Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: farkas@qual.eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Mormonism and Christianity Message-ID: Date: 18 Sep 90 07:50:35 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 91 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) writes: >> >> Lets have some intelligent and meaningful discussion of LDS doctrines and >> believes, instead of mudslinging. >> > >I think a major obstacle to understanding is the lds claim to Joseph >S as a prophet. Many have convincing evidence that Joseph is not prophet >as defined by orthodox christianity. My comments were not specific, but a general response to a lot of anti- Mormon claims which has no fundation. Presentation of facts which are not true, badly distorted and misinterpreted is the one I object against. Let me ask you the question, why is the fact that we believe that Joseph Smith was the Lord's prophet, and others don't, prevent a meaningful discussion of the LDS believes? I have no problem at all looking at each of our believes on its own merit. I believe that there is a very big problem from the other side. That is, the mind set which most anti-Mormons have that there can't be any more prophets, therefore, any one who claims to be a prophet can't possibly say anything which is true. There is a paranoia that if they admit that the prophet Joseph Smith did say some thing which was true, they would have to actually acknowledge it. By the way, please, do define who is a prophet. The problem with the "orthodox Christian" definations that they are specifically designed by a mind set which assumes that there can't be any more prophets, which belief is not biblical, but an apostate belief. Ironically, I personally have not heard one single defination of a prophet yet, which wouldn't make at least one Bible prophet a false prophet. >Early documents that cast doubt on his authenticity are usually brushed >aside by lds people as minor discepancies or not note-worthy. > I don't believe that we brush them a side. We may question the source and the accuracy of the information. Do you have a problem with it, or do you want us to accept everything which the professed enemies of my church write and say, regardless if they are true or not? And please, don't tell me that we are paranoid. The persecution which my church went through is a historical fact. Can you tell me another case where the governor of a state issued an extermination order against any other church? However, I am sure that you are an honest person, and you are very well familiar with the persecution which my church went through. Some time, listening to some of the anti-Mormons, I begin to wonder if some members of the Missouri mob are still around. >As one who takes it serious, i take offense at being so loosely brushed >aside, and ususally branded an enemy. Of course, anyone who can't see >the truth of the prophet Joseph cannot be led by God, so why take anyone >of this type seriously?(alittle sarcasm there). You are right, you were sarcastic. In fact what you said does gross injustice to what we believe in. The fact that we believe that Joseph Smith was the Lord's prophet, and the fact that we believe that the Lord has a living prophet today, doen't mean that we don't believe that others are led by the Holy Ghost, whether Cristian or not. >I have found the church leaders and historians when writing their own >history make liberal changes here and there to polish the history for >public consumption with little regard for explanation, or brutal honesty. >This leads me to believe the church accepts _the end result justifies the >means_ principle, and is not honest. > First of all, I won't disagree with your statement above. We may have a disagreemet regarding what was left out, and if it was relevent or not. Also, we may disagree if what others claim is in fact true. I, of course, speak about the history of my own church. I am not going to defend others. >barry olson I see no reason whatsoever why we can't have a meaningful discussion of LDS believes. I have extended a challenge to look at any one of our believes, and to see if they have any biblical foundations or not. Are you willing to accept this challenge? If you do, we need to lay down the rules by which we will agree to abide by. Here are some of my suggestions: o Stick with the subject. o Strictly use the Bible. o Each one of us will do a quick summary at the end and we will categorize our conclusion as follows: 1. biblical 2. have biblical basis, but not conclusive 3. don't have any biblical basis With brotherly love, Frank