church Fall Into Total Apostasy?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the true Church was divinely established by Jesus and could never and will never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18; John 15:16; 17:11). Christians acknowledge that there have been times of corruption and apostasy within the Church, but believe there has always been a remnant that held fast to the biblical essentials.

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there was a great and total apostasy of the Church as established by Jesus Christ; this state of apostasy "still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" of the Mormon Church (Gospel Principles, pp. 105-106; Mormon Doctrine, p. 44).
http://www.irr.org/mit/is-mormonism-christian.html

These are the reasons why Mormons can NEVER be considered Christians. JS tried really hard to make his new found religion sound Christian but any solid Christian can see the grave errors within it. I am truly sorry and I hope this clears up any questions you had as to why Mormons are not Christian. Anyone can say they believe in Jesus but if he's not the one that the Bible speaks of, then you've done nothing more than create for yourself an idol.

[Mesenja]

Christian history is full of heresies,heretics,and heretical groups who were nevertheless considered Christian. Calvinism is a minority view in Christianity. Your argument therefore is absurd if used against other Christian denominations. So what makes your argument suddenly any better against us?


Yeah. I don't believe what Mormonism teaches,but that makes me "Mormon".

Get real,Mesenja. :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Christian history is full of heresies,heretics,and heretical groups who were nevertheless considered Christian. Calvinism is a minority view in Christianity. Your argument therefore is absurd if used against other Christian denominations. So what makes your argument suddenly any better against us?


LOL. You MEAN those heretics who considered THEMSELVES, "Christian" just like Mormon heretics. :rolleyes:

[nrajeff]

LOL. You MEAN those heretics who considered THEMSELVES, "Christian" just like Mormon heretics. :rolleyes:

--Oh, yeah: Just because John Wesley "considered" himself a Christian, if FJD 'feeeeels' like Wesley WASN'T one because Wesley said that Christendom had lost its way, then the world must bow down to FJD's feelings on who is and isn't a Christian, and brand John Wesley a non-Christian.

But I don't recall voting for you to be the "who is a Christian" czar, FJD. I mean, sure, Obama is creating a new czar over SOMETHING every other month or so, but still, I don't think he's gotten around to YOUR self-appointed *** yet.....

[Father_JD]

One is defined as "Christian" by what one believes, jeff.

Regrettably, Mormonism has virtually NOTHING in common with Biblical Christianity.

And, btw...Wesley was an ANGLICAN PRIEST as am I.

[Mesenja]

LOL. You MEAN those heretics who considered THEMSELVES,"Christian" just like Mormon heretics. :rolleyes:

A heretic is still a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

[Rathus]

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

Granted that this is the position of the board, why must Latter-day Saint followers of Jesus of Nazareth tacitly ***ent to what they rightly view as a canard in order to participate here?

Regards,
PahoranI may be a bit late in answering this question for you and I'm sure more seasoned members have already provided you with their answers. But from my perspective, telling Mormons (who visit this forum) that they are not to refer to themselves as "LDS Christians" is, I think, to minimize some of the confusion regarding how we "non-LDS" and "Christian" view your church, it's founder and it's teachings.

Personally, I believe the term "Christian" has been too watered down and made of no effect (at least in many places around the world and especially on the internet). One reason for this is due to the fact that if you define "Christian" as simply a "follower of Christ" then the obvious question becomes, what does it mean to be a "follower of Christ"?

If simply being baptized in water and following some rules that some men (who claim to speak for Christ) have created is equivalent to "following Christ" then I think anyone could call themselves "Christian" and thus the word becomes meaningless.

The things which make Mormonism unique from Christianity would, I believe, cl***ify it as an entirely different or new religion. Just as Christianity is not Judaism (but shares many things) so to I believe Mormonism is not Christianity (even though we may use similar terminology, but mean different things). Why is it not enough for Mormons to simply be identified as "Mormons"?

[Vlad III]

Why is it not enough for Mormons to simply be identified as "Mormons"?

That's like asking why Baptists don't just call themselves baptists, or Catholics Catholic, or Lutherns Luthern, or Anglicans Anglican, etc...

If "Christian" is so watered down and meaningless, why not just call yourself by your denomination?

[Rathus]

So, IOW, this board is committed to a long-discredited canard (see here (http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=58&chapid=)) which no-one is permitted to challenge.

Got it.

Regards,
PahoranYou can "challenge" it all you like. But will it get you anywhere? Or just cause you more frustration and wasted effort?

[Rathus]

Well if you guys weren't so impulsive to flip-out whenever a LDS calls himself a Christian you wouldn't need that rule! :pI'm not sure if this is a feature of this board, but I think it would be helpful if we could identify ourselves by what faith we most closely ***ociate with. Such as "Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Mormon, Seventh-day Adventist, JW, etc.". At least that way we (newbies) can know (at least from first glance) where people are coming from.

I think it's pretty obvious that we all wear and view certain things through religious lenses. I suppose at this point knowing where certain people are coming from will only be revealed through time and exchanging of ideas and beliefs between us.

[Mesenja]

Mesenja, I didn't say you personally could not claim to be a Christian--in a debate format you may argue whatever you wish. I said you couldn't use misleading terms like LDS Christian or LDS Christians. The issues here are terminology and context. The general characterization of Latter Day Saints as Christians is inaccurate and misleading.


Make an argument from the New Testament as to how the scriptures define the term.

[Rathus]

A heretic is still a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.I can accept that definition. What about apostates? Would an apostate be someone who "fell away" or left one church to join another?

[RealFakeHair]

I can accept that definition. What about apostates? Would an apostate be someone who "fell away" or left one church to join another?

Careful mormons when U answer this question......:)

[Rathus]

That's like asking why Baptists don't just call themselves baptists, or Catholics Catholic, or Lutherns Luthern, or Anglicans Anglican, etc...

If "Christian" is so watered down and meaningless, why not just call yourself by your denomination?Since I'm new here, you don't know me so I'll just respond with: I do. :)

[Mesenja]

Yeah. I don't believe what Mormonism teaches,but that makes me "Mormon".

Get real,Mesenja. :rolleyes:

Is it Calvinism? Or could it be another flavor of Protestantism? Would it be Catholicism? Or maybe it just doesn't matter as long as it isn't Mormonism?

[Rathus]

Jill, would it be considered "derogatory" to refer to Mormonism as "Counterfeit Christianity"? Or what about Pseudo-Christian? The reason I ask is because it has all the earmarks of a counterfeit.

[Mesenja]

Jill,would it be considered "derogatory" to refer to Mormonism as "Counterfeit Christianity"? Or what about Pseudo-Christian? The reason I ask is because it has all the earmarks of a counterfeit.


Is the opinion here any different then Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner who wrote a book en***led "'Terminology,'The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism"? The answer is a definite no. In the introduction to their book "The Kingdom of the Cults" it states "Christians today more then ever need the trustworthy information contained in The Kingdom of the Cults. This comprehensive new edition equips readers from every walk of life to use biblical truth to counter the efforts of cults to masquerade as mainstream Christians."

[nrajeff]

Since I'm new here, you don't know me so I'll just respond with: I do. :)

----No. In your profile you put merely "Christian" when you could have done like you want the rest of us to do--elaborate on what denomination and/or theological/doctrinal "variance" you believe to be the most correct and inspired.

[Father_JD]

A heretic is still a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

No. Those which are clearly OPPOSED to Biblical teaching like Mormons. ;)

[Father_JD]

Is it Calvinism? Or could it be another flavor of Protestantism? Would it be Catholicism? Or maybe it just doesn't matter as long as it isn't Mormonism?

Or could it be the flavor of Fundmental Mormonism which actually practices the TRUE Mormonism of Joseph Smith? :p

[Russianwolfe]

Or could it be the flavor of Fundmental Mormonism which actually practices the TRUE Mormonism of Joseph Smith? :p

The true Mormonism of Joseph Smith believed in continuing revelation. The fundamental flaw of the Mormon Fundamentalist is they, like you, believe the book to be more important than continuing revelation. The living faith of the dead is now the dead faith of the living.

Marvin

[Father_JD]

The true Mormonism of Joseph Smith believed in continuing revelation. The fundamental flaw of the Mormon Fundamentalist is they, like you, believe the book to be more important than continuing revelation. The living faith of the dead is now the dead faith of the living.

Marvin

The true Mormonism of Joseph Smth et al was THE ETERNAL PRINCIPLE OF PLURAL MARRIAGE AS NECESSARY FOR EXALTATION.

Ok, Mormon, lets see you equivocate yet again or do the Momon duck dodge and weave. :rolleyes:

[nrajeff]

The true Mormonism of Joseph Smth et al was THE ETERNAL PRINCIPLE OF PLURAL MARRIAGE AS NECESSARY FOR EXALTATION.



--So why are you wasting your life away attacking us who are in FAKE Mormonism? Shouldn't your priority be attacking those REAL Mormons? Aren't they more of a threat to world peace and the American Way?

[Father_JD]

--So why are you wasting your life away attacking us who are in FAKE Mormonism? Shouldn't your priority be attacking those REAL Mormons? Aren't they more of a threat to world peace and the American Way?

LOL Cause the FAKE Mormonism is just as misleading as the AUTHENTIC Mormonism of the FLDS who havent equivocated the religion as the Utah church has done, jeff.

An excellent question, btw. :D

[nrajeff]

LOL Cause the FAKE Mormonism is just as misleading as the AUTHENTIC Mormonism of the FLDS who havent equivocated the religion as the Utah church has done, jeff.
An excellent question, btw. :D

----I know it was an excellent question, but I found your answer to it a bit unsatisfactory. Who is the bigger threat to the world: Us "fake" Mormons, or the real deal? By what logical prioritization process did you decide that killing off a fake branch would do the world more good than killing off the root of the bad tree?

[Father_JD]

----I know it was an excellent question, but I found your answer to it a bit unsatisfactory. Who is the bigger threat to the world: Us "fake" Mormons, or the real deal? By what logical prioritization process did you decide that killing off a fake branch would do the world more good than killing off the root of the bad tree?

Definitely the FAKE Mormons because of the size, influence, and wealth of the Utah church. The world hasn't been taken in by the FLDS for whatever reason, jeff. :D

[nrajeff]

Definitely the FAKE Mormons because of the size, influence, and wealth of the Utah church. The world hasn't been taken in by the FLDS for whatever reason, jeff. :D

---So you're saying that the fake branch is more dangerous than the real root of the poisonous tree? Interesting.

When certain groups of people were talking about the "necessity" of killing Joseph Smith for the good of society, one allegedly claimed that he could prophesy more accurately than the Mormon prophet could, and predicted that once Joe Smith had been killed, the head of the evil snake would be cut off and the church would collapse almost immediately, and that before long the converts would go back to the Protestant churches they used to belong to, and the Mormon church would fall into obscurity in history.

You are not the first attacker of the LDS to be wrong.

[Father_JD]

---So you're saying that the fake branch is more dangerous than the real root of the poisonous tree? Interesting.

When certain groups of people were talking about the "necessity" of killing Joseph Smith for the good of society, one allegedly claimed that he could prophesy more accurately than the Mormon prophet could, and predicted that once Joe Smith had been killed, the head of the evil snake would be cut off and the church would collapse almost immediately, and that before long the converts would go back to the Protestant churches they used to belong to, and the Mormon church would fall into obscurity in history.

You are not the first attacker of the LDS to be wrong.

Its not so much the fact that the LDS Church has apostasized from its historic teachings, jeff. Whether FLDS or LDS they are nothing but FALSE relgion regardless.

Rest ***ured: Mormonism will be destroyed at the brightness of His coming if not before.

[nrajeff]

Its not so much the fact that the LDS Church has apostasized from its historic teachings, jeff. Whether FLDS or LDS they are nothing but FALSE relgion regardless.
---But you have made attacking the FAKE branch of it your number one priority, and letting the real McCoy slide. If the real evil root is the FLDS or the RLDS or the Bickertonites, and you give them a free p***, aren't you helping SATAN since you are failing to attack his genuine tree, and are instead attacking FAKE Mormonism?


Rest ***ured: Mormonism will be destroyed at the brightness of His coming if not before.
---Not based on your failure--to date--to bring it down. At the rate things are going, YOUR church (American Episcopalianism) will bite the dust before mine does. You guys are crumbling, from the top down. Wouldn't that be ironic, if, in 25 years, you see the demise of your own church and the LDS are still hanging on? :eek:

[Father_JD]

LOL; I have already given you my reason, jeff:

Because of the Utah churchs WEALTH, SIZE, and INFLUENCE.

[alanmolstad]

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

G

I have no issue with a Mormon being told there are in a CULT, as that is what they are in.
I dont have any problem calling them "Mormons"....or "followers of J Smith"


I would no use the term "Mormon Christians" for 2 reasons...#1-its simply wrong and #2- it's misleading.

Mormons are not Christians,and so if I tried to connect the term "Christian" to the word "Mormon" I would likely be guilty of intentionally being misleading.

Clearly that is against the rules and /or spirit of this forum.

[alanmolstad]

I have no issue with a Mormon being told there are in a CULT, as that is what they are in.
I dont have any problem calling them "Mormons"....or "followers of J Smith"


I would no use the term "Mormon Christians" for 2 reasons...#1-its simply wrong and #2- it's misleading.

Mormons are not Christians,and so if I tried to connect the term "Christian" to the word "Mormon" I would likely be guilty of intentionally being misleading.

Clearly that is against the rules and /or spirit of this forum.

bump......

[OceanCoast]

I have no issue with a Mormon being told there are in a CULT, as that is what they are in.

It’s written Jesus said “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you;” Matt 7:12.. and this is also affirmed in Luke 6:31. It’s the Golden rule.


So as you say you “you have no issue with a Mormon being told there are in a CULT” then we can presume that you will have no issue with others telling you that you are a member of a CULT correct? Maybe you agree.. Let’s examine.


Definition of CULT from Websters.


1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual;
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see spurious 2);
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator health cults
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) criticizing how the media promotes the cult of celebrity; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion the singer's cult of fans The film has a cult following.


Now the first two definitions certainly would apply to ALL religious veneration, including Christianity and ALL it’s denominations. Thus it would be accurate to say you are a member of a CULT.. but do you want that label?


The 3rd definition is one that was probably first used by a Minister of American Dutch reform movement J K van Beelan a century ago to refer to un-orthodox Christian movements. His use of the term was not malevolent, but a subs***ute for and to refrain from calling such movements ‘Heresy’ and Heretics. And yet I don’t believe that is how you intended to use the word either.


In the 1950-60’s a rather self-appointed minister named Walter Martin, began using the term in a malevolent and pejorative sense. Declaring basically any group that disagreed with Martin’s narrow views of Christianity were ‘cultist’ But in so doing he created a cult of his own. A counter-cult CULT. One that has little resemblance to anything Christ is said to have taught..


So the questions goes out to you.. Do you want others to refer to you and your faith as a CULT?

[alanmolstad]

So the questions goes out to you.. Do you want others to refer to you and your faith as a CULT?

I dont care what they do, as long as they stay within the stated rules...

[dberrie2000]

I have no issue with a Mormon being told there are in a CULT, as that is what they are in.
I dont have any problem calling them "Mormons"....or "followers of J Smith"

I would no use the term "Mormon Christians" for 2 reasons...#1-its simply wrong and #2- it's misleading.

Mormons are not Christians,and so if I tried to connect the term "Christian" to the word "Mormon" I would likely be guilty of intentionally being misleading.

Just so you won't be misleading--when you use the term "Christian"--are you referring to the true Christianity of the Biblical text--or the theology which preaches there are no acts of obedience to Jesus Christ which is necessary for His grace unto life?

2 John 9--King James Version (KJV)
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

[alanmolstad]

Just so you won't be misleading--when you use the term "Christian"--.
Please refer to the rules ...

[dberrie2000]

Just so you won't be misleading--when you use the term "Christian"--are you referring to the true Christianity of the Biblical text--or the theology which preaches there are no acts of obedience to Jesus Christ which is necessary for His grace unto life?

2 John 9--King James Version (KJV)
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.


Please refer to the rules ...

What do the rules state about your opinion of what Christianity is?

[alanmolstad]

What do the rules state about your opinion of what Christianity is?

I dont really care what your or anyone's opinion of any religion is.

I dont try to write the posts of others...

So if any guest wants to refer to anything by a term that is within the rules, I dont really care.


As long what gets posted on the forum is within the letter and spirit of the listed rules, I dont and should not have any opinion on their personal views.


If you are asking for my own personal views?...then I would refer you to a video that I have used many times to help people understand how I use the term "Christian" and the word "CULT".....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_tZJu5dQIY

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostJust so you won't be misleading--when you use the term "Christian"--are you referring to the true Christianity of the Biblical text--or the theology which preaches there are no acts of obedience to Jesus Christ which is necessary for His grace unto life?

2 John 9--King James Version (KJV)
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.


Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post Please refer to the rules ...


Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post What do the rules state about your opinion of what Christianity is?


I dont really care what your or anyone's opinion of any religion is.

I dont try to write the posts of others...

So if any guest wants to refer to anything by a term that is within the rules, I dont really care.

I'm not sure how you are plugging your post into the conversation.

My question was--how are you relating your answer--"Please refer to the rules"--to my question in the opening post above?

[alanmolstad]

First, I find that posted comments that contain a mash-up of quotes from all over the place are just gobbledygook to me and I dont read them.



as far as my point about reading the rules goes-
I am referring to the ***le of this topic...and I am strongly suggesting to people that if they have a question about what is and is not allowed under the rules?..that they should seek first their answer by reading the listed rules.
Maintaining their comments to be within the listed rules is my point.

Now what are the rules?

This is - "From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

I get a lot of advice sent my way as to who should be allowed or not allowed to use the term "Christian"
My answer is that if you read the rules you will see my opinion on the matter of the use of the term "christian" in ***ociation with the many Mormon topics you see on the board..

aside from that I dont really care what you guys say about whatever topic you guys are dealing with at the time.

Just enjoy yourselves, and show good manners to each other.

[alanmolstad]

so lets be very clear then...

"Mormon theology is not Christian theology."


This is the first thing.


next we read

"Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading"


there you have it....

[alanmolstad]

so.....as we read under the rules we see the way to use the word "Christian" and how not to use it to avoid mix-ups.

What we therefore see is that you can use the term "Christian" when you refer to non-Mormon theology, for as the rules state very clearly, " the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology"

The aim of this rule is to help avoid misleading people and being more accurate.


So in real life how does it work?
So in real life how it works on this forum is that we always should to make sure we are not talking about Mormon theology when we speak of something as being "Christian" , as in "Christian theology" for it is the well-known, listed position of this website that Mormonism is to not be confused with being Christian ....and so posting the term "LDS Christian" or a "Mormon Christian" etc, is not acceptable.



other than making sure people follow the listed rules in their comments < I really dont care what people post, or what name they give stuff..

Im not here to write their comments for them...and I could not care less most of the time.

I only wish to make sure all play by the same listed rules that all did agree to maintain when they first registered on this message board.




So when people ask me "What do you mean by the term "Christian" I point them to the rules and tell them that what I mean is "Not Mormon theology"

[dberrie2000]

so lets be very clear then...

"Mormon theology is not Christian theology."

Fair enough. Then you won't mind posting for us what you find in the Biblical text--which is not found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go?

I'll be glad to start first, in what I find in the Biblical NT ---which defies the theology which some refer to as "Christian":

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[alanmolstad]

Fair enough. Then you won't mind posting for us what you find in the Biblical text--which is not found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go?

I'll be glad to start first, in what I find in the Biblical NT ---which defies the theology which some refer to as "Christian":

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

The answer to your question is addressed at the 1:00 point of this video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcf1J6AJB9M


there you see how Walter Martin address your question and answers it and shows us that there are two types of "justification" talked about in the Bible...

One of works before men.
One of Faith before God.

[alanmolstad]

Now, lets address the Christian understanding of the place of works in the story of a person's salvation.

This question is answered at the 3:39 point of the video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL1eXPgFy6k

[alanmolstad]

so...now go look at both of the videos I have posted that will give you a very clear understanding of the issues we are dealing with here, and then decide for yourself if what Walter has taught us is in agreement with your own personal views?

If it is?...fine, then that is great and we can move on to some other point.



This all fits with the story we talked about here the other day, where a man went to Jesus and asked him about doing stuff to have eternal life.
And at first Jesus points to the law, and the guy shoots back that he has always kept the Law,

This is how some of us want to think salvation hangs on,,,our actions,,,our works...they think that the things we do matter to god....
They think that can earn salvation via works.

and then Jesus undercuts this mind-set that doing the Law can save anyone when he says the guy still "Lacks"



the guy kept the Law for his whole life, and in the end learns its a moot point.

The Law does not save or even add a bit to my salvation.

Galatians 2:21 " I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

[dberrie2000]

so...now go look at both of the videos I have posted that will give you a very clear understanding of the issues we are dealing with here,

IMO--Posting videos is not the answer to what you find in the Biblical text--which is not found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go.

Nor does it answer why the Biblical text defies faith alone theology:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

But that scripture is friendly to true Christianity--and what will find in the LDS church.

[alanmolstad]

IMO--........

Im sure I can start a sentence with "IMO" that might differ...

The videos give the correct information in an easy to grasp manner.
If there is some part of the video you would like to ask about, or have a comment about?...then that would be fine.

The videos are posted to be of help to anyone interested...all you have to do is to be willing to move that computer mouse over a little and go "click"...

But like a horse led to water....

[dberrie2000]

Im sure I can start a sentence with "IMO" that might differ...

The videos give the correct information in an easy to grasp manner.

Posting videos is not the answer to what you find in the Biblical text--which is not found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go.

Nor does it answer why the Biblical text defies faith alone theology:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

But that scripture is friendly to true Christianity--and what will find in the LDS church.

[alanmolstad]

I can also copy/paste too...

[dberrie2000]

I can also copy/paste too...

Could you copy and paste us a Biblical answer to my question?

Alan--you still have not posted what you find in the Biblical text--which is not found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go.

I'm not looking for what your opinion is--or a video--but actual scriptures. You do believe the Bible sets the standard for truth?

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[alanmolstad]

Could you copy and paste us a Biblical answer to my question?

]

As I said before, the James 2:24 verse is talked about at the :53 seconds point of the video...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcf1J6AJB9M

[dberrie2000]

As I said before, the James 2:24 verse is talked about at the :53 seconds point of the video...

That's fine. But I'm looking for you to post Biblical scriptures, found in the Biblical NT--which demonstrate doctrines is not found in the LDS church, as far as salvational doctrines go. That should not be that hard--given your stance here:


Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post so lets be very clear then..."Mormon theology is not Christian theology."

[alanmolstad]

That should not be that hard--given your stance here:


"Mormon theology is not Christian theology."

I believe Im quoting the rules that govern this forum, rules that are enforced.
I believe the issue I was addressing was that lots of people try to offer me advice as to what should or should not be considered 'Christian" and i simply point out that the Forum's rules set down the way we are to follow here, in that this site takes the position that "Mormon theology is NOT christian theology"...this is why we do not see anyone claim to be a "LDS or Mormon Christian" as the rules are very clear that such a term is misleading and will not be allowed.

So far as I have seen, this rule is being followed by everyone correctly and I see no reason for any debate on this settled matter.


if a person were to want to know why Mormonism is not considered Christian?, i suggest they make Google a friend and do their own research.
because I dont really care what people believe.



Now if you are asking why I personally believe that Mormonism is not Christian?..I already answered that,,,,for THAT WAS WHAT THE VIDEO WAS FOR!!!!!!!

[dberrie2000]

"Mormon theology is not Christian theology." I believe Im quoting the rules that govern this forum, rules that are enforced.

That's good, Alan--but I am asking you to back your statement with Biblical NT scripture, IE--what do you find in the Biblical NT, which is not found in the LDS church? If you truly believe what you testified to--that should not be so hard:


Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post so lets be very clear then..."Mormon theology is not Christian theology."

Alan--there are those who make statements such as yours--but when asked to put up the goods, as to Biblical NT scripture--they stutter-step, hem-haw, and divert into something that has no bearing on the request, go to videos, straw man attacks, personal opinions, etc.

If you believe the LDS church is not a Christian church--then you, nor anyone else--should have any trouble finding Biblical NT scriptures which are not found in the LDS church, as far as salvational doctrines go.

I certainly would not have any trouble finding scriptures which violate faith alone theology:

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version (KJV)
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And 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.
18 He 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,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So--the space is yours. Please post the Biblical NT scriptures which are not found in the LDS church, as far as salvational doctrines go.

[alanmolstad]

again,,,thats was what the video was for...

[alanmolstad]

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version (KJV)
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And 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.
18 He 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,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.





why do you always stop the quotation there?

[dberrie2000]

again,,,thats was what the video was for...

There we have it, folks.

[alanmolstad]

why do you always stop the quotation there?


I have seen others do this as well...

They always quote the first part of the story as supporting their views...but then suddenly stop quoting the rest of the story where jesus actually teaches what he wants to say to the man in the story.


When you stop quoting the story too early you give the reader the wrong idea as to what the whole story is aimed at....

[alanmolstad]

Its the same as if you quote jesus saing, at Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth."

and then stop the quotation right then and there...

If you do that you can mislead people as to what Jesus was about to teach...



Its the same when I see people quote the story at Matt 19 and just STOP DEAD, just before the true better part of the story is read....thuis you will give the reader the wrong idea as to the meaning of the story

[alanmolstad]

So when I see someone post over and over the shortened quotation of the Matt 19 story and ask me to address it's teachings...my answer is to simply quote the rest of the story they left off!.....

:)

[alanmolstad]

now when you bother to read the rest of the story that always seems to be editted out of some people's quotations, what you learn is that Jesus was teaching that the man's efforts to keep the law as a way to gain life was pointless....


if you always stop quoting the story too early you will not learn this important teaching of Jesus...
But if you stick with the text, then you learn what Jesus was really talking about.

[alanmolstad]

Now I have talked about this same story many, many times on this forum.

I have listed all the sister verses that agree with what im saying,,,i have provided supporting voices of other Bible teachers that agree with all that i have said...and I have posted videos where martin goes over this information as well...

Truly I have fully answered this question to the point where all that I might add is simply repeating pointlessly something that a person has likely decided to never believe regardless of what i might say....

so.......there you go..

[dberrie2000]

now when you bother to read the rest of the story that always seems to be editted out of some people's quotations, what you learn is that Jesus was teaching that the man's efforts to keep the law as a way to gain life was pointless....

if you always stop quoting the story too early you will not learn this important teaching of Jesus...
But if you stick with the text, then you learn what Jesus was really talking about.

Alan--then please stick with the text, see it all the way through--quote us those scriptures in full, But:

Please post the specific Biblical NT scriptures, which is not found in the LDS church, as to salvational doctrines.

Revelation 22:14--King James Version (KJV)
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

[dberrie2000]

[I]Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version (KJV)
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And 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.
18 He 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,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

why do you always stop the quotation there?

Because that is where it defies faith alone theology. Although, very friendly to LDS theology.

Alan--could you explain for what there is in the Biblical NT scriptures--which is not found in the LDS church, as far as salvational doctrines go?

Philippians 2:12--King James Version (KJV)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

[alanmolstad]

Because that is where it defies faith alone theology. Although, very friendly to LDS theology.

Alan--could you explain for what there is in the Biblical NT scriptures--which is not found in the LDS church, as far as salvational doctrines go?

Philippians 2:12--King James Version (KJV)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

if you just read the rest of it, you find out the answer to the question... :)

For when you keep reading you learn that it is not us that is doing any working, it is the Lord!
Thus again, we are saved by grace though FAITH,,,,and not by works!

for we are saved not by human effort, but by the lord's grace.

[dberrie2000]

for we are saved not by human effort, but by the lord's grace.

No oe has claimed one is saved by human effort--but by God's grace.

That leaves but one important question, for me.

Who does God give this grace to?

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

[alanmolstad]

Who does God give this grace to?


Guys like the thief on the cross , as I've taught many times...

And to guys like myself, for as it says in the Scripture " to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness."


So does it say that works are credited as righteousness?....no!!!!

Rather is says in black and white - to the one who does not work (Guys like me, and the thief on the cross) but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness."




Their what?______


Their what is credited as righteousness?__________




Works?.............or........their faith?

[dberrie2000]

So does it say that works are credited as righteousness?....no!!!!

1 John 3:7---King James Version (KJV)
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

[alanmolstad]

He who does not work but rather believes god , to him it is credited as righteousness

[alanmolstad]

So the fact is that Mormons have sold their souls to Satan when they put their trust in the Mormon teaching of "works rightusness"
..
But the bible teaches to forget that stuff and seek only to believe. ...for its faith God seeks in you...

[alanmolstad]

Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Mark 9:23
"If You can?" echoed Jesus. "All things are possible to him who believes!"

John 6:29
Jesus replied, "This is the work of God: to believe in the One He has sent.

Romans 3:22
And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe

Romans 4:6
just as David proclaims the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

[alanmolstad]

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

Granted that this is the position of the board, why must Latter-day Saint followers of Jesus of Nazareth tacitly ***ent to what they rightly view as a canard in order to participate here?

Regards,
Pahoran


Let me address the opening comment on this topic to make a few things more clear that it seems some people have gotten mixed up on.

The term "CULT" is a useful term as it helps the Christian state very clearly that the religion he is talking about is clearly not Christian.
Therefore the term "CULT" should be used in the manner that Walter Martin used it.....and with his understanding of the term.
The forum is after all, named after Martin...LOL



Next: The term "LDS Christian"
The use of the term LDS Christian, or other terms thsat give the idea that Mormons are Christian is not allowed because this is a rule, and it is that position of the ownership of this message board that Mormonism is NOT CHRISTIAN, and therefore the terms like "LDS Christian" are misleading, and will not be allowed.

Finally:....why should Mormons follow the rules?
The member of this forum has already agreed to follow the rules and guidance of the Mods of this message board when they registered.
So they are expected to follow the rules they have already agreed to.
The door is always open here, and none is forced to come here.
But while they are here, they are expected to follow the same rules as others, regardless of their religion.
Thus if a member finds they can not continue to keep the agreed-to rules, the door is always open and they can go find some place else.