I don't know who said it, but "For those who believe, there is no need of
proof. For those who do not believe, there exists no proof." If someone is
genuinely interested, peaceful explanation will suffice to give them an
understanding and food for thought. If they are only out to argue with you,
taking the bait will hurt both of you. It is very restful to know that it isn't
my job to convert anyone - only to live by what I believe and represent the
Church as best I can by loving my neighbor whether he loves me (or my Church) or
Thanks, Brother Monahan, for the best advice I have read (other than from a
General Authority) on how to deal with the "Mormons aren't Christians"
accusation.Way too often we as members of the Church allow ourselves
to be drawn into a contentious interchange or we even promote one in our
misguided zeal to "teach the truth."As you mention: the
Lord said we should never "contend with anger, one with another ... this is
not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger ... but this is my
doctrine, that such things should be done away" (3 Nephi 11: 29-30).
'Given the current political climate, members of The Church of the Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints are seeing an increase in the "Mormons arent
Christians" debate.' - Article I apologize. But my
empathy towards Mormons who are trying to say they are Christian is
limited... when they tell me 'Love the sinner, not the sin', and
don't even realize that calling someone a sinner... is, an insult.
Sorry, Pagan,But whether or not you use the word "sinner"
or "sin" or neither, but you use the accusatory rhetoric you use,
you've become exactly that person whom you condemn.
To Pagan: Everyone in the world is a sinner, so you are in good company.
LDS members who are living what their religion teaches consider themselves to be
sinners also, since no-one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. The
difference is that LDS who are trying to live their religion are constantly
trying to repent and improve & try to learn from their mistakes and to
forgive others their tresspasses. So we are all sinners and it is not meant to
be an insult. We can wish others well in their quest to repent and improve, and
that is reality and not an insult. We are all in this together (meaning our
Re: "The Importance of a Name," Despite the name supposedly given by
the Lord. (HoC V 2 p. 63) it was voted on to change the name to the Church of
the Latter Day Saints. Notice, The Lords name was omitted. Also the Christian Science church. They are not all are scientists and they deny the
resurrection of Christ. Are they Christians?Re:" 3 Nephi
11/John 10:16, other sheep". They are: therefore unto you, that the
salvation of God is sent unto the GENTILES, and that they will hear it. (Acts
28:28).Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I
will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a
nation that has no understanding." And Isaiah boldly says, "I was
found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask
for me."(Romans 10:19,20). Neither the Nephites nor the Lamanites meet
This article makes an important point and has excellent suggestions!
'So we are all sinners and it is not meant to be an insult.' - dtlenox | 12:17
p.m. Oct. 21, 2011 sin·ner noun a person
who sins; transgressor. any offence against a principle or
standard Dictionary. So, using an offensive term but not
meaning it to the person you are directing it to... is not
offensive? *'Dr. Laura's N-Word Rant: Radio Host Apologizes For
Offensive Language' - Danny Shea - Huffington Post - 08/12/10 'Dr.
Laura Schlessinger has apologized after a shocking rant on her radio show this
week during which she said the n-word 11 times over the course of five
minutes.' Using the N-word, or the F-word is still offensive. *'NBA notebook: Kobe Bryant fined $100,000 for gay slur' - AP -
Published by DSNews - 04/13/11 If if you didn't 'mean' offense to
the person you are directing the term, too. '...but you use the
accusatory rhetoric you use, you've become exactly that person whom you
condemn.' - yarrlydarb | 12:05 p.m. Oct. 21, 2011 This would have
made sense... if I didn't use this this as an example of what you
should NOT do. What, if anything, have I called you?
Pagan,All of the major religions I know of have some things they
consider good, others bad, and a few as totally unacceptable. The lists have
some confluence but some divergence as well.That said, and given
that this is a religion we are talking about (agree with it or not) are you
suggesting that we not categorize certain behaviors as bad? Is it that you
disagree with the word or with certain behaviors being categorized as sin?If so, surely you can have this conversation with other religious bodies
about hundreds if not thousands of activities and whether or not they should
label them (the activities) as bad or not. True?Biblically, Christ
and his apostles labeld certain actions as acceptable and others not. Those of
us who accept the modern prophets and apostles to be such, also take their
pronouncements reference the acceptability of behaviors seriously. If we did
not, we would not be (active) members.As to the insult value of the
word "sinner". As dtlenox explained, we are all sinners. Only one
perfect man has ever walked the earth. As to loving the sinner. It
is a divine commandment and our only real recourse.
Everyone is a sinner, and "love the sinner, not the sin" only means
that we don't need to think someone is perfect in order to respect, love and
appreciate them. We can even disagree on major issues - there is usually
something you can like, respect and admire about a person even if your outlook
on life is very different. But liking, respecting and admiring someone doesn't
mean we think everything they do is right. We can even like ourselves even with
our total awareness of our own sins - although we like ourselves better if we
keep trying to become better people.Calling someone a sinner is only
an insult if you're saying you're better than them. And letting yourself take
offense is unneccesary if that isn't what the other person meant. If they did
mean to offend you, why give them that power?
Pagan,10:00 AM,Oct.21,2011:In ST Mark 2:17 Jesus Christ said, I came
not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.Did Christ
insult the sinners? To insult someone is wrong (sin). Christ is perfect and
sinless. He did not insult the sinners.If someone says, love the
sinner, not the sin, if the person is insulted, he made the chose to be
insulted. Allow me to explain.God gave us (me) free agency. We can
choose as we please, however we need to be carful mot to make the wrong chose as
the sinner (in this story) did. If he chose to be insulted it is his
responsibility, as it was Adam and Eve's responsibility for eating of the
Mormons should just not respond. This is becoming too personal and heated for
mormons. Let it go, be who you think you need to be and move on. Who really
cares about mormons? Mormonism does not make a difference in the life of those
outside of mormonism, so what should you care of what people think of your
little mormon cult(ure). Just move on and leave this argument alone-- it does no
good for anyone.
mightymite:If you are capable of taking your own advice I should not
see your name on theDN vine again. Thank you.
Some of the commentators here are missing one of the points of the article, that
arguing with people who have already made up their mind, or have an agenda, is
pointless. Pagan obviously falls into this category, so why don't people just
realize that and move on? It's obvious that Pagan threw out some bait to see if
people would bite and they did. Some of us need to practice resisting. But I
love you all anyway :)
"Everyone is a sinner"?Sorry to disappoint you, but I am
not a sinner, and I know many people who are not sinners.John 8:46
I find the dust up over the 'Mormons not Christian' sort of humorous. The LDS
Church for a century or so worked hard to separate itself from Christendom. To
now see LDS upset that mainstream Christians actually got the message is a
little odd. I guess be careful what you wish for.Also, clearly the
LDS view of Jesus IS different than the one most creedal Christians do, despite
the fact most LDS gloss over the fact. "In bearing testimony of Jesus
Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day
Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional
Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of
whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of
Times'" (LDS Church News, June 20, 1998). Why do LDS no longer embrace
their uniqueness?Lastly, the LDS Church sees all other faiths,
including mainstream Christians, as apostate and unauthoritative. So Mormons are
doing the same thing to everyone else that they get mad at mainstream Christians
and EVs for doing to them. Somewhat hypocritical isn't it?
LDS Revelations,Agreed that we consider ourselves different and
conceive of Christ somewhat differently than do others. No argument there.
Other denominations do as well.I think we do embrace that
uniqueness. The issue here is who gets to define the word Christian.Mainstream Christians do not own the word or its definition. They are
attempting to draw the definitional circle so tightly around themselves that it
excludes all who disagree.If we allow this, we say (at least in
part) say to the world outside ourselves that we do not follow Christ. We are
absolutely unwilling to cede that ground. To do so implies that we are not his
representatives, not followers of his doctrines, not his witnesses.This violates every covenant we take upon ourselves. It is not an argument we
will let go.
It's certainly easy to paint critics of the church as malevolent adversaries
demanding "proof" of simple spiritual truths. Some of these critics
may indeed have "mocking fingers" and no amount of proof will ever
convert such detractors. However, there are many objective, sincere
observers who are not asking to be intellectually converted, but rather seeking
some kind of reasonable evidence confirming some of the more fantastic claims
made by early church leaders.Why can't evidence be both rationally
confirmed and spiritually discerned? Why must there be such a huge disconnect
between emotion and a coherent sense of reason? Why should an exclusive method
for confirming truth using spiritual feelings come at the expense of logic? If
the glory of God is intelligence, why must one abandon the fundamental
components of intelligence in favor of strict reliance on "spiritual"
feelings? Some may say that to reconcile both would eliminate the
need for faith. The rational mind might see such a statement as a clever attempt
to escape the requirements of logic. Such disconnect will always
engender reasonable suspicion...a pervasive willingness to discourage a
rational, critical evaluation of fantastic claims of "truth."
Weber State Graduate,Yes, there are sincere seekers who are more
questioner than critic.How can I provide proof of what has
experienced personally? If I were Moses and had seen God in a burning bush,
would showing you a burnt bush (actually, an unburnt bush) really mean
anything?Yes some of the claims are fantastic - just as they were in
the Old and New Testaments.The rational evidence I find is in the
doctrines themselves and the eternal nature of man and the universe.I don't find there to be a disconnect at all between emotion and reason. Nor
do I find that church service requires (or even asks) me to forfeit logic.Part of the answer to your question is in the full quote:"The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
Light and truth forsake that evil one."It is not intelligence
simply for its own sake, but for the sake of guiding us away from evil and
toward the good.If there is a God out there, then he can be (in
part) comprehended.It is my testimony that He exists and this is the
path to understand Him.