Mormons ... can anyone clear these things up for me?

[majick275]

Consider the one about Mormons thinking that “familiar spirits” are good. This comes from a passage in the Book of Mormon that prophesies that it will come forth and speak as if it were a familiar spirit, obviously meaning that it would be like the dead speaking, because it was written by people all long dead. A “familiar spirit” is a spirit of a dead person that someone like a medium consults. This kind of witchcraft (necromancy) is condemned in the Bible, and so some fundamentalist critic of Mormonism thought it was a good argument to say that Mormonism must be false because the Book of Mormon says familiar spirits are good. But the Book of Mormon actually says no such thing. It only says that the people who wrote the Book of Mormon would speak from the dead through its pages, LIKE a familiar spirit. It’s a simple (and rather obvious) simile–a literary device.

Now, look how much I had to write to clear up a single, stupid point like that. Anyone who actually wanted to understand Mormonism would not have posted anything like that. Instead, he would have:

a. noticed that there were no references in the charge, and dismissed it, or
b. asked someone knowledgeable what the charge was referring to, then looked up the references on the internet and decided that the charge was silly.

My guess is that most of the Mormons here (like Z) hang around because they notice that their faith gets discussed a lot here, and want to be a resource for people who actually want to know what we believe, instead of lob silly, time-wasting attacks. So if you don’t want your questions dismissed, take a little time to look into them and see if they are worth talking about.

i seriously doubt that. i think most mormons here are wannabe missionaries trolling for converts. z on the other hand is on some ego trip and just loves to bash. if people here wanted to know what mormons believe from mormons they would go to lds.org or something like it. the folks that ask questions here though usually want it explained in catholic terms they understand and/or don’t want milk before meat spin, conversion attempts, etc.

the “discussions” seem to occur when mormons jump in with the “we don’t teach that” and then we have to go into detail on what the LDS church really teaches and/or has taught in the past.

 

[ibkc]

if people here wanted to know what mormons believe from mormons they would go to lds.org or something like it. the folks that ask questions here though usually want it explained in catholic terms they understand and/or don’t want milk before meat spin, conversion attempts, etc.

Right, exactly. That is why I started this thread here.

 

[BartBurk]

Here is what I understand about Mormon beliefs about God and Jesus.

1. God is a man, with a physical body, but He is also spirit. Is this correct?
   a. if God has a physical body, is it the same one He had when he was living as a regular man?
2. Jesus was born twice: once as a “spirit child” parented by God and one of his celestial wives, and again on this world parented by God and the woman named Mary, who conceived him via the normal human way of sexual intercourse. Is this correct?

• Jesus also assisted God in creating this world. Is this correct?

1. God can switch back and forth between the spirit world and having a physical body, but Jesus cannot. Is this correct? I am just guessing this due to my understanding that Jesus was born twice, once in the spirit world and once in this world.
2. Is God in charge of just this planet, or the entire universe, or something in between?

Sorry if this is too much for one post.

If Mormons were honest about this, I think the only answer they could give is, “We don’t know.” They have received so many conflicting teachings from their prophets and apostles. Very little of this is actually addressed in their scriptures. I think they would be able to positively say they believe God the Father created the universe through Jesus Christ. They might claim there are multiple universes created through various Gods, but this universe was created by our God through Jesus Christ. From the little I have read the idea of multiple universes may be supported by science.

 

[BDawg]

OK so what is the answer to post #45 as indicated below. I am curious as to what the answer is.

Quote:
Mormons believe, the Heavenly Father came to earth and had physical, sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary. Rejecting both the testimony of Scripture (Luke 1:34-35) and the constant teaching of the Christian Church, Mormons believe Christ was conceived by the Father, and not by the Holy Spirit. (Journal of Discourses 2:268.)

Hi Dubya,

No problem–here’s the scoop. Mormons believe that God the Father has a physical body in human form. That’s very clear in our scriptures. So how would such a person go about “begetting” an earthly son, as the New Testament says he did? Well, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and some other early LDS leaders speculated that “begetting” always happens the same way–sexually–so that’s obviously how the Father “begot” the Son. They never really came out and said they believed God had “sexual intercourse” with Mary, but it is clear enough that they believed there was a sperm and an egg, so to speak. Anyway, the problem is that the scriptures also are very clear that Mary was a virgin after the “begetting” took place, and so more recent LDS prophets, like E.T. Benson, have made it clear that, whatever the mechanics of conception, Mary was still a virgin after it took place. In this age of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and such, it is much easier to imagine all sorts of ways this could have taken place.

So, to recap, here’s how today’s Mormons typically see the issue.

Our scriptures are clear that:

1. God has a physical body in human form,
2. God was the father of Jesus’ body with Mary,
3. Mary was a virgin before and after the conception.

Our scriptures say nothing about the mechanics of conception, and to our knowledge none of our prophets have had any non-canonized revelations about the subject. However, some of our early leaders speculated a bit about it, but the speculation sort of ran its course a long time ago, and we prefer just to leave it an open question, while emphasizing what our scriptures are clear about.

This seems to me to be, once again, analogous to the Catholic belief about the fate of unbaptized infants. There was lots of early (and not so early) speculation about “limbo,” and the like. (Limbo was even in the Baltimore Catechism.) However, now the Catechism points to the scripture where Jesus said “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” about little children, and leaves the fate of unbaptized infants as an open question.

So when someone says that “Mormons believe…” some weird thing or other, and reference the Journal of Discourses, the truth is probably that some Mormons speculated about the subject at some point, but it never became official doctrine. The same goes for Limbo. Some Catholics speculated about it at some point, but it never quite made the cut for official dogma.

Clear enough?

 

[BDawg]

i seriously doubt that. i think most mormons here are wannabe missionaries trolling for converts. z on the other hand is on some ego trip and just loves to bash. if people here wanted to know what mormons believe from mormons they would go to lds.org or something like it. the folks that ask questions here though usually want it explained in catholic terms they understand and/or don’t want milk before meat spin, conversion attempts, etc.

Well, for Mormons, wanting to convert you just means that we like you. I don’t have any problem admitting that I would like to help some people here convert to Mormonism. Why not? I hope not to be rude or dishonest in the attempt, however. (Sometimes I fail with the rudeness, mainly because, at heart, I am a nasty SOB. I get it from my father’s side. Now, I could go on to say that my father’s side was a bunch of Catholics, but that would be both rude and dishonest. Nyuck, nyuck.)

 

[wmscott]

Hi Dubya,

No problem–here’s the scoop. Mormons believe that God the Father has a physical body in human form. That’s very clear in our scriptures. So how would such a person go about “begetting” an earthly son, as the New Testament says he did? Well, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and some other early LDS leaders speculated that “begetting” always happens the same way–sexually–so that’s obviously how the Father “begot” the Son. They never really came out and said they believed God had “sexual intercourse” with Mary, but it is clear enough that they believed there was a sperm and an egg, so to speak. Anyway, the problem is that the scriptures also are very clear that Mary was a virgin after the “begetting” took place, and so more recent LDS prophets, like E.T. Benson, have made it clear that, whatever the mechanics of conception, Mary was still a virgin after it took place. In this age of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and such, it is much easier to imagine all sorts of ways this could have taken place.

So, to recap, here’s how today’s Mormons typically see the issue.

Our scriptures are clear that:

1. God has a physical body in human form,
2. God was the father of Jesus’ body with Mary,
3. Mary was a virgin before and after the conception.

Our scriptures say nothing about the mechanics of conception, and to our knowledge none of our prophets have had any non-canonized revelations about the subject. However, some of our early leaders speculated a bit about it, but the speculation sort of ran its course a long time ago, and we prefer just to leave it an open question, while emphasizing what our scriptures are clear about.

This seems to me to be, once again, analogous to the Catholic belief about the fate of unbaptized infants. There was lots of early (and not so early) speculation about “limbo,” and the like. (Limbo was even in the Baltimore Catechism.) However, now the Catechism points to the scripture where Jesus said “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” about little children, and leaves the fate of unbaptized infants as an open question.

So when someone says that “Mormons believe…” some weird thing or other, and reference the Journal of Discourses, the truth is probably that some Mormons speculated about the subject at some point, but it never became official doctrine. The same goes for Limbo. Some Catholics speculated about it at some point, but it never quite made the cut for official dogma.

Clear enough?

Thanks for your response, at least you answered my question in detail and did not avoid doing so. Thanks again. Even if I do not agree and feel that the answer is out there from my viewpoint and beliefs, at least I have learned something new today.

 

[BDawg]

Thanks for your response, at least you answered my question in detail and did not avoid doing so. Thanks again. Even if I do not agree and feel that the answer is out there from my viewpoint and beliefs, at least I have learned something new today.

No problem. On the Internet, it’s hard to tell the difference between someone who actually wants to know, but is just quoting what some jerk said, and someone who is just a jerk. I think maybe you knew so little about Mormons that you couldn’t recognize how your questions would be taken, and just cut-and-pasted them from an anti-LDS website. Many of them were the same kind of caliber as if I were to ask, “Why do Catholics believe in cannibalism?” I would be referring to the doctrine of transubstantiation, of course, but the entire question is misleading, unfair, and would only be meant to provoke people.

So anyway, I’m telling you this so that you will understand why some LDS people might have taken offense at the original questions. You seemed surprised by the response, so I proceeded on the assumption that you didn’t mean to give offense. Stick around these boards, though, and you will soon come to realize that there are others who actually do mean to give offense.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

i seriously doubt that. i think most mormons here are wannabe missionaries trolling for converts. z on the other hand is on some ego trip and just loves to bash. if people here wanted to know what mormons believe from mormons they would go to lds.org or something like it. the folks that ask questions here though usually want it explained in catholic terms they understand and/or don’t want milk before meat spin, conversion attempts, etc.

the “discussions” seem to occur when mormons jump in with the “we don’t teach that” and then we have to go into detail on what the LDS church really teaches and/or has taught in the past.

Hello majick,

I can not tell you the motivation for Z and others.
I can tell you that I ( Catholic ) have a real desire to try and understand as well as evaluate ( for myself ) all the different beliefs we see today.
I do not " defend " Z or others ( most of them seem quite able to do so without little old me ) but Indeed do appreciate their (name removed by moderator)ut and views on these threads.
I will also add that my reason to ask questions on this site ( rather then , as you say, on lds.org , is because I GREATLY VALUE BOTH sides of the discussions ( YOURS AS WELL , THANK YOU )…

I will close by saying ( given the different beliefs we all have ) " Z "
has always responded to me in a kind and respectfull manner and that ( IF nothing else ) I do applaud and appreciate.

God bless,
Carl

 

[zerinus]

Consider the one about Mormons thinking that “familiar spirits” are good. This comes from a passage in the Book of Mormon that prophesies that it will come forth and speak as if it were a familiar spirit, obviously meaning that it would be like the dead speaking, because it was written by people all long dead. A “familiar spirit” is a spirit of a dead person that someone like a medium consults. This kind of witchcraft (necromancy) is condemned in the Bible, and so some fundamentalist critic of Mormonism thought it was a good argument to say that Mormonism must be false because the Book of Mormon says familiar spirits are good. But the Book of Mormon actually says no such thing. It only says that the people who wrote the Book of Mormon would speak from the dead through its pages, LIKE a familiar spirit. It’s a simple (and rather obvious) simile–a literary device.

Thanks for your comment. That passage you are referring to in the Book of Mormon is actually a quote from Isaiah, and is also found in the Bible:

Isaiah 29:

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

Well, for Mormons, wanting to convert you just means that we like you. I don’t have any problem admitting that I would like to help some people here convert to Mormonism. Why not? I hope not to be rude or dishonest in the attempt, however. (Sometimes I fail with the rudeness, mainly because, at heart, I am a nasty SOB. I get it from my father’s side. Now, I could go on to say that my father’s side was a bunch of Catholics, but that would be both rude and dishonest. Nyuck, nyuck.)

i respect your candor.

 

[majick275]

Hi Dubya,

No problem–here’s the scoop. Mormons believe that God the Father has a physical body in human form. That’s very clear in our scriptures. So how would such a person go about “begetting” an earthly son, as the New Testament says he did? Well, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and some other early LDS leaders speculated that “begetting” always happens the same way–sexually–so that’s obviously how the Father “begot” the Son. They never really came out and said they believed God had “sexual intercourse” with Mary, but it is clear enough that they believed there was a sperm and an egg, so to speak. Anyway, the problem is that the scriptures also are very clear that Mary was a virgin after the “begetting” took place, and so more recent LDS prophets, like E.T. Benson, have made it clear that, whatever the mechanics of conception, Mary was still a virgin after it took place. In this age of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and such, it is much easier to imagine all sorts of ways this could have taken place.

So, to recap, here’s how today’s Mormons typically see the issue.

Our scriptures are clear that:

1. God has a physical body in human form,
2. God was the father of Jesus’ body with Mary,
3. Mary was a virgin before and after the conception.

Our scriptures say nothing about the mechanics of conception, and to our knowledge none of our prophets have had any non-canonized revelations about the subject. However, some of our early leaders speculated a bit about it, but the speculation sort of ran its course a long time ago, and we prefer just to leave it an open question, while emphasizing what our scriptures are clear about.

This seems to me to be, once again, analogous to the Catholic belief about the fate of unbaptized infants. There was lots of early (and not so early) speculation about “limbo,” and the like. (Limbo was even in the Baltimore Catechism.) However, now the Catechism points to the scripture where Jesus said “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” about little children, and leaves the fate of unbaptized infants as an open question.

So when someone says that “Mormons believe…” some weird thing or other, and reference the Journal of Discourses, the truth is probably that some Mormons speculated about the subject at some point, but it never became official doctrine. The same goes for Limbo. Some Catholics speculated about it at some point, but it never quite made the cut for official dogma.

Clear enough?

this is probably the best answer of current mormon belief on this that i have seen from a mormon.

 

[BDawg]

Mormons believe, the Heavenly Father came to earth and had physical, sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary. Rejecting both the testimony of Scripture (Luke 1:34-35) and the constant teaching of the Christian Church, Mormons believe Christ was conceived by the Father, and not by the Holy Spirit. (Journal of Discourses 2:268.)

I should also add that Mormons do not believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but rather that the Holy Spirit had to be involved in the process. That is, we believe that in order to be in the presence of God, a mortal person must be “transfigured” by the power of God via the Holy Spirit, into a heavenly being. That’s how we would explain the New Testament passages that talk about the Holy Spirit being involved in the process.

 

[teancum79]

Teancum, I believe the questions I posed would be valid questions from any potential female converts especially those who were raised with abusive Fathers or married to abusive husbands.
Could you please explain how one is aware while being dead?

My best comparison (cheesy) is the 6th sense.

When we die we are not in a coma our spirit is separated from our body and we return to the spirit world. There we will be with others we know and love.

My personal guess is that in the 1000 years that Christ will reign on the earth problems can be sorted out.

Abuse is a sad thing, The LDS church like many others teaches that it is wrong and is working to prevent it, but like many other ills in society it will not go away easily.

 

[AMDGtoo]

On the Internet, it’s hard to tell the difference between someone who actually wants to know, but is just quoting what some jerk said, and someone who is just a jerk. I think maybe you knew so little about Mormons that you couldn’t recognize how your questions would be taken, and just cut-and-pasted them from an anti-LDS website. Many of them were the same kind of caliber as if I were to ask, “Why do Catholics believe in cannibalism?” I would be referring to the doctrine of transubstantiation, of course, but the entire question is misleading, unfair, and would only be meant to provoke people.

So anyway, I’m telling you this so that you will understand why some LDS people might have taken offense at the original questions. You seemed surprised by the response, so I proceeded on the assumption that you didn’t mean to give offense. Stick around these boards, though, and you will soon come to realize that there are others who actually do mean to give offense.

Well, can’t we all give each other the benefit of the doubt (and put all our hurt behind us for the time being) and just answer the questions as if the person really just wanted to know? That’s often the case you know. And without the detailed answers, IMO, all we have left are “the speculations of some jerk”. You know, not every question is an attack, (not everything is as it appears.)

BTW, thank you, BDawg for taking the time to answer. And thank you majick275 for your answers (and for putting it into Catholic thought that I can understand, and for making me feel comfortable that I’m NOT going to be an object of conversion by you (sorry BDawg, I hope you understand–I love my Catholic Faith and find being considered a potential convert like a piece of meat rather offensive). I also want to thank the OP for posting those copied questions because without you doing that, none of us would have had a chance to know the answers.

 

[BDawg]

Well, can’t we all give each other the benefit of the doubt (and put all our hurt behind us for the time being) and just answer the questions as if the person really just wanted to know? That’s often the case you know. And without the detailed answers, IMO, all we have left are “the speculations of some jerk”. You know, not every question is an attack, (not everything is as it appears.)

BTW, thank you, BDawg for taking the time to answer. And thank you majick275 for your answers (and for putting it into Catholic thought that I can understand, and for making me feel comfortable that I’m NOT going to be an object of conversion by you (sorry BDawg, I hope you understand–I love my Catholic Faith and find being considered a potential convert like a piece of meat rather offensive). I also want to thank the OP for posting those copied questions because without you doing that, none of us would have had a chance to know the answers.

Hi A,

I agree, but it takes a lot of time to answer such questions, and it is easy for people to get frustrated if they think someone is just trying to waste their time. I tried to be understanding with Dubya, but I wanted to help him be understanding with Mormons who were frustrated when he dumped this gigantic list of questions he copied and pasted off an anti-Mormon site.

But why does it make you feel so uncomfortable when I say I would like you to convert to Mormonism? Don’t you want me to convert to Catholicism? Just because I would like more people to agree with my point of view doesn’t mean I can’t 1) like, 2) respect, 3) hang around with, and 4) be polite to people who disagree with me.

I’ll be candid with you here, A. In my experience, people who claim a certain religion, yet get offended by someone else’s desire to convert them, usually are the sort of people who haven’t spent much time thinking about why they believe what they do. People who have taken that time tend to be a little more confident, and figure that if they find someone who wants to convert them, that’s great, because now they have a chance to talk candidly about religion, and maybe they can get the other person to change their mind, instead.

Is that where you are? That is, you haven’t taken much time to become secure in your faith, but you are starting to feel like you should study the issues more, so that’s why you hang around on these boards? If so, I’m glad for you, and I hope you can relax a bit. And I hope you try to convert me, because I would take it to mean that you like me.

 

[ibkc]

But why does it make you feel so uncomfortable when I say I would like you to convert to Mormonism? Don’t you want me to convert to Catholicism? Just because I would like more people to agree with my point of view doesn’t mean I can’t 1) like, 2) respect, 3) hang around with, and 4) be polite to people who disagree with me.

I’ll be candid with you here, A. In my experience, people who claim a certain religion, yet get offended by someone else’s desire to convert them, usually are the sort of people who haven’t spent much time thinking about why they believe what they do. People who have taken that time tend to be a little more confident, and figure that if they find someone who wants to convert them, that’s great, because now they have a chance to talk candidly about religion, and maybe they can get the other person to change their mind, instead.

BDawg, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head - for some cases. The flip side of the coin is that certain people, and certain faiths, will be dishonest in their attempts to convert. Speaking candidly, it is the experience of many that the Mormons can be less than forthcoming with potential converts, and can try to avoid talking about the LDS church is really all about. “Milk before meat” and all that, you know?

 

[majick275]

Hi A,

I agree, but it takes a lot of time to answer such questions, and it is easy for people to get frustrated if they think someone is just trying to waste their time. I tried to be understanding with Dubya, but I wanted to help him be understanding with Mormons who were frustrated when he dumped this gigantic list of questions he copied and pasted off an anti-Mormon site.

But why does it make you feel so uncomfortable when I say I would like you to convert to Mormonism? Don’t you want me to convert to Catholicism? Just because I would like more people to agree with my point of view doesn’t mean I can’t 1) like, 2) respect, 3) hang around with, and 4) be polite to people who disagree with me.

I’ll be candid with you here, A. In my experience, people who claim a certain religion, yet get offended by someone else’s desire to convert them, usually are the sort of people who haven’t spent much time thinking about why they believe what they do. People who have taken that time tend to be a little more confident, and figure that if they find someone who wants to convert them, that’s great, because now they have a chance to talk candidly about religion, and maybe they can get the other person to change their mind, instead.

Is that where you are? That is, you haven’t taken much time to become secure in your faith, but you are starting to feel like you should study the issues more, so that’s why you hang around on these boards? If so, I’m glad for you, and I hope you can relax a bit. And I hope you try to convert me, because I would take it to mean that you like me.

it’s a matter of “politeness”. you are at a catholic site and thus it is expected that you would be here to inquire about catholic things. it is also accepted that you would contribute the mormon perspective on all discussions especially when they are about mormon topics. it is considered bad manners to proselyte here. mormon missionaries can go to a catholic mass but preaching there or even just soliciting appointments is rude. catholic priests don’t preach in LDS chapels and people who stand even outside LDS temple grounds preaching are also rude.

you proselyte in your own church to those who have entered willingly OR you do it on neutral ground. your experiences seem very much in line with LDS missionary training. the catholic experience is somewhat different…BUT since you are HERE, in a CATHOLIC place and since you see it as a sign of “affection”… What do you know about the Catholic church and would you like to know more?

 

[BDawg]

it’s a matter of “politeness”. you are at a catholic site and thus it is expected that you would be here to inquire about catholic things. it is also accepted that you would contribute the mormon perspective on all discussions especially when they are about mormon topics. it is considered bad manners to proselyte here. mormon missionaries can go to a catholic mass but preaching there or even just soliciting appointments is rude. catholic priests don’t preach in LDS chapels and people who stand even outside LDS temple grounds preaching are also rude.

you proselyte in your own church to those who have entered willingly OR you do it on neutral ground. your experiences seem very much in line with LDS missionary training. the catholic experience is somewhat different…BUT since you are HERE, in a CATHOLIC place and since you see it as a sign of “affection”… What do you know about the Catholic church and would you like to know more?

Hi Maj,

If it’s ok for me to offer a Mormon “perspective” here, what does that mean? To me it means that I can help people understand what Mormons believe, and why they believe it. But as I see it, if I do a good job at that, maybe some people will want to pursue it more, and end up converting. Or maybe they won’t attack others who are converting with such vehemence, or whatever. So what? I don’t mind if better understanding is all that ever comes of it.

For what it’s worth, I never have, and never will, start a thread here. I have only ever responded to things that others brought up. Is that tame enough for you? I agree that I shouldn’t come here and start threads about how Catholicism is false and everyone should become a Mormon. That would be rude. But from what I have seen, the other Mormons here don’t do that any more than I do.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi Maj,

If it’s ok for me to offer a Mormon “perspective” here, what does that mean? To me it means that I can help people understand what Mormons believe, and why they believe it. But as I see it, if I do a good job at that, maybe some people will want to pursue it more, and end up converting. Or maybe they won’t attack others who are converting with such vehemence, or whatever. So what? I don’t mind if better understanding is all that ever comes of it.

For what it’s worth, I never have, and never will, start a thread here. I have only ever responded to things that others brought up. Is that tame enough for you? I agree that I shouldn’t come here and start threads about how Catholicism is false and everyone should become a Mormon. That would be rude. But from what I have seen, the other Mormons here don’t do that any more than I do.
With the possible exception of zerinus, who IS rude.

 

[majick275]

Hi Maj,

If it’s ok for me to offer a Mormon “perspective” here, what does that mean? To me it means that I can help people understand what Mormons believe, and why they believe it. But as I see it, if I do a good job at that, maybe some people will want to pursue it more, and end up converting. Or maybe they won’t attack others who are converting with such vehemence, or whatever. So what? I don’t mind if better understanding is all that ever comes of it.

For what it’s worth, I never have, and never will, start a thread here. I have only ever responded to things that others brought up. Is that tame enough for you? I agree that I shouldn’t come here and start threads about how Catholicism is false and everyone should become a Mormon. That would be rude. But from what I have seen, the other Mormons here don’t do that any more than I do.

you are far better than most. at least you’re up front about what you believe. but conversion attempts come in many flavors where mormonism is concerned. i guess then it’s about intent. the “why are you here” intent. if you came to ask about catholic doctrines/practices, great, catholic traditions? awesome. are you here because you might want to become catholic? even better. do you have catholic realtives or friends and want to understand their religion? that’s okay. are you here just to engage in apologetics? it’s allowed but i think your time better spent elsewhere like FAIR or MADB. if you really feel the need to “defend your faith” against hostile attacks then there plenty of fundie and evangelical sites for you to tilt at. but did you just come here to gain converts? is this your choice for “every member a missionary”? then i think it’s dishonest and impolite.

you know your motives. is god calling you here? why? repent and be baptized:thumbsup: