Below you will see a link for a LDS Repentance Quiz. If you are in the Mormon church please take time to check out the test. If you are not, then at least take some time to study the test to learn how we can be a bold witness for the Lord Jesus Christ.
Below is the text that I will be sending out as a blog tract. God bless!
Here’s a million dollar question – If you were to die right now, would you qualify for the celestial kingdom? If you’re like most Mormons, you’re not sure. You try hard to be as good as possible, but you still don’t know if you’ve done enough. If the Book of Mormon is really scripture, this hope will always elude you. Alma 11:37 says God cannot save you in your sins. Are all of your sins forgiven? Moroni 10:32 says you must be perfected in Christ, which can only be done by denying yourself of “all ungodliness”. Have you done that? Do you repent on a regular basis? Is so, then it is clear that you sin on a regular basis, since only those who break the commandments need to repent. 1 Nephi 3:7 states that you are able to keep His commandments. In fact according to D&C 25:15, you are required to keep them continually! Since you haven’t done this so far, why assume you will in the future? Of course, we should all try to be holy; but if you think that sinning less will qualify you to live in God’s presence, you are mistaken (Gal 3:1-11). The assumption that good works are required for forgiveness only cheapens Christ’s atonement, making it nothing more than a partial payment. God chooses to justify us by faith. Jesus alone does the “perfecting” (Heb 10:14). God gives peace to those who trust in Him alone. If you don’t have this peace, it’s probably because at least a part of you trusts in yourself. Questions? Visit us at http://www.gotforgiveness.com/
10 comments:
Ty,
I'm sure if you had just a little desire to understand other faiths rather than belittle them, you might get more discussion.
Having read a majority of your blog and seeing the serious misrepresentations of LDS doctrine, coming solely through an evangelical lens that is perpetuating ideas that have been unfounded since the 1800's, I have no desire to engage in discussion with you on matters of religion. I would be talking with someone who, with their own selective interpretation of the Bible, would be playing "ha! gotcha!" at every moment.
You seem to be so concerned with breaking down Mormon faith that your unusual understanding of Mormon scripture is becoming a weapon rather than a handshake for discussing with Mormons. It seems to me that your posts on talking with LDS missionaries are only referring to them as "friends" because you know it is a Christlike thing to say. However, your treatment of them, to belittle and to willingly misunderstand and misrepresent is not as easily covered in those posts.
Your links to LDS info sheets are seriously flawed as well. I have no doubt that you have read all of those materials that have been cited. However, I have the feeling that you were going in looking for ways to condemn the Mormons, and not to understand them. This is why your reading is selective and of very poor scholarship.
If you err so much with understanding LDS scripture, how are you so certain you're even reading the Bible correctly? My guess is, judging by your content, that you might have a few mistakes in how you understand the Bible, just by the sheer number of mistakes you have on LDS doctrine.
I hope this post allows for some reflection, and perhaps a renewed desire to understand Mormons and their doctrine, rather than trying to look for weak arguments of "contradiction" or "impossible" or "falsehood" just to make them look foolish. Your approach of bearing false witness is not very Christian-like.
And I hope you'll have the courtesy to approve that last comment.
I rejected your comment on my blog (answeringthecritics.blogspot.com) because it was irrelevant to the topic. If you would like to read my blog and participate in the conversation, I would be happy to publish your comments, but my blog is not a bulletin board for anti-Mormon outreach efforts.
Wow, Jesus and No Other,
I think you might be right.
And your link in very interesting.
Thank you.
Ty: Like Travis, I also deleted your comment from my blog. Your question was not information-seeking, so I felt no need to reply. It was also not relevant to the topic.
However, if I misunderstood your intentions and if you are seeking to better understand LDS scripture, I'd be willing to discuss with you.
Jesus and No Other: I found your link interesting as well. Are you part of the Cephas Ministry?
Hi "Further". I'm sorry to damper your enthusiasm for this "tract", but this form of what I call Drive-by Evangelism isn't going to be very effective until you can accurately portray how LDS Christians understand repentance and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
A blog tact??? Ugghhh. I've gotten tracts in the mail, tracts from missionaries, tracts left on my windshield, tracts stuck in my door...but on my blog. I have to draw the line somewhere. I will echo Jesus and No Other and Travis, feel free to participate in relevant conversations, but no more tracts please.
At least all of your comments have something in common (with the exception of Clean Cut, nice articles on your blog, very well thought out)...I really have not heard any valid arguments concerning Mormonism. Is Mormon theology correct? That is the true issue. Most of you are just throwing out personal insults or comments. Bring it on. I'm a big boy I can take it, but please back up what you say with some sound apologetical arguments.
Argumentum ad hominem - An irrelevant attack upon a person to deflect the argument from the facts and reasons.
Judging from the comments:
Ty says he's looking for a "valid argument" for Mormonism. However, his blog does not ask for a defense of Mormonism. Therefore, no one responded with a defense, because no defense was needed.
Second, it seems the common complaint by the commenters is that Ty misrepresented them. If this is the case, one might ask, what ground has one to start on to produce "valid arguments"? If Ty is seeing Mormonism one way and refusing to listen to Mormons saying, "That's not a correct understanding", then how is there going to be any productive conversation?
Third, Ty postulates the question, "Is Mormonism correct?" Obviously Mormons believe that it is correct. Following this comment, Ty asserts "Bring it on. I'm a big boy I can take it" This is the attitude to which the commenters object: an attitude of making religious discussion a matter of blind attacking, where neither side knows where the other is.
Fourth, it seems that, if an argument were presented from the Bible, it would be an argument of whose interpretation of the Bible is better. This is pointless: the Mormons will argue their understanding of the Bible, and Ty will argue his understanding of the Bible. Hasn't anyone learned that this doesn't work after thousands of years?
Sixth, Ty implies that commenters have been dodgy of the topic and have been insulting him. "An irrelevant attack upon a person to deflect the argument from the facts and reasons." To this, first, 'irrelevant' would be saying something that off-topic. According to all the commenters, Ty's post was irrelevant to their post and/or inaccurate. By saying so, they are being relevant to the topic at hand. In fact, it is the "facts and reasons" that are in question. Therefore, all the commenters have been relevant, and it is precisely the "facts and reasons" that they are objecting. I find Ty's definition of "Argumentum ad hominem" irrelevant.
As a final comment: Ty, do you really feel that you've been attacked? Also, do you really feel that you haven't misrepresented the LDS even after they've claimed that you have? Do you really feel that your post hasn't been irrelevant to their blogs? At least three of the posters provided an opportunity to discuss. My suggestion: you should speak with them, and try to understand their concerns first, before trying to "bring it on".
Follow my link for some background information about Richard Mouw and his comments to the LDS Church. He is the leader in LDS-Evangelical discussions.
Post a Comment