Subscribe: Comments on: Discussing Mormonism with Anne
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
bible  book mormon  book  christian  church  don  god  jesus  lds  mormon  mormons  read  scripture  spirit body  spirit  word 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Discussing Mormonism with Anne

Comments on: Discussing Mormonism with Anne

Critical questions. Faithful answers.

Last Build Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 02:09:31 +0000


By: Robert Fields

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:21:53 +0000

I am not convinced the word Christian belong's to any particular group. I think Evangelical's falsely usurp the claim of orthodoxy. I do not recognize Ms Brown's right to define me or LDS as a non-Christian. I myself use a broader definition of Christian that recognizes her as a Christian. I still think her in an errant and apostate faith. But i would not be so silly as to think her non-Christian.

By: Steven Danderson

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:05:27 +0000

Hi Phil! You said, "When Jan Brown states that she doesn’t think Mormon’s should be included in the Christian faith, she is clearly giving “HER OWN” point of view, including the reasoning she used to arrive at this conclusion. She then clearly states that it is “ULTIMATELY” God’s choice about who he accepts into his kingdom. She is using her best judgement, just as we are all called to do when confronted with this choice. Certainly if she makes this judgement for herself she would be a liar if she said otherwise to her friend. This doesn’t make her judgemental, it makes her an honest CHRISTIAN !" That would be so, if that were all that she were doing. The problem is that Evangelicals tend to define "Christian" as one who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. As Latter-day Saints do so--to the point of militancy (See the Book of Mormon's title page.), to tell them that they are not Christian is to tell them that they are lying, and to tell them that they believe in another Jesus is to tell them that they are too stupid to know what they believe. Look here; we already know that Ms Brown doesn't recognise Mormonism as a traditional or normative expression of Christianity. That doesn't bother us--we don't claim to be "traditional." What bothers us is the double standard of calling us non-Christians when we meet that standard, and the implication that we are dishonest as we meet those standards.

By: Robert Fields

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:59:07 +0000

I attended some witnessing to Mormon's training event's. I did it for reason's of self defense. I had been a victim of well intentioned Evangelical attempt's to get me saved. I am not LDS, but Reorganized LDS. And we are not liked much more than the LDS if we are liked much more at all. Before my Community of Christ baptism i read book's that targeted my church. One i read book's like Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church: Is It Christian? by Carole Hanson, and Partway to Utah by Paul Trask. I read the tracts Refiner's Fire Ministries and Lifeline Ministry To RLDS put's out to convince us of the deception we are under. I read similar stuff on the LDS for 19 year's or more off and on. I also take out my Bible to look up the scripture's they say prove's me a non-Christian. And if Evangelical's say i misinterpret a scripture i try and to know how they interpret it differently. I still think the Book of Mormon is true. The content of the article is no more persuasive than what i have read from Evangelical's before.

By: Phil

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:23:04 +0000

I would like to point out what is known as axiomatic or "self evident" truths concerning the argument about this article and about weather Mormons are Christians or not. When Jan Brown states that she doesn't think Mormon's should be included in the Christian faith, she is clearly giving "HER OWN" point of view, including the reasoning she used to arrive at this conclusion. She then clearly states that it is "ULTIMATELY" God's choice about who he accepts into his kingdom. She is using her best judgement, just as we are all called to do when confronted with this choice. Certainly if she makes this judgement for herself she would be a liar if she said otherwise to her friend. This doesn't make her judgemental, it makes her an honest CHRISTIAN ! Secondly, this notion that The Book of Mormon is treated the same way as main stream Christianity treats the early tenets of the faith is simply not true. The Mormon Church recognizes the Book of Mormon as scripture and gives it the same authority as the cannonized Bible. Some LDS teachings even give the Book of Mormon higher authority than the Bible. Main stream Christianinty does not even slightly consider the tenents of faith to be equal with scripture and does not include them as "the inspired word of God" as Mormons do with their book. Main stream Christians believe that it is sinful to equate any other writing with the authority of scripture and the LDS church is completely based on their acceptance of the Book of Mormon as a new revelation of scripture given to Joseph Smith. Stop trying to water this FACT down and if you are a Mormon, simply accept what your church teaches and stop saying that other Christians do this with the tenents of the early church because no Christian Denominations teach this (not even the Catholic Church). The LDS church and the Book of Mormon both teach that our ultimate destiny is to become Gods. This teaching is so clearly antithetical to the Bible that the only way to ascribe to this belief is to completely turn your back on what the scriptures clearly state. In fact it states that Saten's entire rebellion agaist God was caused by the fact that he wished to be equal with God. This teaching is so apostate to God, scripture and all Christianity that this doctrine alone should cause every member of the LDS church to reexamine what their church teaches. I would simply ask everyone to read the Bible with an open heart and ask God to reveal the truth to them. Do not accept any man's teaching on it's own merit, read the Bible for yourself and serve Christ for each other.

By: Robert Fields

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:47:34 +0000

I don't see the Understanding Mormonism article that difficult to answer. 1.The Bible-Rev.22:18,19 say's the original pure word of God can be tampered with. Why warn scribe's not to do it if nobody could do it, or ever did it? I don't see why i can't read 2 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:21 in light of the above scripture. I don't see the word final in the verses's she uses. I don't see anything in it that say's the Bible is a closed to new book's book. I don't see the author as demonstrating her religion is "biblical christianity" or that her faith isn't "an apostate and errant faith. 2.Sin-Actually if Adam had not fallen like Even they would have been both seperated. It would be impossible for them to have children as a couple of Adam was in the garden and Eve outside.(1 Tim.2:14) Book of Mormon critic's often list 2 Nephi 2:25 in list's of reputed Bible, and Book of Mormon contradiction's. If Adam and Eve would not have been seperated where's the proof? If they had children prior to the fall let's not guess they were able to have children prior to the fall show me the proof. Who are these supposed children? What clear Bible verse do we have that indicate's their children were born prior to the fall. Certainly the existence of the human race is benificial, and does not It's not true the Bible say's one thing and the Book of Mormon another. 3.God the father and the trinity-Luke 24:39 indicate's Jesus said spirit's without bodies resemble men's spirit's. If Jesus is God, and has a spirit body then he was calling himself spirit in John 4:24. But on another occasion if he saw himself as having a spirit body he was saying he was an exalted man. Jesus just lumpingly, and imprecisely call's the Godhead spirit on ne occasion. Was he denying he was a person of spirit and tabernacle because of one thing he once said? The Community of Christ/RLDS of which i am a member doubt's the Father is an exalted man. I just feel John 4:24 is not much a proof against the idea based on my reading of Luke 24:39. 4.Jesus-the Book of Mormon does not say Jesus was born. The person mixes up idea's from other LDS as scriptures and sources. Collossian's 1:15 through an Evangelical word study has been interpreted by them to mean pre-eminent only. I have read a better LDS word study responding to that which indicate's it mean's born first. Nothing would prevent Jesus from having a spirit body formed for him like Lucifer's spirit body was formed for him. The Father would have something to do with the creation of spirit's also. So even with Jesus creating the angel's it would not prevent Jesus from being the Father of Jesus and Lucifer. I see no scripture which say's the 2nd person of the trinity is alone the Father of Lucifer. I think the Evangelical Jesus is wrong because it rejects the idea Jesus an Lucifer as brother's. At most where i agree with Jan Brown is i doubt the idea spirit's are procreated. But rather than think her Jesus is better i think her idea of Jesus is not questionable. I think the LDS idea of Jesus is just as good. My earthly parent's procreated me. Is Jesus not my creator? Is his father not my creator? Did the Holy Spirit not have anything to do with the fact i exist? I don't think it make's God any less creator if he chose a method of procreation, or zapped the angel's into existence. If Jesus has a spirit body that would make him a god. Would not that belief he was a personage of spirit, and flesh now not overly seperate him from the Father? Those who wrote the creed's in order to deny the Trinity was three God's had to deny they were person's. They did that by saying the person's of God were like the person's of an actor in a play. Only b[...]

By: Clark

Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:49:44 +0000

JB, there are multiple senses of 'being' and I think Trinitarian defenders tend to use that ambiguity to play it up. To say that the three are of one being is fine of course. But then many would say all reality is of one being. The issue is whether they are separate beings in the more normal senses of the word. The typical Trinitarian has a defense against this in creation ex nihlo sense everything but the three hypostases are created and are beings in the normal sense. So we can't predicate of the divine persons being in the way we can predicate being of everything else. (And of course Kant would say we can't predicate being period) The problem is, however, monotheism is whether there is one God versus multiple gods. In that strict sense if trinitarians can say it's just one God then so can Mormons sense Mormons require some strong unity among the divine persons. And, since Mormons reject creation ex nihlo, we don't have trouble saying that in an expansive way. The issue then becomes that if a trinitarian says Mormons are polytheists then by the same reasoning trinitarians are. The issue is the issue of being, as you suggest. But trinitarian critiques of Mormons apply a double standard on the issue. I'll be charitable and suggest most do this ignorantly due to not thinking through the implications of a rejection of creation ex nihlo. (Although I find it odd they'd be so ignorant since many neoPlatonist Christians called heretic rejected ex nihlo so the debate isn't exactly a new one)

By: JB

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:46:56 +0000

"While Evangelical Christians may believe that they are monotheistic through the incomprehensible miracle of the Trinity, the fact still remains that the Trinity is composed of three Persons or Beings." In answer to this statement, I'd like to make one clarification: More accurately, orthodox Christianity believes in 3 Persons in 1 Being or 3 Who's in 1 what. Our minds have trouble accepting a Being totally other than how we are constructed as a spirit and a body. However, the doctrine of the Trinity explains that God is Being totally other than us. He is God and there is no other. If nothing else it makes Him totally awesome! It actually comforts me to know that He is so great I cannot fully apprehend it. Thanks for bothering to discuss the article. I value all the comments.

By: Trevor M

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:16:06 +0000

How about where she asserts that we don't believe Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God? That seems like an obvious over-simplification. I think I would have even been fine if she had said that we say we do and then argued that since we believe that we are spirit children of God "Only Begotten" does not apply. But her statements there are clearly a painful mistreatment of the subject. There are plenty of restoration scriptures which use the phrase "only begotten". It seems to me that she would or should be aware of those given her knowledge of church doctrine.

By: Andrew Miller

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:57:23 +0000

Thanks for your comments. It's interesting how even when a person appears to try to be fair and balanced they still get LDS beliefs jumbled and mixed up. Is it really that hard? Strong Reasons

By: meckaleckahighmekkahinyho

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:04:59 +0000

The high priest of the feast says "creed or deed" for Evangelicals it's what you believe (i.e. whose interpretation...Creflo Dollar or Rod Parsley or Scofield and his reference Bible) for Mormons it's what you do....word of wisdom, commandments, prophets, temple....")

By: Some (Big) Misunderstandings about Mormons « Hope for a Better World

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:46:10 +0000

[...] Discussing Mormonism with Anne [...]

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:51:14 +0000

"It is those creeds, which Mormons don’t believe are biblical, that they see as the problem. Thus, saying that Mormons have problems with “biblical Christianity” is incorrect." That is an excellent point. The problem Mormons have with others is over the shape of the texts they have added to the Bible. They don't like the Book of Mormon, we don't like the extra-biblical creeds.