Comments on: Sharing Christ

By: Britt

Britt — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:17:45 +0000

thank you for the clarity you provided. this is a good example of sharing truth and testimony instead of engaging in a war of words.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:16:53 +0000

Thanks for taking the time to write this, Ardis. I hope this isn’t the last of such posts from you.

And this? This is simply stunning:

“Jesus is defined by who he really is, what he has really done, how he has really revealed himself. Mormonism cannot accept a definition that rules out of hand the revelation of Jesus in this dispensation, as well as the revelation of Jesus in the Biblical dispensations. Jesus is who he is – Savior, Lord, Creator, Redeemer, Advocate, Judge, King, Messiah – regardless of where the testimony is recorded, and he has revealed himself through the Bible, through other scripture ancient and modern, through personal appearance, through introduction by the Father, through testimony borne in our hearts through the influence of the Holy Spirit. I count it one of the great blessings of God to this generation that we have these additional witnesses of Jesus.”

By: John Tippets

John Tippets — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:02:30 +0000

Your piece/response: Heartfelt….Balanced…and extremely well done! Thank you!

By: Left Field

Left Field — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:48:38 +0000

I always like to see good responses like this.

The value of good reply is on my mind after recently reading a response to a piece published in the Business Insider (see links to both in the BCC sidebar). The original article was certainly in need of a good response. One of my pet peeves is authors who repeat the nonsense that the Book of Mormon recounts the history of the Lost Tribes (of whom this author seems to think there are two). It’s a sure sign that they’ve been reading what other uninformed people have written about the Book of Mormon, rather than reading the book itself. The piece kind of goes downhill from there.

But the published response is at best inadequate, and may be worse than the original article. It really goes of the rails when the respondent claims that it was legal to “shoot a Mormon on site” in Missouri until 1976.

By: reed russell

reed russell — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 02:02:11 +0000

Amen.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:40:45 +0000

Excellent response, Ardis – both in tone and content.

I am amazed constantly at how badly supposed religious experts mangle our theology and doctrine. I shouldn’t be, after decades of witnessing it, but I am, nonetheless.

By: Steve C.

Steve C. — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:16:26 +0000

Enjoyed. Thanks.

By: lindberg

lindberg — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:29:00 +0000

Amen and Amen.

Thank you for this, Ardis. Well done. (As usual.)

By: Vader

Vader — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:57:45 +0000

I find Jeff Brawner’s lack of good faith disturbing.

Yes, it’s possible he actually believes Mormons believe what he says he believes they believe. However, before publishing a critique, I believe the critic has a good faith obligation to check his facts.

You replied more gently than I would have. I hope I will have the good sense to choke down my snark and leave the answering to those better disposed.

By: Noel Carmack

Noel Carmack — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:40:08 +0000

Excellent, Ardis. Brilliantly done. I hope that Mr. Brawner takes the time to read it and correct his point of view.