Being critical of the teachings of other faiths

[_MsJack]

Simon, I have some questions for you.

You've expressed strong disagreement with rich kelsey for posting articles on his Web site that critique the teachings and history of other faith groups, namely the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and the Latter-day Saints (Mormons). On that thread, you said:

Rich,

Will you address my concerns?

Why do you attack other faiths?
Do you understand the similar problems inherent in your own?
Does attacking other faiths bring about Christian love, or hate?

I have not read Rich's articles, so this thread should not be taken to mean I endorse anything he has written. But I have to ask: Simon, are you likewise opposed to the attacks your church leaders have made on members of other Christian faiths?

Here are some examples:

I was answered that I must join none of them [i. e. the existing Christian denominations of the day], 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; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

This is part of the church's modern canonized scriptures, and not a neglected part, either. It appears regularly in current teaching curricula and is taught in the missionary discussions when potential converts are introduced to the church. That means that some 52,000 Mormons comb the globe teaching whomever may listen that the beliefs of other Christians are an "abomination" in the sight of God. Are you opposed to this?

There's this from the 2009 Gospel Principles manual (emphases mine):

Soon pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. The Roman emperor adopted this false Christianity as the state religion. This church was very different from the church Jesus organized. It taught that God was a being without form or substance.

These people lost the understanding of God’s love for us. They did not know that we are his children. They did not understand the purpose of life. Many of the ordinances were changed because the priesthood and revelation were no longer on the earth.

The emperor chose his own leaders and sometimes called them by the same titles used by priesthood leaders in the true Church of Christ. There were no Apostles or other priesthood leaders with power from God, and there were no spiritual gifts. The prophet Isaiah had foreseen this condition, prophesying, “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5). It was the Church of Jesus Christ no longer; it was a church of men. Even the name had been changed.

This teaches that other Christians were corrupted by "pagan" beliefs, that their form of Christianity is "false," that they don't understand God's love for us, that they have no spiritual gifts, and that they are not of "the Church of Jesus Christ" but rather "a church of men." It even implies that they aren't properly Christians at all ("those called Christians"). It specifically criticizes one Christian, Theodosius I (who is considered a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox tradition) for making "false Christianity" the state religion. Do you think these are acceptable things to say about members of other Christian faiths?

From the current Doctrine & Covenants Reader's Manual:



Again, claiming that other Christians are not part of "the true Church of Jesus Christ," and here it's told with tacky pictures of ministers from other Christian denominations so that LDS children understand just which religions are the wrong ones. Are you okay with this, Simon?

The church has made other institutionalized attacks on other Christians, such as the one found in the pre-1990 temple ceremony. I won't go into more details than that since this is the Terrestrial forum.

These all strike me as attacks on the beliefs of other Christians, Simon. Are these things okay with you?

My own position is that it's quite normal and healthy for members of proselyting faiths that make competing truth claims to critique one another. So long as the critique is made sincerely and respectfully, I see no problem with it. I object to the inaccurate things in the sections I quoted above, such as claiming that other Christians don't believe God has "substance," and I also object when someone makes gratuitous negative mentions of the beliefs of others, but I have no objections on principle if Mormons want to say that our creeds are an abomination and whatnot. If God really is an embodied male who progressed from a state of spirit intelligence to exaltation, I would find it odd if he weren't wroth with those who have distorted his true nature.

[_Buffalo]

It's okay when Mormons do it. Otherwise, it's an outrage!

[_Simon Belmont]

My concern was with Rich are his reasons for the slanted articles on his website, and his belief that JWs, SDAs, and LDS are equal to "false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives."

We have seen numerous accounts throughout history of Christian faiths promoting their own particular denomination over another. We have also seen criticism and apologetic from many other faiths, not necessarily Christian. This, of course, is normal and healthy in the free market of ideas.

I am well aware of some teachings and writings of my church leaders which are critical of creedal Christianity. The Lord told Joseph Smith that the creeds were an "abomination in his sight." These are harsh words, to be sure. But, I have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for (officially) 32 years and have not seen hatred, but love for our brothers and sisters of other denominations. One small example, when I was in high school, our seminary building was used by a Baptist group once per week, and we shared a common understanding of Christian love. I believe that most denominations are like this, and most people want to love one another. I hope it stays that way.

People like Rich, though, seem to want to cause contention. They want to attack other's beliefs because they happen to be slightly different from their own. Instead of Christian love for his fellow Christians (JWs, SDAs, and LDS) he tells them that their faith is equal to "false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives." Wasted lives.

So, MsJack, I'm trying to promote love and goodwill toward other faiths, while Rich, it seems, is trying to promote contention and malice.

[_stemelbow]

While, in principle, i agree critiquing people's beliefs is fair game, there is a considerable difference for people of one faith to provide explanations why others seem wrong and creating a website to host information dedicated to tearing down a religion. This is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

With that said, I don't have a problem with this Rich fellow or his site. I'm just pointing out the clear difference.

[_Doctor Scratch]

People like Rich, though, seem to want to cause contention. They want to attack other's beliefs because they happen to be slightly different from their own. Instead of Christian love for his fellow Christians (JWs, SDAs, and LDS) he tells them that their faith is equal to "false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives." Wasted lives.

I don't think that's what he's saying, Simon. As far as I can tell, he wants to protect people from falling prey to these things. But you've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't even understand how any of those things are possible w/r/t to Mormonism (and moreover, that you're either too stupid or too intransigent to *try* to understand), so I don't know why you bother.

[_Simon Belmont]

I don't think that's what he's saying, Simon.

It is exactly what he's saying. Visit his site.

As far as I can tell, he wants to protect people from falling prey to these things.

A noble cause, except these things are not found in the religions of JWs, SDAs, or LDS.

So where is his website about the dangers of forest fires? Where is his website about beach safety along the Atlantic? Where is his website about the dangers of illegal drug use?

[_Valorius]

Simon, if you genuinely oppose contention, perhaps.....


Maybe you don't understand.
Badgering is contentious.
Drop the crepe about RIch freely expressing his opinions, whether tasteful or distasteful. Then the contention, at least on the side your attacks are coming from, will stop.


I am critical of all religions, of all apologetics, and of all critiques.
Maybe I will stop, when I find a perfect one.
Till then, I will continue to "attack" error and falsehood,
whether the people who believe in error or falsehood recognize it as such or not
and whether or not they think I am being "nasty" for not rolling over and playing dead when they want me to.
The mature ones can handle that. The immature, whine and badger.

[_Simon Belmont]

Till then, I will continue to "attack" error and falsehood,

Let me know when you can prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that another religion is false.

[_Hoops]

Pfffft.

I am well aware of some teachings and writings of my church leaders which are critical of creedal Christianity. The Lord told Joseph Smith that the creeds were an "abomination in his sight."

Not my experience at all

and have not seen hatred, but love for our brothers and sisters of other denominations.

People like Rich, though, seem to want to cause contention. They want to attack other's beliefs because they happen to be slightly different from their own.

They don't "happen" to be "slightly" different. They are significantly different by design.

Instead of Christian love for his fellow Christians (JWs, SDAs, and LDS)

And two of those are institutionally not Christian. I don't know much about SDAs

[_stemelbow]

And two of those are institutionally not Christian. I don't know much about SDAs

If they're not Christian, what category do they fall under? Is not Christian those who claim to worship the Christ?