Comments on: Bridging the gap between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christian churches

By: Aaron Hardy

Aaron Hardy — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:50:29 +0000

Ben, I’m not positive, but I think Charles was arguing the same points that you just laid out. Like the title of the article says, we’re bridging the gap–not trying to widen it. I explicitly mentioned in the article that my intent was not to prove that the LDS church is true or that any other church is wrong, but only to bring the reader’s logic into a level playing field so they could find out on their own. In other words, I don’t have any problem with someone pausing and considering whether assumptions about these men may be incorrect, I just don’t want people to hear one negative story about Joseph Smith and run in fear from hearing more about the church. The truth of the gospel entails much more than one mortal human. I would ask the same for someone learning about the Catholic church, a political party, or ANYTHING where we should evaluate things further than just the most prominent public facade. So, on behalf of Charles, I think the answer to your question is he’s basically saying, “If you believe in Catholicism but shun learning about the LDS church because you heard a story about how Joseph Smith did something evil, take a look at the leaders of your own church.” While there are obviously some very notable differences between the two churches, at least we can bridge the gap to learning the basics.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:20:55 +0000

Charles - are you defending the Catholic church or the Mormon church or both? I don’t understand your logic…

Has it occurred to anybody that if we accept that we can’t criticize a church for the failings of its leaders, then we can’t hold the various Pope’s failings against the Catholic church, or David Koresh’s failings against the Branch Davidians, or L. Ron Hubbard’s failings aginst the Scientologists?

The fact of the matter is, if Joseph Smith married women in secret that were already married, and had sex with them, or if David Koresh thought that he was Jesus Christ, or L. Ron Hubbard taught that our evil thoughts are really spirits of people that were blown up in a giant H-bomb explosion - all concepts which, by the way, were taught by each of these men as divinely inspired - must we not pause and consider whether our assumptions about these men may be incorrect?

By: Charles Hargrove

Charles Hargrove — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:51:19 +0000

If we want to touch on religious leaders who do things outside of their institutions’ dogma, we could point out the various Catholic popes who were married and/or fathered children long after Augustine and his ideas of celibacy. People are not perfect, though God’s word is!

By: Andy Wheatley

Andy Wheatley — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:23:38 +0000

Brought up some really good points — but like you said it really boils down to one point. F-A-I-T-H. ‘Physical proof’ doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, true belief–the deep down soul altering belief, will never be spawned from seeing physical proof…will never inspire you past the human faults of your leaders or motivate you past the harsh criticisms from those who don’t have the patience to learn for themselves and who don’t understand the “why”…

Like Paul said to the Hebrews (11:1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

Can I get an AMEN?????

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:29:51 +0000

I think you may have missed the point as to why people think Mormonism is a cult. In my experience, non-Mormons look at what they perceive as blind obedience to a totalitarian type theocracy, and the blood oaths that used to be in the temple prior to 1990, as well as the oaths of vengeance in the temple prior to 1910.

Mormons often can’t understand why people have a problem with the Mountain Meadows massacre, since in their view it was obviously not ordered by the church. However, speaking from the perspective of cults, it does raise some questions about how a local church leader could have asked the members to do something despicable, and they blindly obeyed without questioning.

As a member of the LDS church, I must admit that these things are troubling, and it makes sense why people are nervous about the church.

As far as the church being “Christian” - it all depends on how you define the term. If someone believes that Christ was a woman, or was a black man, would you still call them a Christian church? The problem is, mainstream Christians define the term very rigidly, and don’t allow for a gospel that requires works for salvation, since Christ died for our sins. LDS members don’t define the term “Christian” the same way. I suspect that gap may never be bridged, at least in the minds of mainstream “Christians”.

I have to sound off about the fault finding of church leaders - I agree with you that being nitpicky about it is ridiculous. However, when people find out that Joseph Smith married women in secret, was have intimate relations with them, while they were still married to their husbands, without telling them - that is not just being nitpicky. That is a problem that all Mormons have to face and answer for themselves if it was inspired by God or not, because there are few things that I can think of that are worse than that.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:26:23 +0000

It’s amazing how much the time a belief has been around affects its acceptance as proven. It’s true though. I’m much more likely to accept someone’s discourse on something that is old and question the guy that gives a discourse on something new. I think it’s just the way I think.

The Mormon/LDS religion is “new” relative to mainstream Christianity and it will take time for it to sink into many peoples hearts and minds.

By: DAD

DAD — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:54:18 +0000

If I sign up, how many of them there wifes do I git?