The Problem With A Mormon President?

[Kuan]

This isnt a big topic but I am curious as to why so many people are scared of a mormon president? Is there a legit reason or is it just fear of a "cult?"

[fewwillfindit]

From a purely New Testament perspective, it is not inconsistent.

Im unaware of the NT describing what a cult is. I think the problem with the bible, like all holy books, is how open to interpretation it is. Some people think the NT teaches that all religions are equal and every one is good. And some take the view that you do. Unfortunately, this is a byproduct of a book written by many different people over a long period of time.

The phrase, "Some people think," is meaningless when it comes to what the New Testament says. I apologize if this is getting too preachy, but evidence is required to answer you, since it is the New Testament of which we are speaking.

(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

(Acts 4:8-12) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people,if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well,let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-- by this name this man stands here before you in good health.He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

These two scriptures alone prove that if "some people think" that the Bible preaches that all religions are true, they are wrong, from a Biblical perspective. Christianity is exclusivist by its very nature. Any Christianity that preaches that all paths lead to heaven is no Christianity at all.

What I am trying to show you is that opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the basic truths in the New Testament. It says what it says, and if one doesn't follow it, then that person isn't a Christian. One can call onesself anything one wishes, but it doesn't make it so.

[nygreenguy]

The phrase, "Some people think," is meaningless when it comes to what the New Testament says. I apologize if this is getting too preachy, but evidence is required to answer you, since it is the New Testament of which we are speaking.

(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

(Acts 4:8-12) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people,if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well,let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-- by this name this man stands here before you in good health.He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

These two scriptures alone prove that if "some people think" that the Bible preaches that all religions are true, they are wrong, from a Biblical perspective. Christianity is exclusivist by its very nature. Any Christianity that preaches that all paths lead to heaven is no Christianity at all.

What I am trying to show you is that opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the basic truths in the New Testament. It says what it says, and if one doesn't follow it, then that person isn't a Christian. One can call onesself anything one wishes, but it doesn't make it so.

This is all based upon your interpretation of the NT. There are a great deal of christians that think that literalists like you are "missing the forest" and ignoring Jesus's message. Im not defending anyone, Im simply saying that some people read the exact same book much differently than you do.

And no, quoting the bible isnt necessarily preaching and I dont consider this preaching at all. Id much rather you give your evidence than just your opinion.

[fewwillfindit]

The phrase, "Some people think," is meaningless when it comes to what the New Testament says. I apologize if this is getting too preachy, but evidence is required to answer you, since it is the New Testament of which we are speaking.

(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

(Acts 4:8-12) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people,if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well,let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-- by this name this man stands here before you in good health.He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

These two scriptures alone prove that if "some people think" that the Bible preaches that all religions are true, they are wrong, from a Biblical perspective. Christianity is exclusivist by its very nature. Any Christianity that preaches that all paths lead to heaven is no Christianity at all.

What I am trying to show you is that opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the basic truths in the New Testament. It says what it says, and if one doesn't follow it, then that person isn't a Christian. One can call onesself anything one wishes, but it doesn't make it so.

This is all based upon your interpretation of the NT. There are a great deal of christians that think that literalists like you are "missing the forest" and ignoring Jesus's message. Im not defending anyone, Im simply saying that some people read the exact same book much differently than you do.

And no, quoting the bible isnt necessarily preaching and I dont consider this preaching at all. Id much rather you give your evidence than just your opinion.

Well, I think I am at a loss for words. Without trees, there is no forest. The Bible is a compilation of words (trees), which make up the whole (forest). If it were merely philosophical ideologies that we could take or leave, then I could see your point, but we are talking about an entire world view, a religion. Christianity isn't just some ambiguous philosophy that I espouse, it is my entire life. It is my entire belief system. It is the most important thing in my life. I, as a person, am defined by Christianity. It is my identity.

The reason that the words are so important, is because it is from them that Christians derive the truth. Without a literal understanding of this truth, then there is no truth. This would relegate the Bible to the status of subjective truth, which it is not. I cannot understand why (and I am not speaking of Mormon's here...the conversation has taken a different direction for the time being) anyone would want to adopt the term "Christian" if they do not think that the writings upon which Christianity was founded are literally true. Why not call themselves something else entirely? I think that perhaps the term "Christian" has morphed into something altogether different than it once was. I perceive that today, many consider Christianity as a mere cultural or social identifier. I've heard some say they were Christian simply because they were born in nation that was predominently Christian, even though they couldn't answer even the most basic questions about Christianity.

I'm saying all this to explain why the very words of the Bible are important to Christians who take their beliefs seriously. From my perspective, there is simply no point in claiming to believe in something if that something can't be trusted in its entirety.

[nygreenguy]

This is all based upon your interpretation of the NT. There are a great deal of christians that think that literalists like you are "missing the forest" and ignoring Jesus's message. Im not defending anyone, Im simply saying that some people read the exact same book much differently than you do.

And no, quoting the bible isnt necessarily preaching and I dont consider this preaching at all. Id much rather you give your evidence than just your opinion.

Well, I think I am at a loss for words. Without trees, there is no forest. The Bible is a compilation of words (trees), which make up the whole (forest). If it were merely philosophical ideologies that we could take or leave, then I could see your point, but we are talking about an entire world view, a religion. Christianity isn't just some ambiguous philosophy that I espouse, it is my entire life. It is my entire belief system. It is the most important thing in my life. I, as a person, am defined by Christianity. It is my identity.

The reason that the words are so important, is because it is from them that Christians derive the truth. Without a literal understanding of this truth, then there is no truth. This would relegate the Bible to the status of subjective truth, which it is not. I cannot understand why (and I am not speaking of Mormon's here...the conversation has taken a different direction for the time being) anyone would want to adopt the term "Christian" if they do not think that the writings upon which Christianity was founded are literally true. Why not call themselves something else entirely? I think that perhaps the term "Christian" has morphed into something altogether different than it once was. I perceive that today, many consider Christianity as a mere cultural or social identifier. I've heard some say they were Christian simply because they were born in nation that was predominently Christian, even though they couldn't answer even the most basic questions about Christianity.

I'm saying all this to explain why the very words of the Bible are important to Christians who take their beliefs seriously. From my perspective, there is simply no point in claiming to believe in something if that something can't be trusted in its entirety.[/quote]

I actually pretty much agree with you in the entirety and the statement in bold is actually why I deconverted. I knew I couldnt trust the whole bible, so I was forced to be skeptical to all of it.

[fewwillfindit]

This is all based upon your interpretation of the NT. There are a great deal of christians that think that literalists like you are "missing the forest" and ignoring Jesus's message. Im not defending anyone, Im simply saying that some people read the exact same book much differently than you do.

And no, quoting the bible isnt necessarily preaching and I dont consider this preaching at all. Id much rather you give your evidence than just your opinion.

Well, I think I am at a loss for words. Without trees, there is no forest. The Bible is a compilation of words (trees), which make up the whole (forest). If it were merely philosophical ideologies that we could take or leave, then I could see your point, but we are talking about an entire world view, a religion. Christianity isn't just some ambiguous philosophy that I espouse, it is my entire life. It is my entire belief system. It is the most important thing in my life. I, as a person, am defined by Christianity. It is my identity.

The reason that the words are so important, is because it is from them that Christians derive the truth. Without a literal understanding of this truth, then there is no truth. This would relegate the Bible to the status of subjective truth, which it is not. I cannot understand why (and I am not speaking of Mormon's here...the conversation has taken a different direction for the time being) anyone would want to adopt the term "Christian" if they do not think that the writings upon which Christianity was founded are literally true. Why not call themselves something else entirely? I think that perhaps the term "Christian" has morphed into something altogether different than it once was. I perceive that today, many consider Christianity as a mere cultural or social identifier. I've heard some say they were Christian simply because they were born in nation that was predominently Christian, even though they couldn't answer even the most basic questions about Christianity.

I'm saying all this to explain why the very words of the Bible are important to Christians who take their beliefs seriously. From my perspective, there is simply no point in claiming to believe in something if that something can't be trusted in its entirety.

I actually pretty much agree with you in the entirety and the statement in bold is actually why I deconverted. I knew I couldnt trust the whole bible, so I was forced to be skeptical to all of it.

Well, I certainly respect your position. As a matter of fact, I respect it far more than I do a professing Christian who isn't sure if the Bible is true or not, yet continues to profess Christianity. I also respect someone like you much more than I respect someone who espouses Christianity but cannot explain why they believe it, or believes it because they were raised with it, or believes it because their church says it is true.

If one doesn't own what they believe, then they do not know what they believe.

You are being intellectually honest, and I highly respect that.

[nygreenguy]

Well, I certainly respect your position. As a matter of fact, I respect it far more than I do a professing Christian who isn't sure if the Bible is true or not, yet continues to profess Christianity. I also respect someone like you much more than I respect someone who espouses Christianity but cannot explain why they believe it, or believes it because they were raised with it, or believes it because their church says it is true.

Well, I never bothered to be critical of anything I believed for a long time. Actually, I can understand it. If something is all you know, its hard to even consider anything else.

I think you explained pretty well why I dont have a whole lot of respect for liberal religions. They pick and choose what they like, and if the bible is supposed to be the word of god, as god I would be insulted and if you only pick some of the bible, how do you choose what to eliminate? I have always said "at least the fundamentalists are honest". They dont whitewash the religion with all the hippie granola crap.

You are being intellectually honest, and I highly respect that.

Well thank, I try!

[dianaiad]

This is not the debate in which I am engaging here. If I had a desire to debate these things, I'd be over in other threads going back and forth with the Muslims, Jews and non-theists. I am not attempting, in this thread, to prove how Christianity is more valid than Judaism or Islam. That is an entirely different discussion.

I was simply pointing out the inconsistencies with you calling Mormonism a cult.

From a purely New Testament perspective, it is not inconsistent. From a larger world view, I can understand how it does appear to be inconsistent, so I certainly understand and appreciate your point of view.

Calling Mormonism a 'cult' is 'not inconsistant' with the New Testament? Oh, my, I really need to hear your reasoning for this one.

[fewwillfindit]

This is not the debate in which I am engaging here. If I had a desire to debate these things, I'd be over in other threads going back and forth with the Muslims, Jews and non-theists. I am not attempting, in this thread, to prove how Christianity is more valid than Judaism or Islam. That is an entirely different discussion.

I was simply pointing out the inconsistencies with you calling Mormonism a cult.

From a purely New Testament perspective, it is not inconsistent. From a larger world view, I can understand how it does appear to be inconsistent, so I certainly understand and appreciate your point of view.

Calling Mormonism a 'cult' is 'not inconsistant' with the New Testament? Oh, my, I really need to hear your reasoning for this one.

Do you really want to push the issue? I don't. I'd rather let the original thread topic come back into play. But since you are insisting, please first read the following quotes from Mormon literature:

Joseph Smith History 1:18-20:

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join."

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw• near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.� He again forbade me to join with any of them;..."

Doctrine and Covenants 1:17,29,30
Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jr. and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments….And having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun,. might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon…….to lay the foundation of this church, and bring it forth out of obscurity…the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased…

Doctrine and Covenants 1:30-31
"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually— For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;"

Doctrine and Covenants 38:10-11:
"Verily I say unto you, ye are clean, but not all; and there is none else with whom I am well pleased; For all flesh is corrupted before me; and the powers of darkness prevail upon the earth, among the children of men, in the presence of all the hosts of heaven—"

Doctrine and Covenants 29:21: (about the Catholic Church)
"And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign."

Doctrine and Covenants 88:94: (about the Catholic Church)
"And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned. And he shall sound his trump both long and loud, and all nations shall hear it."

As you can see, the Mormon church considers all other churches to be false churches, and calls the Catholic church a great and abominable whore. Is it wrong of me, in light of this, to wish to examine the validity of Mormonism? Is it right for them to say that the rest of Christianity is false, but wrong for me to question them?

I am not the one in this thread who first called the Mormon church a cult, yet the burden now seems to be falling on me to defend that position. Rest assured, I can prove that the Mormon church does not preach the same gospel that is preached in the New Testament. If you do not like the term "cult," then I will simply call it false Christianity. The term is irrelevant. What matters is that Mormonism is not Christianity, since Christianity is defined in the New Testament. Please note that it has the potential to completely dominate the rest of this thread, and I'm certain that's not what the OP intended, so at this point, unless I am further challenged, I will stop talking about it.

[Kuan]

This is not the debate in which I am engaging here. If I had a desire to debate these things, I'd be over in other threads going back and forth with the Muslims, Jews and non-theists. I am not attempting, in this thread, to prove how Christianity is more valid than Judaism or Islam. That is an entirely different discussion.

I was simply pointing out the inconsistencies with you calling Mormonism a cult.

From a purely New Testament perspective, it is not inconsistent. From a larger world view, I can understand how it does appear to be inconsistent, so I certainly understand and appreciate your point of view.

Calling Mormonism a 'cult' is 'not inconsistant' with the New Testament? Oh, my, I really need to hear your reasoning for this one.

Do you really want to push the issue? I don't. I'd rather let the original thread topic come back into play. But since you are insisting, please first read the following quotes from Mormon literature:

Joseph Smith History 1:18-20:

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join."

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw• near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.� He again forbade me to join with any of them;..."

Doctrine and Covenants 1:17,29,30
Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jr. and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments….And having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun,. might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon…….to lay the foundation of this church, and bring it forth out of obscurity…the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased…

Doctrine and Covenants 1:30-31
"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually— For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;"

Doctrine and Covenants 38:10-11:
"Verily I say unto you, ye are clean, but not all; and there is none else with whom I am well pleased; For all flesh is corrupted before me; and the powers of darkness prevail upon the earth, among the children of men, in the presence of all the hosts of heaven—"

Doctrine and Covenants 29:21: (about the Catholic Church)
"And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign."

Doctrine and Covenants 88:94: (about the Catholic Church)
"And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned. And he shall sound his trump both long and loud, and all nations shall hear it."

As you can see, the Mormon church considers all other churches to be false churches, and calls the Catholic church a great and abominable whore. Is it wrong of me, in light of this, to wish to examine the validity of Mormonism? Is it right for them to say that the rest of Christianity is false, but wrong for me to question them?

I am not the one in this thread who first called the Mormon church a cult, yet the burdon now seems to be falling on me to defend that position. Rest assured, I can prove that the Mormon church does not preach the same gospel that is preached in the New Testament. If you do not like the term "cult," then I will simply call it false Christianity. The term is irrelevant. What matters is that Mormonism is not Christianity, since Christianity is defined in the New Testament. If you would like me to expound on this and show you, I am willing. Please note that it has the potential to completely dominate the rest of this thread, and I'm certain that's not what the OP intended, so at this point, unless I am further challenged, I will stop talking about it.

First off, the catholic church is not the whore of the earth. You misinterpreted that. Second, we dont believe all other churches to be false. We believe that they all contain parts of the truth but non actually have the whole truth. Your right, if you want i'll move this discussion to another thread since it is off topic. If your interested: Are Mormons Christian?

[dianaiad]

This is not the debate in which I am engaging here. If I had a desire to debate these things, I'd be over in other threads going back and forth with the Muslims, Jews and non-theists. I am not attempting, in this thread, to prove how Christianity is more valid than Judaism or Islam. That is an entirely different discussion.

I was simply pointing out the inconsistencies with you calling Mormonism a cult.

From a purely New Testament perspective, it is not inconsistent. From a larger world view, I can understand how it does appear to be inconsistent, so I certainly understand and appreciate your point of view.

Calling Mormonism a 'cult' is 'not inconsistant' with the New Testament? Oh, my, I really need to hear your reasoning for this one.

Do you really want to push the issue? I don't.

.....and then you do...

I'd rather let the original thread topic come back into play. But since you are insisting, please first read the following quotes from Mormon literature:

These quotes are absolutely irrelevant to your claim that calling Mormonism a cult is 'not inconsistant' with the New Testament.

Not to mention that the last two, which you claim are about the CAtholic church, are absolutely NOT about the Catholic church. They are about the idea that there really are only two churches; the church of the Lamb (or Christ, or God) and the church of the devil...and these two churches are defined by the actions of their members; the church of the devil consists of all those who are evil, and the church of God consists of all those who believe in God and act accordingly. These two 'churches' do not have official names...not Catholicism, nor MOrmonism; there are Catholics, I'm sure, that are members of the 'church of the devil,' or the 'great and abominable church.' There are also Mormons who belong to it...and Muslims and Hindus and Presbyterians and even Quakers or Budhists.

At the same time, there are Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Baptists, Hindus, Presbyterians, Quakers, Shakers, JW's and a bunch of people who belong to the church of Christ; for these are they who, believing, have faith in their beliefs and act upon them.

It would be a good idea, if you are going to actually criticize Mormon beliefs, if you understand what they actually are.

Finally, I did ask how you justified your claim that calling Mormonism a cult was 'not inconsistant' with the New Testament. For that, I'm afraid, you are going to have to, first...show where the NT actually defines 'cult,' then showing how Mormonism falls into that definition.