Why Do People Believe In This?

[Grailhunter]

My intention was not to convert her, but to show that Mormonism is not Biblical Christianity, even though it advertises it as such to the wider community, especially to those they feel might be more open than others to actually changing from their "apostate church" to the LDS church.

In my role as District Court victim advisor, and as part of a community budgeting agency, I meet a number of LDS church members, and found them to be lovely people who are passionate about their faith. None of them ever tried to convert me; in fact we never discussed religion on the job, In either role, it wasn't what we were there for.

I think what attracts people to the LDS church is the sense of belonging to a very supportive group who will look after you no matter what - as long as one remains faithful to the church.

But it is not Biblical Christianity - although many Biblical Christians could learn from the LDS passion, commitment, and love of their fellow members.

I don't know what it is, that intelligent people who are seeking the reality of God and Christ, can believe such total fiction. It is as if there is a spiritual influence that bonds them into it and they stick to it like superglue. It defies logic and no amount of conclusive evidence will break the hard shell of total commitment to the church's teachings.

All I have had to do was to read the first 100 pages of Bruce McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" to see so clearly how fictional much of it is and how different it is from the Biblical account.

I have come to the conclusion that there are only two ways in which consensus can be reached with a LDS. (1) compromise my own faith and accept what they teach, or (2) through a miracle of God's grace the Holy Spirit breaks through the deception and shows them the truth about Christ and the true way to salvation in Him. For me, I am not prepared to go for (1),and I have no control over (2). So that puts me into an impasse position.

I'm now going to zip up my fly, put on my flak jacket and steel helmet and await the flak to come! :cool::cool::cool:

My intention was not to convert her, but to show that Mormonism is not Biblical Christianity,
But it is not Biblical Christianity
I don't know what it is, that intelligent people who are seeking the reality of God and Christ, can believe such total fiction.
It defies logic and no amount of conclusive evidence will break the hard shell of total commitment to the church's teachings.
All I have had to do was to read the first 100 pages of Bruce McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" to see so clearly how fictional much of it is and how different it is from the Biblical account.

Ok, am I seeing a failure of logic....failure to understand....or a determined compassion to save souls?

 

[Grailhunter]

My intention was not to convert her, but to show that Mormonism is not Biblical Christianity, even though it advertises it as such to the wider community, especially to those they feel might be more open than others to actually changing from their "apostate church" to the LDS church.

In my role as District Court victim advisor, and as part of a community budgeting agency, I meet a number of LDS church members, and found them to be lovely people who are passionate about their faith. None of them ever tried to convert me; in fact we never discussed religion on the job, In either role, it wasn't what we were there for.

I think what attracts people to the LDS church is the sense of belonging to a very supportive group who will look after you no matter what - as long as one remains faithful to the church.

But it is not Biblical Christianity - although many Biblical Christians could learn from the LDS passion, commitment, and love of their fellow members.

I don't know what it is, that intelligent people who are seeking the reality of God and Christ, can believe such total fiction. It is as if there is a spiritual influence that bonds them into it and they stick to it like superglue. It defies logic and no amount of conclusive evidence will break the hard shell of total commitment to the church's teachings.

All I have had to do was to read the first 100 pages of Bruce McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" to see so clearly how fictional much of it is and how different it is from the Biblical account.

I have come to the conclusion that there are only two ways in which consensus can be reached with a LDS. (1) compromise my own faith and accept what they teach, or (2) through a miracle of God's grace the Holy Spirit breaks through the deception and shows them the truth about Christ and the true way to salvation in Him. For me, I am not prepared to go for (1),and I have no control over (2). So that puts me into an impasse position.

I'm now going to zip up my fly, put on my flak jacket and steel helmet and await the flak to come! :cool::cool::cool:

Wake up! Get a cup of coffee.
Riddle me this, How do you expect to agree with a Catholic or a Mormon?
How do you expect for a Catholic or Mormon to agree with Protestantism?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Wake up! Get a cup of coffee.
Riddle me this, How do you expect to agree with a Catholic or a Mormon?
How do you expect for a Catholic or Mormon to agree with Protestantism?

It would be possible only through the grace of God and activated by the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit.

Remember the Scripture from Ezekiel about the responsibility of the watchman? Right at the beginning of his calling Ezekiel complained to God that the people wouldn't listen to him. God told him to sound the warning in spite of it, because if he did warn them and they didn't heed the warning and perished, their blood would not be on his hands; but if he didn't warn them and they perished, their blood would be on his hands.

This is why we obey the Lord and do what we can to show RCs and other cult members the Biblical truth. Being successful in getting them to listen to us and obey the truth is not as important as giving them the warning as a faithful watchman. Then, when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ, they will be without excuse because they were warned and didn't give heed to it.

I have no fears about the judgment even though I am not successful at winning RCs or Mormons to the true Christ, because my sole responsibility is to give them the warning to obey the gospel or suffer the consequences. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to enlighten them when they show just a spark of a positive response to the gospel.

 

[Grailhunter]

It would be possible only through the grace of God and activated by the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit.

Remember the Scripture from Ezekiel about the responsibility of the watchman? Right at the beginning of his calling Ezekiel complained to God that the people wouldn't listen to him. God told him to sound the warning in spite of it, because if he did warn them and they didn't heed the warning and perished, their blood would not be on his hands; but if he didn't warn them and they perished, their blood would be on his hands.

This is why we obey the Lord and do what we can to show RCs and other cult members the Biblical truth. Being successful in getting them to listen to us and obey the truth is not as important as giving them the warning as a faithful watchman. Then, when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ, they will be without excuse because they were warned and didn't give heed to it.

I have no fears about the judgment even though I am not successful at winning RCs or Mormons to the true Christ, because my sole responsibility is to give them the warning to obey the gospel or suffer the consequences. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to enlighten them when they show just a spark of a positive response to the gospel.

Hey sounds good.
Still...
How do you expect to agree with a Catholic or a Mormon?
How do you expect for a Catholic or Mormons to agree with Protestantism?
How could this discussion start?
These are two distantly different understandings of Christianity. I mean there is a lot of them (in that there is a lot of different beliefs)....the dividing line is how they understand Christianity and Christology.

 

[Brakelite]

Ya I have seen some example of auto corrects on the web that left me in stitches.

Mmm. I texted my daughter, and didn't check what I had posted. I wrote, in signing off, love you heaps.
What my daughter read was, love your hips.

 

[Brakelite]

Wake up! Get a cup of coffee.
Riddle me this, How do you expect to agree with a Catholic or a Mormon?
How do you expect for a Catholic or Mormon to agree with Protestantism?

Is it the best Catholic, or the worst Catholic, that is closest to being the best Christian?

 

[Grailhunter]

Is it the best Catholic, or the worst Catholic, that is closest to being the best Christian?

Different perspectives

 

[Jane_Doe22]

It would be possible only through the grace of God and activated by the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit.

Remember the Scripture from Ezekiel about the responsibility of the watchman? Right at the beginning of his calling Ezekiel complained to God that the people wouldn't listen to him. God told him to sound the warning in spite of it, because if he did warn them and they didn't heed the warning and perished, their blood would not be on his hands; but if he didn't warn them and they perished, their blood would be on his hands.

This is why we obey the Lord and do what we can to show RCs and other cult members the Biblical truth. Being successful in getting them to listen to us and obey the truth is not as important as giving them the warning as a faithful watchman. Then, when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ, they will be without excuse because they were warned and didn't give heed to it.

I have no fears about the judgment even though I am not successful at winning RCs or Mormons to the true Christ, because my sole responsibility is to give them the warning to obey the gospel or suffer the consequences. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to enlighten them when they show just a spark of a positive response to the gospel.

True Christian evangelism (whether that person be Baptist/Pentecostal/whatever) is done via humility, service, and openly for that individual person (cause the point is to save each individual soul). It focuses first and foremost on Christ, sharing the goodness you have, answering any questions that person might have, and respecting their intelligence.

If you had been open about "I believe a person is a Christians only when they've accepted a certain Protestant view of Christ including sola scirptura", then you could have just said so. Very early on in this conversation I openly acknowledged not being sola scirptura and even point blank said:

"Are Mormons Christian?"

This answer comes down to how the word "Christian" is being defined. I'll go over a few definitions and the resulting answers.
,.... Spoiler alert: LDS Christians aren't Protestant.

Listening ears to that could have enabled this to be a real conversation. You didn't. Instead you did the exact opposite of true Christian evangelism described above and thoroughly conveyed how you could care less me or my beliefs at all. The result of that assault isn't me (or any sane person) going "well I should obviously become just like you"-- no I (and every other sane person) am going to flee from you and all of the beliefs you claim to represent. You're only serve to loose souls this way.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Hey sounds good.
Still...
How do you expect to agree with a Catholic or a Mormon?
How do you expect for a Catholic or Mormons to agree with Protestantism?
How could this discussion start?
These are two distantly different understandings of Christianity. I mean there is a lot of them (in that there is a lot of different beliefs)....the dividing line is how they understand Christianity and Christology.

It is more than just having some differing beliefs. They are total departures from Biblical Christianity. Both are heavily influenced by paganism. I think we are dealing with dark spiritual entities here, and this makes it impossible to get through using just intellectual means. It is consistent with the Scripture: "We do not contend against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers..." etc.

 

[Grailhunter]

It is more than just having some differing beliefs. They are total departures from Biblical Christianity. Both are heavily influenced by paganism. I think we are dealing with dark spiritual entities here, and this makes it impossible to get through using just intellectual means. It is consistent with the Scripture: "We do not contend against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers..." etc.

That would be one of the perspectives....and one of the perspectives of fundamentalism. You are still not answering the questions.
Whether it be a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Mormon...there is differences between them. But for any of them to consider fundamentalism as a valid religion it would be like jumping into a silo with their hands tied behind their back and trying to kick all the grain out. There are over 30,000 Protestant interpretations of the Bible....and hundreds of thousands of individual interpretations of the Bible. How could you expect them to pick one. You say they are wrong, but there is no consensus in Protestant views.

From their perspective the Protestants are stuck on the elementary level of Christianity. The NT documents the first 65 years of Christianity. God did not retire after the close of the Bible. The Protestants petty much discount and do not take into consideration all of God's interact with people over the next 2000 years. All of the information that God shared with people over the next 2000 years. All of the miracles that God did over the next 2000 years. And yes there were clarifications that disagree with the Bible. The Trinity is going to teach us new things and new understandings. Just like when Christ was talking to the Jews about divorce...He told them that they were wrong about divorce, that it was Moses that permitted them to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their hearts. You don't think they were shocked? Even the Apostles were shocked.

The visitations and messages that continued to teach humanity. If nothing else the living Word of God. Christ and the Apostles did not speak against slavery, but humanity learnt that was wrong. The subjugation of women in Judaism and Christianity, we learnt that, that was wrong. Maybe we are still learning it.

You are expecting them to throw the majority of Christianity away to go back to the elementary level.

I can understand the concept of fundamentalism because some this over the years went down the wrong path and they we trying to go back to the bare basics...and since salvation is the most important thing and details do not save. It is a safe way of looking at it.

I look at Christianity as a whole and I do not believe the Bible is the authority...I believe God is the authority. People get so fixated on the Bible that it almost becomes idolatry, as if it were a God. God did not retire after the close of the Bible...2000 years of God being very active with Christianity and that should be considered.

 

[lilygrace]

Hearing God as incestuous is the last thing I really want to hear.
Maybe this stuff really isn't for me.

 

[Paul Christensen]

That would be one of the perspectives....and one of the perspectives of fundamentalism. You are still not answering the questions.
Whether it be a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Mormon...there is differences between them. But for any of them to consider fundamentalism as a valid religion it would be like jumping into a silo with their hands tied behind their back and trying to kick all the grain out. There are over 30,000 Protestant interpretations of the Bible....and hundreds of thousands of individual interpretations of the Bible. How could you expect them to pick one. You say they are wrong, but there is no consensus in Protestant views.

From their perspective the Protestants are stuck on the elementary level of Christianity. The NT documents the first 65 years of Christianity. God did not retire after the close of the Bible. The Protestants petty discount and do not take into consideration all of God's interact with people over the next 2000 years. All of the information that God shared with people over the next 2000 years. All of the miracles that God did over the next 2000 years. And yes there were clarifications that disagree with the Bible. The Trinity is going to teach us new things and new understandings. Just like when Christ was talking to the Jews about divorce...He told them that they were wrong about divorce, that it was Moses that permitted them to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their hearts. You don't think they were shocked? Even the Apostles were shocked.

The visitations and messages that continued to teach humanity. If nothing else the living Word of God. Christ and the Apostles did not speak against slavery, but humanity learnt that was wrong. The subjugation of women in Judaism and Christianity, we learnt that, that was wrong. Maybe we are still learning it.

You are expecting them to throw the majority of Christianity away to go back to the elementary level.

I can understand the concept of fundamentalism because some this over the years went down the wrong path and they we trying to go back to the bare basics...and since salvation is the most important thing and details do not save. It is a safe way of looking at it.

I look at Christianity as a whole and I do not believe the Bible is the authority...I believe God is the authority. People get so fixated on the Bible that it almost becomes idolatry, as if it were a God. God did not retire after the close of the Bible...2000 years of God being very active with Christianity and that should be considered.

As you can see from my quotes from Bruce McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine", he hasn't just interpreted the Bible, rather he has totally departed from it. The examples of Adam and Christ are clear in that.

There is a great difference between interpreting passages of the Bible in different ways, and hanging total fiction onto the names of Bible personalities.

I know that there are many interpretations of different Bible passages, but in order to be a Bible Christian, the central facts and message of the gospel of Christ are clear and do not require interpretation. This means that evangelical denominations share the same gospel message although they approach it is various ways, but the outcome is usually the same.

But with Mormonism, it leaves the Bible out completely, except for the outer shell, and fills up the interior with total fiction. It replaces Christ as the sole way to salvation and implants Joseph Smith as the arbiter of who is to be saved and who isn't. The Bible says that no one can come to the Father except by Christ, but Mormonism says that no one can come to the Father except by Joseph Smith. It also says that when Christ comes again, He will come hand in hand with Joseph Smith.

So, you can see, that Mormonism is nothing like Biblical Christianity at all, and the deception of it is that it advertises itself as true Biblical Christianity, when it is a total lie.

 

[Grailhunter]

As you can see from my quotes from Bruce McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine", he hasn't just interpreted the Bible, rather he has totally departed from it. The examples of Adam and Christ are clear in that.

There is a great difference between interpreting passages of the Bible in different ways, and hanging total fiction onto the names of Bible personalities.

I know that there are many interpretations of different Bible passages, but in order to be a Bible Christian, the central facts and message of the gospel of Christ are clear and do not require interpretation. This means that evangelical denominations share the same gospel message although they approach it is various ways, but the outcome is usually the same.

But with Mormonism, it leaves the Bible out completely, except for the outer shell, and fills up the interior with total fiction. It replaces Christ as the sole way to salvation and implants Joseph Smith as the arbiter of who is to be saved and who isn't. The Bible says that no one can come to the Father except by Christ, but Mormonism says that no one can come to the Father except by Joseph Smith. It also says that when Christ comes again, He will come hand in hand with Joseph Smith.

So, you can see, that Mormonism is nothing like Biblical Christianity at all, and the deception of it is that it advertises itself as true Biblical Christianity, when it is a total lie.

In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings. As used in Romans 10:9–10, the words “saved” and “salvation” signify a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship, followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal consequences of sin if they are obedient. “Salvation” and “saved” are also used in the scriptures in other contexts with several different meanings.
From this site Salvation

Now of course I do not want to step on Jane's toes. But the Mormons I have known read these books. Kind of like required reading but most of them are into the KJV. Maybe that is where they went wrong? LOL They have been in my home and I have been their homes and the KJV is prevalent. Go sit in a parking lot of one of their churches and watch what they carry in the church.

It is the historical side of their religion that throws people. The whole South America stuff. Now if you are a student of history you will know that things have not been easy on them.

And I can only be so critical of someone that judges a religion to be really wrong. I get down on the Calvinists and Jehovah's Witnesses, Voodoo, some the New Age stuff. You don't like the Mormon religion....would I expect anything different from you. Just be nice to Jane, so you and I can remain friends.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

As you can see from my quotes from Bruce McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine", he hasn't just interpreted the Bible, rather he has totally departed from it. The examples of Adam and Christ are clear in that.

There is a great difference between interpreting passages of the Bible in different ways, and hanging total fiction onto the names of Bible personalities.

I know that there are many interpretations of different Bible passages, but in order to be a Bible Christian, the central facts and message of the gospel of Christ are clear and do not require interpretation. This means that evangelical denominations share the same gospel message although they approach it is various ways, but the outcome is usually the same.

But with Mormonism, it leaves the Bible out completely, except for the outer shell, and fills up the interior with total fiction. It replaces Christ as the sole way to salvation and implants Joseph Smith as the arbiter of who is to be saved and who isn't. The Bible says that no one can come to the Father except by Christ, but Mormonism says that no one can come to the Father except by Joseph Smith. It also says that when Christ comes again, He will come hand in hand with Joseph Smith.

So, you can see, that Mormonism is nothing like Biblical Christianity at all, and the deception of it is that it advertises itself as true Biblical Christianity, when it is a total lie.

Actually LDS Christians believe that Christ is the only way to the Father.

The servants of God will over course be there and celebrate each persons joining the Heavenly choir. Hence my question to you about Paul. I do believe that Joseph Smith was a servant of God (and of course a flawed sinner, like all servants).

And no, LDS Christians aren't Protestants.

 

[Paul Christensen]

In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings. As used in Romans 10:9–10, the words “saved” and “salvation” signify a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship, followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal consequences of sin if they are obedient. “Salvation” and “saved” are also used in the scriptures in other contexts with several different meanings.
From this site Salvation

Now of course I do not want to step on Jane's toes. But the Mormons I have known read these books. Kind of like required reading but most of them are into the KJV. Maybe that is where they went wrong? LOL They have been in my home and I have been their homes and the KJV is prevalent. Go sit in a parking lot of one of their churches and watch what they carry in the church.

It is the historical side of their religion that throws people. The whole South America stuff. Now if you are a student of history you will know that things have not been easy on them.

And I can only be so critical of someone that judges a religion to be really wrong. I get down on the Calvinists and Jehovah's Witnesses, Voodoo, some the New Age stuff. You don't like the Mormon religion....would I expect anything different from you. Just be nice to Jane, so you and I can remain friends.

I've already trodden on her toes.

 

[Grailhunter]

I've already trodden on her toes.

LOL

 

[Paul Christensen]

Actually LDS Christians believe that Christ is the only way to the Father.

The servants of God will over course be there and celebrate each persons joining the Heavenly choir. Hence my question to you about Paul. I do believe that Joseph Smith was a servant of God (and of course a flawed sinner, like all servants).

And no, LDS Christians aren't Protestants.

I do believe that Joseph Smith's intentions were sincere, and his disillusionment with the established churches is understandable, seeing that in my view around 50% of all church goers are "sunday christians" who go to church for social and status reasons rather than a true commitment to Christ. There is a major difference between a church-goer and a genuine convert to Christ.

I can understand that someone attending a church for the first time has the expectation that professing Christians in that church actually practice what they preach - in that if they appear saintly at church on Sunday, they should be the same at home and at work. Sadly many don't. They are 'angels' at church, and 'devils' everywhere else. It is common for a new convert to desert the church 'because of the hypocrites in it'.

The thing that strikes me is that members of the LDS church are very rarely hypocritical. They are passionate about their faith and they do the best they can to live up to the ideals on Sunday and every other day of the week. If I was an employer, I would employ a LDS because I know I would be getting a good day's work for a good day's pay. I can honestly say this that LDS put a lot of professing Christians in other churches to shame in how they express their faith at church, work, home and other social environments.

So, my views are not criticisms of you, or any other LDS church member. Sincerity and faith are not the issues here. The real question is who is referred to when you refer to Christ, because the Christ described by Bruce McConkie, whose Mormon Doctrine book would undoubtedly be the standard of what LDS members believe, is totally different from the Christ described in the New Testament. It is as if we are talking about two totally different Christs. So the question is: which is the right one?

This same question is consider for liberal, modernist professing Christian religion that is taught in most University religious studies department, and, in New Zealand, Lloyd Geering it is "prophet", while Bishop Spong is well known in the U.K and U.S.A. They also refer to God and Christ, but the meanings for them are markedly changed. God for the liberal is pantheistic, in that God is in everything, and not a personal entity. Christ was not necessarily a historical person, but an object of faith who forms the basis of moral and loving conduct. There is no such thing as the supernatural, no virgin birth, no resurrection of Christ, no heaven or hell, and the whole object of "faith in Christ" is to improve the quality of life and co-exist peacefully with each other. Of course, that God and Christ are not those of the Bible. They say that the Bible is just a book that contains the principles and ideals of faith and may contain the word of God (God being in the Bible, as well as the plants, trees, animals, us, and everything else that we can see around us).

So there is no real point in debating with liberal professing Christians, using the standard evangelical jargon, because their definitions of that jargon are totally different from the Protestant evangelical Christian.

So, my faith is in the Jesus Christ as described in the Bible. This is where we may differ. It appears that your faith is in a Christ who is a created being who had a pre-existence as a spirit, but was given a human body through the virgin birth, gave teaching on how believers should live in the world. (I haven't got to the place where Mr McConkie deals with the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Christ. I look forward to reading it with interest.

Anyway, there's a bit to chew on for now.

 

[Paul Christensen]

LOL

Although her last response to me sounds reasonable and so I hope that my reply was also reasonable.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

So, my views are not criticisms of you, or any other LDS church member. Sincerity and faith are not the issues here.

Are you trying to (in your view) save my soul?

If so, then it's about ENTERLY about me and my beliefs. Something you keep overlooking completely. If you want try to save my soul, then you need to talk to me and listen to my beliefs. Not lecture on what you think "Mormons" believe (cause that's not remotely accurate). You must listen, not lecture. And yes, I keep trying to focus on Christ, and keep ignoring me and going off on a million other tangents. It is beyond disrespectful and frustrating.

And again, if your definition of "Christian" - "Protestant Christians whom confesses sola scirptura and a bunch of other doctrines you choose", then I don't match that definition. And never will be because I passionately disagree with sola scirptura, so let's both skip wasteful talking if that's the case.

because the Christ described by Bruce McConkie, whose Mormon Doctrine book would undoubtedly be the standard of what LDS members believe

Actually it's not remotely a doctrinal standard book, and in fact has some problem with it. I already said that (and was promptly ignored).

Although her last response to me sounds reasonable and so I hope that my reply was also reasonable.

No, you're still ignoring me.

 

[Grailhunter]

Although her last response to me sounds reasonable and so I hope that my reply was also reasonable.

All is good. I am sure she likes answering civil questions about her religion. Why else would she be here. Keep in mind that the gal has courage. She fields all challenges and I am sure she is use to some of this.
The thing is that the Protestants do not like secrets. So any religion or group that has a secretive side is going to draw fire from the Protestants. The humorous side of that is that the Bible tells of secrets in its history. Some point out that the Bible starts out with the secret knowledge of good and evil and ends with a book called Revelation...revealed knowledge.