From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: AR, ANSWERING --------------------------------> Sean II
Date: 20 Dec 92 06:08:54 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>Article 42239 of talk.religion.misc:
>From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
>Subject: Re: Anthony Rose ANSWERING --------------> Sean
>Date: 16 Dec 92 18:01:35 GMT


>Two points here: First, Protestant tolerance towards Catholics is a relat >late phenomenon. Even in my parents' generation, Protestants and Catholic
>did not mix much, in our part of the world at least. Each side regarded
>the other as essentially apostate. This has been the normal state of affa
>between the two sides for all but the last 20 years. If you look back
>at the rhetoric of the Renaissance Wars of Religion, you'll see a lot
>of talk about "heretics," etc. from both sides.
>
>Second: Orthodox Christian Church?  Since when is there such a thing?
>For 1000 years the Church of Rome was the "Orthodox" church, for 500
>years after that there was a split between Eastern Orthodox (Greek)
>and Roman branches. Since Luther, we have thousands of sects.
>
>This "orthodox Christian Church" you speak of is a total fiction. It has
>existed since the twelfth century, or earlier.  Here's something
>to remember -- the fundamentalist views _you_ espouse are only about 200
>years old. For 1,800 years (90 per cent of the history of Christianity)
>the theology you advocate would have been regarded as wildly extreme
>and even heretical. In other words - non-orthodox. In other words, Satani
>The Mormons also -- but both Mormonism and Evangelicalism are outgrowths
>of American Protestantism!  Your criticism of the Mormons is unjustified,
>in this area, at least. You are as heretical and Satanic as they are, if
>want to play the history game.
>
>(anyone who wants to clarify/correct historical points here, feel free -
>I'm doing this from memory)

>> However, since the doctrines of the
>> Roman Catholic Church do acknowledge and adhere to the "essentials",
>> the are NOT considered apostate, or a cult.
>
>The "essentials" as defined by _your_ sect.  Come on...can you not see
>how sectarian such a point of view is?

The essentials are NOT defined by my sect.  The essentials is what is held
to ALL orthodox Christanity.  They have been defined by history.  Your
grasp of the history of Christanity is abusmal.  You should check out your
facts with Ante-Nicence Archive, P.O. Box 26248, San Jose, CA 95129.
It is the LARGEST library in the United States dealing with the History
of the church.  It contains over 10,000 volumes just dealing with the
first 300 years of the church.

>> Mormonism does NOT
>> acknowledge or adhere to the "essential doctrines" of the Orthodox
>> Christian faith, and thus have a different situation all together.
>
>They would say the same about you!  Ask some of the sophisticated
>Christians around here (Steve Adams, Charles Hedrick, Publius) if
>Evangelical Christianity is 100% true to the "essential doctrines"
>of Christianity. You can't find two sects who agree on what these are,
>for Heaven's sake.

Wrong the essential doctrines are agreed on by all the major Christian
sects.  If you would take the time to read their statments of faith
you would see that.

>> The two are not comparable.  I hope this short explanation helps you
>> understand the position that the Protestants hold in these two areas.
>> If you would like more information, please write to me at:
>>
>>               JUDE 3 MISSIONS
>>               467 Saratoga Avenue
>>               San Jose, California   95129
>
>Wait a minute...lemme get this straight...you're a preacher? You convert
>Mormons for a living?

No, I don't convert Mormons for a living, and no I'm not a preacher.  Rather
I provided an address that you can contact me at for additional information.

>>>Besides, they never call the other churches an "abomination."
>>
>> The FOUNDATION of the Mormon Church was based on THAT VERY WORD!
>>
>>               "I asked the Personages that stood before me
>>                which of all the sects WAS RIGHT-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.."
>>                  (Pearl Of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19)
>
>Looks to me like that's _God_ talking.  If the Mormons accept that as can
>than I guess they would have to regard the other churches as
>abominations.  But they still think there is some value to
>the other Christian sects. They way it was explained to me was that
>you could be saved in other sects, but because you need to have various
>ordinances performed to get to the Celestial Kingdom, and the Mormon Chur
>is the only place you can get 'em done, you're better off there.

They say it is God talking.  They are putting the words in God's mouth.
If Mormonism is not true, then those are not the words of God.  The point
is, that you were attacking me for saying that they call other churches
an abomination.  I showed you they did in their cannon scripture. That
was the point.

>Why don't you ask Mormons what it means instead of telling them what it
>means? All the Mormons I know would go with the "legitimate, but not
>complete" interpretation.

I don't _tell_ them what they believe.  I agree that sometimes some of the
guys on this net have to be reminded of what they believe. It is amazing
when I use one doctrine to make a point about another one, and instead
of addressing the doctrine I am talking about, they deny the one I
used to make the point.  It is real hard to discuss things when people
outright deny what they believe. That is why I made the statment about
when I was talking with the bishop that I liked the way he just came out
and admitted that he planned to become a God, and we could discuss it.
That is a doctrine I often have missionaries deny.

>> I certainly don't have to read one page of anti-mormon literature to
>> get this.  It is right there in the canon.
>
>Fair enough. I can't deny that one. But be fair -- they are quite
>mellow in their interpretation of that point. I have never heard that
>word used by an actual Mormon, that I can recall. They don't
>lean on that word very heavily. They interpret it in the mildest
>possible way.

I have never heard one today use it either.  In fact, like you say, most
of them today interpret it mildly.  I know that.  But Joseph Smith IS
Mormonism, and from that and other quotes by authorities at the time,
we can see the _real_ use that was meant by that term.  Like I said in
my other post.  If they wanted to be mild about it, there are many
other words they could have used instead.  Like the ones they use today.
"Not quite all of the truth".  That isn't what Joseph meant!

>> I really appreciate you asking about all this so I could have a
>> chance to explain the reason for what I do, and that it is not just
>> persecution.
>
>One small point: ALL persecutors claim to be acting out of "love."
>All persecutors have an ideology to justify their harshness. I concede,
>though, that from your point of view, what you are doing is not
>persecution.

Thanks for acknowledging it at least that way.  I couldn't really ask
for more.  Thanks, sincerely.

I think that should be obvious to most people.  I mean, if I did what I
do purely to argue or tick people of, that certainly wouldn't be a
Christian thing to do, in fact it would be morbid.  I can't imagine anyone
putting the time in to this that I do who didn't have a conviction that
they needed to. Believe me, I often don't enjoy all this.  But God has
placed a burden on my heart that these people are precious people whom
Jesus Christ died for, and they deserve to know Him as much as anyone
does. If the _are_ truely lost, and the world thinks they aren't, then
no one does anything and they truely are lost.  This is my conviction,
and I do it because I am called to do it.

>> Paul didn't preach a different gospel, Paul's
>>letters testify of JESUS CHRIST.  There is not conflict, testifying Christ
>> was the purpose of his letters.  Read some of them!
>
>I've read most, but not all, of Paul's letters. Paul sure thought he
>was testifying of Jesus Christ, I agree. But was he? We have only
>his word for that. We know, for example, that the other apostles thought
>he was misrepresenting Jesus, and sent missionaries of their own after
>Paul to undo his work.  We know, for example, that the early Christian
>church was extremely diverse, and that Paul's teachings were just one
>version of what Jesus was supposed to have been all about. Paul's
>teachings survived and became dominant because his followers suppressed
>the other smaller Christian groups and burned their books, etc.

I'd like the references to this hogwash. Please tell me where I can find
such a source.  thnx

>>>> Although the LDS church send thousands of missionaries all over the
>>>> world to teach about the APOSTACY of the Christian Churches, they spe
>>>> millions of dollars each year trying to convince the world they are
>>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>Well...they _are._  Who are you to say that your version of Christianit
>>>is the only one worthy of the name?  Be fair.
>>
>>Christianity is based on each individual, not on an organization.  If you
>> know the real Jesus in a personal relationship, you are a Christian:
>
>Right...but only you and your sect get to decide who "the real Jesus"
>is, eh?

If you would take as much time reading "statements of faith" as you do
reading about the hogwash of Paul and the other Apostles that you
regurgetated above, you would know that all the denominations agree on
the essential doctrines of the Christian church.  Can you produce
two different denominations "statements of faith" that contridict one
another on essential doctrines?

If so, I'd like to see them.  If not, your statements are false.

>> The LDS church says that you are not saved (going to spend eternity
>> in the presence of God) unless you are a member of The Church Of
>> Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
>
>This is an over-simplification, I think. They use "saved" in a different
>way than you would.

You are correct, they do.  When I say saved, I mean the same as if they
were saying, spending the rest of eternity in the presence of God the
Father.  Therefore, my previous claim stands.

>> The Jesus of the Bible taught you
>> must belong to a person, the LDS church teaches you must belong to an
>> organization.  Jesus didn't say, "My church is the way, the truth, and
>> the life, no man comes to the father except by my church".  He said,
>>
>>               "_I_ am the way, the truth, and the life, no man
>>                comes to the father except by ME"  (John 14:6)
>
>Mormons do not deny this, comrade. They just interpret it differently
>than you do.  Are you always right? Is your judgement so good that
>you feel justified in threatening others with Hell for disagreeing with
>Don't say you're just following Scriptures -- you're following Scripture
>as _you_ understand it.  Your whole program is based on _your_ fallible
>understanding. Don't say the Spirit guides you -- you're following
>what you _understand_ to be the Spirit.   You never make mistakes?
>You're never wrong in your interpretation of texts and events?
>Criticize them if you want, but be fair, and be kind, and be _humble_.
>Why? I dunno. It makes the world a happier place, I guess.

If Mormons truly believed this as you claim, then why is it that I will
not be able to get to spend eternity in the presence of God the Father
unless I belong to their organization?

The answer is that they don't believe the same.  There is no interpreation
to is.  Jesus said, "I AM THE WAY".  If you say that you have to belong
to an organization to get there, then you are saying there is another
way.

>>>> Despite this delimna, and spreading the false accusation that
>>>> the Christian Churches are in an APOSTACY,
>>>
>>>Aren't they?
>>
>> No, not according to Biblical revelation in the Bible.  I think I have
>> presented that case fairly well above.
>
>Oh, I see. According to the anthology of Paulist propaganda known as the
>the Paulist sects are not apostasized.  Can you see why I might not be
>totally convinced by that argument?

Yes, because you haven't done your homework.  I suggest a book called
"More than a carpenter" by Josh McDowell.  Also, "Answers to tough
quesitons skeptics ask about the Christian faith" and "Things Skeptics
should consider about the Christian faith" all by the same author.  They
can be found in most Christian book stores.  Check them out, then
decide!

>More to the point -- Mormons interpret the Bible differently than you do.
>Their interpretation indicates that the churches ARE in apostasy.  Who's
>right?  God knows, and as usual he ain't tellin'.

Jesus and the Bible claimed they church would not fall into an apostacy.
Who do you think is right?  Jesus or Joseph?