How is the LDS a cult? Part 2

[RebeccaJ]

It being tuned out at the very least. Feeding the “we-are -being-persecution” complex, thus re-enforcing their ideas, at the very most.

Either way, fruitless.

I can’t see how Mormons can maintain the persecution complex as they move out of the margins of society. I think we should not marginalized anyone, including LDS.

I don’t see the any approach as particularly fruitless. Sometimes we can be pointless, but sometimes people are insightful. Including posts from LDS. So, I’m thinking it is what I bring to the discussion. Listening to understand, which I can get caught up and stop doing, especially when the frustration level notches up!

 

[Marie5890]

Let me ask you this Marie, do you pray for others and their conversion? If yes, then its fruitless, it bears no fruit because they are not changing in their hearts. It may seem like we are not bearing fruit here but to us, time just ticks by, to God its different.

I don’t pray "lord convert this person " sort of prayer,no. I find that fruitless
My prayer is more along the way of placing them in the Lord’s hands and asking the Lord to shepard them according to his great wisdom, mercy, love and will.

I do understand the point you are trying to make about we all pray fruitless prayers. When I discern that is the wall I hit, I ponder on how to alter my prayer to make it more in line with His holy Will.

Hope that makes sense

 

[Marie5890]

I can’t see how Mormons can maintain the persecution complex as they move out of the margins of society. I think we should not marginalized anyone, including LDS.

I don’t see the any approach as particularly fruitless. Sometimes we can be pointless, but sometimes people are insightful. Including posts from LDS. So, I’m thinking it is what I bring to the discussion. Listening to understand, which I can get caught up and stop doing, especially when the frustration level notches up!

The persecution complex is a subtle, though sometimes not so subtle, part of the culture as a barometer of truth. It 's used to bolster "testimonies "

Like I replied to Kim, if I find that my approach is fruitlees, or pointless if you prefer, I take it as an opportunity to rethink what I am doing /how I am saying it, that may be more in line with the Lord 's way and will.

 

[TexanKnight]

The persecution complex is a subtle, though sometimes not so subtle, part of the culture as a barometer of truth. It 's used to bolster "testimonies "

Like I replied to Kim, if I find that my approach is fruitlees, or pointless if you prefer, I take it as an opportunity to rethink what I am doing /how I am saying it, that may be more in line with the Lord 's way and will.

And yet it does not seem to be working. Would that be fruitless?

I find it odd that people would assume their way is the only and that only their view of how God wants it is right.

Be blessed

 

[ffg]

This is funny, it reminds me of a great talk once by a couple who had everyone’s heads shaking in agreement when they explained how Husbands and Wives always want the other to act more like them. Specifically, it was in discipline of Children, but in general it was a frustration with how the other functioned in thought and action.

It’s key to understand than Men and Women are different, they do things differently and that difference is not a wrong.

If you can’t read the intent of the writing and can’t see past the tone, why respond?

It only kills great discussion.

 

[Marie5890]

Think again. I’m just going with the definition you chose.

Was it fruitless to attempt the surgery?

Was it fruitless to carry the child?

It is never fruitless to tell the ***truth ***about something. Especially mormonism.

ETA:Quote.

The surgery didnt bare fruit.
If you believe that life begins at conception, clearly it’s a fruitful conception. Length of life not withstanding.

The process I have seen here done over and over and over again is fruitless.

 

[Marie5890]

This is funny, it reminds me of a great talk once by a couple who had everyone’s heads shaking in agreement when they explained how Husbands and Wives always want the other to act more like them. Specifically, it was in discipline of Children, but in general it was a frustration with how the other functioned in thought and action.

It’s key to understand than Men and Women are different, they do things differently and that difference is not a wrong.

If you can’t read the intent of the writing and can’t see past the tone, why respond?

It only kills great discussion.

Great insight and reminder.
Men and women’s brains are clearly hardwired differently.

 

[TexanKnight]

This is funny, it reminds me of a great talk once by a couple who had everyone’s heads shaking in agreement when they explained how Husbands and Wives always want the other to act more like them. Specifically, it was in discipline of Children, but in general it was a frustration with how the other functioned in thought and action.

It’s key to understand than Men and Women are different, they do things differently and that difference is not a wrong.

If you can’t read the intent of the writing and can’t see past the tone, why respond?

It only kills great discussion.

I totally agree. The fly in the ointment is not the differences…we should accept those…it is the constant chastising by those who believe their way of teaching and debating is the only right way

We should let each other defend our faith the way we feel is right. I do not chastise them for being soft. I would appreciate the same respect.

 

[Lochias]

The surgery didnt bare fruit.
If you believe that life begins at conception, clearly it’s a fruitful conception. Length of life not withstanding.

The word you’re looking for is bear, not bare. “Bare” means to remove an outside covering or to expose something. “Bear” means to carry or have (aside from the animal meaning).

The process I have seen here done over and over and over again is fruitless.

How do you know? Can you read the mind of every lurker on the board who may have taken something away from the conversation?

 

[jrtrent]

I totally agree. The fly in the ointment is not the differences…we should accept those…it is the constant chastising by those who believe their way of teaching and debating is the only right way

We should let each other defend our faith the way we feel is right. I do not chastise them for being soft. I would appreciate the same respect.

You once accused me of being uncharitable in my responses, and you may well have been right. I now make it a point to regularly visit the Important Forum Information thread to remind myself of what is expected here. Throughout the guidelines there we read admonitions to be civil, charitable, respectful, non-inflammatory, non-accusatory, to avoid inflammatory remarks and derogatory terms. The purpose of this forum is described as exploring the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths. Mr. Monahan wrote, “It is our hope that respectful dialogue and discussion will lead to better faith understandings.”

My understanding of the intent is that this forum is not a battlefield, where people take sides against one another’s churches and their respective leaders, founders, and doctrines. The purpose seems to be that of learning our similarities and differences, to dialogue with one another, remembering, as Rachel Malloy put it, “Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.” Of course there will be differences of opinion on many issues, and, again from Malloy, “Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.”

What you perceive as “soft” is probably just the efforts some make to show respect for someone else’s beliefs. If you are sometimes attacked for your presentation style, it’s probably because someone can’t see in it an attempt to be respectful and charitable.

 

[TexanKnight]

You once accused me of being uncharitable in my responses, and you may well have been right.

I do not recall doing that. I typically only do that if there is name calling., Please provide reference so I can see context.

I now make it a point to regularly visit the Important Forum Information thread to remind myself of what is expected here. Throughout the guidelines there we read admonitions to be civil, charitable, respectful, non-inflammatory, non-accusatory, to avoid inflammatory remarks and derogatory terms. The purpose of this forum is described as exploring the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths. Mr. Monahan wrote, “It is our hope that respectful dialogue and discussion will lead to better faith understandings.”

Which is why I never call anyone names…I simply post truth.

What you perceive as “soft” is probably just the efforts some make to show respect for someone else’s beliefs. If you are sometimes attacked for your presentation style, it’s probably because someone can’t see in it an attempt to be respectful and charitable.

Your opinion is noted. And if that is how they choose to try, I have no problem with it. It is the constant preaching that is offensive…

 

[twopekinguys]

The surgery didnt bare fruit.
If you believe that life begins at conception, clearly it’s a fruitful conception. Length of life not withstanding.

The process I have seen here done over and over and over again is fruitless.

So, you’re saying since the surgery didn’t bear fruit, it was unnecessary to try? We should only do things that have a guaranteed outcome?

Yeah right, let’s go with that approach and see where it gets us.

You didn’t answer the question about the pregnancy, but I see from your other responses why you haven’t/didn’t. You have demonstrated seeing things in posts that aren’t really there. I never mentioned the word “conception” did I?

 

[twopekinguys]

The word you’re looking for is bear, not bare. “Bare” means to remove an outside covering or to expose something. “Bear” means to carry or have (aside from the animal meaning).

How do you know? Can you read the mind of every lurker on the board who may have taken something away from the conversation?

DING, DING, DING!!!

We have a winner!!!

 

[jrtrent]

I So I think we ought to look somewhere other than dictionaries for a useful definition, and we’ll probably have to look somewhere other than Catholic Church teaching for definition with negative connotations.

Perhaps we might use one such as this, suggested by a Christianity Today writer:

Originally Posted by Marshall Shelley
A religious group that is:

Getting back to the OP’s question, I think aspirant’s plea to define what a cult is is fundamental. The one he offered above is interesting, and the LDS church would seem to fit at least points 1 and 2. I also like the one I posted a few pages ago:

“As distinct from a religion, a cult is a group that claims to be part of the religion, yet denies essential truth(s) of that religion. A Christian cult is a group that denies one or more of the fundamental truths of Christianity, while still claiming to be Christian.” gotquestions.org/cult-definition.html

If Mormons didn’t claim to be Christians, they couldn’t be a Christian cult; but they do say they are Christians. This leads to the question, what are the essential truths of Christianity. Most Christians–Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and the majority of Protestants–accept the Nicene Creed. Mormons don’t. Is that enough to label them as a cult? One definition of Christian that I like is suggested by Smith’s Bible dictionary:

"This difference [between Christian and non-Christian religions] is constituted by the Christian religion having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who give credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor."

By that definition, I’m not so sure Mormons don’t qualify as being Christian. Even though I left the church, I definitely considered myself a Christian while a part of it, and I don’t see my continuing Mormon friends as non-Christian just because they are still LDS. Another round of Kumbaya, anyone?

 

[pablope]

Getting back to the OP’s question, I think aspirant’s plea to define what a cult is is fundamental. The one he offered above is interesting, and the LDS church would seem to fit at least points 1 and 2. I also like the one I posted a few pages ago:

One definition of Christian that I like is suggested by Smith’s Bible dictionary:

"This difference [between Christian and non-Christian religions] is constituted by the Christian religion having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who give credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor."

By that definition, I’m not so sure Mormons don’t qualify as being Christian. Even though I left the church, I definitely considered myself a Christian while a part of it, and I don’t see my continuing Mormon friends as non-Christian just because they are still LDS. Another round of Kumbaya, anyone?

But then…which definition of Christ? As has been presented in numerous LDS threads…the LDS understanding of Christ…from their inception, is quite different than the “traditional” Christian understanding of Christ and beliefs…as defined by the ancient creeds.

 

[TexanKnight]

Getting back to the OP’s question, I think aspirant’s plea to define what a cult is is fundamental. The one he offered above is interesting, and the LDS church would seem to fit at least points 1 and 2. I also like the one I posted a few pages ago:

“As distinct from a religion, a cult is a group that claims to be part of the religion, yet denies essential truth(s) of that religion. A Christian cult is a group that denies one or more of the fundamental truths of Christianity, while still claiming to be Christian.” gotquestions.org/cult-definition.html

If Mormons didn’t claim to be Christians, they couldn’t be a Christian cult; but they do say they are Christians. This leads to the question, what are the essential truths of Christianity. Most Christians–Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and the majority of Protestants–accept the Nicene Creed. Mormons don’t. Is that enough to label them as a cult? One definition of Christian that I like is suggested by Smith’s Bible dictionary:

"This difference [between Christian and non-Christian religions] is constituted by the Christian religion having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who give credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor."

By that definition, I’m not so sure Mormons don’t qualify as being Christian. Even though I left the church, I definitely considered myself a Christian while a part of it, and I don’t see my continuing Mormon friends as non-Christian just because they are still LDS. Another round of Kumbaya, anyone?

darn. Was hoping you could back up your contention.

oh well.

And no…saying one believes in Jesus Christ does not make them a Christian. Believing in THE Jesus Christ does. If you morph the real Jesus into something that is not the real Jesus…then you are not real Christians.

 

[jrtrent]

But then…which definition of Christ? As has been presented in numerous LDS threads…the LDS understanding of Christ…from their inception, is quite different than the “traditional” Christian understanding of Christ and beliefs…as defined by the ancient creeds.

Yep, you and TexanKnight make a valid point.

What’s interesting to a sola scriptura believer is that with respect to the Arian controversy leading up to the council at Nicaea, Schaff’s books on the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers noted, “The Fathers of the Council at Nice were at one time ready to accede to the request of some of the bishops and use only scriptural expressions in their definitions. But, after several attempts, they found that all these were capable of being explained away.” And in the historical introduction to the Council of Nice we read:

"The editor, however, ventures to call the attention of the reader to the fact that in this, as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect—to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been intrusted to me to hand down to others?"

In defining the real Jesus, we need to decide how much weight and authority we give to the early church and its councils, and how much wiggle room we allow those who don’t acknowledge the councils at all.

However, I’m afraid I’m being out of step with my own church’s teachings, which includes acceptance of the Nicene Creed, if I can’t concede that Mormons believe in a different Jesus (and different Father and different . . .)

 

[TexanKnight]

Yep, you and TexanKnight make a valid point.

What’s interesting to a sola scriptura believer is that with respect to the Arian controversy leading up to the council at Nicaea, Schaff’s books on the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers noted, “The Fathers of the Council at Nice were at one time ready to accede to the request of some of the bishops and use only scriptural expressions in their definitions. But, after several attempts, they found that all these were capable of being explained away.” And in the historical introduction to the Council of Nice we read:

"The editor, however, ventures to call the attention of the reader to the fact that in this, as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect—to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been intrusted to me to hand down to others?"

In defining the real Jesus, we need to decide how much weight and authority we give to the early church and its councils, and how much wiggle room we allow those who don’t acknowledge the councils at all.

However, I’m afraid I’m being out of step with my own church’s teachings, which includes acceptance of the Nicene Creed, if I can’t concede that Mormons believe in a different Jesus (and different Father and different . . .)

Not sure what you would not accept from the early Fathers…and what you would base it on…but we know that a man who came from a sinful man who became a god and is not part of the Trinity is NOT the real Jesus

 

[mtolympus]

Why baptize an 8 year old? Do you think they have committed a personal sin?

Children are pure and innocent before the Lord. The age of 8 was set by the Lord as the age children become accountable. At this age they are able to understand the principles of faith and repentance which are required for baptism:

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:35-38)

Here we see that believing was the requirment for baptism. Again, we see that they stopped their chairiot and “they went down both into the water.” An unlikely thing to do if baptism by immersion was not important.

 

[mtolympus]

Keeping children in death caused by Adam seems cruel. Why do Mormon’s withhold life in Christ until 8 years old?

Eight years is the age of accountability set be the Lord, when children are old enough to believe in Jesus Christ and repent. When Jesus died on the cross He over came original sin for all and therefore children are pure and free from sin.

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:20-22)

Why would you withhold this reconciliation until the age of 8?

“At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”(Matt. 18:1-3)

Children are pure and innocent before the Lord and all children will be saved in the kingdom of heaven:

“And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celesetial kingdom of heaven.” (D&C 137:10)