Posted on 05/04/2012 9:51:48 AM PDT by C19fan
As 20,000 Mormons streamed from the church conference center, a ragtag group of protesters stood across the street shouting that the Latter-day Saints were going to hell. Mormon families, who had gathered here for two days of speeches and spiritual guidance called General Conference, ignored the hecklers or laughed and kept walking. This, after all, is a church accustomed to much worse.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"People who have opposed Mormonism forever will use this as an opportunity," said Robert Millet, a religion scholar at Brigham Young University who co-founded a pioneering evangelical-Mormon dialogue. "I don't know if we're ready for this kind of deluge."
I think Mr. Millet is referring to the total exposure of the LDS's attempt to portray itself as just another Christian Church is a big lie. For example, Christians professing the Nicene creed are not going to take lightly the Mormon concept that Jesus and Satan are brothers.
I hold out a ray of hope that the conservative moorings of his religion just might push him a little closer to the right.
OK, so with Romney as the nominee we can expect Mormon doctrines to be widely exposed.
On one hand that could lead to Mormon evangelism.
But, on the other, it could spur reform among Mormons who have got to realize how ridiculous their religion is.
It is no fun to be labeled a cult. But, to deny basic doctrines like the Nicene creed puts then on the outside big time.
Since their head Prophet gets to announce major reforms by new revelations, maybe reform is possible?
This happened with the Seventh Day Adventists.
They started out denying the trinity and being pacifist.
But, then reformers came along and said, you know, being a cult isn’t really helping us. Maybe we should come to accept the historic truth of the traditional churches?
Then changed their doctrine and are now basically accepted as a Christian church.
Am I wrong here I wonder? Not that I know much about this.
Um, yeah, because the gods know it has done that so far...
To those of us here who are, shall we say, decidedly unchurched, Mormonism is no stranger than most other religions. Scientology and islam are exceptions but I take absolutely no position on doctrinal matters as they don’t concern me at all.
Mormons appear to be peaceful, trustworthy, family-oriented, sober and well under-represented in the criminal class.
Just my opinion
If anything is “mean spirited” it won’t be because of his religious beliefs. It’ll be Romneycare and his out and out Rinoness. His non conservative BS etc.
You are exactly right on that point.
Is the Nicene creed the word of God, like the books of the New Testament?
If so, why isn’t it included along side those in the Bible?
If not, why is someone required to believe it to be considered a Christian?
Except that they are based on self works for salvation (LDS) included, there is only ONE way and God provided it through His Son Jesus Christ.
This is exactly what the LDS believe and teach. We do not believe that we are saved through our "self works".
I would pay money to listen to Obama and Romney debate religion.
I for one, would like to see this can of worms opened; the only Mormon I know is a pretend Mormon-she drinks coffee, smokes etc.-and the only reason she stays a Mormon is because there are a lot of “rich people” in the church and they always give her and her family money.
She told me this herself; she was raised Mormon and her husband joined the church (he has never ever gone to church) and loves it because the “men are in charge”. He is the “priest of the family”...but outside of his charade ,he cares about pleasing God as much as my cat does and like his wife, just uses the religion to satisfy his ego and help raise his family financially.
So, I would like to know about this religion; it does seem very cult-like to me.But, I am just a wandering Christian without a church, so I could be wrong! :)
bttt
I love living in a country where you are free to believe as you wish and no one is compelled to agree with you.
I suspect through time and “revelation” the powers that be will orchestrate a more mainstream belief system.
What will be fascinating is how they will deal with the Book of Mormon, the other works and of course old Joey Smith. Will they find some poor slob at BYU and make him a new Joe Smith who reveals it was all just a test...
So is the Creed the word of God like the Bible?
No, we didn't.
now they want to be our equals and peers.
We simply ask for the common courtesy to let us define our own beliefs - that we are followers of Jesus Christ. We may not be orthodox or mainstream Christians, but we are Christians.
The Creed is the Creed, the Bible is the Bible. Two separate things, with the Creed being supported by the Bible and inspired by God through his faithful servants on Earth. The Creeds are not nor ever have been scripture, just simple and concise definitions of what we believe. Similar to your very creedish but not a creed according to the LDS “Articles of Faith”
So, in other words, we are required to believe something (the Creed) that is not the word of God and is not found in the Bible in order to be considered Christians.
So, in other words, we are required to believe something (the Creed) that is not the word of God and is not found in the Bible in order to be considered Christian.
There is the rub though isn't it. You are asking to define what has already been defined by Christendom and rejected by the LDS. Christ is a specific person defined in a specific way belonging to a particular group of people who despite some often serious differences agree on the main points of the faith.
That is what makes this particularly egregious. It is as if the Jews all of the sudden want to be called Christian because while not being the savior Jesus was a great Rabbi.
Do you beleve in your Articles of Faith...
“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
James 2:17
James 2:18-20
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”
the little (inconvenient) book of James. Largely ignored because it doesn’t fir the ‘doctrine of man”?
Ignored because it was written by James?
(James The Just was the blood brother of Jesus and leader of the church after Jesus, not Peter, until killed in 62 AD - Peter and John were his 2 counselors. All in the Bible - but inconvenient, so skipped over.)
Oh this is what I so love about the LDS. Even they can't agree on what they believe on a most important subject. We have on telling us of salvation by grace, no self works and another with the tried and true misinterpretation of James touting how much we need works...
And the LDS want us to agree they are Christians...
Christ does not "belong" to a particular group of people. Despite your attempts to claim ownership of Christ, He is available for everyone to worship and follow, even Mormons.
You opine: “One has to remember a mere 2-3 decades ago they eschewed the label “Christian”, now they want to be our equals and peers.”
Curious. Is that why the church has ALWAYS been named “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”?
Is that why the hymn most often heard in their gatherings is “I Know that My Redeemer Lives - What comfort this sweet sentence gives!
He lives, He lives, who once was dead;
He lives, my ever living Head.
He lives to bless me with His love,
He lives to plead for me above.
He lives my hungry soul to feed,
He lives to help in time of need.
He lives triumphant from the grave,
He lives eternally to save,
He lives all glorious in the sky,
He lives exalted there on high. etc
and this part of your statement says a lot - about YOU -”
“now they want to be our equals and peers.”
Ahahaha - How exalted you are ;o)
When I want to know about something or “opine” so as to sound like I have a clue - I like to first go to the source.
Maybe you should tell the LDS they don’t believe in Jesus CHRIST. They seem to think they do.
You are correct, he is there for all to follow, but you have to follow him, not follow whomever you want to and call that Christ...
Don’t accuse us of not agreeing on the subject of salvation just because you’ve never taken the time to understand what LDS believe. There is no disagreement with what I posted and with the “misinterpretation” of James.
Excellent point
You don't know your church history.
1830: Church of Christ
1834: The Church of the Latter Day Saints
1838: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
It went for the first 8 years as something else. There ya go folks, slap a bmw sticker on and call it a beamer.
Curiouser - why is their web site LDS.org instead of CJCLDS.org is Jesus Christ's name is so important?
In the end, who gets to make the judgement call on if someone is following the "true" Christ?
The LDS have misused the name of Christ for years but the term "Mormon" was what was desired, "Christian" was not, until the value of the "brand name" became important overseas and such. A simple but rather time consuming survey of older church writing and publications will reveal this trend. get coffee, it takes a while. Ooops I forget no coffee.
As far as having Jesus Christ in their name, just because I have a sign saying "garage" on my home doesn't make me a mechanic is one analogy I like...
And I have been to the source, in fact I can go lay my hands on their various doctrines and such like the BOM at my home right now. I have been telling LDS folks like you for along time they need to look at what they really say about Christ, what their leaders tell them and what the Bible really says. They need to determine if Polytheism and other issues are worthy of a “Christian”
They also need to stop pretending they are not LDS by speaking in the third person and such, I have never understood that around here...
If you are a Mormonophobe any one who doesn’t believe precisely as you do is condemned to hell.
What's to misinterpret? I copy/pasted the verses directly from the Book of James.
If you have a problem with it - you need to take it up with James?
His words are plain and simple - tho' inconvenient for some, who choose, therefore, to skip over that little book - AND the fact that it was JAMES the Just, blood brother of Jesus, who inherited to leadership mantle after the Cruxifiction.
And that after James was killed in 62 AD, another blood relative led the believers = and then another until so many of the Diaspora was killed and/or had to go into hiding - so the leadership could be usurped.
I posture it is PAUL that the real followers of Jesus should be having the problem with - as did James, Peter and John.
Oh contrair. What comes first orem - faith or works?
What comes first according to 2 NEPHI 25:23?
What comes first according to MORONI 10:32?
What does the Apostle Paul states in Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Because it's easier to type and remember. I don't think having people type lds.org instead of CJCLDS.org has anything to do with how they feel about Jesus.
Go to lds.org and the first thing listed there is "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints". In fact, right now the main item on the page is a video called "Jesus Is Baptized by John". I don't know how often that changes.
Because it's easier to type and remember. I don't think having people type lds.org instead of CJCLDS.org has anything to do with how they feel about Jesus.
Go to lds.org and the first thing listed there is "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints". In fact, right now the main item on the page is a video called "Jesus Is Baptized by John". I don't know how often that changes.
God made that judgment call a long time ago...
We cannot question if an idvidual who claims Christ with in our midst is a Christian, but if they are practicing some very unchristian ideas and worse teaching such then we are required to point that out...
By the standard you are trying to hold, a Muslim can walk up to me say he is a Christian and you would have me accept that as Gospel truth.
BTW I find it interesting you are avoiding my question about if you believe in your articles of faith...
Well, gee, there ya go again.
It was not the LDS that first referred to themselves as Mormon - and within the congrations, they still don't - they are LDS.
Mormon was a name hung on them by outsiders, in reference to the Book of Mormon.
Of course, they also beleive in, read and study the Bible from cover to cover - so hmmmmmmmm?
Everything you posted agrees with what the LDS church teaches. Trying to force everything into a belief in grace vs. a belief in works outlook with a wall in between the two does not lead to understanding.
Thanks for an interesting discussion, but I’m on my way out the door.
And you believe in the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly”...
Not exactly a vote of Confidence in the word and abilities of God.
Of course from the LDS perspective God is only human...
Does it? Funny you are unable to provide an answer to the VERY simple questions. The Apostle Paul repudiates mormonism's having to earn their 'grace'. Did that some how slip by? Or is it possible that the purpose was to slip it by the lurkers? Well since you don't answer the questions. . . ..
Guess you forgot about the fact that Jesus Christ was left out for the first 8 years - or perhaps the mormon god was too busy to reveal it to smith.
It has nothing to do with “being saved after all we can do” as the LDS have made it out to be that is simple a gift from God.
Read the Bible, its in there...
And stop using the “them” and “they” be proud enough to use “we”...
Are you saying there is nothing conflicting in the New Testament?
For example: are you in agreement with Paul, who after 10 years as a Roman General slaughtering every Christian he could find - and was responsible for the stoning of Steven. It was a losing battle.
So He 'saw the light' up in Damascus - and declared himself now an Apostle - and without deigning to go to Jerusalem to meet and/or confer with the leaders there - particularly James, Peter and John, he set about to write his own interpretations of the Gospel. He had and expressed disdain of James, Peter and John, whom he referred to as "the so -called pillars of the church." and they thought of him as the false Apostle - etc - etc
Much Paul wrote is in conflict with what Jesus taught. And it's all there in black and white - and red.
I prefer the red letter Bible so I can skip on through and read what JESUS said and taught.
I believe Him when He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
I am not alone in believing, as many have for 2,000 years, that Jesus, the Son of God, was capable of saying and teaching what we need to know, to learn and to do to follow the Way. Did He, does HE, need others to translate or interpret?
I use the red letter Bible and I have two other books I treasure. One is a book titled "His Words" and is JUST the red letter sections and beautifully illustrated in the old Bible 'Illuminations" style.
The other is what has been mis-titled "Jefferson's Bible" - a tiny volume. Jefferson was another one who had disdain for Paul. He took scissors and paste and cut out all the sayings, acts of Jesus and put them into a book by themselves.
Jesus spoke and taught in parables, for the most part, so that the pearls don't get trampled by the pigs. But for anyone who reads in the right spirit, His teachings are plain and beautiful - and would take our whole lives to fully learn and practice. I do not believe that because He was crucified, He wasn't able to finish His mission and teachings. That would be, to me, absurd. That would be to ascribe limitations to Him. And THAT would be ludicrous.
He , therefore, gave us all we need to follow Him to the Father - without the pomp and circumstance, the fancy robes and all the other trappings that He did not take up.
Peace...
Are you saying there is nothing conflicting in the New Testament?
For example: are you in agreement with Paul, who after 10 years as a Roman General slaughtering every Christian he could find - and was responsible for the stoning of Steven. It was a losing battle.
So He 'saw the light' up in Damascus - and declared himself now an Apostle - and without deigning to go to Jerusalem to meet and/or confer with the leaders there - particularly James, Peter and John, he set about to write his own interpretations of the Gospel. He had and expressed disdain of James, Peter and John, whom he referred to as "the so -called pillars of the church." and they thought of him as the false Apostle - etc - etc
Much Paul wrote is in conflict with what Jesus taught. And it's all there in black and white - and red.
I prefer the red letter Bible so I can skip on through and read what JESUS said and taught.
I believe Him when He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
I am not alone in believing, as many have for 2,000 years, that Jesus, the Son of God, was capable of saying and teaching what we need to know, to learn and to do to follow the Way. Did He, does HE, need others to translate or interpret?
I use the red letter Bible and I have two other books I treasure. One is a book titled "His Words" and is JUST the red letter sections and beautifully illustrated in the old Bible 'Illuminations" style.
The other is what has been mis-titled "Jefferson's Bible" - a tiny volume. Jefferson was another one who had disdain for Paul. He took scissors and paste and cut out all the sayings, acts of Jesus and put them into a book by themselves.
Jesus spoke and taught in parables, for the most part, so that the pearls don't get trampled by the pigs. But for anyone who reads in the right spirit, His teachings are plain and beautiful - and would take our whole lives to fully learn and practice. I do not believe that because He was crucified, He wasn't able to finish His mission and teachings. That would be, to me, absurd. That would be to ascribe limitations to Him. And THAT would be ludicrous.
He , therefore, gave us all we need to follow Him to the Father - without the pomp and circumstance, the fancy robes and all the other trappings that He did not take up.
Peace...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.