More LDS "Interpretation"

[ZealouS]

Im not even going to try and explain the irony here.



Im glad you brought this up, I was just goint to post it anyway. You say they do not "officially" worship Buddha. And most christians do not "officially" worship the cross. The image of Buddha is supposed to serve of a reminder of what Buddhists goals are. The cross is supposed to serve as a reminder of what christian goals are. Kind of a lot of simmalarities, arent there.

Now look at this from a Buddhists prospective. We, or I should say you (reffering to mainstreams), claim they, Buddhists, worship Buddha for using the image in their temples and ect... Yet "christians" turn right around and put up crosses everywhere in their churches. They put them right at the head of their worship rooms (or whatever your church calls it). Christians bow down infrom of the cross. They pray infront of the cross. They kiss the cross. They constantly preach about the cross. Do you see where Im getting at here???

Ahh but the Cross is very important. Christ saved mankind when he hung on that cross and died for you and me alike. What truth does that little chubby buddah statue represent? When someone compares a symbol of Christ's sacrifice to a chubby little gold man I think they are saying something about their regard for that sacrifice.

 

[Apex]

Ahh but the Cross is very important. Christ saved mankind when he hung on that cross and died for you and me alike. What truth does that little chubby buddah statue represent? When someone compares a symbol of Christ's sacrifice to a chubby little gold man I think they are saying something about their regard for that sacrifice.

BINGO!!!!!! You said exactly what I thought you would. Now, go back and read what you typed. And now think you are a Buddhist and you are reading what you typed. If a Buddhist read that he would think "so christians can worship the cross but I cant use the symbol of Buddha to remind me of my goal of enlightenment?" If a Buddhist read that they would immediatly lable you, and most likely Christianity, a hypocrit.

Now another question about the second part of my post.

Yet "christians" turn right around and put up crosses everywhere in their churches. They put them right at the head of their worship rooms (or whatever your church calls it). Christians bow down infrom of the cross. They pray infront of the cross. They kiss the cross. They constantly preach about the cross.

Do you think that whey christians do these things that they are begining to border on idol worship of the cross?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

BINGO!!!!!! You said exactly what I thought you would. Now, go back and read what you typed. And now think you are a Buddhist and you are reading what you typed. If a Buddhist read that he would think "so christians can worship the cross but I cant use the symbol of Buddha to remind me of my goal of enlightenment?"

Except that Buddah is a false god and an idol and the cross of Jesus is not. You seem to be missing the whole point. God's word tells us over and over again how important the cross of Jesus is.... does it say that about Buddah? Nope.

 

[Apex]

Except that Buddah is a false god and an idol and the cross of Jesus is not. You seem to be missing the whole point. God's word tells us over and over again how important the cross of Jesus is.... does it say that about Buddah? Nope.

You are not understanding what I am trying to say. Look at this from a Buddhists point of view. Can you do that? From their view point Christianity is just one large hypocrit. All the christians proclaim that they worship Buddha, when they actually dont, and then the christians turn around and act like they worship the cross. Do you see what I am saying?

 

[skylark1]

Yet "christians" turn right around and put up crosses everywhere in their churches. They put them right at the head of their worship rooms (or whatever your church calls it). Christians bow down infrom of the cross. They pray infront of the cross. They kiss the cross. They constantly preach about the cross.

Hi Apex,

I wanted to clarify a few things. Some Christian denominations seem to have a greater emphasis on imagery than others. I believe that Orthodoxy Christianity (such as Russian Orthodox, or Greek Orthodox) is one denomination that does. But for many others, what you wrote is not true. Our church does not have crosses all over the church, rather it displays one cross. I do not bow down to this cross. When I bow down, it is in my home when I am in prayer. I bow down to my God. If others bow down before a cross, it is probably because they are remembering the sacrifice that Jesus made for them while on that cross, and acknowledging that He is Lord. Although there is a cross in our sanctuary at chrch, most of the time when I pray there is not a cross in front of me. I don't kiss the cross, but if I did it would be an expression of adoration to my God and thanks for His amazing love. When we preach of the cross, we preach of Christ.

I hope that helps.

 

[ZealouS]

BINGO!!!!!! You said exactly what I thought you would. Now, go back and read what you typed. And now think you are a Buddhist and you are reading what you typed. If a Buddhist read that he would think "so christians can worship the cross but I cant use the symbol of Buddha to remind me of my goal of enlightenment?" If a Buddhist read that they would immediatly lable you, and most likely Christianity, a hypocrit.

Now another question about the second part of my post.
Do you think that whey christians do these things that they are begining to border on idol worship of the cross?

I am glad I said exactly what you thought I would say because I hope any Christian would hold the symbolism of the Cross 1000000X higher then the symbolism of some golden image. I do not care what a buddhist would think if he read this because I believe in Jesus Christ, not buddah. I do recognize that when other people pray before a Cross or anything along those guidelines, that they are infact remembering Christ's sacrifice for them and all mankind. This is hardly what you deem as "Idol worship."

Now you dont seem to understand a thing or two. Christ's death on a cross was real, his sacrifice was a great display of his Love for both his Father and mankind. Why would you, being a professing "christian", compare the symbol of this death and display of great love with a golden image that hasnt done anything for anyone?

 

[Apex]

I am glad I said exactly what you thought I would say because I hope any Christian would hold the symbolism of the Cross 1000000X higher then the symbolism of some golden image. I do not care what a buddhist would think if he read this because I believe in Jesus Christ, not buddah. I do recognize that when other people pray before a Cross or anything along those guidelines, that they are infact remembering Christ's sacrifice for them and all mankind. This is hardly what you deem as "Idol worship."

Now you dont seem to understand a thing or two. Christ's death on a cross was real, his sacrifice was a great display of his Love for both his Father and mankind. Why would you, being a professing "christian", compare the symbol of this death and display of great love with a golden image that hasnt done anything for anyone?

What I have tried to say and point out has been completley lost or ignored.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Deleted.


I had no idea how long this thread was, and I was responding to something said on the first page...

 

[AMMON]

Why do LDS always try to twist and shoehorn their unbiblical doctrines into scripture?

I've no doubt that many members of the clergies from various so-called orthodox Christian sects have said the very same thing of their fellow so-called orthodox Christian sects. Indeed, it seems that the doctrinal battles (many of which have been occuring for centuries) between the Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc., are, in some cases, every bit as intense as the doctrinal battles between the allegedly "united" orthodox Christians and the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Odd. Isn't it? It begs the question: which of all these sects has the full and correct doctrine? Don't so-called orthodox Christians ever wonder about this? Why so many sects, so much debate, so much disagreement, even among allegedly united orthodox Christian sects? Which one is correct?

 

[intrepid]

I've no doubt that many members of the clergies from various so-called orthodox Christian sects have said the very same thing of their fellow so-called orthodox Christian sects. Indeed, it seems that the doctrinal battles (many of which have been occuring for centuries) between the Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc., are, in some cases, every bit as intense as the doctrinal battles between the allegedly "united" orthodox Christians and the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Odd. Isn't it? It begs the question: which of all these sects has the full and correct doctrine? Don't so-called orthodox Christians ever wonder about this? Why so many sects, so much debate, so much disagreement, even among allegedly united orthodox Christian sects? Which one is correct?

At the end of the day, orthodox Christian sects agree on essential Christian doctrine: Diety of Christ, Virgin Birth, Trinity. The rest are details.

There are, however, considerable differences among the various churches claiming to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The RLDS, for example, believed church presidents should be descendants of Joseph Smith, Jr. The FLDS ignore the revelation of 1890 that prohibited plural marriage and, it is said, take many wives as they aspire toward the Celestrial Kingdom.

I read somewhere that there are about 1,000 LDS sects, and I suppose each thinks it's the correct one. I don't remember where I read that, so don't challenge the number, but regardless of the actual count it raises this question: Which one is correct?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

You are not understanding what I am trying to say. Look at this from a Buddhists point of view. Can you do that? From their view point Christianity is just one large hypocrit. All the christians proclaim that they worship Buddha, when they actually dont, and then the christians turn around and act like they worship the cross. Do you see what I am saying?

It really doesn't matter to me what Buddist think of Christianity, what matters is what God thinks of it.

I think I understand the point you are trying to make, I just don't agree with it. We are to stand firm in God and His word, we are to avoid and renounce false gods. If Buddist or anyone else for that matter doesn't like it or sees the cross of Jesus as a hypocricy, that's really their problem not ours because in the end, the person we answer to is God, not man.

 

[Apex]

At the end of the day, orthodox Christian sects agree on essential Christian doctrine: Diety of Christ, Virgin Birth, Trinity. The rest are details.

And which ones are orthodox? By whos definition do we use for orthodox? Yours or someone elses? And since when do the "details" not matter? Some of the "details" that "christians" disagree over sound extremely major to me. Once saved always saved is an example. This does not sound like a minor detail in ones salvation to belive that you can turn away from Christ and still be saved.

There are, however, considerable differences among the various churches claiming to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The RLDS, for example, believed church presidents should be descendants of Joseph Smith, Jr. The FLDS ignore the revelation of 1890 that prohibited plural marriage and, it is said, take many wives as they aspire toward the Celestrial Kingdom.

I read somewhere that there are about 1,000 LDS sects, and I suppose each thinks it's the correct one. I don't remember where I read that, so don't challenge the number, but regardless of the actual count it raises this question: Which one is correct?

There is one major difference between the factions of the LDS and the slightly larger number of factions of Christianity. We do not claim that we are all right in all aspects, or as mainstreams usually say "one body in Christ". We know we have differences and we do not acknowlege those differences as being "minor" ones and that we still belive the exact same thing. Mainstream Christianity claims that they are all "united in the body of Christ", even if they have arguments over what is claimed to be "minor" details. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. They are both fruits, but still different.

 

[Apex]

It really doesn't matter to me what Buddist think of Christianity, what matters is what God thinks of it.

So you dont care what kind of image you present of christianity, even if it is an up tight snobish one?

I think I understand the point you are trying to make, I just don't agree with it. We are to stand firm in God and His word, we are to avoid and renounce false gods.

There is still the issue of Buddhists not worshiping Buddha. The impression I got is that he is used as a symbol to remind them of their goal. But Im not exactly an expert on Budhism so I might have to double check that. Im not going to be guilty of the same moral I hold, not proclaiming in ignorance what others belive.

If Buddist or anyone else for that matter doesn't like it or sees the cross of Jesus as a hypocricy, that's really their problem not ours because in the end, the person we answer to is God, not man.

I didnt say they see the cross as hypocricy but they see christians as hypocrits.

 

[rnmomof7]

So you dont care what kind of image you present of christianity, even if it is an up tight snobish one?

It is not "snobbish" it is exclusive . What Christianity is is outlined in the bible. "no one comes to the father but by me. The definition and parameters are set by God.

There is still the issue of Buddhists not worshiping Buddha. The impression I got is that he is used as a symbol to remind them of their goal. But Im not exactly an expert on Budhism so I might have to double check that. Im not going to be guilty of the same moral I hold, not proclaiming in ignorance what others belive.

I didnt say they see the cross as hypocricy but they see christians as hypocrits.

Unregenerate man has no eyes to see or ears to hear. What will change that view is an encounter with the Triune God.

 

[Chamberlain]

Spoken with all the ignorance I would expect.

Come on now Wrigley? Ignorance, really? Why would you expect ignorance?

Is it ignorant to call someone "dude" as in DUDE (with a tone of incredulity) I don't see you getting all hot and bothered when people demean and ridicule other's sacred beliefs and faith in Christ. That must not be on the say level of saying "dude" for you.

I've read happy's posts. She does not put herself above Christ, and she does not stand is judgment over other's salvation. She rightfully and clearly shows the errors of mormonism. If you have a hard time dealing with that. So much so that you need to be as demeaning personally as you are here, she must do a excellent job.

I've read em to. Someone who pretends to judge and who who God saves and who he does not, puts themself in Christ's place. It not that hard to get.

 

[Chamberlain]

Ok, DUDE, I've had enough of you calling happy a "dude". Happy has identified herself as a middle-aged woman, not some teeny-bopping young punk.

Huh? Besides irony I'm sensing like a machismo con queso thing going on with you. Lighten up. Actually I don't think that Happy has identified herself as middle-aged. She might be insulted by that as she could be 21 years old not looking forward to that or a senior citizen with less than fond memories of the middle years. All she said was fully-growed.

While you may be correct that "officially" they do not worship Buddha or the image of Buddha, that is not necessarily the practice. Have you ever been in a Buddhist church or to a service?

Yup. And here's what I have learned by visiting other cultures and other churches... everyone and their religion (on the face of it) is due the full respect and dignity from us supposedly enlightened Christians that we would be accorded ourselves. To the extent that we engage in ridicule and antipathy rather than love and respect, the world is a poorer place and man's ugly and carnal nature is revealed.

 

[unbound]

And which ones are orthodox? By whos definition do we use for orthodox? Yours or someone elses? And since when do the "details" not matter? Some of the "details" that "christians" disagree over sound extremely major to me. Once saved always saved is an example. This does not sound like a minor detail in ones salvation to belive that you can turn away from Christ and still be saved.

There is one major difference between the factions of the LDS and the slightly larger number of factions of Christianity. We do not claim that we are all right in all aspects, or as mainstreams usually say "one body in Christ". We know we have differences and we do not acknowlege those differences as being "minor" ones and that we still belive the exact same thing. Mainstream Christianity claims that they are all "united in the body of Christ", even if they have arguments over what is claimed to be "minor" details. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. They are both fruits, but still different.

Actually, you couldnt be farther from the truth.

You relegate those who will not accept baptism by your church, either here or in the spirit world, to "outer darkness". Even though they may believe Christ died for thier sins, they still have to accept Joseph Smith.

Only if a person accepts your gospel, as "restored" by JS, either in this life or the spirit realm,and accept JS as a prophet, can they be in the presence of God.

So, this is a very BIG detail.

 

[Chamberlain]

At the end of the day, orthodox Christian sects agree on essential Christian doctrine: Diety of Christ, Virgin Birth, Trinity. The rest are details.

That's circular logic for ya. You define orthodoxy as those who agree on Diety of Christ, Virgin Birth and the Trinity and then say that all Orthodox Churches agree on those three points.

That's saying nothing.

There are, however, considerable differences among the various churches claiming to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The RLDS, for example, believed church presidents should be descendants of Joseph Smith, Jr. The FLDS ignore the revelation of 1890 that prohibited plural marriage and, it is said, take many wives as they aspire toward the Celestrial Kingdom.

This is direct opposition to your first point that the onlky essentials are Diety of Christ, Virgin Birth and the Trinity (the rest being merely details) but then complaining that Mormons (or what YOU define as Mormons) disagree on the mere details.

I read somewhere that there are about 1,000 LDS sects, and I suppose each thinks it's the correct one. I don't remember where I read that, so don't challenge the number, but regardless of the actual count it raises this question: Which one is correct?

First, that number, by any measure is preposterous. Second, Mormons (the nickname for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) would way that Mormons are those that belong to the Church of Jesus Christ-of Latter-Day Saint and if you don't belong, no matter what you call yourself, your're not Mormon. That may be a bit circular but no more so than your definition of Orthodoxy. Besides which, the Breadth and Width of splintering in the LDS Church is nothing at all compared to general Orthodoxy - not that splintering proves anything.

 

[Chamberlain]

Actually, you couldnt be farther from the truth.

You relegate those who will not accept baptism by your church, either here or in the spirit world, to "outer darkness". Even though they may believe Christ died for thier sins, they still have to accept Joseph Smith.

Only if a person accepts your gospel, as "restored" by JS, either in this life or the spirit realm,and accept JS as a prophet, can they be in the presence of God.

So, this is a very BIG detail.

Hi unbound,

Here you have been misinformed about or misunderstood LDS beliefs. We do not believe that those who reject baptism go to "outer darkness". (For that matter probably the only ones who could "qualify" for such a hell are those who were baptised, achieved an incredibly advanced spiritual confirmation and then knowlingly rejected the Holy Spirit.

We actually believe that just about everybody gets saved if you consider being saved to be redeemed from mortal death, pay the price of repenctence, to be resurrected and then to go to a heaven that if far greater than the human mind can fathom.

You are correct that we believe only the elite (Baptism required) will dwell in the physical presence of God. However, those in lesser heavens will be in the spiritual presence of God. Since most non-Mormons believe that God is a spirit only, with no physical presence, it's roughly in line with your thinking anyhow.

 

[Rescued One]

Someone who pretends to judge and who who God saves and who he does not, puts themself in Christ's place. It not that hard to get.

When did Wrigley say Mrs. Rasmussen is saved and Mr. Brown isn't? Or was it Miss Smith and Mr. Randall? I don't recall a post like that.