Any Convinced Mormons?

[calgal]

calgal, I doubt you would be banned for openly stating what so many feel but have not said.

God Bless-
Grace

I know but it is hard not responding to the Mormons in the same manner and tone they adopt. Although the Mormon replies are sort of a "flashback" to where I was and how very far I have come by God's grace alone. I feel nothing but pity for these folks and could hope God's will be done with them. 'Nuff said (dusting off sandals)

 

[Kevin Graham]

== it is hard not responding to the Mormons in the same manner and tone they adopt.



The evidence on this forum points in the other direction, just as I indicated prior. I don't see random Mormons jumping into the discussions blindly, labelling the Christian participants as liars or deceivers.

Trust me, the "tone" follows the same, the minute you guys set it.

 

[Kevin Graham]

== To the best of my knowledge, I've never been to this site that you are speaking of. So you're judging all ex-Mormons by a handful that post at that site?

No, I'm just responding to someone's comments which suggested their attitude was justified given their Mormon background. This is like me blaming all my woes and downfalls on the fact that I used to be a bigoted Baptist.

== After all, I would imagine there might be thousands of ex-Mormons, many who probably never discuss Mormonism online.

Very true. I've met many of them, and they generally don't care to talk about any religion.

You see, there are religious people and people who think like atheists. They exist in every religion. Evangelicals who criticize our faith like to use ex-Mormon testimonies against us, claiming that they are in such a miserable condition because of Mormonism. This doesn't logically follow since the same argument can be made of ex-Christians. But once this fact is acknowledged the argument takes a u-turn and they abandon their original premise. And to add further insult to injury, I'm accused of "atacking" Christianity simply because I apply the same standard they apply to us.

== B. I apologize.

And I do too. Thanks for making the effort to change the tone here. it is greatly appreciated. I apologize for lumping you in with everyone else without examining your comments independently. I'm at work and trying to comment on too many forums at the same time. I think I've bitten off more than I can chew, and today the level of empty rhetoric has jumped by 1000%.

 

[calgal]

== it is hard not responding to the Mormons in the same manner and tone they adopt.



The evidence on this forum points in the other direction, just as I indicated prior. I don't see random Mormons jumping into the discussions blindly, labelling the Christian participants as liars or deceivers.

Trust me, the "tone" follows the same, the minute you guys set it.

Kevin:

I would hate to conclude your purpose here is to stifle discussion of the many and manifold ways Mormonism diverges from Christianity (starting with the Council of the Gods in the Book of Abraham for example) or to play "Mormon enforcers" but it is hard not to come to that conclusion. Kindly provide some evidence that you are here to discuss issues, not people. RfM is like any other anonymous (or semi anonymous) forum: people have a chance to vent and discuss issues they normally do not bother with in RL.

 

[Kevin Graham]

== I would hate to conclude your purpose here is to stifle discussion of the many and manifold ways Mormonism diverges from Christianity

Do you really want me to scroll every thread, and quote everytime you or happy or Bygrace "pops in" out of the blue? It would be VERY revealing to say the least. Take the ex nihilo thread for example, all hell broke loose when Bygrace popped in from out of nowhere and started attacking LDS by saying our gods are our prophets. He was so upset that the LDS were winning the discussion, he decided he had to trhow a cherry bomb in the middle. It has become common knowledge for LDS apologists that when an anti-Mormon resorts to pasting photos of temple garments. They think this will cause all Mormons to scurry off in a hurry. That post served one purpose and one purpose alone, and it had nothing to do with trying to "discuss" anything.

== (starting with the Council of the Gods in the Book of Abraham for example)

Oh, I would love to discuss that issue, and demonstrate how modern discoveries are showing that this concept was a true concept in Ancient Judaism. Most non-LDS Bible scholars will admit it.

== Kindly provide some evidence that you are here to discuss issues

Uh, the fact that I have engaged both Tom, Der Alter on ex nihilo, and I have discussed BoM historicity with Baker in a rather civil manner. Now, can you provide evidence that YOU are here for the same reasons? Because all I see are posts geared towards getting an emotional charge from the nearest Mormon. I'll take the Pepsi challenge on that one any day. My "attitude" didn't change until the bomb squad entered. Der Alter must have called in reinforcements. But I think I'm still light years ahead of you guys on attitude. You won't see me calling you liars, decivers, and satan worshippers.
Can the "Christians" say the same?

No way. They rely too heavily on this sort of rhetoric, to give it up.

 

[calgal]

== I would hate to conclude your purpose here is to stifle discussion of the many and manifold ways Mormonism diverges from Christianity

Do you really want me to scroll every thread, and quote everytime you or happy or Bygrace "pops in" out of the blue? It would be VERY revealing to say the least. Take the ex nihilo thread for example, all hell broke loose when Bygrace popped in from out of nowhere and started attacking LDS by saying our gods are our prophets. He was so upset that the LDS were winning the discussion, he decided he had to trhow a cherry bomb in the middle. It has become common knowledge for LDS apologists that when an anti-Mormon resorts to pasting photos of temple garments. They think this will cause all Mormons to scurry off in a hurry. That post served one purpose and one purpose alone, and it had nothing to do with trying to "discuss" anything.

Flaming rhetoric. Nice.
== (starting with the Council of the Gods in the Book of Abraham for example)

Oh, I would love to discuss that issue, and demonstrate how modern discoveries are showing that this concept was a true concept in Ancient Judaism. Most non-LDS Bible scholars will admit it.

Which scholars Kevin? names and universities please. And prove that the proudly Monotheistic Jews are polytheists. And with non BYU references.

== Kindly provide some evidence that you are here to discuss issues

Uh, the fact that I have engaged both Tom, Der Alter on ex nihilo, and I have discussed BoM historicity with Baker in a rather civil manner. Now, can you provide evidence that YOU are here for the same reasons? Because all I see are posts geared towards getting an emotional charge from the nearest Mormon. I'll take the Pepsi challenge on that one any day. My "attitude" didn't change until the bomb squad entered. Der Alter must have called in reinforcements. But I think I'm still light years ahead of you guys on attitude. You won't see me calling you liars, decivers, and satan worshippers.
Can the "Christians" say the same?

No way. They rely too heavily on this sort of rhetoric, to give it up.

Interesting to see the pride inherent in this rant. Also interesting to see the "divide and conquer" strategy at work. Kevin, what would cause ALL of Christendom to consider an LDS baptism invalid? That covers the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants. If I went to a priest or minister with only a Mormon baptim, they would insist on a proper Trinitarian baptism. As was the case for me. And for the record, I find the term the Bomb squad unbelievably amusing and unintentionally ironic in light of Mark Hoffman's story. A&E plays it from time to time. Interesting in light of Mr Hinckley not getting the mesage that Sandra and Jerald Tanner did that Hoffman was peddling junk. Why was that kevin? Isn't Hinckley a "prophet"?

 

[Kevin Graham]

== Interesting to see the pride inherent in this rant.

Here we go again. More attacks; we are liars, deceivers, satanic, and now prideful.

== Also interesting to see the "divide and conquer" strategy at work.

Divide and conquer what? Do you plan to make sense, or are you just trying to sound witty with colorful cliches?

== Kevin, what would cause ALL of Christendom to consider an LDS baptism invalid?

You really think I care? And no, ALL of Christendom doesn't feel that way.

== That covers the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants.

You're proposing to speak for every Christian Chruch on the planet? Wow. But even if this were true, is this supposed to be some sort of justification for your refusal to show respect? Because ALL of Christendom doesn't accept our baptism?

== If I went to a priest or minister with only a Mormon baptim, they would insist on a proper Trinitarian baptism. As was the case for me.

So? We don't accept the Nicene Trinity. You guys are bound by that creed, and it ticks most Churches off. But we are more worried about offending God. Do you really think it bothers the LDS Church that Protestants don't consider our baptisms valid? We don't consider theirs valid either! So what?

== And for the record, I find the term the Bomb squad unbelievably amusing and unintentionally ironic in light of Mark Hoffman's story.

Is this really how low and desperate you've become? Hoffman was a professed unbeliever, who just happened to follow the prominent culture of Utah. Do you really want me to drudge up a list of "Christian" mass murderers who actually WERE believers in their faith?

And just what exactly would this prove anyway? Your little red herrings are what I find amusing.

== A&E plays it from time to time. Interesting in light of Mr Hinckley not getting the mesage that Sandra and Jerald Tanner did that Hoffman was peddling junk. Why was that kevin? Isn't Hinckley a "prophet"?

He is now, but this is one of the silliest arguments in the book. All this proves is that Hinckly has something in common with biblical prophets who believed lies (Joshua 9:3–27; 1 Kings 13:14–19). Good for him, he's human too.
Hinckley was following the judgement of the professionals (FBI document specialists, Historians etc) who were also duped, he didn't make it a matter for the first presidency to pray about the situation. Hinckleynever said they were authentic however, but always used qualifying statements like "the experts say they are authentic." It is easy for the Tanners to sit on the sidelines and make statements and then try to use them as some fulfilled prophecy when it turns out those statements were true. This reminds me of my cousin who would always root for the underdog during the superbowl, just because he wanted to go against the grain. He would be right every once in awhile. And we already know how the Tanners love to go against the grain.

 

[Rescued One]

Most non-LDS Bible scholars will admit it.

Kevin, it would be nice if you refrained from saying most scholars, most ex-Mormons, most this or that because you aren't telling us how you learned about most scholars, etc. Do you know all the non-LDS scholars in the world? I sure don't.

 

[Wrigley]

So? We don't accept the Nicene Trinity. You guys are bound by that creed, and it ticks most Churches off. But we are more worried about offending God. Do you really think it bothers the LDS Church that Protestants don't consider our baptisms valid? We don't consider theirs valid either! So what?

All right, lets get a list of most churches that are ticked off by the Nicene creed.

 

[Kevin Graham]

I know that biblical scholarship as a whole has readily conceded that ancient Judaism was not strictly monotheistic as conversative Evangelicals maintain. And this is due to the fact that a council of gods was well known. Even a simple cursory examination of scholarship would reveal this. Believe me or not, I know what I'm talking about. When Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw, and Evangelical conservative Larry Hurtado, can both admit this to be true, then it leaves very little room for Evangelicals to wiggle on this one.

 

[Kevin Graham]

== lets get a list of most churches that are ticked off by the Nicene creed.

LOL.. it did sound that way didn't it?

What I meant was, orthodox Churches are ticked off at Mormons because we don't accept it.

 

[Rescued One]

== lets get a list of most churches that are ticked off by the Nicene creed.

LOL.. it did sound that way didn't it?

What I meant was, orthodox Churches are ticked off at Mormons because we don't accept it.

I think deeply concerned would be more fitting than ticked off. My atheist relatives don't accept the Triune God either. I'm not ticked off at them.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I know that biblical scholarship as a whole has readily conceded that ancient Judaism was not strictly monotheistic as conversative Evangelicals maintain. And this is due to the fact that a council of gods was well known. Even a simple cursory examination of scholarship would reveal this. Believe me or not, I know what I'm talking about. When Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw, and Evangelical conservative Larry Hurtado, can both admit this to be true, then it leaves very little room for Evangelicals to wiggle on this one.

i certainly would not consider two theologians, who may or may not be Scholars in Ancient Hebrew peoples to be representative of "bible scholarship as a whole". Perhaps you should calm down and realise that hyperbole is a Literary device used to emphisize a point rather than serve as an argrmentative technique. A poll of two persons is a rather poor sampling don't you think?

 

[Kevin Graham]

My conclusion comes from my readings that extend far beyond these two. But a good way to make a point of majority acceptance is to provide a sample of the group that is most opposed. And that would be, by far, Evangelical Christians who are still trying to salvage the strict monotheism of the predecessors.

Discoveries at Ugarit and the Dead Sea, all but destroy the argument that Ancient Judaism was strictly monotheistic. They of course, didn't worship multiple gods - neither do Mormons - but they surely accept their existence as real.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

My conclusion comes from my readings that extend far beyond these two. But a good way to make a point of majority acceptance is to provide a sample of the group that is most opposed. And that would be, by far, Evangelical Christians who are still trying to salvage the strict monotheism of the predecessors.

Let's see if i have this correct: You're saying that in order to make a point of majourity acceptance:

• provide a sample of the Group most opposed.

Yet...

1. The Jews would be highly opposed
2. The Islamics would be highly opposed
3. Christianity would be highly opposed.

• Orthodox Christians would have the most at stake

Although

1. Christians, being mostly Gentiles (Non Jews) came from a largly Pagan Background, and were indeed Polytheistic
2. No evidence of Jewish Polytheism has ever been produced, in spite of the rants of David Hume in the 19th Century.

• Implying that Orthodox Christianity is somhow "suppressing" this "scholarship" from the general public, including skeptics who would definately "shout it from the rooftops"

While still

• Presuming that a few Scholars who may or may not have peer reviewed work represent "Majourity acceptance"

Not quite cricket dear fellow.
​

Discoveries at Ugarit and the Dead Sea, all but destroy the argument that Ancient Judaism was strictly monotheistic. They of course, didn't worship multiple gods - neither do Mormons - but they surely accept their existence as real.

Which discoveries in particular, and what sort of linkage to other sources do they have? You may of course realise that the discoveries at Quarum and other sites date from the early 1st Century AD, and are the writings of Esoteric Jewish sects such as the Essenes, who were not representative of contemporary Judiaism. Hardly what one would call an ancient Witness given the time frame that you are speaking of.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Interesting to see the pride inherent in this rant. Also interesting to see the "divide and conquer" strategy at work. Kevin, what would cause ALL of Christendom to consider an LDS baptism invalid? That covers the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants. If I went to a priest or minister with only a Mormon baptim, they would insist on a proper Trinitarian baptism. As was the case for me. And for the record, I find the term the Bomb squad unbelievably amusing and unintentionally ironic in light of Mark Hoffman's story. A&E plays it from time to time. Interesting in light of Mr Hinckley not getting the mesage that Sandra and Jerald Tanner did that Hoffman was peddling junk. Why was that kevin? Isn't Hinckley a "prophet"?

Calgal, of course I am sure that you would agree that the most important baptism is the believers baptism but I do know what you mean. After experiencing the baptism of the Holy Spirit many new Christians want a baptism by water as a show of faith to their commitment to follow Christ and admittly, I have not been to all christian churches out there but the ones I have been to and the ones my friends have attended or currently attend do not recognize the LDS baptism as a Christian baptism.

God Bless,
Grace

 

[CCWoody]

I just had to come and see for myself what it has been reported that the Mormons are attempting to get us all to believe....

 

[CCWoody]

== lets get a list of most churches that are ticked off by the Nicene creed.

LOL.. it did sound that way didn't it?

What I meant was, orthodox Churches are ticked off at Mormons because we don't accept it.

While I can't speak for the whole of Christendom against the false doctrines of Mormonism, I can tell you my approach.

I don't know for a fact that a Mormon, who is stuck under a Satanic blindness (see 2 Corinthians 4:4-6) is not one of the elect. After all, I was once stuck under a Satanic blindness when I believed I was saved, but wasn't. I was once an unregenerate fool who had only the devil's useless assurance that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Ah, but then something truly marvelous happened. I actually met the Lord. Then, I understood my stupidity.

So, speaking plainly, I don't know if this particular Mormon or that particular Mormon is truly God's enemy and a reprobate destined for the furnace of His wrath. As Spurgeon noted once, it would be nice if the elect did have a yellow streak down their back where I could simply check and know. Sigh! This is not the Lord's way with election. So, I continue to preach the gospel to them knowing that either way, I have my victory over them, either the sweet savor of life unto life or the sweet savor of death leading to death. (See 2 Corinthians 2:14)

I simply don't know if a Mormon is my uncoverted brother or if he is a reprobate. This is the way with all those who are currently lost. And, seeing that the Lord does not give me the kind of prophetic revelation to know the difference, I treat them all the same.

However, Mormonism is an entirely different matter. As the Psalmist declares about every false way, I hate it. So, it has nothing to do with rejecting the Nicene Creed. That is merely symptomatic of the fact that Mormonism is a false way.

I hope that clarifies that we are not "ticked off" with Mormonism.

By thy precepts I haue gotten vnderstanding: therefore I hate all the wayes of falshoode.
(Psalms 119:104 GB)
​

 

[calgal]

Calgal, of course I am sure that you would agree that the most important baptism is the believers baptism but I do know what you mean. After experiencing the baptism of the Holy Spirit many new Christians want a baptism by water as a show of faith to their commitment to follow Christ and admittly, I have not been to all christian churches out there but the ones I have been to and the ones my friends have attended or currently attend do not recognize the LDS baptism as a Christian baptism.

God Bless,
Grace

Grace:

Thanks for the chance to clarify. I meant the baptism by water. A believer's baptism is quite different and is quite personal. Baptism by water is a public show of faith and as such is considered a prerequisite to membership. The one caveat is that the water baptism MUST be trinitarian.

 

[Kevin Graham]

[Edited by a moderator]