From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why do people give Mormons a hard time?
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:28:16 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <0fFn02vQ30Jx01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
	
>>In article <b1I.02qS2eAy01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>>The Mormons, like other Christian sects, such as the followers of
>>Alexander Campbell (Disciples of Christ) believed in "dispensationism."
>>This is the doctrine that the gospel is dispensed from time to time
>>and that after the gospel is taught in its pure form it becomes corrupted
>>with the teachings of men and there is a deviation from the truth
>>necessitating a restoration.
>
>Do you believe that this will happen to Mormonism too?  Maybe it has
>already?
>
I don't totally reject the possibility, although most other
Mormons do.  This is supposed to be the Dispensation of the
Fullness of Times, and there won't be another prior to the
Millenium.

>>Certainly the restoration is a central belief of Mormonism,
>>but if you visit the Visitor's Centers and other points
>>of contact for missionary activity, you will see that rudeness
>>and denigration of other churches is definitely discouraged.  Obviously,
>>and religion that seeks to make converts must hold out that they
>>have something the others don't, but effort is made to acknowledge
>>the value of other religions and the sincerity of other believers.
>>If you visit LDS bookstores, you do not find books on how awful
>>the catholics or the Lutherans or the baptists are.
>
>You don't visit many LDS bookstores do you?  How about the three volume
>set of "They Lie And Wait To Deceive", where in these books, none of the
>issues of doctrines that have been brought forth are defended.  Instead
>the authors attack the characters of those who question the doctrines.
>Why is it that they won't discuss the issues, but attack the characters?
>
Well, haven't we been discussing the issues?  I'm not familiar with
the book you mentioned, but I think books attacking those who
attack your religion are an order of magnitude more forgivable
than books attacking your religion.  Does this book denigrate
anyone's sacred beliefs?  So it attacks the character of the
critics?  Maybe with good reason.  Suppose I watch a film,
such as "The Godmakers", and the closing shot contains a quote
from Brigham Young, only one word has been changed from the quote
so that the meaning of the quote is totally changed.  Clearly,
this was not an accident.  This means the person making the film
is a deliberate liar.  Should I not say so?  (The quote in question
is this:  BY said that Joseph Smith has done more for the salvation
of mankind than any other man, except Jesus Christ.  In the film,
"The Godmakers", the word "except" was changed to "including".  
What would you say about the character of the person making that
change?)  Now that I've informed you about this deception, I'm
sure that you will be careful to make sure that when you show
this film to people you correct the quotation.

>>The policy
>>of the church is to be polite and respectful of other peoples'
>>beliefs.  Although there was some combative rhetoric in the 19th
>>century, there was also a great deal of acknowledgement of truth
>>in other religions, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, etc, by Brigham
>>Young and Joseph Smith.
>
>If this is true, perhaps you can surface some quotes from these men that
>are saying anything nice about Christiandom?
>
Well, I just moved and can't find my Journal of Discourses Index,
where Brigham Young has many good things to say about "Hindoos",
etc., but I did find this quote from Joseph Smith.  I'm sure
Willard, scholar that he is, will dig up some more.
"It is a time-honored adage that love begets love.  Let us pour forth love--
show forth our kindness unto all mankind, and the Lord will reward us with 
everlasting increase; cast our bread upon the waters and we shall receive 
it after many days, increased to a hundredfold.  Friendship is like 
Brother Turley in his blacksmith shop welding iron to iron; it unites 
the human family with its happy influence.  I do not dwell upon your
faults, and you shall not upon mine.  Charity, which is love,
covereth a multitude of sins, and I have often covered up all the
faults among you; but the prettiest thing is to have no faults
at all.  We should cultivate a meek quiet and peaceable spirit.
Have the Presbyterians any truth?  Yes.  Have the Baptists, Methodists,
etc., any truth?  Yes.  They all have a little truth mixed with error.
We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and
treasure them up or we shall not come out true Mormons."  TPJS p. 316.


>>What do we find on the other side?  We find in virtually every
>>"Christian" bookstore the most vile attacks on Mormonism (and to
>>be fair, other religions such as Jehovah's Witnesses and even sometimes
>>Roman Catholics).  Usually there is an entire section devoted to
>>this hate literature.
>
>Obviously you have never read any of this literature.  Most of the
>literature you find in Christian bookstores simple examines the doctrines
>of the church, and displays the differences in them and Christiandom,
>and then gives tips on how to "reach" them with the true gospel of Jesus
>Christ.This can hardly be considered "hate" literature.  These books
>are helping Christians learn how to reach the people who in their
>opinions are lost.  The same goal that your 46,000+ missionaries do every
>day door-to-door.
>
I have indeed read much of it, although little in the past 20 years.
I have no dispute with Christians preaching the gospel as they 
understand it.  However, these methods are corrupt.  They should teach 
the positive things they have to offer without denigrating or mocking 
the other person's religion.  If they did so, they would likely have the 
kind of success the Mormons have with proselytism.  To start out 
attacking someone's religion merely puts them on the defensive and makes 
them hostile to you.  Since such methods have been such abysmal
failures in converting large numbers of Mormons to protestantism, 
I have to conclude that the reasons for using them include
a desire to ridicule and denigrate beyond the professed attempt
to "bring them to Jesus".  

>In fact, whenever I find a book that misrepresents a faith, whether it
>be the LDS church or JW or whatever, I tell the store owner that this
>book has good intentions, but it is inaccurate on doctrinal issues in
>representing the ______ church, and ask them to remove it from their
>shelves for that reason.
>
Now you know about "Godmakers", what are you going to do about that?

>I could not agree with you more Gordon.  I don't deny that this happens
>because I have seen it in Salt Lake City outside Temple.  This is the
>most disgusting thing I have ever heard of and seen in my life.  How
>someone could take what someone else holds as sacred and parade them
>around like that is beyond me.  You'd be glad to know that when
>I was in SLC back in September, I literally had one of these guys in
>tears in repentance for doing this.  He thought he was doing something
>good.  I don't know how he could have thought that, because he was only
>turning Mormons noses up in the air at his display.  This is one area
>where we do agree.  That is about as unChristlike as it gets.
>
Well, I'm glad to hear you feel this way.  Now if I could only
make you see that your approach, while less vile than this,
is still offensive and wrong, especially talking about copulating
gods, sexual groping in the temple, and missions turning boys
into homosexuals.  You really are off base here, both in your interpretations
and in your facts.  And this is *almost* as offensive as what
you have reprimanded your friend for doing.  Sean has made this point to
you, as an outsider, but you still don't seem to see it.

What do I recommend you do?  I recognize that you have the belief
that acceptance of Jesus as personal saviour is necessary for salvation.
We don't agree about how theologically correct one has to be in
our definition of what God is like, but we do have the New Testament
model of the gospels with their portrait of Jesus and His ministry.
Perhaps you don't believe that any Mormons can accept Jesus, and
still be in the Church, I don't know, but if you could accept that,
then why not concentrate on getting Mormons to accept Jesus as personal
savior, if they have not done so.  Certainly I agree with you that
there are many Mormons who do not understand that they are not
saving themselves by their good works and that the atonement and
grace are really necessary.  You should be able to talk about that
without attacking their religion.  Certainly there are Mormon
writers who emphasize grace and call on people to repent and accept
the atonement.  So that can be done without attacking people.
I really believe that if you would drop your insistance on theological
correctness, which as Sean has pointed out is very fleeting temporally,
and concentrate on spiritual relationships you would do much better
and not have the reception you have had.  I find it paradoxical
that Christians who say they don't believe in the law (after Paul)
and that Faith and Grace is all important, then go on to erect
new laws that "if you don't believe in Jesus exactly thus and so
you are damned."  I just can't conceive Jesus saying any such
thing.  I agree with James (I think that is who it was) who
said that the essence of religion was how you treat your fellow
man.  Visiting the sick, helping the poor, the fatherless, the
widow.  Centering your religion on personal salvation, as so
many Christians are doing today, seems to be to be selfish.
Just as selfish as thinking you can earn your way to heaven
by "being good."  You should "be good" because that is what
is right, not because of what you will be rewarded with.

>asked for months?  Why do you worship a different God than Brigham Young
>did, but at the same time regard him as a true prophet?
>

Well, I believe I answered that.  I don't worship a different God.
As I said before, each person has his own ideas about God.  None
of us know God completely and so we each have some error and some
truth about God in our conception.  That is another reason we
don't speak the same language.  I can worship God without knowing
everything about Him and even if I have some errors in my conception
of what I am worshipping.  I don't insist that my concept is 
absolutely true.  It's the best I can come up with at this time.
That's why I can't agree with you about "accepting the wrong Jesus."
I agree with BY about much, and I disagree with him about much.  
As I have said many times before (were you listening), being a prophet 
doesn't make you infallible.  If God speaks through prophets, that doesn't 
mean that every word a prophet speaks is from God.  As Joseph Smith
said, a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.atheism,alt.slack