Nitpick:
Mormon doctrine states that God the father and Jesus Christ himself appeared to Joseph Smith to affirm the falsehood of all of the churches that existed in 1820. Then several years later, a Dead White Hebrew Native American named Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith to tell him where to find the gold plates. Then a few years after that the same D.W.H.N.A. appeared to Joseph Smith, two of his collaborators, and one of his marks to affirm the truth of the Book of Mormon.
Btw, was Moroni’s status at the time just a departed Saint spirit, an angel, or had he been resurrected into Godhood?
Btw, I’ll reinterate that the Visitation, the Book of Mormon, Doctrines & Covenants & even the Pearl of Great Price are distinct from the doctrine of Exaltation. One could conceivably accept any & all of the former & still balk at Exaltation. Heck, one could even accept the Exaltation of humans into Immortal Gods while regarding Father God as Eternally Deity without prior human status.
I find the claims of Mormonism to be completely at odds eith Christianity.
Hence, I would think that anyone converting to that religion would have some very serious soul searching to do.
Actually, Mormonism seems to have more in common with cults like $cientology, than any version of Christianity (that I am familiar with).
Even I see that as overblown. The only commonalities with Scientology I see are
a charismatic founder with a history as a con-man & controversial teachings that are not openly promoted. LDS Theology looks Evangelical Christian in many ways with these distinctions- an open canon of New Revelations & Scriptures, an Authority structure paralleling the Catholic Church (the Prophet-President & Council of Apostles vs. the Pope & the Curia), a flexible Afterlife that can also be compared to Catholic views, quasi-Masonic Temple Rites, and of course, my main objection- an almost Pagan blurring of the Creator-Creation distinction.
Sure, it is clear, but it is pretty insulting to Jews at least - can’t speak for Mormons.
Telling people their belief is wrong, then using that to set up a never ending parade of people to tell them that to their face, with no way to turn off the faucet? Is that how Jesus teaches Christians to behave? What’s this about a “Prince of Peace”? That doesn’t sound like peaceful behavior to me, and it has certainly led to aggravated and extended violence against individual Jews and Jews as a group over millennia, continuing to this day.
Not saying FriarTed is anti-Semitic, but he sure seems to be advocating behavior that is borderline such: “some” forms or persuasion is appropriate to convince Jews to change or, to put it less charitably, make Judaism itself go away for the glory of Christ.
That is what I gather from his clear statement of belief.
Looks more like something you made up.
Not a surprise, unfortunately.
Regards,
Shodan
Sooo … I assume you’ll be tying all that back into the topic of discussion (Non-Mormon Christians converting to Mormonism) any moment now? And even if you COULD paint FriarTed as a quasi-anti-semite, it wouldn’t manufacture a contradiction between simultaneous evangelism and rejection of Mormonism.
A few years back two nice young men came to the door and offered to tell us about LDS. The wife and I agreed, so they made an appointment and returned later accompanied by an elder, brother Thorn. It was a pleasant evening. Brother Thorne told us stories about his adventures as a missionary. Then the two young men went through a formal presentation. They had a book of illustrations showing Joseph Smith meeting angels, Adam, Abraham, Noah and others (don’t remember Eve). Brother Thorn explained that if we joined, the Bishop would pay us a visit to go over our income and help calculate the tithe.
That was it. There was no study or discussion like you get with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Just a story and some details of church operation and the implication that we would get a bill for $20,000. Not convincing at all.
However, it did get my interest. I went to the LDS bookstore and bought a book on Mormon Dogma. Also, read some of the LDS writngs that are posted on the web. Clearly they have established a strong community, but the religion is not compelling:
-
Archaeological evidence is against LDS NewWorld mythology.
-
If the six billion souls on earth today volunteered to be tested by giving up all knowledge of their spiritual origins, and all knowledge of their goal in being here, why would some of them be met by LDS Missionaries who spill the whole story and reveal God’s plan. It doesn’t make sense. It’s supposed to be a test, not a game.
-
LDS was founded as a Utopian Marxist Society (Law of Consecration). The organization today is intensely anti-Marxist. Why was Marxism good enough for Joseph Smith but not good enough for the current LDS organization?
-
Revelation makes LDS infinitely adaptable to social change. That is socially convenient, but does not make one feel that LDS is based on immutable religious truths.
-
The result is that the LDS religion today, (member beliefs and current LDS dogma), more closely represents 21st century middle American values than anything Biblical.
So, that’s the take of one non-Mormon who contemplated conversion.
Crane
No one is trying to do either of those things. Re-read with comprehension in mind please. You too Shodan. Thanks!
So you’re telling me that my beliefs are wrong? That Jesus is not the Messiah? That he didn’t tell his followers to evangelize people? Or if he did, that we are supposed to ignore it for the sake of peacefulness?
Not that I’m saying you’re anti-Christian, of course.
I hope you recognize what I’m doing here. 
Yes, every statement of belief opens up the door to other beliefs & shuts the door to their opposites.
Is there a God? Is Jesus the Unique Son of God? Was Joseph Smith a true prophet? Was Mohammed a true prophet? Was the early Sanhedrin & their Rabbinic heirs correct in rejecting Jesus’ Messianic claim & expelling his followers from the Jewish communities? Each person’s answer to each question is going to seem offensive to those who hold the other position. And that’s OK just as long as we handle our disagreements with civility & in peaceful yet passionate discourse.
Wow, that Marxism is insidious. It managed to influence a guy who died 4 years before it was popularized by its most important work.
TLH,
Good point, but it’s a matter of terminology, not influence. Marxism is the surviving term regardless of the chronology.
Both Smith and Marx proposed ‘from each according to his ability and to each according to his need’.
Crane
The Plymouth colony, IIRC, tried socialism also, but found it to be ineffective. I imagine the same happened with the LDS. Incidentally, there is a really well-researched book-in-progress on the Net (I’ll link it later) suggesting that Joseph Smith & the LDS was another attempt in Revolutionary Socialist societies that had been brewing since the late 1700’s, even suggesting that Smith was perhaps a wanna-be Illuminatus.
FriarTed,
The Federal Government had a lot to do with ending LDS socialism, but I do believe the Law of Consecration was in effect as long as Smith was alive.
I believe Smith became a Free Mason after being anti-Mason. Not sure there’s continuity to the Illuminati.
Crane
Not at all. I am not passing judgment on the correctness of your beliefs here. Beliefs by definition are neither right nor wrong, but they are subject to testing.
I am suggesting that people ought to be entiteled to have their own beliefs in private, but when those beliefs extend to the point that as you stated in the other thread and possibly elsewhere, annoying, disrupting and coopting the beliefs of others in order to persuade them of the primacy of your own beliefs is not healthy in a heterogeneous society such as our country, or indeed the broader world.
Beyond that I don’t give a flying fig what you believe or don’t believe. If it make syou happy, believe what you want. Just leave other people’s beliefs out of yours and I will be good with it.
If you are offering that as a fact, then no, I have never seen any evidence. If you are offering it as a hypothesis, then propose the experiments we can use to test it. Otherwise, it is a belief, and that is fine. You are entitled to believe it and to act as though it is a fact if that is what makes you happy.
Just don’t feel like you should be trying to convert other people that their beliefs are wrong, especially if you are sensitive to others saying yours are not superior to theirs.
You mean Christians would rather evangelize than be peaceful or civil? OK, good to know. I never heard it put so bluntly before, but that explains a lot.
I am anti-anyone who systematically can’t take know for an answer, and who does not have a system in place to stop the low level harassing. This is as true for the pizza places that leave trash at my door as it is for those who would embed their beliefs in our shared civil and secular laws.If you look in a mirror and see yourself or your fellow Christians in that statement, well, are you going to tell me to live with it, or are you going to do something about it amongst yourselves and be civil and peaceful moving forward?
Yeah but not what you think - you are setting up apologetics for Christian misbehavior in the civic space, and if you take a deep breath, you would find that abhorrent. Or, if you really wouldn’t, then it worries me how far you would go, having apparently rejected civil and peaceful discourse as secondary to getting Jesus’ message of evangelism out.
That is BS of the highest order, not befitting a man knows as Friar. I have seen better of you on here. That Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah does not offend Jews or Buddhists or Hindus or anyone else. I personally don’t know ANY religion where it is either the doctrine or habit to be offended at the beliefs of others.
Are you suggesting that perhaps Christianity has this teaching? That Jesus or someone else taught you to be offended at the beliefs others have and hold (or don’t have and hold)? I am not an expert on that, so I am asking you yes or no, is that the teaching? Is it universal among Christians?
Really? Is there a time when Christians will have even an opt-out system from their non-civil and sometimes non-peaceful evangelizing? Because just today, the news in my area reports yet another City Council that is thumbing the nose of the polite, peaceful and civil objections from their constituents to hoist “In God We Trust” in the Council Chambers, all the while refusing to state why they wanted to do this at all, let alone why it is urgent and even worth their consideration at all.
Actually, I’ve toned down a lot of my conversion efforts, realizing that it’s Christ Who does the converting & not me, and having a more flexible view of the Afterlife and a different understanding of Hell than is traditionally taught. I certain have no reticence about sharing my faith & recommending Christ to people, but I’m not sensitive about people disagreeing. I am a bit sensitive about people willfully misunderstanding but I’ll cope.
Since you don’t seem to want to understand that the two are not mutually exclusive, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
I will quote you-
“That is BS of the highest order.”
I did overstate. The belief that Jesus is Messiah, by itself, is not necessarily offensive. The belief that he calls his followers to evangelize & transform peoples & cultures through faith in him - THAT is offensive
No, as I said- I did overstate that. Some Christians do get offended that others believe differently, but it is not a Christian belief that we should get offended by others’ beliefs.
“In God We Trust” is officially the national motto, much as that might irritate some people. I see no reason that it shouldn’t be displayed in a City Council. Perhaps those constituents who object to such a display are far outnumbered by those who support it. Nothing particularly uncivil or non-peaceful about that.
I am quite sure out of a billion Christians, it is only a minority that causes the problem. I’ve not seen you evangelize or especially go out of your way to do it. Others, not so much. and still, even 10-20% of a billion is a lot of people.
There is no willful misunderstanding here unless it is your own. Do you deny that some Christians go out of their way to reach people in all sorts of ways, ranging from the annoying and pestering to the downright dangerous? Do you deny that in country after country, including our own, and Uganda for example, there are organized attempts by Christian evangelists to embed their beliefs in the laws of the country, to strip rights from people (Prop 8 in California) or een to all but remove their right to even live (gays in Uganda for example) and all measures in between al in the name of converting people to Christ by any means possible?
Let’s be perfectly clear about willful misunderstanding FriarTed. Do you deny any of that is a true accounting for the behavior of some (but not all) Christians in the name of Christianity in the world today?
That is correct, that is what I said. All of the above goes on in the world today, in the name of evangelizing Christianity, rights and lives being taken away. Diplomatic matters handled at the highest levels to keep people out of the clutches of the Christians in Africa while Christians (and Mormons if you consider them separate) conspire to take existing rights away from all Californians.
Sorry your feelings are hurt. I don’t know if you personally worked for any of this or if you abhor it, but I don’t see you distancing yourself from it either. All’s fair in the name of converting people to Christ I guess.
You are calling the way you described your own religion offensive now? I am confused.
Then why not live and let live? Isn’t that in essence the Golden Rule?
Maybe you don’t live in the United States. Or maybe you do and you need a reminder. Our own system of government is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Further, it is entirely secular in nature. Not everyone believes in the same God, or even the same number of Gods. If any city Council wants that as their motto, then they should not be so silent as to what the reason for it is, under the careful considered advice of their own City Attorney as happened in Bakersfield this week.
After all, if you really want something that includes everyone, why would you think “In God We Trust” is it? Unless your religion specifies you to get the word and name of Jesus out there as much as possible no matter what?
Do you really think people on this board, regardless of their beliefs, are so shallow as to not see that ruse?
Angel (but without the swan wings). It’s not entirely clear whether angels in Mormonism are spirits or resurrected beings, but I’d lean toward the latter. He’s certainly not a god yet.
What do you define as evangelizing? In my view, I kinda do it all the time here- not as in asking people for a life-changing commitment to Christ, but as in constantly upholding the message of God’s Incarnation, Atoning Sacrifice & Resurrection thru Messiah Jesus. You seem to define it in exclusively negative terms- see even the mildest form as a rude social imposition.
Of course I don’t deny this. Which is why I emphasize that it should be civil & peaceful persuasion. I think the Ugandan legislation is abominable & is an ultra-extreme reaction to the AIDS crisis, which is a promiscuity problem, not just a gay problem. Here is the US, there are some measures you object to that I may support. I am for regulations & restrictions on abortion because I believe millions of human lives are being wasted, our culture is being corrupted, and yes, our nation is earning a truckload of Divine Wrath. As for gay marriage- I do believe that marriage is defined by God first and then by culture, which manifests in legislation. Right now I believe in legislating for civil unions, as I do believe people have the right to determine who their life partners are. I am very hesitant about redefining marriage. And it has nothing to do with Christ. If I were a Torah-keeping Jew or a Noachide Gentile, I would believe the same way. However, I am not an activist on the issue.
Unfortunately, no. It is true that some Christians go over the line in both evangelizing & in enacting their values in the public square. You and I do differ
as to where that line is.
I actually don’t put a lot of energy in the issue. And again, it’s not a converting people to Christ issue. For those who do put a lot of energy into it, it’s probably
more a “Not bringing down the Wrath of God on us” issue.
The Evangelical impulse in Christianity IS offensive. It sure offends you.
Not totally. In the minds of evangelistic people, what they do is akin to alerting people that their house is on fire, that the bridge is out, that they know of a cure for a fatal disease we all suffer from. The moral obligation to let people know the way to Eternal Life & Happiness in Christ rather than letting them go into either Oblivion or Hell trumps any social conventions of just leaving people to themselves. I agree that many evangelistic people overdo it & could be nicer & more laid back about it. I don’t quite share that strong an evangelistic impulse but I do understand and respect it.
Yes, I do live in the United States- in which the interplay of the Judeo-Christian tradition, our national culture, and secular government has been much more complex than “entirely secular in nature”. Like it or not, the Creator has been acknowledged by every President, the Declaration of Independence & most State constitutions, every Congress & Supreme Court, the Gov’t buildings & monuments of Washington D.C.
If I were part of that City Council, this is what I would say " ‘In God We Trust’ is the national motto. We are part of that nation. Therefore, it is our motto. The Stars & Stripes is our national flag. Therefore, it is our flag. If you have a complaint about it, take it up with Congress."
And what does “In God We Trust” have to do with getting the word & name of Jesus out there? It’s not “In Jesus We Trust”. It can mean anything from YHWH to Allah to Brahma to The Universe.
Disingenuous to the extreme. The people pushing this, which seems to include you, may try to push this point to the outside world, but nobody honestly believes this is what the proponents say to which other when the camera is off. The only god being pushed here is the Christian god.