LDS Mormonism is an enemy of the Cross and therefore not Christian

[dzheremi]

The 'obsession' comes from a proper understanding of the meaning and power of the cross in Christianity. Mormons purposely lack such an understanding, as they prefer to believe in and display other things in line with their own doctrines which are not shared by any Christian church.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I am starting to think that all of the creedal Christians* on this forum aren't intreseted in getting thier facts straight, listening, or having a reasonable respectful in any way....

*Note: that's not to say that there aren't respectful reasonable creedal Christians who are intreseted in getting thier facts straight.... Just that they've all left this forum. Wondering if I should do the same... it's just.... feels like the only thing I've done hear lately in increasing in my negative perspective of creedal Christians and creedal Christianity-- and I know that creedal Christianity/Christians are better than how people here are acting... maybe the best thing for my positive view of creedal Christianity is to quit spending so much time on this forum...

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You know, I don't think you ever answered my question about whether or not wearing the cross is, in and of itself, enough to mark someone as a "Good Christian".

I did, in the very post you're responding to here. Go back and re-read it. If you still need it then I'll cut and paste the answer for you.

You're placing so much emphasis on the physical symbol that one wonders about how you see it in regards to everything else.

Wonder away. I've made it pretty clear. It's not just the symbol but the meaning behind it. You seem to never want to talk about the meanings of symbols or how your religion uses so many magical symbols and Satanic symbols and the Demonic meanings behind your religion... Seems you're the one stuck on the symbol itself and trying to intentionally distract from its meaning.

In any case, lds.org has officially made it clear that the cross is absolutely NOT a symbol of mormon faith, whatsoever. They seem to really be concerned about it to the point that they had to explicitly state this.

John Davidson
EmmaCat

The former - a former member of the church - outright stated that you're wrong with your arguments. The latter actually apologized on your behalf for going off like you did with an OP so clearly misinformed and insulting.

Neither one addressed the topic. John Davidson said he was supposed to focus on "the atonement" which in the mormon religion is not the Cross. EmmaCat threw a fit over my calling mormon magical underwear "magical". And John Davidson can apologize on my behalf all he wants, but I have no apologies for anything I've said, since everything I've said has simply been the Christian view on the mormon religion. If John Davidson wants to be quasi-mormon in his beliefs and become offended when a Christian speaks the Truth then he can apologize all day for all I care. What a joke, LOL!

Maybe if you'd leave the goal posts where they were...

The goal posts are right in the same place, right there in the OP. Go back and re-read it until you see where they are.

If it's not what the OP is about, then why are you so obsessed with it?

I'm not. I never even said such a thing. You and Jane Doe concocted that.

How do personal insults reflect the light of Christ?

No personal insult - I can only presume your comprehension in reading what I've said is poor because you don't address what I've said but instead you address things I never said. I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt so as to insult you, because if it's not a misunderstanding on your part then you'd be intentionally distorting what I said.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It appears that they want their own trinity of three gods, their own bible and quasi-bible in the form of the LDS translation of the Bible (cross-referenced with their quasi-Bible, the Book of Mormon), their own substitute cross with this "CTR" thing, their own prophets outside of the ones we hold in common, their own revelations, and so forth, and still to be thought of as Christians, with everyone else merely 'misunderstanding' (or deliberately mischaracterizing) each of these points.

dzheremi, you summed up the whole issue (in debating mormons overall) in a nutshell right here

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I am starting to think that all of the creedal Christians* on this forum aren't intreseted in getting thier facts straight, listening, or having a reasonable respectful in any way....

*Note: that's not to say that there aren't respectful reasonable creedal Christians who are intreseted in getting thier facts straight.... Just that they've all left this forum. Wondering if I should do the same... it's just.... feels like the only thing I've done hear lately in increasing in my negative perspective of creedal Christians and creedal Christianity-- and I know that creedal Christianity/Christians are better than how people here are acting... maybe the best thing for my positive view of creedal Christianity is to quit spending so much time on this forum...

...says the person throwing out yet another ad hom (this time a blanket statement about most or all Christians here) with absolutely nothing to back it up...

 

[Jane_Doe]

...says the person throwing out yet another ad hom (this time a blanket statement about most or all Christians here) with absolutely nothing to back it up...

There is a reason I did not call out specific examples and point fingers: I was/am trying to be polite and abide by forum rules.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

There is a reason I did not call out specific examples and point fingers: I was/am trying to be polite and abide by forum rules.

You're still using an ad hom against a group of people. It may be OK by site rules (I'm not even sure about that) but as far as the discussion/debate goes it is hollow because it doesn't make a point by providing evidence. And it certainly is not in line with the topic of the thread.

 

[Jane_Doe]

You're still using an ad hom against a group of people. It may be OK by site rules (I'm not even sure about that) but as far as the discussion/debate goes it is hollow because it doesn't make a point by providing evidence. And it certainly is not in line with the topic of the thread.

My point is: that by talking to vast majority of the creedal Christians that hang out on this sub-forum of a continual period of time... I see Christ less in less in them as time progresses (talking about my perspective changing here). Now, I don't see love, I don't see charity, I don't see interest in Truth, a I don't see an in Goodness. And this is a problem for me- because I KNOW that creedal Christianity is a faith of love, goodness, charity, Truth, etc. But the more and more time I spend here talking to people, the less and less I'm seeing it. And I have a MAJOR problem with this, and am wondering the course of action I can best take to remedy (or at least migrate) this problem.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

My point is: that by talking to vast majority of the creedal Christians that hang out on this sub-forum of a continual period of time... I see Christ less in less in them as time progresses (talking about my perspective changing here). Now, I don't see love, I don't see charity, I don't see interest in Truth, a I don't see an in Goodness. And this is a problem for me- because I KNOW that creedal Christianity is a faith of love, goodness, charity, Truth, etc. But the more and more time I spend here talking to people, the less and less I'm seeing it. And I have a MAJOR problem with this, and am wondering the course of action I can best take to remedy (or at least migrate) this problem.

Well those accusations of yours are purely opinion because you have no basis in fact or evidence. It's fine to have an opinion but you can't really expect anyone to understand it when it's rooted in your feelings and not in fact.

I think that being from a feeling-based religion you tend to feel first, put faith in your feelings second, and then possibly consider a fact or facts last (optionally). Again, you are entitled to believe that way, but it won't convince others when you put your opinions forth like that with no evidence.

This is a debate forum. We are here to debate issues. Perhaps some of the opposing views hurt your feelings, but they shouldn't - they are simply opposing views. If you'd like to debate against them, present your views. On either side, the views will carry more weight when they are rooted in evidence. I think you are probably getting frustrated that your feeling-based views don't hold up to the evidence-based views that the Christians here are providing.

A major difference between Christianity and mormonism is that Christianity tends to be much more evidence-based and mormonism is feeling-based. That's why the mormon test of what is "true" is based on getting a feeling from what one believes is the Holy Spirit. The Christian test of what is True is based on God's Word which itself is backed by actual, scientific evidence. In Christianity we go first with fact, then with faith, then maybe with feelings.

You make claims of not feeling or seeing Christ-like love from Christians here, yet you don't show any examples. Personally, I don't see any Christians being unChristlike. I don't see debate against non-truths to be unChristlike - Christ Himself used strong words against the false religion of the Pharisees and He did it by backing it with Scripture as evidence.

So, your entitled to your opinion and to state your opinion but I have to tell you that I (and likely most or all other Christians here) will not be able to agree since we don't see it and you don't even provide evidence of it.

 

[dzheremi]

Nobody who believes in Christianity (NB: there is no "creedal Christianity" vs. any other type...even those who do not follow the traditional/conciliar creeds still have their own, unless you're talking about Unitarian Universalists, who purposely do not but who are likewise not Christians as a group) follows the creeds or the councils for the sake of being mean to those who don't. It's very much not a matter of feelings or personal enmity, and very much a matter of having some baseline which will allow us to recognize (or not) a fellow person who says they are a Christian.

This is why I have wondered 'aloud' in this thread how it is that Mormons want all these exceptions for their religion when those are exactly the things that place it outside of Christianity. If you're going to reject the Holy Trinity, going to have all of these weird beliefs about Christ and Satan being brothers and God having been created, etc., then there's basically nothing left by which you could hope to be seen as Christian by any church, yet pointing that out is supposedly "Christless". An interesting word choice, given the conversation, but the point is that the Mormon religion leaves the Christian with little choice but to treat it as a non-Christian religion, not because we are "mean" or "value the opinions of sinful men" more than "goodness" (a nebulous thing to base what should be solid theology around), but because it proves itself to be the more its proponents struggle to explain how it is Christian.

 

[Ironhold]

Nobody who believes in Christianity (NB: there is no "creedal Christianity" vs. any other type...even those who do not follow the traditional/conciliar creeds still have their own, unless you're talking about Unitarian Universalists, who purposely do not but who are likewise not Christians as a group) follows the creeds or the councils for the sake of being mean to those who don't.

Then how come we've been told we're mentally defective for not marching in lockstep with you guys?

Might want to ask yourself that.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Then how come we've been told we're mentally defective for not marching in lockstep with you guys?

Might want to ask yourself that.

Who called you "mentally defective"????

 

[dzheremi]

Then how come we've been told we're mentally defective for not marching in lockstep with you guys?

Might want to ask yourself that.

Did I call anyone mentally defective? Or are you asking me to answer for statements I didn't make because principled disagreement is being mistaken for personal attack?

 

[Ironhold]

Who called you "mentally defective"????

You.

Your own words:

I can only presume your comprehension in reading what I've said is poor

Rather than admit we've got you dead to rights on the issue, you're making fun of us.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You.

Your own words:

I can only presume your comprehension in reading what I've said is poor

Rather than admit we've got you dead to rights on the issue, you're making fun of us.

Nowhere in that quote am I calling you "mentally defective". Poor reading comprehension is not at all "mentally defective".

And you don't have me "dead to rights". I've explained multiple times that in the OP I am not talking about a person wearing a cross but rather that the entire mormon religion, which loves its symbols and has many, many symbols including occultic ones, shuns the symbol of the cross across the board.

Anyone can go read the OP and see this. For some reason, you and Jane Doe keep insisting that the OP said "To be a good Christian a person MUST WEAR a Cross". Either you are doing that deliberately to obfuscate what I actually said in an attempt to avoid talking to it, or you have very poor reading comprehension. I am going with the latter so as to give you the benefit of the doubt and not accuse you of intentionally twisting and obfuscating the OP, but truthfully I have to wonder which it is.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Anyone can go read the OP and see this. For some reason, you and Jane Doe keep insisting that the OP said "To be a good Christian a person MUST WEAR a Cross".

I tried talking about taking the cross upon us metaphorically, you told me I was off topic and hijacking your thread.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I tried talking about taking the cross upon us metaphorically, you told me I was off topic and hijacking your thread.

I replied to you this way:
"Well I wrote the OP of this thread and this thread is about the outward symbol of the inward conviction. If you would like a thread on just the inward then please feel free to start that thread and discuss it there rather than hijacking this one."

You tried to turn it into being only about the inward and ignoring the outward symbol. This thread is about the religious symbol of the Cross and that it symbolizes the core tenet of Christianity, i.e. the Gospel.

The bottom line is that when you look at the mormon religion they shun the cross and they officially reject it as a symbol of their religion/faith.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I replied to you this way:
"Well I wrote the OP of this thread and this thread is about the outward symbol of the inward conviction. If you would like a thread on just the inward then please feel free to start that thread and discuss it there rather than hijacking this one."

You tried to turn it into being only about the inward and ignoring the outward symbol. This thread is about the religious symbol of the Cross and that it symbolizes the core tenet of Christianity, i.e. the Gospel.

The bottom line is that when you look at the mormon religion they shun the cross and they officially reject it as a symbol of their religion/faith.

And you are ignoring the inward convection for favor of just the outward display.

We have shown repeatedly that wearing a cross does not make one Christian. Nor does not wearing a cross make one not Christian. What matters in the inward... which you don't want to talk about.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

And you are ignoring the inward convection for favor of just the outward display.

No. You are ignoring that an inward conviction often leads to an outward display, particularly through a symbol, and that particularly for a group that loves and heavily employs symbols.

We have shown repeatedly that wearing a cross does not make one Christian. Nor does not wearing a cross make one not Christian. What matters in the inward... which you don't want to talk about.

Nobody argued that simply "wearing a cross...make(s) one Christian". You've shown repeatedly a premise that nobody ever contradicted or argued against.

I have been talking about the inward as well as the outward. You are the one who wants to ignore the outward completely.

But if you want to ignore the outward, that's fine. So why does the mormon church waste money on statues of Moroni, and CTR rings and symbols of sun, moon, stars, compasses, squares, handshakes, beehives, etc.??? Why don't they feed the poor with those things since they are completely unimportant??? Why do mormon temples have any symbols or signs on them, wasting money on things that are outward???

I think you just admitted that your own religion not only focuses on the outward but also wastes their money that they could give to the poor on completely useless outward symbols. And even in doing that they shun the cross because they are not Christian and don't believe in the Christian Gospel.

 

[dzheremi]

This inward/outward thing is a false dichotomy. Believing rightly and worshiping rightly naturally go together, as the person who has their head on straight doctrinally won't put up with the worship of a false God. (And here I just mean the very basics like confessing the Nicene Creed, which, again, is so uncontroversial that even those churches that were specifically established to protest, e.g., the Roman Catholic Church still kept it, as it is a clear statement of sound/orthodox Christian belief...what'dya know, sinful men got it right again!)

Again, it is at such a basic level that Mormonism proves itself to be non-Christian that these strange outward symbols (squares, handshakes, Moroni, etc.) could mean just about anything and it wouldn't make a difference. You can't build any kind of Christianity on such a hollow and (thanks to Mormonism's belief in modern prophets) shifting base. It is corrupt at its core and cannot be fixed, only completely abandoned in favor of actual Christianity, not Joseph Smith's fantasies. So what does it really matter why they have this statue or that statue? What accord has Christ with Belial?