LDS Really interesting discussion between Christian and Mormon on Salvation

[Jane_Doe]

Jane Doe, why do you keep telling me to refer to post 90, as though your opinion is fact just because you agree with yourself?

Because post 90 I responded factually to your inaccurate statements.

It is factual that LDS missionaries do NOT do any of the below things (again, Catholicism is just an example non-LDS faith):
1) Took the time to look up when & where this Catholic event was.
2) Cleared his schedule to go out to the event.
3) Actually drove to the event.
4) took the time/planning to bring a film crew along,
5) took the time to post the video on line,
6) is wearing a shirt to specifically to flame Catholics.
7) Take the time to look up where non-LDS live.
8) Create a schedule and map of non-LDS houses to go to.
9) making sure to go in pairs in order to increase the pressure on the people they try to badger into becoming LDS.
10) Take time to post videos of this activity.
11) Preach a story about apostasy specifically designed to 'flame' non-LDS

This list demonstrates who you accusations in post 89 are factually incorrect. Because you keep repeating the accusations, I keep repeating the counter.

 

[withwonderingawe]

con. from posing 101
Moving on, like all evangelicals he quotes one passage and forgets the rest of the Bible, how does one passage negate the rest of the chapter let alone the rest of the Bible?

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life……And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

He then says that James is talking about empty professions of faith.

So lets start with chapter 1
*3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

He does not say there will be no temptation and he implies we will be tried and receive the crown, so the opposite must be true too, if you do not endure then you will not receive the crown of life.

*21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

First off why lay aside all filthiness if God’s not going to count those sins anyway?

“receive with meekness the engrafted word” you have to be humble which means teachable, you have to take this message of truth and light and make it part of yourself, you can’t do that if you don’t set aside all filthiness.


*22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

I’ll say it again to the Hebrew truth was a given and not something to be discovered but to be done.

John 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light”

Or he who keeps the commandments will come to the light.


*23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Oh looky there we get blessed for good works.

26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.

Yes it is about empty professions of faith, the faithful person will endure temptation, put aside all filthiness, make changes in his life and start serving the fatherless and widows.


27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

In the next chapter James calls the church members to repentance for they have “ have despised the poor”

*“But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors”

Paul taught that you could have faith to move mountains but if you have not charity you have nothing. And Peter is building on that;

13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

James’ answer is no, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

 

[Peter1000]

Hmmm...yeah, that sounds pretty rude, when you put it that way. Who behaves like that? It's pathetic and sad.

Oh, wait.

Mormon missionaries:

1) Take the time to look up where non-LDS live.
2) Create a schedule and map of non-LDS houses to go to.
3) Actually go to those houses and bother the people in them.
4) Take the time/planning to bring others along, making sure to go in pairs in order to increase the pressure on the people they try to badger into becoming LDS.
5) Take time to post videos of this activity. (I won't link any, but you can find plenty on pro-LDS websites and YouTube channels.)
6) Preach a story about apostasy specifically designed to 'flame' non-LDS, in an attempt to make the LDS seem better.

Yes, I would submit that they plan to be offensive and display a false message.

That is the reason our missionaries are so successful, all over the world. They plan their day and try to be as efficient as possible. You have pretty much summed it up. It has worked for years and will work for many years to come, as we try to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to all the world.

When I was on a mission, many people who heard about the apostasy for the first time said, 'that's why the mainline Christian churches are so off the NT path.' I just agreed and we baptized them. Some fell back away, but many have been active members now for 40 years. I will tell you that it is a lot easier to teach someone about Jesus Christ when they already have a knowledge of Jesus Christ. So I always say, 'may Jesus bless all the mainline Christian churches and their missionary work. Keep up the good work.'

 

[dzheremi]

That is the reason our missionaries are so successful, all over the world. They plan their day and try to be as efficient as possible. You have pretty much summed it up. It has worked for years and will work for many years to come, as we try to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to all the world.

Okay then. Please kindly inform your coreligionist Jane Doe, who seems to think I'm making this all up to spite Mormons or something, that this is actually what happens. Maybe she'll listen to you, since you're a fellow Mormon.

When I was on a mission, many people who heard about the apostasy for the first time said, 'that's why the mainline Christian churches are so off the NT path.'

Well yeah...it's a lot easier to sell the idea of the great apostasy to someone who already has an inkling of there being something wrong with mainline Christian churches. I'd say they're right about that impulse, but not because I believe in the LDS idea of a 'great apostasy' of all the churches in the world. But I could see how that kind of thing is successful among people who are just hearing about that concept for the first time and are already disaffected or alienated from mainstream churches. They're primed to hear it, and of course when you're the one who introduces the concept, they're going to take your subsequent ideas about the LDS church being the 'restoration' of corrupted world Christianity a lot more seriously than if they weren't open to the 'great apostasy' narrative to begin with. You fed them the idea in the first place, and they're vulnerable and suggestible.

I just agreed and we baptized them. Some fell back away, but many have been active members now for 40 years. I will tell you that it is a lot easier to teach someone about Jesus Christ when they already have a knowledge of Jesus Christ.

That makes sense. I converted to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, and one day while I was still a catechumen, one of the Ethiopian ladies who worshiped with us asked if I had been Eastern Orthodox before coming to the Coptic Orthodox Church. I was a bit taken aback, because I'd very consciously decided that that particular church was nice but not for me, so I said no and asked her what made her think that. She said something like "Oh, well you seem to already know a lot about Orthodoxy, so I figured you couldn't have been a Protestant. They usually have problems with the Eucharist, St. Mary and intercession, icons...but you don't." So I think that's something that's true across the board, not just for converts to Mormonism.

So I always say, 'may Jesus bless all the mainline Christian churches and their missionary work. Keep up the good work.'

Because they make it easier for you to convert people from that background, or because you actually feel that they are doing good work? That's very good, if it's the latter.

 

[Peter1000]

Jane Doe, why do you keep telling me to refer to post 90, as though your opinion is fact just because you agree with yourself? You even did it in post 90 itself, which is weird (I assume you meant post 88, which is also chock full of opinions, not facts).

Also, it doesn't really matter what you personally feel or don't feel about my faith. Your religion is anti-Christianity even if you may personally have more positive feelings about it, and it is your religion's precepts that matter in inter-religious discussion. Individual Mormons may be the nicest, most friendly people ever, but this isn't about personalities. It's about faith. Your faith makes various claims that my faith compels me to reject, and vice versa. That's it.

Sorry, Mormonism is not anti-Christianity.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of our religion. We are followers of Christ, thus according to the biblical definition of what a Christian is, we are Christians, no matter if we disagree with you or not. Lots of Christians don't agree with you either.

There is only 1 God the Father, there is only 1 Jesus Christ, His Son and although we believe differently about them, we all believe in them. We are all Christians.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Okay then. Please kindly inform your coreligionist Jane Doe, who seems to think I'm making this all up to spite Mormons or something, that this is actually what happens. Maybe she'll listen to you, since you're a fellow Mormon.

I think that's exactly what you're doing, and I won't back down from my factual list.

If Peter wants to tell me that he camped in front of other people's religious events, wore inflammatory shirts, brought a film crew around, or any other stuff on your list, I can show him the entire book of regulations he was violating. But somehow, I doubt that's what his post meant.

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry, Mormonism is not anti-Christianity.

I'm sorry, Peter, but I'm going to have to disagree.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of our religion. We are followers of Christ, thus according to the biblical definition of what a Christian is, we are Christians, no matter if we disagree with you or not. Lots of Christians don't agree with you either.

Christians disagreeing with other Christians is not the litmus test, though. My Church disagrees with those of the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, etc. traditions (as they all do with us in turn), while also finding them to be at least some type of Christian, although in error to various degrees, corresponding to whatever in them violates the Orthodox faith.

In the case of Mormonism as a faith, however, the theological errors it preaches in themselves place it outside of Christianity. You and I have gone over a few of them in some detail (recall our discussion on Orthodox theology, the Nicene Creed, and the homoousion definition of the Holy Trinity), and as I recall we found no substantial agreement regarding the nature of God through those discussions. So it's not hyperbole or meanness to any degree to say that Mormonism preaches a different God than Christianity, and is hence anti-Christianity.

There is only 1 God the Father, there is only 1 Jesus Christ, His Son and although we believe differently about them, we all believe in them. We are all Christians.

This is not the standard, though. Muslims too have a figure who they say is the 'true' version of the Christian Jesus (they call him 'Isa in their scriptures), to whom they pay due deference in accordance with their theology and prophetology, and it is common for them to then claim that "we worship the One God, too" (or some such; when they are trying to be conciliatory and emphasize what they see as points of similarity with other religions). Does this mean that they are Christians, too? No, it doesn't.

While it makes things much messier than they would be if we were to take the claims of the Mormons, Muslims, and others at face value, what a particular religion teaches about God really does matter. When Christians look really at what Mormonism teaches about God, they have more often than not found in it something that is so fundamentally dissimilar to the Christian faith and wrong in its foundation as well as its particulars that it has been classified as an entirely non-Christian religion. Which it is. Heck, this very website does so, and it is very 'liberal' in which groups it allows under the Christian label (groups that vary from one another and disagree with one another greatly, I might add).

 

[Jane_Doe]

You and I have gone over a few of them in some detail (recall our discussion on Orthodox theology, the Nicene Creed, and the homoousion definition of the Holy Trinity)

The Nicene creed is a non-scriptural document, and hence holds no sway with LDS. Likewise, your litmus test of defining Christian as "one whom accepts this non-scriptural document" holds now sway.

LDS go with the Biblical definition of Christian (a disciple of Christ) and hence do acknowledge both of us as Christian, despite disagreements in theology.

This is not the standard, though. Muslims too have a figure who they say is the 'true' version of the Christian Jesus (they call him 'Isa in their scriptures), to whom they pay due deference in accordance with their theology and prophetology

Your argument is flawed: Muslims don't recognize Christ as the Son of God, creator and redeemer of the world, 100% divine, and the only way in which a person can be saved. LDS do.

 

[dzheremi]

I think that's exactly what you're doing, and I won't back down from my factual list.

If Peter wants to tell me that he camped in front of other people's religious events, wore inflammatory shirts, brought a film crew around, or any other stuff on your list, I can show him the entire book of regulations he was violating. But somehow, I doubt that's what his post meant.

Are the things that you say are on my list in this post actually there, though? I think you're confusing my list with your own, which I deliberately modified so as to make the comparison more apt, so that you might see how it takes little to paint Mormons in the same light as you've painted the preacher in the video.

Here's my list:

1) Take the time to look up where non-LDS live.

This is absolutely what they do. What would be the point of sending missionaries to people who are already LDS?

2) Create a schedule and map of non-LDS houses to go to.

Yep. It's not random. I've talked to LDS missionaries who used to come to my family's home after my father's ex-wife expressed some interest in their religion, and they said that they have their own territory that they go to on their missions, and when they find receptive people they return so as to follow up with them. And of course that's exactly how you'd want to do things, so as to avoid wasting your labors.

3) Actually go to those houses and bother the people in them.

While it's a matter of personal opinion whether or not their visitation is bothersome, it is true that they do actually go to the houses, ring the doorbells, etc.

4) Take the time/planning to bring others along, making sure to go in pairs in order to increase the pressure on the people they try to badger into becoming LDS.

LDS missionaries are famous for traveling in pairs, and while I don't know enough about how the LDS work to know if this is some kind of LDS law or something, it has at least been followed in every personal interaction I've ever had with LDS missionaries. This brief report from ABC Nighline on the life of Mormon missionaries in Louisiana seems to show a brief snapshot (at 1:44) of some kind of database of missionary pairs, presumably from some kind of LDS source.

5) Take time to post videos of this activity. (I won't link any, but you can find plenty on pro-LDS websites and YouTube channels.)

Again, there are tons of videos posted online of Mormon missionary activity. I don't even know how or why this would be argued against.

6) Preach a story about apostasy specifically designed to 'flame' non-LDS, in an attempt to make the LDS seem better.

As I've just discussed with Peter1000, the story of the great apostasy is a tool by which the LDS go about evangelizing Christians in hopes of converting them to Mormonism. It relies upon telling them that every other church is wrong, and only the LDS are right. Hence, this is a factual statement.

 

[dzheremi]

The Nicene creed is a non-scriptural document, and hence holds no sway with LDS. Likewise, your litmus test of defining Christian as "one whom accepts this non-scriptural document" holds now sway.

I could not care less what holds sway with the LDS. The point is that these are the reasons that Christians have for rejecting claims that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, not "these are reasons that Mormons themselves will accept". Obviously you don't accept them, since you already think that your religion is Christian. That's completely immaterial.

LDS go with the Biblical definition of Christian (a disciple of Christ) and hence do acknowledge both of us as Christian, despite disagreements in theology.

That's fine. The LDS can have their own theology and ecclesiology or whatever. That's nobody else's business. Similarly, Christian churches can have their own theology and ecclesiology which Mormonism is not in harmony with, hence causing the LDS community to be rejected by all mainstream Christians.

(Aside: It would be a lot easier to take protestations about the 'Biblical definition' of this or that if they weren't coming from people who accept latter day revelations like the Book of Mormon as scripture, and have their own translation of the Bible tailored by their own prophet to fit their distinctive doctrines not shared by Christian churches. It rings pretty hollow.)

Your argument is flawed: Muslims don't recognize Christ as the Son of God, creator and redeemer of the world, 100% divine, and the only way in which a person can be saved. LDS do.

Exactly. You just proved my 'flawed' argument: As Muslims cannot be considered Christians because what they teach about God is outside the bounds of Christianity, so too Muslims cannot be considered Christians for exactly the same reason.

And while you might say "But LDS do believe in all these things that Christians believe!", as with the list you've just furnished, again, when it comes down to the actual content of those beliefs (so not just "Jesus is the Son of God", but what you are actually saying that that means when you teach it and affirm it), we find substantial disagreement between Christianity and Mormonism. So substantial, in fact, that Mormonism is classified as a non-Christian religion.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I think you're confusing my list with your own

Correction: I presented my list and you said "that sounds just like LDS missionaries". But none of the things on my list hold true for LDS missionaries.

I deliberately modified so as to make the comparison more apt

Aka, you completely discarded my list, invalidating any side-by-side comparison and rendering your entire argument mute. None of the things on your list even apply to the minister in question.

However, I shall humor you and go through your list as well.

1) Take the time to look up where non-LDS live.

This is absolutely what they do. What would be the point of sending missionaries to people who are already LDS?

No they do not. And yes, they do visit LDS families too, frequently.

2) Create a schedule and map of non-LDS houses to go to.

Yep. It's not random. I've talked to LDS missionaries who used to come to my family's home after my father's ex-wife expressed some interest in their religion, and they said that they have their own territory that they go to on their missions, and when they find receptive people they return so as to follow up with them. And of course that's exactly how you'd want to do things, so as to avoid wasting your labors.

But no, there is no map of "we talked to this street this week and will do this street next week". Such gives 18-20 year old's way too much credit for organizational skills. Your statement is false.

What you are confusing here is that missionaries are assigned to congregations, and hence are supposed to talk to people who would attend that congregation (congregations are arranged geographically). If they do find a person that is interested but would not attend their congregation, they refer them to that congregation's missionaries.

4) Take the time/planning to bring others along, making sure to go in pairs in order to increase the pressure on the people they try to badger into becoming LDS.

LDS missionaries are famous for traveling in pairs, and while I don't know enough about how the LDS work to know if this is some kind of LDS law or something, it has at least been followed in every personal interaction I've ever had with LDS missionaries. This brief report from ABC Nighline on the life of Mormon missionaries in Louisiana seems to show a brief snapshot (at 1:44) of some kind of database of missionary pairs, presumably from some kind of LDS source.

Your statement is that the pairs is for increasing pressure on people. That is a false statement.

Rather, they are in pairs for mutual safety and supporting each other. At my work (I'm a national funded research scientist) we likewise insist that whenever people go out into the field they go in pairs.

5) Take time to post videos of this activity. (I won't link any, but you can find plenty on pro-LDS websites and YouTube channels.)

Again, there are tons of videos posted online of Mormon missionary activity. I don't even know how or why this would be argued against.

Dude: LDS missionaries typically aren't even allowed to watch YouTube, let alone post. Your statement is ridiculous.

6) Preach a story about apostasy specifically designed to 'flame' non-LDS, in an attempt to make the LDS seem better.

As I've just discussed with Peter1000, the story of the great apostasy is a tool by which the LDS go about evangelizing Christians in hopes of converting them to Mormonism. It relies upon telling them that every other church is wrong, and only the LDS are right. Hence, this is a factual statement.

Preaching what you view to be the Truth and sharing that Truth is not flaming. Statement a disagreement with this-or-that idea is also not flaming.

Conclusion: your argument is completely invalid, both according to your list and mind.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Exactly. You just proved my 'flawed' argument

My list was from scripture. Yours is not, hence your argument is fatally flawed.

 

[dzheremi]

Correction: I presented my list and you said "that sounds just like LDS missionaries". But none of the things on my list hold true for LDS missionaries

I'm aware of that. That's why I made my own list to parallel yours. I've already explained this, and why I did it.

Aka, you completely discarded my list, invalidating any side-by-side comparison and rendering your entire argument mute. None of the things on your list even apply to the minister in question.

Again, I've already explained what I did and why. You may feel that it "invalidates any side-by-side comparison", but for the third time, the point is that with a little change in perspective (say, from the LDS perspective to a non-LDS perspective), they're not terribly different. Different in specific details, but just as much of an unwelcome intrusion upon people who are just trying to live their lives and their religion when confronted with people who come around, uninvited, to tell them that they're wrong and they need to switch religions and so on.

No they do not.

They don't purposely visit/target non-LDS? That's odd...I could've sworn that was the whole purpose of being a missionary. Y'know, to convert people who are not already a part of your group into being members of that group.

I don't think you're being truthful here. Clearly LDS missionaries are meant to go to non-LDS and convert them.

And yes, they do visit LDS families too, frequently.

I never said that they didn't, only that that's clearly not the point of being a missionary. If you're a missionary, it's to convert people, not only to visit those who are already members.

But no, there is no map of "we talked to this street this week and will do this street next week". Such gives 18-20 year old's way too much credit for organizational skills. Your statement is false.

I gave the statement as they gave it to me, in person: They have a territory that they're given.

What you are confusing here is that missionaries are assigned to congregations, and hence are supposed to talk to people who would attend that congregation (congregations are arranged geographically). If they do find a person that is interested but would not attend their congregation, they refer them to that congregation's missionaries.

Yeah. So what I said was not a false statement, I just used the word "territory", since that's what I remember them using, while you used "congregation". It amounts to the same thing: They have a set place where they are assigned to go and attempt to evangelize non-LDS.

Your statement is that the pairs is for increasing pressure on people. That is a false statement.

I'd say it's a matter of the dynamic created. I've personally seen people being blindsided by this tactic both by Mormons and non-Mormons (the similarly non-Christian "Iglesia Ni Cristo", a cultic organization originating from the Philippines), and while it may or may not be written in their literature to do so for that reason, they know it puts them at an advantage when dealing with receptive and vulnerable people.

The individual missionary, in our time, is more common among the street preacher types.

Dude: LDS missionaries typically aren't even allowed to watch YouTube, let alone post. Your statement is ridiculous.

Again, there are tons of LDS resources on YouTube that include videos of the missionaries at work. It's not ridiculous. It's definitely out there.

Preaching what you view to be the Truth and sharing that Truth is not flaming. Statement a disagreement with this-or-that idea is also not flaming.

Exactly. Hence there's no real reason to react to the preacher in the video as though he is 'flaming' LDS by disagreeing with your religion and preaching what he sees as the truth. Again, my point is that you do the same thing, but don't view that as 'flaming'.

Conclusion: your argument is completely invalid, both according to your list and mind.

Conclusion: You are reading the list according to what you want to see and dismissing out of hand the existence and reality of things that you personally have a problem with for some reason (like what missionaries actually do, or the existence of pro-LDS videos and channels on YouTube). Most of this reaction is entirely unnecessary, because the point isn't even that you can't or shouldn't be doing that -- as a religious community operating in the world, of course it is in your best interest to attempt to spread what you see as the truth, in order to win more converts. It just rings really hollow that when someone does the same to your own community in a way that you don't like, it's suddenly some horrible injustice and proof that the rest of the world is out to get you or something.

Some guy wears a t-shirt and makes a video of himself debating Mormons and apparently 'anti-Mormons' are out of control, but LDS missionaries target entire countries and communities and you say "hey, we're just trying to reach people with our message." Yep. Just like the guy you're up in arms about cos he wore a t-shirt you don't like and came to some kind of public gathering instead of being a 20-year-old 'elder' bothering people at home with his 22-year-old 'elder' sidekick. I can see how they're both irritating and unhelpful (I'm not a big fan of street preacher types), but I don't see how it helps to pretend that one is just spreading the Gospel while the other is the devil's cabana boy or whatever. It's the same activity, and both can be seen as aggressive and unwanted intrusions. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[dzheremi]

My list was from scripture. Yours is not, hence your argument is fatally flawed.

Frankly, Christianity-based cults can and do flog scripture all day every day in an attempt to prove the Biblical basis of whatever their cherished heresies are. That's why it doesn't mean anything to say that you're arguing from scripture. Yeah, you and the guy down the street in the church that is diametrically opposed to your own on almost every level.

There has never been a heretic who did not argue from scripture, and for those who were so off-base as to not even be able to do that, they just came up with their own anyway (e.g., Muhammad, Joseph Smith). This again illustrates the importance of having some kind of baseline by which we can all agree on a minimum of common belief and terminology-- like the Creed.

But you don't accept that (even though it predates the canonization of the modern NT) because you say it's "not scriptural". Yeah, well, neither are the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or the Doctrine and Covenants, yet you're perfectly fine accepting those. How convenient.

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't find your non-argument to be 'fatal' to my point.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Again, I've already explained what I did and why. You may feel that it "invalidates any side-by-side comparison", but for the third time, the point is that with a little change in perspective (say, from the LDS perspective to a non-LDS perspective),

If LDS missionaries were to crash Mass at St Peter Square, wearing shirts which say "the pope is the anti-Christ", then you would have a comparison with this minister. Clearly that is not the case.

They don't purposely visit/target non-LDS? That's odd...I could've sworn that was the whole purpose of being a missionary. Y'know, to convert people who are not already a part of your group into being members of that group.

No, they do not specifically go and hunt down non-LDS people, let alone looking up specifically where they live (which would be required to compare to the OP minister). Your accusation here sounds paranoid. Rather, they talk to everyone, including regularly with LDS members (for example, monthly dinners at their homes).

Yeah. So what I said was not a false statement, I just used the word "territory", since that's what I remember them using, while you used "congregation". It amounts to the same thing: They have a set place where they are assigned to go and attempt to evangelize non-LDS.

No, your statement of "2) Create a schedule and map of non-LDS houses to go to." is false.

Again, there are tons of LDS resources on YouTube that include videos of the missionaries at work. It's not ridiculous. It's definitely out there.

Then provide an example of an example of an LDS missionary who posted a video of themselves on YouTube.

Exactly. Hence there's no real reason to react to the preacher in the video as though he is 'flaming' LDS by disagreeing with your religion and preaching what he sees as the truth.

Again, false statement. I have not once critiqued the minister for preaching what he sees as the truth. I critiqued his un-Christ-like approach of wear clothes that bear false witness of his and LDS beliefs, with the specific purpose to flame.

Again, my point is that you do the same thing, but don't view that as 'flaming'.

Please post a link of LDS missionaries wearing wardrobe intended to flame.

 

[dzheremi]

If LDS missionaries were to crash Mass at St Peter Square, wearing shirts which say "the pope is the anti-Christ", then you would have a comparison with this minister. Clearly that is not the case.

Is this truly the best comparison to what he is doing, though? From what I can tell from the video (I didn't watch the whole thing, only enough to get the gist of it), he's not disrupting a Mormon worship service, but some kind outdoor gathering, so it's not akin to a protestor actually disrupting a Catholic mass. It would be hideously wrong to actually go into a Mormon worship building and disrupt their services, but as far as I can tell, that's not what the preacher in the video is doing. He's talking with Mormons out on the street, is he not?

No, they do not specifically go and hunt down non-LDS people, let alone looking up specifically where they live (which would be required to compare to the OP minister). Your accusation here sounds paranoid. Rather, they talk to everyone, including regularly with LDS members (for example, monthly dinners at their homes).

Again, I never said that they don't talk to LDS people, only that this isn't the primary purpose of being a missionary. The primary purpose of being a missionary (and not just for LDS missionaries, but for all missionaries) is to convert non-believers to your faith, so, yes, yes they do go to non-LDS people to convert them. This is not even debatable. I have personally dealt with Mormon missionaries trying to convert me and my family. I know that it happens, and it's obvious to everyone else on planet Earth that this is what they do. This is what they say they do, as in the video I already linked to from ABC News which shows them doing it: "Hi, I'm elder so and so, and we're here to talk to you about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" means "Hi, I'm here to attempt to convert you to Mormonism". They just don't want to have a friendly chat because they just happen to be in the area and want to talk to some random strangers. Geez.

No, your statement of "2) Create a schedule and map of non-LDS houses to go to." is false.

Whatever. I know what the Mormon missionaries I've talked to have told me, and that is absolutely what that means. Whether that translates into creating a literal, physical map or saying that they have a territory they're assigned to, the effect is still the same: They have to visit non-LDS houses in a particular area on a particular schedule in order to try to convert people. I'm sorry you can't deal with reality, but everybody else is aware that this is what they do. That's what being a missionary is. They don't just go wherever they want and show up randomly whenever for no reason, as you'd apparently have it because you object to my very benign wording on this point, for whatever silly reason.

Then provide an example of an example of an LDS missionary who posted a video of themselves on YouTube.

Simply typing in "LDS missionary" yields 160,000 YouTube results. Not all are from Mormon sources or direct missionary testimonies (read: there are plenty of parodies, criticism, etc.), but plenty are (channels like "Missionary Mall", "Mormon Newsroom", and "Mormon Channel" are obviously pro-LDS). Again, I'm not going to link to any. I do not want to advertise for your religion to make a point that everybody else who uses the internet already knows.

Again, false statement. I have not once critiqued the minister for preaching what he sees as the truth. I critiqued his un-Christ-like approach of wear clothes that bear false witness of his and LDS beliefs, with the specific purpose to flame.

I also criticized his t-shirt, but I'm not going to pretend as though I see a world of difference between him irritating people who are just trying to go about their lives and Mormon missionaries doing the same thing. Just because they do it in a nice white t-shirt and tie and he does it in a t-shirt with some words written on it that you don't like doesn't mean that he's terrible while LDS missionaries are great or something. It's a difference of presentation, and it does make LDS look better, but my point has always been that when it comes to the underlying message and aggressive proselytization attempt, the argument can be made that they're essentially doing the same thing: being a nuisance to try to convert others to their faith.

Please post a link of LDS missionaries wearing wardrobe intended to flame.

What? That has never been my point (see above), so no. The point is that LDS also purposely attack non-LDS beliefs (you kinda have to in order to convert others to Mormonism, hence this 'great apostasy' baloney; if you didn't have a narrative where others need to leave their churches due to the wrong beliefs in them, there'd be no context nor reason for anyone to ever become Mormon), which is just 'flaming' without the saucy t-shirt. Theological and ecclesiological flaming, if you will.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Is this truly the best comparison to what he is doing, though?

Yes, the equivalent to what his is doing crashing Mass at St Peter Square, wearing shirts which say "the pope is the anti-Christ".

From what I can tell from the video (I didn't watch the whole thing, only enough to get the gist of it), he's not disrupting a Mormon worship service, but some kind outdoor gathering, so it's not akin to a protestor actually disrupting a Catholic mass.

He IS disrupting a worship event, namely the Manti pageant. Yes, worship events can be outside.

It would be hideously wrong to actually go into a Mormon worship building and disrupt their services, but as far as I can tell, that's not what the preacher in the video is doing. He's talking with Mormons out on the street, is he not?

No, he is literally crashing a worship event. It is indeed hideously wrong.

Again, I never said that they don't talk to LDS people, only that this isn't the primary purpose of being a missionary.

The exact item on your list was that LDS missionaries "1) Take the time to look up where non-LDS live." Demonstrably a false accusation.

as in the video I already linked to from ABC News which shows them doing it: "Hi, I'm elder so and so, and we're here to talk to you about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" means "Hi, I'm here to attempt to convert you to Mormonism". They just don't want to have a friendly chat because they just happen to be in the area and want to talk to some random strangers. Geez.

The video you posted was not an LDS production, but a very R-rated mockery created by the same folks who made South Park.

They just don't want to have a friendly chat because they just happen to be in the area and want to talk to some random strangers. Geez.

Actually, that's exactly what they do: talk to every random stranger.

They have to visit non-LDS houses in a particular area on a particular schedule in order to try to convert people.

No, there is no particular schedule. And it's ridiculous how big of deal you're making of "we do missionary work on the west side of town where our congregation is, and the east side congregation's missionaries do stuff on the east side of town."

I'm sorry you can't deal with reality, but everybody else is aware that this is what they do.

Correction: I have dismissed every one of your pre-concivied accusations as not remotely reality.

Simply typing in "LDS missionary" yields 160,000 YouTube results.

Including lots of videos made by the same people whom made South Park.

Again, please provide an example of an example of an LDS missionary who posted a video of themselves on YouTube to support your accusation.

Again, I'm not going to link to any.

If you don't want to provide any evidence of your claim, that's your choice.

What? That has never been my point (see above), so no.

Your point is to compare LDS missionaries to this minister. So yes, please link the flaming wardrobe.

The point is that LDS also purposely attack non-LDS beliefs (you kinda have to in order to convert others to Mormonism, hence this 'great apostasy' baloney; if you didn't have a narrative where others need to leave their churches due to the wrong beliefs in them, there'd be no context nor reason for anyone to ever become Mormon), which is just 'flaming' without the saucy t-shirt. Theological and ecclesiological flaming, if you will.

From this Christian run website: "Flaming is defined as an attack on another member's character, as opposed to their arguments or beliefs."

Disagreement in theology is not flaming. There is no "Theological and ecclesiological flaming". Another false claim.

 

[dzheremi]

He IS disrupting a worship event, namely the Manti pageant. Yes, worship events can be outside.


No, he is literally crashing a worship event. It is indeed hideously wrong.

Forgive me, I was not aware that the Manti pageant was considered a worship service in the LDS church. I thought it was something more akin to the kinds of Christmas, Easter, etc. pageants found in Christian churches (i.e., obviously connected to the church's worship, since it retells an important event in the history of their faith, but not a part of the mass/liturgy itself).

The exact item on your list was that LDS missionaries "1) Take the time to look up where non-LDS live." Demonstrably a false accusation.

I don't think you've demonstrated how it is false, though. Are they not purposely going to places that they know are not Mormon for that exact purpose?

I get the feeling that you think I'm saying by typing that they get the phone book out and look up individual addresses and family names or something, but that's not what I think they do. Rather, as I understand it, they have a territory they are assigned to and I would presume that they know where the LDS families are in that territory (since, as you say, they are connected to specific Mormon congregations), so they focus their missionary efforts on the other families in the area, the non-LDS.

The video you posted was not an LDS production, but a very R-rated mockery created by the same folks who made South Park.

No. I'm talking about the video I linked to from ABC News on Mormon missionaries going door to door in Louisiana, not the earlier clip from the Book of Mormon musical. (Granted, they both do say the same thing, since that's LDS missionaries' opening line in real life.)

Actually, that's exactly what they do: talk to every random stranger.

Don't twist my words. What I wrote was this: "They just don't want to have a friendly chat because they just happen to be in the area and want to talk to some random strangers. Geez."

In other words, they don't just want to have a friendly chat with some random strangers because LDS missionaries just happen to be nice folks (though no doubt they truly are, in many/most cases). It's door-to-door proselytization of non-LDS people, not a social visit. The religious content of their message is by no means incidental or a secondary purpose for knocking on the door of any non-Mormon.

No, there is no particular schedule. And it's ridiculous how big of deal you're making of "we do missionary work on the west side of town where our congregation is, and the east side congregation's missionaries do stuff on the east side of town."

I'm not making a big deal out of anything. I'm defending what I've written in the face of your "Well, actually..." style of posting about something that another Mormon member in this very thread, Peter100, has had no trouble admitting is actually what happens.

Correction: I have dismissed every one of your pre-concivied accusations as not remotely reality.

Again, I'll leave it up to people who have had one-on-one interactions with LDS door-to-door missionaries (I suspect that everyone probably has at least once; I have several times, due to a former family member converting to Mormonism for a time) to decide who is being truthful here. You may think that things happen more or less at random for purely altruistic/secular purposes, but I think most people realize when they are being proselytized by an aggressive missionary campaign like that of the LDS.

Including lots of videos made by the same people whom made South Park.

Yep. As I wrote literally in the very same section of the post: "Not all are from Mormon sources or direct missionary testimonies (read: there are plenty of parodies, criticism, etc.), but plenty are (channels like "Missionary Mall", "Mormon Newsroom", and "Mormon Channel" are obviously pro-LDS)."

Again, please provide an example of an example of an LDS missionary who posted a video of themselves on YouTube to support your accusation.

I don't even understand how this is an 'accusation'. Oooo, Mormons post videos of missionary activity! Those evil, evil Mormons! You seem to be so convinced that I see Mormon people as irreparably evil ever plain statement of fact like the number of results that come up for "LDS missionary" on YouTUbe becomes an 'accusation'. Pretty odd, seeing as how in other replies to me in this thread, you said I sounded paranoid. Physician, heal thyself?

If you don't want to provide any evidence of your claim, that's your choice.

I don't believe it's necessary, since the strength of the claim is "these things exist", rather than "these things exist and are horrible" or something. It's not even a judgment call or saying anything in particular about the content, beyond the fact that you can find it if you're on the internet. And you are on the internet, as is everyone reading this. And besides, I'm certainly not here to stump for the LDS in any way, shape, or form.

Your point is to compare LDS missionaries to this minister. So yes, please link the flaming wardrobe.

No. I've already explained why I'm not doing that.

From this Christian run website: "Flaming is defined as an attack on another member's character, as opposed to their arguments or beliefs."

Disagreement in theology is not flaming. There is no "Theological and ecclesiological flaming". Another false claim.

Wait a minute, though...the whole point of phrasing things as I have is to get you to realize that, as you seem to be taking this minister's choice of t-shirt as 'flaming', you likewise are not following the definition of flaming that is common to this website/most people. Flaming is indeed an attack on the person, rather than the idea the person is espousing, while the minister's t-shirt attacks the theological idea Joseph Smith expressed (that daily repentance is not pleasing before God), rather than anything about the character of Joseph Smith. So either the t-shirt is not flaming, or disagreement in theology is flaming. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Jane_Doe]

(Limited on time, replying to just a target thing)

Yes dzheremi, I do believe that you are making groundless accusations against the LDS beliefs and people. I believe that many on this sub-forum, such as the minister on the OP video, are willing to lie and to mock and do all manner of un-Christ-like things in the name of "convincing those evil un-Christian Mormons to come to Christ". I believe that any time a mainstream Christian calls the mockers out on this, that they are absolutely ridiculed by their "brothers" in mainstream Christianity.

I have acquired this belief from my time on this forum, because I see this behavior over and over again.

 

[withwonderingawe]

he's not disrupting a Mormon worship service, but some kind outdoor gathering, so it's not akin to a protestor actually disrupting a Catholic mass.

Well it sort of is, that building in the back ground is the Manti temple. Once a year they have a Book of Mormon pageant, we go their with our families to enjoy a play and music not to be harassed by anti Mormons with blow horns and signs telling us we're all headed to hell.

Note the children trying drowned him out,