flood of anti-Mormon sentiment

[Kevin Graham]

== Oh please! I do not think that not agreeing with Catholicism makes one an anti-Catholic. If I was in agreement with them, then I would be a Catholic.

I agree with much of Catholicism, just not all of it.

== Nor does not agreeing with Mormonsim make me an anti-Mormon. By your reasoning, LDS would be anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant.

Again, this isn't my "reasoning" at all. Simple disagreement isn't what I'm talking about. There is a relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism that is unique, in that Protestantism because what it is because it "protested" against the Catholic Church. They were so opposed to Catholicism that they decided to have their own reformation.

The simple definition of anti means to be against. I know few Evangelicals who wouldn't fall into this category. They are against the worshipping of Mary, and any doctrine of faith + works. Does this mean they are "anti" in the extreme sense? Of course not. This is why I don't call all LDS critics anti-Mormon. I defer this label only to those who demonstrate to me that they go out of their way to attack the faith.

== I'm sorry, did you say you don't attack other churches?

I don't. And I know of no other LDS who does.

== If you like, I can post what Joseph Smith had to say about Christians.

Trust me. You're not going to be able to throw up quotes that I haven't seen before.

 

[gort]

Kevin Graham quote:

== I'm sorry, did you say you don't attack other churches?

I don't. And I know of no other LDS who does.

Hello,


Maybe you passed by this link earlier in this thread.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/cir...9testimony.html

They say we spread spiritual pornograhy.........


<><

 

[twhite982]

... God lives, and he sent Jesus to save sinners. with that i began to study the bible (for the record at that time i had read the book of mormon nine times) and from a mere cursory reading i found many of the mormon doctrines to be in horrible error.
disciple00

disciple00,

Welcome to CF.

I'm not being critical to your testimony and experience. I believe they are real and they are personal to you.

Would you help me understand which parts of the B of M, you found to be in error. As you put it "...from a mere cursory reading i found many of the mormon doctrines to be in horrible error. "

I don't claim the B of M to be inerrent, but I do see many teachings that simply put are inspired of God.

Its amazing how different people can look at the same thing and come away with opposite conclusions.

Anyways, hope you'd be willing to share with me what took you away from the LDs church.

Thanks,

TW

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Sissygal:

Read the Bible. Read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.

There is the Doctrine of the Church, and it is open and available for your complete consideration.

I am sorry that you felt the way you did attending an LDS service, we can be very exclusive and forget that not everyone around us is accustomed to our "lingo" and traditions. That has nothing to do with LDS gospel and everything to do with the fallability of its members.

I hope things have improved with your son and new daughter-in-law. If they havent, continue striving to be an example of Christlike acceptance for them. They will clue in. His sheep hear His voice and they know Him.

 

[skylark1]

== Oh please! I do not think that not agreeing with Catholicism makes one an anti-Catholic. If I was in agreement with them, then I would be a Catholic.

I agree with much of Catholicism, just not all of it.

I also agree with much of Catholicism, but not all of it.

== Nor does not agreeing with Mormonsim make me an anti-Mormon. By your reasoning, LDS would be anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant.

Again, this isn't my "reasoning" at all. Simple disagreement isn't what I'm talking about. There is a relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism that is unique, in that Protestantism because what it is because it "protested" against the Catholic Church. They were so opposed to Catholicism that they decided to have their own reformation.

It was not Luther&#8217;s original intention to break away from the Catholic Church, but to bring matters to attention, hoping to reform it. I do not believe that the reformation began to protest against Catholics, but as an attempt to go back to the Bible and restore the NT doctrines and practices.

The simple definition of anti means to be against. I know few Evangelicals who wouldn't fall into this category. They are against the worshipping of Mary, and any doctrine of faith + works. Does this mean they are "anti" in the extreme sense? Of course not. This is why I don't call all LDS critics anti-Mormon. I defer this label only to those who demonstrate to me that they go out of their way to attack the faith.

I do not believe in praying to Mary. This does not make me an anti-Catholic. I fail to understand why some people employ the use of the word "anti" so much. It is offensive.

 

[Kevin Graham]

== I do not believe that the reformation began to protest against Catholics, but as an attempt to go back to the Bible and restore the NT doctrines and practices.

Well, that is one way of looking at it, but this begs the question altogether: who is actually teaching from the Bible? Even in Protestantism there are thousands of denominations all claiming to be "biblical." They can't all be teaching the Bible correctly.

But also, way back then, if you were a Christian, you were Catholic. To be a reofrmist meant to protest against a long heritage of Christianity that can properly be called "historic Christianity." Protestants were cults like Mormons are considered today. Eventually, the reform grew large enough to the point where Catholicism decided, "If we can't beat them, join them." So they rarely call Protestants cultists or heretics anymore. It is too politically incorrect.

== I fail to understand why some people employ the use of the word "anti" so much. It is offensive.

Could it possibly be more offensive than the offense given by the person being accused of being anti? If soemone protests outside the temple and makes a mockery of my wedding, could they really be more offended than me, simply because I think they are anti-Mormon?

I fail to understand why people absolutely REFUSE to admit being anti-Mormon when they are. Not you of course, but people who protest Stake Centers, pass out fliers with photos of missionaries with horns in their head etc. Surely someone can reach an antagonistic level that can be properly termed "anti." So where is the line drawn? WHy do so many Evangelicals hate this label, even when it is obvious to anyone that they are indeed ANTI?

I think it has something to so with the self-righteous nature of their mission. They think they are doing God's work, so to apply anything negative to it must be uncalled for... even if it is true.

 

[skylark1]

Kevin,

I would certainly call the protestors on Main Street "anti-Mormon." Both I and every non-LDS that I know find their actions deplorable. I would certainly call anyone who would hand out a flier with photos of missionaries with horns on their heads "ant-Mormon." These people certainly do not represent me or my beliefs.

 

[baker]

Kevin Graham,


If I claimed, and made it a founding tenet of my beliefs, that God had revealed that the leaders of the mormon church were all corrupt, and that the beliefs of the mormon church were an abomination in the eyes of God, would you say my beliefs were harboring some anti-mormon values/beliefs?

If my church required, as part of their standards of worthiness, not to affiliate with any group or individual whose beliefs are in accordance to, or consistent with the teachings of the mormon church, would you say my church harbored anti-mormon sentiment?

 

[SiSSYGAL]

Just an add note that is something that is the result of reading one of posts on this thread. You've all read my lament about my son marrying a Mormon girl. (I'm through protesting) But, I asked the young couple to consider marrying in the Ward building and sealing a year from now. You would have thought I suggested jumping off a bridge onto a concrete slap below. My argument was that there is nothing sacred in the temple that would not be equally sacred in the Ward building. Either God is present or He's not. To add to my argument, I suggested that they read the script of the ceremony. I told them it's blasted all over the internet. My hope was that they would read for themselves that it's just a ceremony. There's nothing voodoo magic or secret there. (although there are a couple of spots where they're told secrets and asked to keep the secrets) To this, I was told that reading the script of the ceremony on line is a sin. It's pornography! I give up. I just retreat shaking my head. The point is: Mormons are so uptight about this anti-Mormon business, that they have labeled posts such as this as spiritual pornography. That one site that was recommended here a couple of links up is about about the Meridian Magazine. In it, there is a quote that says ,"once you read pornography, it's difficult to get it out of your head!!" I'm at a lose for words. This is unusual for me.

 

[obediah001]

Hay they believe they will be gods themselves one day & be set to rule overtheir own planet; that is absolutely an uptodate religion, fits well with Star Wars trilogy.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Hay they believe they will be gods themselves one day & be set to rule overtheir own planet; that is absolutely an uptodate religion, fits well with Star Wars trilogy.

Neither informative nor edifying.

 

[Wrigley]

Kevin,

I would certainly call the protestors on Main Street "anti-Mormon." Both I and every non-LDS that I know find their actions deplorable. I would certainly call anyone who would hand out a flier with photos of missionaries with horns on their heads "ant-Mormon." These people certainly do not represent me or my beliefs.

Don't use that broad brush here; if you do, you may as well you is in everycase.

 

[emerald Dragon]

Just an add note that is something that is the result of reading one of posts on this thread. You've all read my lament about my son marrying a Mormon girl. (I'm through protesting) But, I asked the young couple to consider marrying in the Ward building and sealing a year from now. You would have thought I suggested jumping off a bridge onto a concrete slap below. My argument was that there is nothing sacred in the temple that would not be equally sacred in the Ward building. Either God is present or He's not. To add to my argument, I suggested that they read the script of the ceremony. I told them it's blasted all over the internet. My hope was that they would read for themselves that it's just a ceremony. There's nothing voodoo magic or secret there. (although there are a couple of spots where they're told secrets and asked to keep the secrets) To this, I was told that reading the script of the ceremony on line is a sin. It's pornography! I give up. I just retreat shaking my head. The point is: Mormons are so uptight about this anti-Mormon business, that they have labeled posts such as this as spiritual pornography. That one site that was recommended here a couple of links up is about about the Meridian Magazine. In it, there is a quote that says ,"once you read pornography, it's difficult to get it out of your head!!" I'm at a lose for words. This is unusual for me.

As a Mormon, I can understand that your son and daughter-in-law would wish to be sealed together for all eternity. But, I also understand that you would wish to see them get married. I (personaly) see nothing wrong with having a civil marriage before the Temple ceremony, so that you could be included. I do think that a year is a little much, but they should try to respect your wishes, as long as they don't go against their beliefs.

To us, the temple is a sacred place, one of holiness and purity. We truly believe that they are houses of the Lord, where we can draw closer to Him. the ceremonies that occur in their are not neccesarily secret, but saccred. We don't want the ceremonies that we hold dear to be blasted all over the internet, where everyone can insult them, an ridicule them. I would be as if someone were to ridicule your belief in certain ceremonies, such as the partaking of the bread and water representing the blood and body of Christ.

Well, I hope that you still love your son, and your daughter-in-law.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

 

[skylark1]

Kevin Graham,


If I claimed, and made it a founding tenet of my beliefs, that God had revealed that the leaders of the mormon church were all corrupt, and that the beliefs of the mormon church were an abomination in the eyes of God, would you say my beliefs were harboring some anti-mormon values/beliefs?

If my church required, as part of their standards of worthiness, not to affiliate with any group or individual whose beliefs are in accordance to, or consistent with the teachings of the mormon church, would you say my church harbored anti-mormon sentiment?

Good questions, especially in light of claims that the first Protestants were anti-Catholic when they tried to reform the church.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

As a Mormon, I can understand that your son and daughter-in-law would wish to be sealed together for all eternity. But, I also understand that you would wish to see them get married. I (personaly) see nothing wrong with having a civil marriage before the Temple ceremony, so that you could be included. I do think that a year is a little much, but they should try to respect your wishes, as long as they don't go against their beliefs.

To us, the temple is a sacred place, one of holiness and purity. We truly believe that they are houses of the Lord, where we can draw closer to Him. the ceremonies that occur in their are not neccesarily secret, but saccred. We don't want the ceremonies that we hold dear to be blasted all over the internet, where everyone can insult them, an ridicule them. I would be as if someone were to ridicule your belief in certain ceremonies, such as the partaking of the bread and water representing the blood and body of Christ.

Well, I hope that you still love your son, and your daughter-in-law.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

Emarld, the communion is in the Bible for ALL to see, no secrets at all about that. Also, it is not bread and water, it is bread and wine (some churches use grape juice). The ONLY church I know of that uses water is the LDS church.

Anyway, you can't compare the LDS temple cerimony with communion. Communion is in the Bible for all to read about and God obviously had no problem with it being there. Infact, you can go on the Episcopalian and Anglican official web-site and read the communion cerimony for yourself, they call it Eucirist. They have no problem putting it on the web for all to see.

Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

As a Mormon, I can understand that your son and daughter-in-law would wish to be sealed together for all eternity. But, I also understand that you would wish to see them get married. I (personaly) see nothing wrong with having a civil marriage before the Temple ceremony, so that you could be included. I do think that a year is a little much, but they should try to respect your wishes, as long as they don't go against their beliefs.

To us, the temple is a sacred place, one of holiness and purity. We truly believe that they are houses of the Lord, where we can draw closer to Him. the ceremonies that occur in their are not neccesarily secret, but saccred. We don't want the ceremonies that we hold dear to be blasted all over the internet, where everyone can insult them, an ridicule them. I would be as if someone were to ridicule your belief in certain ceremonies, such as the partaking of the bread and water representing the blood and body of Christ.

Well, I hope that you still love your son, and your daughter-in-law.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

Emarld, why would her hurt over their selfishness cause her to stop loving them?

Grace

 

[emerald Dragon]

What I was trying to say is, we hold these ceremonies sacred. We just don't wish people to bash something like this, whne we hold it so dear. When I used teh Sacrament as an example, I used saying, what would you say if someone said that it was a load of crock-you would know that it wasn't, but you might be offended anyway, right?

We hold the cermonies sacred, but we also don't want just anyone to see them. There are things in them that would be confusing to people who have not been properly prepared to see them. Like in math, a person would be confued with Intergrals in Calulus, if they only just finished learning about long division, right? We neeed to be properly prepared, or the ceremonies just don't make sense to us.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

 

[emerald Dragon]

Sorry-I shouldn't have said "I hope that you still love them" Of course she does. I should have said, I hope you can forgive them, and grow closer together.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

 

[Kevin Graham]

Got some catching up to do...I'll do the best I can though I'm short on time.

== Hay they believe they will be gods themselves one day & be set to rule overtheir own planet; that is absolutely an uptodate religion, fits well with Star Wars trilogy.

Theosis is a clear biblical doctrine that has its roots in early Christianity. The business about owning yrou own planet is an embellishment, usually from "anti-Mormons." And yes, I consider anyone who intentionally misrepresents my faith tobe anti-Mormon.

== Don't use that broad brush here; if you do, you may as well you is in everycase.

Sorry but that statement was incoherent. And I think I made myself perfectly clear that not all LDS critics are "anti-Mormon." You seem almost as if you want to be called that so you have something to complain about.


== If I claimed, and made it a founding tenet of my beliefs, that God had revealed that the leaders of the mormon church were all corrupt, and that the beliefs of the mormon church were an abomination in the eyes of God, would you say my beliefs were harboring some anti-mormon values/beliefs?

This is a common exagerration that seeks to make excuses for anti-Mormon activity. I've come to learn that most anti-Mormons have no idea what was once said by Joseph Smith 170 years ago. Which was essentially that in his search for the true Church, God told him that none of them were THE true Church, however all of them carried some level of truth. Smith investigated about a dozen different denominations in his area, several of which no longer exist. The ":attack", if you could actually call it that, was on the "corrupt professors" of the religious creeds. No details were given, but it is significant that this didn't preclude SMith or Young from trying to build bridges with other faiths. For example. Smith said all Churches carry truths, and even truths that Mormons needed to hear. Young said that he would welcome any Protestant minister to his pulpit, because Mormons need to hear as much truth as possible. THAT is the essential tenet of our faith.

So you should really get a better grasp on the whole story and how things unravelled after that, and not just one quote. Could you ever imagine an Evangelical minister offerng his pulpit to a Mormon Bishop?

== If my church required, as part of their standards of worthiness, not to affiliate with any group or individual whose beliefs are in accordance to, or consistent with the teachings of the mormon church, would you say my church harbored anti-mormon sentiment?

Not sure exactly what you're geting at. This is not LDS practice. I can and have attended many Protestant and Catholic services while being faithfully LDS. I thnk you're confusing us with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

== Emarld, why would her hurt over their selfishness cause her to stop loving them?

Huh? They are selfish because they are in love? That statement is revealing in itself. For the record, my Baptist parents threw me out of the house and literally disowned me on the day I was baptized LDS. I was just 19 years old. I had to move in with some Mormons down the street. 13 years later they admit regretting it, because they were duped by so much anti-Mormon material that was sent to them through the mail. I served my mission and they never wrote. But in all of their misguided hatred towards the LDS faith, they never once called me selfish.

 

[skylark1]

Don't use that broad brush here; if you do, you may as well you is in everycase.

I do not know what I wrote that you so strongly disagree with. There is a handful of protestors on Main Street who yell through a bull at LDS that they are going to hell. They have shouted obscenities at brides on their wedding day, they have waved LDS garments on Conference weekend and pretended to wipe their nose and rear with them. I do not know of anyone who supports what they are doing. They do not represent me or my beliefs. A group of pastors have condemned their actions.

Pastors Condemn Preachers' Acts

Do you agree with their actions?