"Part of a pastor's job is to warn his people and others about false
religions,"Isn't it really all about degrees? Can
"false" mean the same as "less true".The LDS
don't come right out and say it, but the implication is the same."My religion is the only true one" therefore the implication of
"yours is not true". How can you get bent out of shape by
the comments? Is it because the LDS don't single out any one religion?
I don't have a problem if someone doesn't agree with my faith. But what does
trouble me is when someone demonizes our faith with half truths and outright
lies to "protect their flocks". Our LDS history has shown this is for
more than theoretical. We were threatened, beaten, driven from city to city and
even killed because someone didn't agree with us. Though the LDS
faith believes it is the "only true faith", it is preached in our
faith to be tolerant of all others (not that all members necessarily do this
perfectly.) Because all faiths have much good in them and much that we agree
with. Most of our differences stem from specific doctrines. But the teachings of
Christ we adhere to just as any other good Christian.
@JoeBlow: LDS do say that theirs is the only true religion which has been
restored. But they do not differentiate between religions and call them names
such as cult or non-Christian. Causing animosity by saying half-truths, is not
doing God's work, but rather the work of the adversary, who is the father of
contention. Any so called Christian religion can be called
non-Scriptural because they attribute their beliefs to the Nicene Creed, written
basically by the Catholic Church in 325 AD. This is where the Trinity was
formed. Look it up. Original followers of Christ believed no such thing, and
in the New Testament, it is consistently proven that Jesus and His Father are
only one in words and actions; for instance, at Jesuss baptism, or the
Transfiguration. Believe what you will, and let the LDS believe
what they will. Contention and animosity never solved anything and it is not
pleasing to God. After all, He is the only one to whom we need to account to
when we leave these mortal realms.
It's clear from Rachel's editorializations that the LDS Church still has a way
to go in simply and directly conveying the essential elements of their story.
For example; the statement that God told Joseph Smith "to restore the true
Christian church by revising parts of the Bible and adding the Book of Mormon as
a sacred text." completely ignores the significance of the restoration of
the priesthood, without which Joseph Smith becomes an simply a translator of
ancient records as opposed to a prophet like Moses - personally called by God to
perform a great work.Similarly, the statement that Latter Day Saints
and evangelicals share core beliefs like "salvation through Christ alone
and a focus on atonement and the Cross." is a "three quarter
truth". A Latter Day Saint would agree that salvation is entirely thru
Christ, but would add "after all we can do". References to the cross
would be largely figurative, as the cross is symbolic of the atonement - no LDS
meeting houses or temples are adorned by a cross.LDS doctrine is
different from "Historic Christianity" for a reason - the Great
Apostasy - else where is the need of a restoration?-df
"My Jesus is better than your Jesus!"Pastor Robert
Jeffress to the Latter-day Saints (2011)
"Huntsman, interviewed on CNN on Monday, described Jeffress as a
"moron."Not Presidential, John, but I like it!
Hello there.......Remember your history classes? All of the major
religions have gone through much more torment, torture, pain, and
"awfulness" than the LDS ever experienced. As always, so sorry to
repeatedly burst your bubble of being numero uno.
DWmFrancisAs members of the LDS Church we often put to much of our
emphasis on the "after all we can do" and not enough on the we are
saved by Jesus Christ. I like to look at it like a hurricane warning the
Salvation through Jesus is the hurricane warning that we get for days and weeks
ahead of time and the "after all we can do" is us actually listening
and getting out of the way. As long as we simply do some basic things we are
covered by the grace (or warning) of Jesus. This I have found is really not very
different from most "Traditional Christians" other than wording. Yes
some completely remove anything we can do in their words but in their
descriptions it is still there. I think Joseph Smith put things best in
"the Answer" when he was responding to W.W. Phelps request to rejoin
the Church when describing the Celestial KingdomThese are they that came
out of Apollo's and Paul;For Cephas and Jesus, in all kinds of hope;For Enoch and Moses, and Peter, and John;For Luther and Calvin, and even
Why is Jeffress attacking only Romney?I mean, you do notice that
Jeffress is only attacking Romney, don't you? Why not attack Huntsman, too?
It's because Romney is the leader in the polls. And that's
virutally EVERY poll. Jeffress and his crowd know that Romney has a very real
chance of winning in 2012 and it scares the heck out of them.
@ Guy with a BrainOf course Romney scares the heck out of his
Republican cronies. It is same with the Dems as well as we see every evening on
NBC Nightly News. Love to watch Chuck Todd gleefully report any and every
negative report on Romney. No doubt it will get very interesting IF Romney
becomes the candidate against Obama the incumbent. Assuming that it will get
downright ugly for those of us who share Romney's religious affiliation. We
probably need to buckle up tight.
Get over it mormons. Believe what you may and take others opinions with a grain
of salt. Mormons are too sensitive; it shows their own beliefs are on very
shakey ground internaly to the church and eternaly when you see how they react
within themselves and to others when controversy comes to the table.
At the end of the day, only God discerns the hearts those who are called by
Christ's name. The only opinion that counts is His. In the meantime, we wade
through the paradox of intolerance. What else is new under the sun?
@no fit in SG: Most of the other religions' torment, torture, pain, and
"awfulness" didn't take place illegally in the United States of
America which, last time I checked, was supposed to be a haven of religious
freedom and tolerance. Why do you feel the need to trivialize our ancestors'
very real suffering as a desire to be "numero uno"? Would you say
exploited Chinese workers deserve no sympathy because their country isn't as bad
If you don't want people to disagree with your belief's... don't
make them open, to the public. Oh. Wait. I didn't make a SHINING
statement of support for the LDS faith. This comment will probably
Of all the oddities of Mormonism, it is humorous to me the reasons the few vocal
Evangelicals are calling it a cult: God and Jesus and not the same being, and
the non-official quote, "As God is man may become, as man is God once
was."Curious intelligent people that probe for more information
find the cult claims to be moronic.
evangelicals have a problem with Gospel Principles chapter 47 where it states
that exalten man will become a god (it does not read become like God, it says
become a god). Until last year, Gospel Principles chapter 47 went as far as to
say that exalted man would have spirit children who would have the same
relationship with him (the exalted man) that we have with our Heavenly Father.
All Christian denominations have a problem with man becoming diety as Isaiah
43:10 says "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have
chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me
there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
megenYou said "All Christian denominations have a problem with man
becoming diety" yet it found in the writings of many of the early Fathers
of "Traditional Christianity""For the Son of God became man
so that we might become God"-Saint Athanasios"...For thou hast
become God;..."-Hippolytus"But if thou art desirous of also
becoming a god...."-Hyppolytus"we should flee with all our power
from being man and make hast to become gods"-OrigenJust to name a few
KC- I, as a Christian, follow the teachings of the Bible, not the teachings of
Saint Althanasios, Hippolytus, Origen, ect...
megenThan what about the words of Jesus? He clearly states that we can
become gods in John Chapter 10:33-35. He was about to be stoned when he asked
for what was he being stoned 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good
work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man,
makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in
your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom
the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;I know the common
"traditional Christian" answer that he was quoting Psalms and it means
judges but judges simply does not work in Jesus context. If you put judges in
place of gods Juses ends up being stones because it does not support his calling
himself the Son of God. Jesus words only work if the context is infact gods. So
by the Bible as well as the early Church teachings Theosis is a core teaching of
Christianity that has been removed by "Historical Christianity".
@Serenity"Any so called Christian religion can be called
non-Scriptural because they attribute their beliefs to the Nicene Creed, written
basically by the Catholic Church in 325 AD. This is where the Trinity was
formed. Look it up."You literally just said other Christians
are non-scriptural when criticizing other churches who call Mormons
KC Mormon- you do not understand the meaning and context of those verses. Jesus
was not calling them diety, rather He was accusing them of rejecting scripture.
Ps. 82 shows that, in Hebrew, judges were called gods because their position of
authority was to execute God's law- to go before the judge was to be judged by
God's law, thereby to be judged by God. God's law called sinful men
"gods" because they had been sent by God to execute his judgments in
Israel (not because they were diety). Jesus was not blaspheming when he
identified himself as one with the Father, as the Pharisees claimed. The Father
had set him apart and sent him into the world with a far greater work than the
judges of Israel received.
LOL, Pagan! These many comments are rather humorous to me--we, as LDS folk,
walk a fine line between laughing at ourselves for being human, not being so
super sensitive, yet also standing up for our beliefs and agreeing to disagree
with those who are Christian. I have so many friends of different faiths and we
all bring out the good in each other without trying to change each other's
entire belief system. Believe it or not, they don't act repulsed by me because
they think I am a member of a cult, although I do have to remind them that I
don't have horns growing out of my head or have multiple husbands and I will
drink an occasional Dr. Pepper in front of them just for shock value! Mitt can
be himself and I believe in the American people who are intelligent enough, in
the masses, to vote for whoever they want. It'll be sad if the reason they
DON'T like Romney is only due to his religion. Cult or not, the man is honest
and a very efficient businessman--I don't care what religion someone is with
credentials like that!
megenAgain put the word judge in place of god and see if it makes sense.
Jesus has called himself the Son of God elevating himself to the position of
God. The Judges are going to stone him for this. He asks them why are you going
to stone me. They say because you have blasphemed by saying you are the Son of
God. He then says the scriptures say you are judge if you are judges how can I
blaspheme by saying I am the Son of God. The outcome of this is we are judges
and you will be stoned to death. In the context of the verses judges simply does
not save Jesus life but rather leads to his death. The only way it saves Jesus
life is if gods truly means gods. If Jesus says the scriptures say you are gods
so how can I blaspheme by simply saying I am the Son of God the outcome is Jesus
lives another day. Your context simply does not fit. This is why the early
Church Fathers taught theoses because they understood what Jesus said.
KC Mormon- You say "Jesus elevated himself to the position of God".
Haven't you considered that Jesus Is God? Not just a god, but God? He is not
just one of a bunch of gods, as LDS believe exist (ie: council of gods per LDS
teachings) He is God! LDS are henotheistic (a type of polytheism) and not
monotheistic as Christian denominations are.
Megan-, Read 1st John, Chapter 3, Verse 1 and 2: Behold, what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:
therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we
the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that,
when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. This
passage teaches plainly that the righteous who are exalted will be changed in
such a way that not only will they be able to bear the presence of God and live,
but they will also be like him. What part of "we shall be like
him" does not agree with us being like him? What father on earth would not
want his child to inherit all that he has? Why would it be any different for our
Father in Heaven? Isn't He more just and perfect than we are? Why should we
think He would not want to have us inherit all we have?
From the article: Mormon leaders have complained that critics take obscure or
outdated teachings and describe them as core doctrine. The church cast aside the
teaching of polygamy in 1890, and in 1978, abolished the barrier that kept those
of African descent from full participation in the church.It seems
contrary to indicate that "God" changes his mind! Religions are usually supposed to have been created by gods, at least on some
level, and this greatly reduces the scope for acceptable errors. Gods, after
all, aren't normally considered fallible in any way. If it is perfect, then any
religion constructed around this god and by this god should also be perfect
even if a few minor errors in practice creep in through human adherents. If some
particular god exists, and this god is perfect, and a religion is created around
it, then it shouldn't have significant contradictions or need changing to any
large extent. The presence of such contradictions indicates that there is an
error in one of those steps: the religion isn't created around that god, or
isn't created by that god, or that god isn't perfect, or that god simply doesn't
What does it mean to respect someone's religion or religious beliefs? Many
believers insist that their religion deserves to be respected, even by
non-believers as well as different religions, but what exactly are they asking
for? If they are simply asking to be let alone in their beliefs, that's not
unreasonable. If they are asking that their right to believe be honored, then I
agree. The problem is, these basic minimums are rarely, if ever, what people are
asking for....instead, they are asking for much more. More and more, religions
(including LDS) are objecting to what they call "intolerance" by
people who are critical of the religion or religious beliefs. There is an
increasingly popular attitude that religion deserves automatic respect and
deference from everyone - even those who don't share that religion. The
implication is that believers shouldn't have to be faced with criticism. This is
wrong: religions aren't owed automatic deference and respect without criticism.
We must remember to respect and tolerate religion and belief (including
NON-belief) "differences", but accepting these differences doesn't
mean tolerating or practicing discrimination, bigotry, violence, or hatred. Be
careful of your own mirror before pointing out the cracks in anothers mirror!
It appears that the posts on this thread are meant as an example of what the
article's title was referring to. If I didn't know that some of the posters
were serious, I would assume that it was all just set up for illustration.@megen: Yeah, you're right. We believe that humans can be exalted and
become like God. We also believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
are separate and distinct individuals. We understand that, according to the
tenets of your religion, we do not represent true, historic Christianity.
However, we are not claiming to be equivalent to any sort of Catholicism
(Orthodox or Roman) or Protestant/Reformation type of Christianity. We submit,
however, that we fit the dictionary definition of Christian because we believe
that Jesus is the Son of God and that salvation rests in Him. We generally
accept anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus as a Christian. If people
privately believe otherwise, we probably would accept that, but when they say we
shouldn't be eligible to run for president (as with Romney) or vote (as in
Idaho) or even live (as in Missouri), we get a little defensive.