LDS Life on the Sun

[Jane_Doe]

How do you interact with the sermon when you attend a non-Mormon Church?

Attending in person is not just listening to a sermon. Rather it also includes interacting with the people there: asking them about their love of Christ, listening to their witness, seeing the joy on their faces as they sing, etc.

 

[drstevej]

witnessing to them?

 

[drstevej]

You can see the joy on faces while we sing if you watch the video.

 

[Jane_Doe]

You can see the joy on faces while we sing if you watch the video.

But not talk with them, not sing in chorus, not ask them "How has God blessed you this week?", not share how God has blessed me this week myself, etc. There's no sharing, no bond, no friendship.

It's very different watching the world through a tv verses interacting, you know that.

 

[drstevej]

So can I go to the Mormon Temple whenever they are meeting?

 

[Ironhold]

So can I go to the Mormon Temple whenever they are meeting?

Church services happen in chapels, not the temples, and are open to everyone.

There's a big difference.

 

[Jane_Doe]

For example: a rare time I was able to visit another place in person recently--

Last Christmas there was an interfaith Christmas caroling event I was able to make it to, and bring my kid with. It was at the local Episcopalian chapel which is hands down the prettiest church in town. I sat next to an older Baptist couple on one side, and a non-denom on the other. I saw my Evangelical friends there, and other friends from work I didn't even know were religious. We all had a great time singing with people, sharing happy memories, talking about Christ and kids, and eating cookies. It was wonderful!

 

[Jane_Doe]

So can I go to the Mormon Temple whenever they are meeting?

Sunday worship is at your local chapel, and you are indeed welcome to join in anytime. I have friends from several other churches (or nonbelief) that have visited. Come!

 

[drstevej]

You can do that on Facebook / Twitter but this sub-forum is not designed for that--it is labelled DEBATE. CF makes it clear that LDS are not Christians. Why not just accept the parameters or look for a forum that is your cup of tea?

 

[drstevej]

Sunday worship is at your local chapel, and you are indeed welcome to join in anytime. I have friends from several other churches (or nonbelief) that have visited. Come!

Are videos of your chapel on line so I can sample?

 

[Jane_Doe]

You can do that on Facebook / Twitter but this sub-forum is not designed for that--it is labelled DEBATE. CF makes it clear that LDS are not Christians. Why not just accept the parameters or look for a forum that is your cup of tea?

I told you why I am on CF several times now: I want to better love and understand folks who love Christ. I can't physically attend other churches regularly any more, and .... true interaction and love isn't really achieved through watching a movie, but rather it's from two way interaction and sharing.

 

[drstevej]

Who is stopping you? But this still a Debate Forum.

Debate Non-Christian Religions Statement of Purpose

 

[Jane_Doe]

Who is stopping you? But this still a Debate Forum.

Debate Non-Christian Religions Statement of Purpose

I am well aware of the rules and strive to abide by them, including this one:

"Members may not blatantly mock, degrade or belittle each others' religious beliefs or practices."

 

[Anto9us]

The best conclusion I can come to about the LDS issue is that I am glad Mormons love Christ, but I am sad that their church includes so many other non-biblical beliefs. I don't have the same sort of 'personal mission' in discussing Mormon beliefs as - say - someone like Phoebe Ann, but I understand her approach due to her personal history. Myself, I must remain adamant about pointing out inconsistencies, plagiarisms, anachronisms, fraud, etc concerning JS writings as I see them.

 

[Anto9us]

As far as "I'm not defending my religion" - "I don't have to defend it" - that too is a just matter of semantics.

With the ever-present posts of "Oh, that misrepresents Mormonism"; "that's not really what LDS beliefs are" and so forth, I have to say that I would call that "defending ones religion".

What one person perceives as 'defending ones religion' and what one person sees as "mockery" are obviously different from person to person.

 

[Jane_Doe]

The best conclusion I can come to about the LDS issue is that I am glad Mormons love Christ, but I am sad that their church includes so many other non-biblical beliefs. I don't have the same sort of 'personal mission' in discussing Mormon beliefs as - say - someone like Phoebe Ann, but I understand her approach due to her personal history. Myself, I must remain adamant about pointing out inconsistencies, plagiarisms, anachronisms, fraud, etc concerning JS writings as I see them.

And that's your choice.

For me, I think it's not very profitable for me to go around pointing out what I view to be errors in Catholic beliefs, or Calvinist ideas, or Sola Scriptura, etc. For example Episcopalian have their views on homosexuality that I disagree with. Yes, if someone wants to talk about them, sure. But I don't feel it's not profitable for me to seek out ripping those apart- all that's going to do in cause closing off.

My joy is spending time seeing and celebrating the good things other folks believe / do. I'd much rather sing "Joy to the World" at the Episcopalian chapel, admire their awesome building, and many good things. Yes, I'm an open book on the LGBT issue and we can talk about it, but the most important thing (and most joyous) is Christ. And most important things should get the forefront.

 

[Jane_Doe]

As far as "I'm not defending my religion" - "I don't have to defend it" - that too is a just matter of semantics.

With the ever-present posts of "Oh, that misrepresents Mormonism"; "that's not really what LDS beliefs are" and so forth, I have to say that I would call that "defending ones religion".

Ah, difference in word choice / views here.

For me, there's a big difference between explaining a belief versus defending it. Explaining help someone understand it better (such as cleaning up misconceptions), versus defending is somehow coming to the rescue of it (beliefs don't need rescued, they are what they are even if misunderstood).

what one person sees as "mockery" are obviously different from person to person.

Sometimes yes, especially when there's misunderstanding. But other times mockery is just blatant mockery.

 

[drstevej]

Let's get back to life on the Sun / Moon.

“As far back as 1837, I know he [Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do – that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.”

- O.B. Huntington, “The Inhabitants of the Moon,” The Young Woman's Journal, 1892, v. 3, pp. 263-164

 

[mmksparbud]

Let's get back to life on the Sun / Moon.

“As far back as 1837, I know he [Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do – that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.”

- O.B. Huntington, “The Inhabitants of the Moon,” The Young Woman's Journal, 1892, v. 3, pp. 263-164

Sometimes yes, especially when there's misunderstanding. But other times mockery is just blatant mockery.

How in the world, can anyone defend this--- and how can anyone respond to this without it sounding like mockery?

 

[Anto9us]

Well, we know now, that there ain't no air on the moon -- i DUNNO IF THAT WAS KNOWN IN 1837 OR NOT.

As far as living to nearly 1000 years old, these lunar Methuselahs sound pretty outlandish.

C S Lewis in his science fiction trilogy had people living on Venus - the 'original couple' there in an unfallen state - and Mars had 3 races of sentient beings... but that was SCIENCE FICTION.