From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose ANSWERING --------------> Sean
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:01:35 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Summary: Is Mr. Rose persecuting Mormons or not? Is Evangelical Christianity
justified in it's intolerance of Mormons?   

In article <1cY.02kv2ft701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> 
> Sean, here is my response to your letter.  Sorry for the delay.

No worries. I think I see where you're coming from, but as you'll read
below, I am uneasy with some of your points.

>>> The LDS church is built upon the assumption that there was a TOTAL
>>> APOSTACY within the Christian Churches.
> 
>>Fair enough. But the Protestant churches are more or less built on the
>>assumption that the Roman Catholic Church is apostate. Yet I don't
>>see the Catholic Church carrying on a propaganda war against the Protestant
>>churches (although of course it did for the first few centuries after
>>the Reformation).
> 
> The Catholic Church adheres to the "essential doctrines" of the Orthodox
> Christian Church; unlike the LDS church.  Therefore, Protestants do not
> consider the Catholic Church to be apostate.

Two points here: First, Protestant tolerance towards Catholics is a relatively
late phenomenon. Even in my parents' generation, Protestants and Catholics
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 affairs
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 hasn't
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, Satanic.
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 you
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?  

> 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. 
 
> 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?

> I agree with the statement that Mormon Missionaries are good guys, and
> they don't have axes to grind when they come and sit in your living
> room.  They are usually not hostile (although some are), and are
> usually incredibly polite.  However, the doctrines they bring to your
> front door and into your living room DO have major axes to grind with
> the Historical Christian faith.  
      
So do yours, comrade. Practically every pre-1800 Christian group
(and most post-1800 groups) would repudiate your theology as
over-literalist, materialistic, narrow, and even sinful, since your
claims of certainty as to the nature of God, your presumption to
name the limits of God's mercy, are manifestations of one of the 
Seven Deadlies....the big one, in fact. 

> They claim an abomination and a
> total apostasy among everyone else as they present their "one true
> church".  As far as their case goes for the total apostasy, they do
> present a good case for it for someone who is uneducated and fails to
> do the research for themselves.  Such research will quickly spot the
> holes in their claims.

Their claims are just as solid as yours in this area. They interpret the
Bible in the light of Joseph Smith -- you don't.  They say there was
an apostasy -- you don't. From their point of view, they're right.
Ditto for you.

> How can you have a TOTAL apostasy, when you've got three Nephite deciples
> remaining on earth, during the great apostasy? Jesus said, "For where
> two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
> of them." (Matthew 18:20) Isn't it reasonable then, to say that it only
> takes two or three people gather together in Christ's name to constitute
> a church? You can have a church in one home (see Romans 16:5). Even Mormon
> scriptures refute the total apostasy premise.

Well, I can't argue fine points of Mormon doctrine. I don't believe a word
of their teachings, personally. The Book of Abraham business alone
is enough for me.  But I think when they say "total apostasy" they are 
really referring to the development of Christianity in the Roman Empire
and post-Roman Europe.  That's what I understood by it, anyway.
Any Mormons who would care to clarify this one?

>>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 canon,
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 Church
is the only place you can get 'em done, you're better off there. 

In other words -- they are prepared to acknowledge that you have a real
relationship with J.C., just that you can't get everything you need 
for the Big Prize from your institution.  

> they claim that
> these are the words of the Lord!  If "whoever said this" meant as
> you say, "..being legitimate, although complete", they would not
> have chosen these words.  And this is in LDS Scripture.

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 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.  

>>> We are instcted as Christians, to contend for the faith that was once
>>> delivered unto the saints (Jude 3), and to test ALL things by the Word of
>>> God.  Galatians 1:6-9 says that if we or an angel from heaven preach any
>>> other gospel, let them be accursed.  The original Greek word that Paul
>>> used is ANTHAMA, which is defined as THE WORSE POSSIBLE CURSE OF GOD.
>>
>>Hell -- Jesus preached a different gospel than St. Paul. I guess that
>>means he gets the curse, too. Also the apostle Thomas, and the other
>>apostles of the Jerusalem church who thought Paul was a nutbar.
> 
> I don't mean this as a flame, okay, because I can tell you are
> sincerely asking these questions, and just don't know.  You claimed
> that they didn't use the word "Abomination", and every Mormon knows
> it is there in the canon, this tells me that you are just uninformed.

Well, uninformed about the details of the Mormon canon, anyway. I'm a little
better at Christian history. 

> 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. 

> Also, the statement above is just simply false.  And I think even the
> Mormons would claim that. 

Sure they would. The Mormons, for all their claims to be a new dispensation,
etc., are really just preaching jazzed-up Paulist Christianity. Same old
stuff.
 
> 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. 

So, maybe Paul was testifying Christ, maybe he wasn't. Lots of people
have wild visions and think they've seen God.  Anyhow, Christianity is not
the eternal monolith you seem to think it is. 

>>> Although the LDS church send thousands of missionaries all over the
>>> world to teach about the APOSTACY of the Christian Churches, they spend
>>> 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 Christianity
>>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?  

> 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.
 
> 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 it?
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. 

> They may be Christians, but they are Christians of a different Christ.

Says you. They say it's the same one. I think you're both dreaming, but I
respect the dignity and the good-natured tolerance (on some issues)
of the Mormons more than I do the sectarian viciousness of their
critics.  Nothing personal, eh?

>>> 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 NT,
the Paulist sects are not apostasized.  Can you see why I might not be
totally convinced by that argument?
  
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'.

>>> we Christians love the Mormons
>>> with all our hearts,
>>
>>Forgive me, comrade, but y'all have a strange way of showing it.
> 
> Jesus had a strange way of showing His love at times too.  For one example,
> when he said:
> 
>       "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being
>        condemned to hell?"  (Matthew 23:33)
> 
> He SEEMED to be judgemental, and didn't APPEAR to be too nice at times like
> this, However, He WAS Incarnate Love

Whatever you say, boss. In my view, if it looks like a duck, and it quacks
like a duck, it's a duck.  Your argument reminds me of Orwell's 1984.
"Big Brother loves you!"  And if he seems to hate you, that's just how
he shows his love. 

I wonder if you really do hate Mormons, or if you are just so in love 
with the idea of "bringing souls to Christ" that you can't see the inhumanity
of what you're doing.  Jesus used harsh language - but he knew what he
was doing. Are you so sure of yourself as that?
 
>>> You ask, as many Mormons do, "why are you persecuting us"?  When the fact
>>> of the matter is, that the LDS church threw the first stone when it
>>> claimed that all of Christianity was APOSTATE.
>>
>>Fair enough. I can see why this would annoy you. Still, though, it's not
>>like you aren't guilty of the same thing.
> 
> Only one person can be guilty of throwing the FIRST stone!

Throwing stones is throwing stones. What happened to "turn the other cheek?"

>>> Well, as Christians, we are waking up the Mormons who are sleeping in the
>>> flames, and throwing ropes to those that are drowning.
>>
>>If someone doesn't think they are drowning, throwing them a rope they
> 
> If you don't like that analogy, how about the other one.  It IS possible
> that you could be asleep and not know you house is on fire!

Your analogy is bad, because you assume that you are more "awake" than
everybody else. This is hardly unquestionable, comrade.

Thank you for your detailed reply -- I think I understand your point of view
better, now. It is not so unfair as I thought it was, but I still have
reservations about it.

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc