Why Do People Believe In This?

[Jane_Doe22]

As the OP has said in response to my apology for hijacking her thread, she doesn't mind at all; so as long as she doesn't mind, we can keep going on this one. If she decides that the thread has run its course, or good discussion has turned into a useless debate, then she has the freedom to lock the thread from further comments.

Let's start with just a couple of examples. One way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Long posts with multiple points just weary me just by reading them and frustrating to try and respond to. But just a couple of points at a time keeps the discussion going, and allows others to join in. But remember this, I would not support any others getting out their silver pistols just to shoot you down for what you believe. That is called kicking the person instead of the ball. And kicking other players in a football match gets a red card and sent off!

Ok, I'll get one things going about Christ's birth to the virgin Mary...typing...

 

[Paul Christensen]

Ok, I'll get one things going about Christ's birth to the virgin Mary...typing...

The book I have right here is The God Makers by Ed Decker and Dave Hunt. I don't know if you have that copy available, but I can refer to it as part of our discussion.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Ok, I'll get one things going about Christ's birth to the virgin Mary...typing...

I can kick things off my quoting from Doctrine and Covenants 130:23:
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's, the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

This seems contradictory to John 4:24 which says, "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

 

[Jane_Doe22]

The book I have right here is The God Makers by Ed Decker and Dave Hunt. I don't know if you have that copy available, but I can refer to it as part of our discussion.

Yeah, that book is total hate-filled fiction, strawmans cover to cover.

As the OP has said in response to my apology for hijacking her thread, she doesn't mind at all; so as long as she doesn't mind, we can keep going on this one. If she decides that the thread has run its course, or good discussion has turned into a useless debate, then she has the freedom to lock the thread from further comments.

Let's start with just a couple of examples. One way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Long posts with multiple points just weary me just by reading them and frustrating to try and respond to. But just a couple of points at a time keeps the discussion going, and allows others to join in. But remember this, I would not support any others getting out their silver pistols just to shoot you down for what you believe. That is called kicking the person instead of the ball. And kicking other players in a football match gets a red card and sent off!

Ok, I'll get one things going about Christ's birth to the virgin Mary...typing...

----Starting with the facts: LDS Christians believe that Christ was born to a virgin Mary. ----

Here's some sources explaining that LDS Christians consider scriptures and the word of God, emphasis mine:

Isaiah 7: 14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Matt 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Luke 1: Virgin Mary has Christ conceived via the Holy Spirit, not quoted due to length.

1 Nephi 11:"14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms."

2 Nephi 17:14 "Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Alma 7:10 "10 he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

<End of quoting scriptures>

For non-scriptural sources, I could quote a ton of official manuals, official sermons from the pulpit given to a worldwide audience, official hymns, etc. But I think you get the idea. This through-and-through LDS Christian doctrine, taught and believed.


---- On to "anti cult" fiction ---
All of the above is blanetly ignored. Completely. Instead, he falsely claims (I'm gisting things here) "Mormons believe that Mary wasn't a virgin and she and the Father had sex". He has zero scriptural sources for this claim. Zero sources of any significant authoritative stance. Instead, they go and cherry pick old quote from Brigham Young that has zero authoritative weight or claims of infallibility (it's not remotely infallible) and strip them of their context. They neglect to tell the reader that these quotes have zero weight, or the mountain of evidence the other way, and instead hang everything on the strawman "well Brigham Young said it so that must be Mormon doctrine" (ironically placing that sinner on a pedestal of infallity that LDS Christian don't).

As a extra deceptive cherry on top: they also sell the angle of "well, the reason Bob the actual Mormon he doesn't believe that is because he doesn't know what Mormon actually teach-- that's a secret! I alone will tell you the truth of what Mormons believe!" Actually going and checking things out yourself is highly discouraged ("they are only telling you that because they're trying to recruit you- the 'real' beliefs will come later"). Actually fully reading texts LDS Christians consider to be words of God (scripture), also thoroughly discouraged.

One has need of that junk. No one needs to be fed lies about what another person/group believes in order to keep that person "safe". And certainly no Christian whom should flourish on truth. We can disagree with each other while being factual and respectful of others.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yeah, that book is total hate-filled fiction, strawmans cover to cover.


----Starting with the facts: LDS Christians believe that Christ was born to a virgin Mary. ----

Here's some sources explaining that LDS Christians consider scriptures and the word of God, emphasis mine:

Isaiah 7: 14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Matt 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Luke 1: Virgin Mary has Christ conceived via the Holy Spirit, not quoted due to length.

1 Nephi 11:"14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms."

2 Nephi 17:14 "Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Alma 7:10 "10 he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

<End of quoting scriptures>

For non-scriptural sources, I could quote a ton of official manuals, official sermons from the pulpit given to a worldwide audience, official hymns, etc. But I think you get the idea. This through-and-through LDS Christian doctrine, taught and believed.


---- On to "anti cult" fiction ---
All of the above is blanetly ignored. Completely. Instead, he falsely claims (I'm gisting things here) "Mormons believe that Mary wasn't a virgin and she and the Father had sex". He has zero scriptural sources for this claim. Zero sources of any significant authoritative stance. Instead, they go and cherry pick old quote from Brigham Young that has zero authoritative weight or claims of infallibility (it's not remotely infallible) and strip them of their context. They neglect to tell the reader that these quotes have zero weight, or the mountain of evidence the other way, and instead hang everything on the strawman "well Brigham Young said it so that must be Mormon doctrine" (ironically placing that sinner on a pedestal of infallity that LDS Christian don't).

As a extra deceptive cherry on top: they also sell the angle of "well, the reason Bob the actual Mormon he doesn't believe that is because he doesn't know what Mormon actually teach-- that's a secret! I alone will tell you the truth of what Mormons believe!" Actually going and checking things out yourself is highly discouraged ("they are only telling you that because they're trying to recruit you- the 'real' beliefs will come later"). Actually fully reading texts LDS Christians consider to be words of God (scripture), also thoroughly discouraged.

One has need of that junk. No one needs to be fed lies about what another person/group believes in order to keep that person "safe". And certainly no Christian whom should flourish on truth. We can disagree with each other while being factual and respectful of others.

I read this webpage which gives a more realistic LDS view of the conception of Jesus. To be fair, nothing in Dave Hunt's book says that the Father had actual sex with Mary. So I will concede that point that most LDS believe that Jesus was conceived through the "overshadowing" of the Holy Spirit on Mary. As I saw in the webpage article, Brigham Young only implies that Jesus was conceived the "natural way" but does not specify what that "natural way" was.

Here is the link:

Jesus Christ/Conception - FAIR

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I read this webpage which gives a more realistic LDS view of the conception of Jesus. To be fair, nothing in Dave Hunt's book says that the Father had actual sex with Mary. So I will concede that point that most LDS believe that Jesus was conceived through the "overshadowing" of the Holy Spirit on Mary. As I saw in the webpage article, Brigham Young only implies that Jesus was conceived the "natural way" but does not specify what that "natural way" was.

Here is the link:

Jesus Christ/Conception - FAIR

LDS Christians believe that Mary was a virgin. That's the fact. Don't try to dance around or skirt that away.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yeah, that book is total hate-filled fiction, strawmans cover to cover.


----Starting with the facts: LDS Christians believe that Christ was born to a virgin Mary. ----

Here's some sources explaining that LDS Christians consider scriptures and the word of God, emphasis mine:

Isaiah 7: 14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Matt 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Luke 1: Virgin Mary has Christ conceived via the Holy Spirit, not quoted due to length.

1 Nephi 11:"14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms."

2 Nephi 17:14 "Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Alma 7:10 "10 he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

<End of quoting scriptures>

For non-scriptural sources, I could quote a ton of official manuals, official sermons from the pulpit given to a worldwide audience, official hymns, etc. But I think you get the idea. This through-and-through LDS Christian doctrine, taught and believed.

Yes. I concede as per my previous post. It is clear that the LDS has no official stand on the implications drawn from Brigham's Young's statement. But there is strong evidence through other LDS writings that the church agrees with the Biblical account that Mary was a virgin before and after the conception and birth of Christ. But it doesn't accept the RCC doctrine of Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

So that is one/love to you!


---- On to "anti cult" fiction ---
All of the above is blanetly ignored. Completely. Instead, he falsely claims (I'm gisting things here) "Mormons believe that Mary wasn't a virgin and she and the Father had sex". He has zero scriptural sources for this claim. Zero sources of any significant authoritative stance. Instead, they go and cherry pick old quote from Brigham Young that has zero authoritative weight or claims of infallibility (it's not remotely infallible) and strip them of their context. They neglect to tell the reader that these quotes have zero weight, or the mountain of evidence the other way, and instead hang everything on the strawman "well Brigham Young said it so that must be Mormon doctrine" (ironically placing that sinner on a pedestal of infallity that LDS Christian don't).

As a extra deceptive cherry on top: they also sell the angle of "well, the reason Bob the actual Mormon he doesn't believe that is because he doesn't know what Mormon actually teach-- that's a secret! I alone will tell you the truth of what Mormons believe!" Actually going and checking things out yourself is highly discouraged ("they are only telling you that because they're trying to recruit you- the 'real' beliefs will come later"). Actually fully reading texts LDS Christians consider to be words of God (scripture), also thoroughly discouraged.

Do you believe Brigham Young's statement: "You may leave out the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants" and stick with the New Testament, "and you will arrive at salvation"?

Or Apostle Orson Pratt who said in answer to the consequences for those who do not embrace the Book of Mormon: "They will be destroyed from the land and send down into hell, like all other generations who have rejected a divine message".

Or Joseph Smith: "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations and where is our religion? There is none." He also said: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on earth, ad the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book..."

So does the modern LDS church prefer Brigham Young's comment, or those of Apostle Orson Pratt and Joseph Smith? Because it seems that Young's statement contradicts the other two.

My basic question is: If there are statements in the Book of Mormon that contradict material in the New Testament, which do LDS accept?

These are not loaded questions by the way. I am interested in your comments.


No[?]One has need of that junk. No one needs to be fed lies about what another person/group believes in order to keep that person "safe". And certainly no Christian whom should flourish on truth. We can disagree with each other while being factual and respectful of others.

I don't think it's fair to state that every person who has contributed material for the book is lying about their personal experience with the LDS church. I know that much of what is written in the book is distasteful to you and prompts feelings of defensiveness. I feel the same when someone tars and feathers the whole Pentecostal and Charismatic movement because of the antics of Kenny Copeland and others like him. I have the same response to that as my wife watching a soap and reacts to an evil character, saying, "You lying [expletive]!"

My intention is to look directly at what the book claims and discuss the question, "Does the LDS really believe that?" As you can see, I have conceded the issue of the conception of Jesus, because I looked at the website and saw what the LDS actually believes and realised that Dave Hunt does not state anything different in his and Ed Decker's book.

To write the whole book off as hate-filled lies prevents frank and open discussion about what the book states. I have watched all the Dave Hunt teaching videos, and I don't detect any hate in anything he has said. And he has used the same research tools to examine the RCC, "Christian" Psychology, and the invasion of the occult into the Charismatic movement. He examines what those in the areas say about themselves, asks and discusses logical questions and issues about them. You and I may disagree with his final conclusions, but we cannot accuse him of writing or speaking "hateful lies". That is merely doing ourselves what we are accusing him of doing to those movements and churches he is commenting on.

 

[Paul Christensen]

LDS Christians believe that Mary was a virgin. That's the fact. Don't try to dance around or skirt that away.

I'm not dancing around or skirting it away. I have conceded the official LDS position.

I am interested in your views about some of the other issues the book brings up. For this thread, I am de-objectivising my own theological views on these issues and holding back from "editorializing" my own conclusions.

What I learned as a workplace union counsellor when dealing with worker complaints against the management, was that there are two sides to a story. When I first hear the complaint, I tend to feel critical of the management, so it was important for me to hear the management side of the issue. That balances things out because I then see that the worker has valid points, but so does the management. Then I got the two together and negotiated a settlement. In this way, I received positive feedback from both the workers and the management concerning the way I handled issues. Problems happen when a workplace union representative has an objective "management-hating" attitude which assumes that workers are right and management are a shower of [expletives].

It is the same with religious groups, especially those who believe that they alone are right and everyone else is out to undermine or destroy them. The RCC were the worst. They tortured, imprisoned and kill those who disagreed with it. Even in modern times, Protestant churches are being burned and believers beaten up and killed in RCC dominant South American countries.

 

[Yan]

This came up in another topic and I wasn't sure where to put it so hopefully here's good since it's not from regular Christian doctrine and it isn't in the Bible. How do people believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children with her? Some people even claim to be descendants from them. Weird. I would just see it as incest of Christ marrying His own child and having children with them then. :/ (I wonder what His DNA looked like though.) @Grailhunter.

I've found an interesting document about this topic in this website.
It seems Jesus was used as an object of the only way to heaven by the Evil One, if we measure that as the only way to heaven being like that, nobody will gonna survived as nobody could stay being holy with the heavy pain like that (Luke 13:24).
In this world christian and all believers of Jesus are being threatened as alien. Maybe the crucifixion games of civilians in this modern day are correctly shown in these movies.

 

[Grailhunter]

I'm going to assume that your questions are not loaded in the sense that you have your own answers already.

My definition of a cult is a religious organisation built on a personality (such as Kenny Copeland) or a teaching from a person (such as Ellen White's books). This is distinct from a heresy, which is a false teaching from an individual within the established orthodox church. It is interesting that the Jewish religious authorities considered the early Christian church as a cult, but considered Jesus as a heretic who should be stoned. The English and American Puritans would have viewed the RCC, as well as the Quakers as cults. But the New England Presbyterians considered Charles Finney's teaching as heresy in the way he invited sinners to use their power of choice to decide for Christ instead of the Presbyterian way of waiting for the Holy Spirit to do it.

My friend Jane Doe22 would not consider the LDS church as a cult, but as the true church in the same way as the RCCs would consider their church as exclusively true.

So, according to my way of thinking, any church that considers it the exclusively true church while every other church is false, could very well be defined as a cult. I spent nine years in a city Charismatic church that considered itself part of the true body of Christ and that other churches in the city should align themselves with it if they are to be considered as part of the true bride of Christ. Looking back, I would now consider that church as being cultish in its attitude. This is the same attitude as many Pentecostals who consider Pentecostalism as the "full gospel" while non-Pentecostal churches are "dead" as far as Holy Spirit involvement is concerned. That, in my mind, is cultish. Now, don't get me wrong. I have a Pentecostal theology, but I am not a Pentecostalist. I consider the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit as Bible and available to any church that desires to embrace them.

I can't really answer your next question, because I haven't done any research on it. I know that when I left the Pentecostalist movement, it took me a couple of years to be "de-programmed" and to fully accept other evangelical churches as being just as part of the body of Christ as the Pentecostal ones. As part of my work as District Court Victim Advisor, I was to attend monthly counselling appointments to ensure that the role wasn't affecting me mentally and emotionally. I had a good Christian professional counsellor, and she and I had great sessions which were very helpful. I think that those who were having to be "de-programmed" after leaving a cultish movement would benefit from professional intervention counselling services.

In the early stages of the church, the term "Christian" was unknown. I think the first definition used was "The Way". I think that the word "Christian" was coined as a derogatory term used by pagans who saw that believers were passionately aligned to Christ. As with many initial derogatory definitions, the church took on the name to identify it as the type of church that it is. It is the same with the word "Methodist". That was a derogatory term used by the established church for the followers of Wesley, but the denomination took the name on board to identify it. So I think that the Apostles would have described themselves as the followers of the Way of Christ to initially distinguish themselves from Judaism.

Paul you should know that I am going to play fair with you and I try to interject some levity.

Your definition is within the range of what a lot people think a cult is. The only trickery I did, was that I asked you what the definition of a cult is ...not what a cult is like. Wild and crazy as it sounds, there is a difference. LOL

Webster's New World Dictionary Encyclopedic Edition...1966
1. a system of religious worship or ritual.
2.devoted attachment to, or admiration for a person or principle etc.
3. a group of followers; sect.

Merriam-Webster 2021
1: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see SPURIOUS sense 2)also : its body of adherents the voodoo cult, a satanic cult
2a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such 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.
3: a system of religious beliefs and ritual also : its body of adherents the cult of Apollo
4: formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
5: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator health cults

LOL As you can see the definition has changed a little over the years....The story behind that is, that popular beliefs and or understanding promoted that change. Scholars agree that Christianity fit the older definition and was a sect or Judaism. So then at the time of the Gospels the twelve Apostles saw themselves as Jews living in the messianic age. Of course the terms the Way and Christians were coined later as the sect defined itself separately from Judaism.

The point that I am suggesting to you is that the definition of cult has kind of become convoluted. Depending a lot on the perspective, it more or less means, a religion or denomination that a particular perspective does not like.

Another point is that people in glass churches should not throw stones.
For example Christianity is a sect or a off-shoot of Judaism....Christ was a Jew.
Looking at Judaism, this is religion that it own Laws, directed genocide--Kill all that breaths and do not forget the little ones is Mosaic Law and it is the definition of genocide in motion. The religion institutionalized the subjugation and cruelty of women.

Some Christian denominations embrace this perspective regarding women, even today.
Then we have the Catholic Church and all the nasty and corrupt things that was done under the direction of the Catholic Church leadership. Then all the good things that the Catholics have done and Christian history over the centuries gets lost with the Protestants.

Martin Luther tries to reform the Catholic Church, but it gets away from him and the protest churches splinter off and try to figure it out on their own. And I don't blame them...trying to start a Christian religion, minus all the evils and corruption of the Catholic Church. Valiant effort but you cannot honestly say they figured it out. Some say 50,000 attempts to figure out the Bible....I count 30,000 Protestant denominations. In the process they pretty much chopped out 1500 years of Christian history and God's interaction with people.

So Joseph Smith shows up and is pretty much looking at all this and goes...what the Heck! So he tries his brand of formulating the meaning of the Bible. Both the Catholics and Mormon believe they received divine instructions for their beliefs. Apparently they were getting different information. LOL What I am going to say about the Mormons...is the way the Mormon people apply their religious beliefs. I have known a lot of them from Missouri to the east coast, served in the military, military operations and submarines and their demeanor is very Christian like. The Mormon beliefs are different...Catholics are different...Eastern Orthodox are different...and they are all different than Protestants.

As far as the cult thing...where they harass people that leave...I have not seen any of that. But I have seen it in other denominations, and you sound like you have seen some of it....where someone leaves a church and the church shuns them or harassers them.

There is no Christian denomination that is perfect...and you would be surprised to know how young I was when I decided not to agree completely with any of them. God is good...God is great! People be wacky! LOL Like I said, I fellowship with Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Catholics, Glad Tidings Assembly of God, Mormons, the Moravians and nearly a dozen non-denominational churches. And that is the reason why.

Now on Professional interventions and law enforcement involvement?
Calvinists
Jehovah's Witnesses
Moon's
Krishnas

Calvinists and Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones that have a tendency to be abusive to their own families. It is odd that the wives will put up with it, but the children start passing notes for help at school or Walmart. For this reason these people become separatists so as to get their families out in rural areas with out phones or internet. If you notice you do not see female Calvinists on this forum.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I don't think it's fair to state that every person who has contributed material for the book is lying about their personal experience with the LDS church. I know that much of what is written in the book is distasteful to you and prompts feelings of defensiveness. I feel the same when someone tars and feathers the whole Pentecostal and Charismatic movement because of the antics of Kenny Copeland and others like him. I have the same response to that as my wife watching a soap and reacts to an evil character, saying, "You lying [expletive]!"

My intention is to look directly at what the book claims and discuss the question, "Does the LDS really believe that?" As you can see, I have conceded the issue of the conception of Jesus, because I looked at the website and saw what the LDS actually believes and realised that Dave Hunt does not state anything different in his and Ed Decker's book.

To write the whole book off as hate-filled lies prevents frank and open discussion about what the book states. I have watched all the Dave Hunt teaching videos, and I don't detect any hate in anything he has said. And he has used the same research tools to examine the RCC, "Christian" Psychology, and the invasion of the occult into the Charismatic movement. He examines what those in the areas say about themselves, asks and discusses logical questions and issues about them. You and I may disagree with his final conclusions, but we cannot accuse him of writing or speaking "hateful lies". That is merely doing ourselves what we are accusing him of doing to those movements and churches he is commenting on.

Breaking my response up to differnt points--

-- By default, I do agree that people should be heard out. However, it is possible for some sources to prove themselves to truly be just junk. "The Godmakers" is 100% toxic fictitious junk, which is me putting things extremely nicely.

-- I'm totally ok with people disagree about theology and stuff-- in fact, I really enjoy hearing diverse beliefs. But again, let's try to discuss actual beliefs and not straw men.

-- I do acknowledge your willingness to have real conversations and really discuss things. More than just acknowledge it, I celebrate it!

 

[Jane_Doe22]

As to God in flesh--

- God the Spirit is a person of spirit. No body. That's agree upon for Christians in general, including LDS ones.

- God the Son was a person of spirit before being born of Mary. Then His spirit entered a mortal body. A mortal body subject to all infirmities (yes the Son of God got stomach aches). After horrible suffering of that body (plus more), He died. After His resurrection, He once again did/does have a body, this one glorified. None of that remotely lessons the Son's divinity, let alone make Him some type of filthy sinner.

- God the Father: the Bible is mute on whether the Father is like the Spirit or the Son. Mainstream Christians believe He's like the Spirit, LDS Christians like the Son.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Paul you should know that I am going to play fair with you and I try to interject some levity.

Your definition is within the range of what a lot people think a cult is. The only trickery I did, was that I asked you what the definition of a cult is ...not what a cult is like. Wild and crazy as it sounds, there is a difference. LOL

Webster's New World Dictionary Encyclopedic Edition...1966
1. a system of religious worship or ritual.
2.devoted attachment to, or admiration for a person or principle etc.
3. a group of followers; sect.

Merriam-Webster 2021
1: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see SPURIOUS sense 2)also : its body of adherents the voodoo cult, a satanic cult
2a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such 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.
3: a system of religious beliefs and ritual also : its body of adherents the cult of Apollo
4: formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
5: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator health cults

LOL As you can see the definition has changed a little over the years....The story behind that is, that popular beliefs and or understanding promoted that change. Scholars agree that Christianity fit the older definition and was a sect or Judaism. So then at the time of the Gospels the twelve Apostles saw themselves as Jews living in the messianic age. Of course the terms the Way and Christians were coined later as the sect defined itself separately from Judaism.

The point that I am suggesting to you is that the definition of cult has kind of become convoluted. Depending a lot on the perspective, it more or less means, a religion or denomination that a particular perspective does not like.

Another point is that people in glass churches should not throw stones.
For example Christianity is a sect or a off-shoot of Judaism....Christ was a Jew.
Looking at Judaism, this is religion that it own Laws, directed genocide--Kill all that breaths and do not forget the little ones is Mosaic Law and it is the definition of genocide in motion. The religion institutionalized the subjugation and cruelty of women.

Some Christian denominations embrace this perspective regarding women, even today.
Then we have the Catholic Church and all the nasty and corrupt things that was done under the direction of the Catholic Church leadership. Then all the good things that the Catholics have done and Christian history over the centuries gets lost with the Protestants.

Martin Luther tries to reform the Catholic Church, but it gets away from him and the protest churches splinter off and try to figure it out on their own. And I don't blame them...trying to start a Christian religion, minus all the evils and corruption of the Catholic Church. Valiant effort but you cannot honestly say they figured it out. Some say 50,000 attempts to figure out the Bible....I count 30,000 Protestant denominations. In the process they pretty much chopped out 1500 years of Christian history and God's interaction with people.

So Joseph Smith shows up and is pretty much looking at all this and goes...what the Heck! So he tries his brand of formulating the meaning of the Bible. Both the Catholics and Mormon believe they received divine instructions for their beliefs. Apparently they were getting different information. LOL What I am going to say about the Mormons...is the way the Mormon people apply their religious beliefs. I have known a lot of them from Missouri to the east coast, served in the military, military operations and submarines and their demeanor is very Christian like. The Mormon beliefs are different...Catholics are different...Eastern Orthodox are different...and they are all different than Protestants.

As far as the cult thing...where they harass people that leave...I have not seen any of that. But I have seen it in other denominations, and you sound like you have seen some of it....where someone leaves a church and the church shuns them or harassers them.

There is no Christian denomination that is perfect...and you would be surprised to know how young I was when I decided not to agree completely with any of them. God is good...God is great! People be wacky! LOL Like I said, I fellowship with Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Catholics, Glad Tidings Assembly of God, Mormons, the Moravians and nearly a dozen non-denominational churches. And that is the reason why.

Now on Professional interventions and law enforcement involvement?
Calvinists
Jehovah's Witnesses
Moon's
Krishnas

Calvinists and Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones that have a tendency to be abusive to their own families. It is odd that the wives will put up with it, but the children start passing notes for help at school or Walmart. For this reason these people become separatists so as to get their families out in rural areas with out phones or internet. If you notice you do not see female Calvinists on this forum.

I enjoyed reading your post. It is always stimulating to have a discussion with you. Flattery will get me everywhere!!!

We have the treasure in earthen vessels. There are even genuine Christian believers in most of what we view as cults like the LDS, JWs, SDAs RCCs, etc. The main reason they stay in those churches is the hope that they will be able to lead others to Christ from within. I admire the faith and courage of those believers.

When you mention Calvinists, you need to be aware that there are many flavours of it - from the extremist to the moderate. It is the same as generalising about Charismatics, when there are many different "flavours", from those who are wild and almost cultish like Kenny Copeland, to those who are so quiet you would think you were in a Baptist church!

I had a good discussion about women's ministry in the church on one thread and I included a couple of M.A. dissertations which were thoroughly researched and concluded that women's ministry is entirely Biblical, and the extreme Calvinist view that outlaws and demonises women's ministry is expertly refuted beyond doubt.

Here is a good question to ask Mormons (and they don't like answering it). Seeing that there is a much higher incidence of clinical depression in the state of Utah, than any other U.S. state, (Utah is dominated by Mormons), the question is why is that so?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Here is a good question to ask Mormons (and they don't like answering it).

Such quips are unneeded and inaccurate.

Seeing that there is a much higher incidence of clinical depression in the state of Utah, than any other U.S. state, (Utah is dominated by Mormons), the question is why is that so?

There are whole number of possible reasons, mental health is a complicated thing we understand so little about. It'd be extremely poor and biased scholarship to assume : well it must be because they're all Mormon and that proves Mormonism makes you miserable!". Especially considering active believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are actually a minority in the state. It's a large minority, but still not the majority.

If could be it's influenced by environmental factors such as altitude and weather-inversions, both of which have been shown to cause depressive states in and of he themselves. The higher number of reported cases could simply be a higher proportion of depressed people actually seek professional help (the LDS faith is pro-medical care) and the total number of depression cases (treated & untreated) isn't actually higher. It could be that drinking masks the real incidence of depression in non-LDS Christians. There's a whole slew of possibilities.

 

[Grailhunter]

I enjoyed reading your post. It is always stimulating to have a discussion with you. Flattery will get me everywhere!!!

We have the treasure in earthen vessels. There are even genuine Christian believers in most of what we view as cults like the LDS, JWs, SDAs RCCs, etc. The main reason they stay in those churches is the hope that they will be able to lead others to Christ from within. I admire the faith and courage of those believers.

When you mention Calvinists, you need to be aware that there are many flavours of it - from the extremist to the moderate. It is the same as generalising about Charismatics, when there are many different "flavours", from those who are wild and almost cultish like Kenny Copeland, to those who are so quiet you would think you were in a Baptist church!

I had a good discussion about women's ministry in the church on one thread and I included a couple of M.A. dissertations which were thoroughly researched and concluded that women's ministry is entirely Biblical, and the extreme Calvinist view that outlaws and demonises women's ministry is expertly refuted beyond doubt.

Here is a good question to ask Mormons (and they don't like answering it). Seeing that there is a much higher incidence of clinical depression in the state of Utah, than any other U.S. state, (Utah is dominated by Mormons), the question is why is that so?

When you mention Calvinists, you need to be aware that there are many flavours of it - from the extremist to the moderate. It is the same as generalising about Charismatics, when there are many different "flavours",

Oh my gosh yes! Baptists (and others) have varying degrees of predestination in their beliefs. And some Calvinists do not know the ramifications of what their church teaches. I have ran into that quite a bit. What am talking about are those that see reality as a puppet show...the whole tulip thing...no freewill....themselves as the elect.

I had a good discussion about women's ministry in the church on one thread and I included a couple of M.A. dissertations which were thoroughly researched and concluded that women's ministry is entirely Biblical, and the extreme Calvinist view that outlaws and demonises women's ministry is expertly refuted beyond doubt.

If you would give me a link or directions to your discussion.

Here is a good question to ask Mormons (and they don't like answering it). Seeing that there is a much higher incidence of clinical depression in the state of Utah, than any other U.S. state, (Utah is dominated by Mormons), the question is why is that so?

Is it the state or the Mormons? LOL The Mormons (LDS) that I have known were pretty chipper. If they are depressed I would think it is because they do not drink....LOL And they do not drink coffee or eat chocolate either....Probably this is a better question for Jane.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Such quips are unneeded and inaccurate.

There are whole number of possible reasons, mental health is a complicated thing we understand so little about. It'd be extremely poor and biased scholarship to assume : well it must be because they're all Mormon and that proves Mormonism makes you miserable!". Especially considering active believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are actually a minority in the state. It's a large minority, but still not the majority.

If could be it's influenced by environmental factors such as altitude and weather-inversions, both of which have been shown to cause depressive states in and of he themselves. The higher number of reported cases could simply be a higher proportion of depressed people actually seek professional help (the LDS faith is pro-medical care) and the total number of depression cases (treated & untreated) isn't actually higher. There's a whole slew of possibilities.

I can live with that.

I can understand your defensiveness when confronted with Dave Hunt's investigation of the LDS church. I have no doubt that you consider it total lies and fiction and you have every right to have that opinion of it. After all, you are a faithful, practising member of the LDS church. I wouldn't expect anything less. I have ordered another book which compares the LDS church with orthodox Christianity. That one might not be as confronting as Dave Hunt's book.

I did two papers as part of my M.Div. One was Islam and Christianity, and the other RCC. I found them interesting and stimulating and did not undermine my faith at all.

What puzzles me is why you are so defensive about Dave Hunt's book. It is one thing to make a blanket statement about the book being a fictional pack of lies, but it is quite another to give your reasons for saying so. I'm not asking you to prove anything to me. All I want is to understand more fully why you found Dave Hunt's book so confronting.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I can understand your defensiveness when confronted with Dave Hunt's investigation of the LDS church. I have no doubt that you consider it total lies and fiction and you have every right to have that opinion of it. After all, you are a faithful, practising member of the LDS church. I wouldn't expect anything less. I have ordered another book which compares the LDS church with orthodox Christianity. That one might not be as confronting as Dave Hunt's book.

I call junk junk. It doesn't matter what faith it's about.

What puzzles me is why you are so defensive about Dave Hunt's book. It is one thing to make a blanket statement about the book being a fictional pack of lies, but it is quite another to give your reasons for saying so. I'm not asking you to prove anything to me. All I want is to understand more fully why you found Dave Hunt's book so confronting.

I have literally given you several examples of false information and cultish "just listen to me" tactics. Christians (of any type) have no need for that toxic junk that encourages this and falsely stereotyping others Rather, a Christian (of any type) can and should stand on facts.

 

[Paul Christensen]

When you mention Calvinists, you need to be aware that there are many flavours of it - from the extremist to the moderate. It is the same as generalising about Charismatics, when there are many different "flavours",

Oh my gosh yes! Baptists (and others) have varying degrees of predestination in their beliefs. And some Calvinists do not know the ramifications of what their church teaches. I have ran into that quite a bit. What am talking about are those that see reality as a puppet show...the whole tulip thing...no freewill....themselves as the elect.

I had a good discussion about women's ministry in the church on one thread and I included a couple of M.A. dissertations which were thoroughly researched and concluded that women's ministry is entirely Biblical, and the extreme Calvinist view that outlaws and demonises women's ministry is expertly refuted beyond doubt.

If you would give me a link or directions to your discussion.

Here is a good question to ask Mormons (and they don't like answering it). Seeing that there is a much higher incidence of clinical depression in the state of Utah, than any other U.S. state, (Utah is dominated by Mormons), the question is why is that so?

Is it the state or the Mormons? LOL The Mormons (LDS) that I have known were pretty chipper. If they are depressed I would think it is because they do not drink....LOL And they do not drink coffee or eat chocolate either....Probably this is a better question for Jane.

I can't find my actual posts on the issue of women's ministry but I can include the academic dissertations. The third one (bringing order to 1 Cor 14:34-35 is the best one).

 

[Paul Christensen]

I call junk junk. It doesn't matter what faith it's about.

I have literally given you several examples of false information and cultish "just listen to me" tactics. Christians (of any type) have no need for that toxic junk that encourages this and falsely stereotyping others Rather, a Christian (of any type) can and should stand on facts.

Okay. I won't push the issue. I will wait until I receive the other book I ordered which may be a better source for discussion. It may take a number of days to come seeing that the weekend is just one day away in my part of the world.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Okay. I won't push the issue. I will wait until I receive the other book I ordered which may be a better source for discussion. It may take a number of days to come seeing that the weekend is just one day away in my part of the world.

I happy to discuss any actual theological point, as I have several.

What’s your other book?