I met an honest Mormon today
I met an honest Mormon today. My doorbell rang and I greeted two Mormon elders. The one in control of the conversation held the Book of Mormon prominently before him, asking me if I had ever read it. I told him that I owned a copy and that I had read it several times. He asked me, “Have you found it to be warm and engaging?” I kindly told him that I had discovered it to be a complex historical read, quite different from the earthy historical narratives of Moses and Samuel. I must have said too much betraying my level of biblical knowledge because he asked me, “Are you a Minister?” When I confessed that I was, he promptly told me that I was not under proper authority, the succession of the Prophethood, and so I was going to hell! How refreshing to finally meet an honest Mormon!
For years, I have interacted with Mormons in Washington County, Oregon, home to a Mormon Temple. Consistently, every conversation with a Mormon quickly comes round to an attempt to win my acknowledgment that the Mormon is a Christian just like I am. I abandoned years ago my combative apologetics with Mormons. I receive them kindly and converse without citing John 1:1 or broaching their doctrines of dualism and planetary pioneering. I stick to presentations of the Gospel without accusing them of ignoring the Gospel. But each conversation, and there have been many in the past decade, boils down to Mormons trying to make me affirm their Christianity. Finally, a young missionary is standing on my threshold telling me that I am going to hell for being a Protestant Minister!
His fellow elder was uncomfortable with his partner’s honesty and interjected, “We are not saying that you are going to hell.” His partner pressed on, “Yes, we are! You are not under proper authority!” I brought the conversation back to scriptural authority and asked, “Do you believe that the Christian Bible canonized by the 3rd century is incomplete and that a true follower of God must embrace the Book of Mormon as the Holy Scriptures?” He responded that if I did not accept the Book of Mormon as God’s Word that I was again in danger of hell.
I extended to both of them my hand, repeating several times, “God bless you! Thank you for coming to my doorstep. God bless you!” When I was in high school, playing basketball in the California Interscholastic Playoffs, I heard a ruffian in the stands yell at me just before I shot a free throw, “Number Thirteen, go to hell!” I remember making the shot then turning to the general direction of the heckler and bowing. God’s Spirit has not only given to me a strong calling to serve as a Minister of the Gospel, but he is giving to me a growing assurance of my faith in Christ Jesus, my union with Christ in the heavenlies and a certain hope of my place in heaven. Today I am free to bless those who curse me, to smile in the face of an honest Mormon and extend to him the love of Christ.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Nathan,
Great conversation, Robert Jones has an equally great story to share as well and a rebuttal to a conversation with a Mormon Elder. I guess getting a fire tender for the burning coals might be in order.
I have several mormon relatives that are lost in the dark. Lord please grant them new life found only in Christ our Savour.I worked with mormons in ohou,hawaii for 5 years what a frightening place to be caught up in! My real reason for contacting you is that i’ve been hear back in the north west for six months without any real solid preaching. Out here in warrenton and seaside,oregon area I have not found one protestant reformed church. It’s a dry land with only superficial preaching based on weak doctrine. I long to be under solid Bibical teaching again and have someone of like mind to counsel with,pray and rejoice in Christ our Savour. Do you know of any reformed church along the coast in the seaside area? Could you possibly help me find a good church to attend? How far is your church from seaside,ore.? Along my pligrimage i’ve been in several reformed churches,both baptist and prebyterian. I like them both thay share a lot in common and Christ is honored.Who’s right between the baptists or presbyterians I do not know? Edwards and bunyan calvin and spurgeon I love them all and I look forward to meeting them someday, in that day we will know the answer to who’s right. I believe it’s both in many respects.My wife and I need to find a good church. As for myself I was in the Coast Guard a long time ago along this coast and my wife is from a small baptist semary in the philipines. Twenty five years ago the Lord saved me from a helocopter crash while we were trying to save a fishing vessel. Six people died that night and only two survived. Iv’e moved back here to meet my fears and preach the gospel. The Lord saved me 36 years ago and I need Gods grace more now than ever before. O Lord please grant me a true spirit of repentance,amen. O to have self control and to tame the tongue and love my wife as Christ loves the church. God grant me your grace and forgivness. Please give me a call at (503)298-3400 Have a nice day and God Bless!
Fantastic!!! Since returning to the East coast I have developed strong relationships with two men active in the Mormon church and one man that has rejected the church altogether (all churches) due to the teaching that he received as a child in the Mormon church. In all cases there has been good conversation regarding salvation thru Jesus Christ, valididty of the evangelical priesthood, connection of “works” to salvations, and other very hot topics. In all cases these gentlemen have tried to convince me that they too are Christians! Amazing! The relationships continue to grow deeper in a personal sense and each of them have seen reasons to reject the legalisms of their faith and accept salvation thru Christ alone. Two of these men know my family in a very personal sense and know of our love for them and their families and that it comes from the ultimate source of love, Jesus Himself! It is a long process to convince a Mormon because their faith came about because of an equally long process that is not much different than our covenant family. For this reason it is very difficult to impact a Mormon without developing an on-going (consistently loving) relationship.
In oregon, building relationships with Mormons is an evangelistic must! Take the long road. Be gracious. Pray. Be a friend.
nathan.
Thanks for sharing that, Nathan.
My hope for Mormons is that, in the end, God overlooks their confusion as to the details of who Jesus Christ was and their perception of levels of salvation through works, and honors their repentance and acceptance of His death and resurrection.
In any event, all we can do is continue to teach God’s Word and pray that the Truth shines through their doctrines.
Blessings.
Bruce
I hope that I might be considered welcome to comment here. I feel like I should apologize to you for your harsh experience with those “Elders”. I am a Mormon, and I know that we have many differences, but we can agree to disagree while still maintaining a level of civility. Telling someone they are “going to hell” obviously does not fall into that category, so I’m embarrassed any time some of our members act in an un-christian way. I’m surprised by the level of hostility I encounter at times myself–I know how it feels. I’ve been on the receiving end of some of that name calling in the past. Although I’m strong in my convictions, I’m much more into building bridges than I am into trying to convert people. Hopefully this is one step into building a bridge of friendship. I would love to engage in civil conversation with anybody who sincerely is trying to “live the gospel”. (I love that subtitle to your blog!) We all have much to gain from each other, and unfortunately there are people on both sides that don’t recognize that. It behooves us to be so very respectful and neighborly while also being “honest” with each other.
Dear Clean Cut: I truly appreciate your response to this blog entry. As you read other entries you would appreciate my attempts to restore civility for the sake of the Gospel. I do not doubt that you and many other Mormons have received hate and scorn from Christians. The Church of the Latter Day Saints holds to beliefs, doctrines and philosophies that are not traditionally Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I am sure that you are aware of some of these. While these are opportunities for discussion toward a clear understanding of each other and even toward the proselytizing of each other, they need not be occasion for destruction of each other. I live in Oregon, home to a large number of Mormons. Regularly I interact with neighbors, gym mates and a bishop now and then, and our discussions are cordial. We most often agree on issues of morality. When it comes to the nature of the God of the Bible and to the extent of the gracious Gospel, then our beliefs start to depart from each other rapidly. To mark this departure among friends is of value to me as long as both parties, myself and the Mormon both recognize these departures and thus real differences between our faith systems. While we are bantering about the Gospel of Grace we might as well do so treating each other graciously.
nathan.
Still, the Mormons have spooked America since the church’ s creation. Joseph Smith was called a fraud when he founded the church in 1830, and despite its best efforts to inject itself into the American cultural mainstream, the church is still viewed with suspicion in some quarters. Polls show that a substantial number of Americans would not vote for a Mormon for president. Catholic and Protestant denominations alike have challenged the inclusion of the church in historic Christianity.
While I find it easy to interact with Mormons as neighbors and contributing citizens, I do find them “spooky” in the realm of Christian thought and practice. My Roman Catholic neighbor is consistently taught that telling a lie is the telling of lie no matter to whom it is told. But Mormons, who are taught the teachings of Joseph Smith are taught that telling a lie to a non-Mormon is acceptable. I do not write this to attack any Mormon except for Joseph Smith. Why is it so difficult for Mormons to admit the “spookiness” of Joseph Smith? American Christians quickly see the flaws of Adam, Abraham, Jacob, David, Elijah, Jonah, Peter, Paul, Mary, Chloe, and hundreds of other saints whose less than perfect lives are recorded in the Holy Scriptures. Why the idolization of Joseph Smith? He was spooky. Period. If my Roman Catholic neighbor disagrees with me, he respectfully tells me so when the subject arises. But my Mormon neighbor does not do so. Instead, he pretends to agree with me and says whatever he thinks will move me closer to becoming a Mormon. And so, we are returned to my blog entry, “I Met an Honest Mormon Today.” Finally, after years of interacting with Mormon elders at my door step, one in a thousand was honest enough to tell me that I was going to hell for being a Presbyterian minister, mainly due to my illegitimate ordination. Let me be honest: I am not prepared to vote for a Mormon to hold the highest office in the land until the Mormon community comes clean of its honesty problem. It’s historic and it is prevailing into the present. I take it back: If that one Mormon elder on my doorstep who said I was going to hell decided to run for office, I may vote for him.
I think many Americans are sick and tired of a president who puts his own brand of God above America. And I think Mormons have something special to prove, given how one of their profits, um, rebelled against America. But I don’ t think that any religion has a monopoly on crazy. So, yeah, I kind of agree with Washingtonians for Romney that a Mormon can become president. It might be a handicap , though.
I agree that no one religion has a monopoly on crazy. What I strive for is to be a fool for Christ. If my foolishness is the gospel, then I am following Christ. If my foolishness is a theory, a personal conviction, a vision, or a moralism, then such foolishness is vain. I have never cast a vote for President based upon the particular religious affiliation of the candidate. The stage of the American presidency is too much a public space with so many vested interests beyond that of the individual candidate for any of us to connect with a mere individual as if his/her personal lifestyle, convictions, even religious sensibilities were the only, even central factors. As my associate pastor said to me when I asked him what he thought of Mike Huckabee: “I like him, but we must elect a President, not a Pastor.” I share his sentiments.
For the record, I have been a Mormon all my life and not once have I been “taught that telling a lie to a non-Mormon is acceptable”, as you put it. That’s simply wrong. In fact, one of the prerequisite questions we have to answer before going to the temple is “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?”. We obviously have no perfect people in our church, and Joseph Smith himself never claimed perfection. Only Christ himself was perfect, but that’s who we are taught to follow. I try to live Christ’s teachings as best I can, and to be a witness of Him at all times, in all things, and all places.
As for the generalization about the “idolization of Joseph Smith”–he obviously is revered as the prophet of the restoration, but not idolized. Ideally, the focus is on Jesus Christ. This should be clear when talking to a Mormon, visiting a church meeting, or visiting mormon.org. Joseph Smith’s work was simply to bring mankind closer to Christ. I appreciate what God did through the prophet Joseph, but I do not idolize him. He was far from perfect and he made mistakes too. Joseph was a man who did incredible things in his life. Some of the things he did bug me. Most of the things he did amaze me. This I know: Perfection was never required to be a prophet, and he was a prophet called to restore the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The works he left behind have only helped deepen my love for my Savior.
Thanks for your comments, Clean Cut. Would you consider your faith to be complete had Joseph Smith never testified to the restoration thus establish the Church of the Latter Day Saints? Would you consider God’s prophetic revelation to be sufficient short of the Book of Mormon? Is the fulfillment of Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of all righteousness, the fulfillment of all prophecy, sufficient for faith or must I embrace Joseph Smith as the prophet who restored the succession of prophets? Must I pray asking God to show me that the Book of Mormon is a continuation of the written Holy Scriptures? Must I believe that the Church of the Latter Day Saints is the only true Church in these last days and that all other Churches are apostate, holding to false authority?
[…] […]
You said it. :) Actually, in all seriousness, no one HAS to do any of that. God gave us the power to choose for ourselves. However, I would think that any true followers of Christ would want to learn all that they can about how He continues to speak to us today as he has to all of his “sheep” in all ages of time. His words speak for themselves, and they invite all to come unto Him and find true joy. (By the way, it’s not the Church of the Latter-day Saints. It’s The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. There’s a big difference.)
Dear Clean-Cut: I did not truncate the name of your church to be insulting but sadly as an oversight. Now that you mention it, the name has always puzzled me grammatically. Since it is apparently clear that I have some “larnin’” to do, perhaps you could help me with the name. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” How am I to understand the second preposition “of.” Does it serve its usual possessive meaning and if so, does it assign its meaning to the Church, to Jesus Christ, or to both? The rest of Christendom thinks of the church as an institution that spans all of human history. For example, most churches of the Reformation think of the communion of saints beginning in Eden with Adam and Eve. We would consider Abraham and all those who possess the same faith as he did, to members of the covenantal community which in these last days has been called the Church. Most Christians define “latter days” as beginning with the ascension of Jesus and continuing until the Final Day of Judgement. Thus, the name of your church is quite specific and our very ensuing discussion at this blog may be latent in it.
If you can read through the zealous colorful language of Mike above, then you may understand where other Christians are coming from when they react to you encouraging us to listen to the words of Jesus. As I understand the conversation, a large part of it is “how do we know which words belong to Christ and which belong to mere human beings who claim that they speak for him but don’t actually do so?” So far, the answers kindly supplied to me don’t satisfy. They are the same answers Roman Catholics lend to their fellow Christians of the Reformed movement when asked about the ex cathedra statements of the succession of popes. Pentecostal Christians also believe in continuing revelation, but they make a distinction between big and binding revelation - the inspired written word of God and little, non-binding prophecies spoken by mere men and yet are helpful toward holy application. While I don’t agree with these distinctions made by Pentecostals, I don’t assess them to throw Pentecostals beyond the pale of orthodoxy. However, in Mormonism, I don’t read these distinctions, but instead a bold claim of the same power and authority assigned to the words of the succession of prophets beginning with Smith as flowed from the Old Testament Prophets and from the Apostles. All Christians agree that a 400 year silence fell between the Two Covenants, no prophet speaking the very words of God. This period of silence was broken with the clarion call to repentance through the prophet John. He announced the coming of Christ. Jesus, the great and final prophet fulfills all prophecy and ushers in the latter days. His apostles spread his gospel throughout the world and there is no indication in the Bible that a succession of this apostleship would continue beyond them. Roman Catholics disagree with my last statement as do some Pentecostals. Mormons also disagree with it. But what is truly unique to the Mormon presentation is that a second and longer, much longer period of silence occurred because of apostasy. From the Apostles until Joseph Smith, God was silent on earth and there was no church present. Even during the 400 years of silence, there was a remnant. a faithful, but small worshipping community of faithful members of the true Church. This extra-biblical period of silence central to the Mormon religion’s very existence is difficult for Christians to accept as it condemns their faith and practice as vain and ungodly. But our disagreement with this new historical theory and reason for a new religion, the founding of the only true Church does not arise from the rest of us being accused of falsity. It arises from the preposterous nature of it in context of Jesus’ words recorded in the Bible we all receive as the very words of God. While Jesus Christ was on earth he said to Peter and to the rest of the disciples, “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It seems unlikely that Jesus would says these words on the brink of the utter destruction of his church, thus making his promise a foretelling prophecy of the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints in the far future. It doesn’t seem quite right that Jesus would invest in the 12 apostles and appear to Saul as one untimely born only to establish his church to last for two centuries at the most and then allow it to be utterly destroyed for 1,500 years until an American found his golden tablets. Not only does the timing of the history seem odd, not at all the way God had been unfolding his redemptive purposes for the past two thousand years, but it also seems geographically suspect. Why mid-America? (Enter the Book of Mormon.) The geography of Mormonism seems suspect to Christians who think of Jerusalem as the center. The appearance of Joseph Smith on the prophetic scene after the great Prophet like unto Moses, Jesus, has ascended to the right hand of Father, seems odd, if not out of place.
Upon his ascension, the angels said to the disciples, “Why do you stand looking up into heaven. This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven will come in the same way you saw him go into heaven.” Most Christians take these words to heart and do not expect any manifestations of Jesus between his ascension and final coming as Judge of the dead and the living.
Clean Cut (with a Coke),
I don’t understand why you’d be embarrassed at the mormon “elder” statement to Nathan that he was going to hell.
The apostle Orson Pratt, in his book “The Seer” said “Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon’ whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness.”
Joseph Smith asked God which Christian church he should join. In The Pearl of Great Price, “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.”
It seems very clear that Orson Pratt and Joseph Smith believed that we did not worship the same Jesus as they did. Our creeds are an abomination. What do we believe? Here’s one:
We believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
You can’t tell me they’d never heard this creed!
So you have us being called the whore of babylon, the Lord denounces us, we’ve corrupted all the earth by our fornications and wickedness, we’re all wrong, our creeds are abominations and we’re going to hell.
They all seem to fit don’t they? Why the embarrassment?
Nathan & “not as clean cut”,
You seem very intelligent, informed and driven. I am intrigued at your interest in debating LDS doctrine and I enjoy reading how you articulate your points. I think many people do not know how to choose their words as wisely and precisely as you do and could therefore leave you with much to criticize in their inadequate interpretations. I can not speak for “the church”, past or present leaders, or anyone else for that matter. Just myself. A follower of Christ, a Latter Day Saint, a tired mom with limited vocabulary.
I struggle with how to respond to your accusations and venture that you might actually enjoy the struggling. Whatever I write I run the risk of giving you more fuel for the fire of fault finding. I’ll run the risk, hoping that somehow you can sense the sincerity of my unplanned, unedited remarks.
First of all, I think no-one on earth has the right to declare who is going to hell. I leave that in the hands of the Master. I am familiar with only one of the references you made above and I also find it difficult to understand other churches being considered an abomination. I know too many amazingly Christlike people- not in my church- to feel comfortable with that one. However I do believe that any organization that is formed to glorify man, using tithes and talents for unholy practices of self indulgence, leading men away from their Savior, is most certainly abominable.
It’s interesting to be in a church where people bring up anything any leader has EVER said as a doctrine we all stand by. Thankfully we are not asked in an interview question before baptism if we will swear by everything said by leading members of the church. There have been things said I don’t stand by, mistakes of men. Things that would be shared differently today. I am confident that no leader of the church would ever say such a thing, nor would they quote it. Because of that, I too am embarrassed by the incident with the Elders. I know you think I shouldn’t be but I still am. Embarrassed because what they shared was wrong(unless of course you are actually leading people away from Christ-in which case the Elders might have a good point to argue:) still no right to declare it). Embarrassed that they were supposed to be representing the church I belong to and yet misrepresenting it. Self righteousness maybe, but not The Church of Jesus Christ.
You’re a mystery to me. In fact, I wonder why you chose to carry on with us, meddling in things you feel are untrue. What is your motivation? To build your own faith? To destroy mine? Pure Entertainment? What comes of such discussions? I certainly don’t have the time to be looking for and pointing out what I see wrong in others beliefs…just grateful always to share genuine feelings with another. To learn from their perspective. To share what has blessed my life so deeply. To tolerate and love,regardless of how vast our differences may be.
For me it’s not about “the church” but the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet it is through the teachings, revelation, principles and ordinances offered through the church that I have come to know Jesus Christ and receive of His gospel. So, I’ll stand by and seek the share “the church” for eternity.
(I warned you it would be inadequate)
I have no reason to believe that you are anything less than a sincere follower of Christ. I commend you in all your efforts to share His light with others. Do I think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has even more light to share? Of course. Does that make me any better than you? Of course not.
Here’s to honesty. I appreciate your respect in our differences. I wish you well on your journey. Be it heaven or hell…:)
Mrs. Clean Cut,
You commented that no one has the right to say who is going to hell. Make no mistake about it. Your leaders both past and current make no bones about our situation. Your own “prophets” and “apostles” who speak for god have said everything I’ve listed. Honestly, I don’t understand the concern for what they’ve said.
These people speak for god according to your “church”. They’re not the mistakes of men. Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt said what I’ve quoted. Joseph Smith, the foundation of your church said these things! Nothing I’ve written is untrue. I’ve never thrown an “accusation” in any post. I’ve never been “fault finding”. In fact, it’s not a fault I’ve mentioned, it’s a clear view of how the mormon hierarchy regards us.
I’m not critizing anything in your or any other posters comments. I’ve not commented in a bad light on any mormon. In their view, those “elders” believed they hit the nail right on the head when they told Nathan he was going to hell. Why can’t you accept that? Jesus had no qualms telling the Jewish leaders at the time that they were “a brood of vipers.” How can I fault your “elders” for what they said? It’s what they believe. How in the world could they have misrepresented what your “church” believes?
I’ve made no comments on the character of any of your leaders. I’ve no doubt of your sincerity. I’ve not debated mormon doctrine. I merely have quoted what they’ve said and believed through the history of the mormon church.
You said you know “Christlike people- not in my church- to feel comfortable with that one.” Referring to our creeds being an “abomination”. From what I understand, it’s not enough to seem “christlike”. There are several people I know that act “christlike” and don’t go to any church.
Why do I carry on? To make sure that every reader of this post knows that we and the mormons have nothing in common. I’m not here to “share genuine feelings”. Feelings won’t get us anywhere. You said, “it’s not about “the church” but the gospel of Jesus Christ.” The two are inseparable for mormons. Your “church” has instituted all the commandments and ordinances that you must follow for salvation.
My motivation is this. These are very grave positions we discuss here. What we believe makes the difference in our eternal destiny.
Dear Mrs. Clean-Cut: Thanks for joining the discussion. We discuss to learn and to sharpen one another. I’m sure, as a mother, you desire to train your children to interact, to even verbally spar as they learn how to think, how to pursue the truth. You make light of the rational process and the verbal interchange, but you know and you have experienced how valuable these are to true faith and life practice. Rationality and rhetoric can not exhaust the knowledge of God, but they are God-given tools to aid us in our search. I know that you are tired and don’t think that you have much time or energy for spiritual searching. Fair enough. The truth of the gospel (which you would need to simply define for me since it is altogether possible that what you mean by gospel may be a bit different than what I mean by it. We both seem to communicate that the gospel is central to our life and so it must then be important enough for us to know as God has revealed it and defined.) And so, that would make our discussion of it, even as strangers, more important than any other conversation I can imagine.
In your “unplanned, unedited” comments above (which can be said of all of my comments above as well - that’s what blogs are made of) you wrote, “you can sense the sincerity of my unplanned, unedited remarks.” The problem with blogs, or email, any electronic information is that it is difficult for any of us to sense another person’s sincerity, and so I am uncertain about your sincerity. What I do know is that “sincerity” is not the proof of truth. Indeed sincerity has little to do with truth. Also, just because you are writing unplanned and unedited doesn’t make your remarks any more sincere than someone who gives what he/she writes a good deal of thought prior to punching the “submit” or “send” button. Thanks for this contribution. It has helped me to think a little more about sincerity, truth, and what the gospel might actually be as it has been revealed to us by God, who is infinitely sincere and is the Truth.
May He bless you, guide and direct you, giving you strength to parent your children and to love your husband, whom I assume is Mr. Clean-Cut.
nathan.
As a Latter-day Saint, and therefore a Christian, it makes me deeply sad when my belief and faith in Jesus Christ are questioned. Here’s the thing: you can go into a complicated discussion about the reasons why Mormon doctrine precludes us from really being Christian. We, in turn, can counter with all the reasons why we believe our church is restored Christianity, as the Lord designed it to be.
But what neither of these things will say is this: I have experienced the healing power of Christ’s love for me in my life. I have felt it. I know He lives, I know He is real, and I know that He died for me and for my many sins. I know it to my core. I know that I depend upon Him for my salvation. And I learned that as a Mormon, and a Christian. That, Nathan, is why Mormons keep on wanting some validation as Christians–we know what we’ve experienced, we have tasted the sweetness of Christ’s grace, and it hurts, very much, when that experience is quibbled away into discussions of why we can’t possibly be Christians because of thus and such.
Believe me when I say I have personally experienced the love of Jesus Christ, and I know He is my Savior. Don’t tell me that I can’t have experienced that, because I really believe something completely different. I know what I believe, and I believe in Christ.
Dear Emily: I think and hope that I have been careful not to mock or deny your personal belief. The Mormon faith actually comes down to what you have commented above - a personal experience. I hear and read you to be saying something that you believe to be simple. There is nothing simple about what you have aptly expressed as the basis of your Mormon faith. Interestingly, this position you have clearly put forth, is philosophically complex: it is closely related to what Decartes contributed to western philosophy, moving the source of truth from an external source to a personal/internal source. His contribution in philosophy changed the way western civilization thinks and believes. Once again, as I have done so through out this line of comments, I will not take issue with your statement of an internal/personal source of truth and faith born out in your personal experience. But I will say again that this is yet another difference between Mormon faith and Christian faith. I know that it pains you when I or anyone else points out the differences between Mormonism and Christianity, but it is unavoidable and such honesty is not “mean” or “rude” on my part. Mormon faith as you have described it has a source imbedded inside yourself flowing out into your experience. Christian faith has a source that is alien to the individual person, a gift from God. Divine truth is true whether or not you or I believe it to be true and regardless of our experiencing any of its benefits.
Nevertheless, it is heartening for me to hear that you have experienced the love of Jesus Christ. I have a positively confident worldview, believing that myriads of people from every tongue, tribe, and nation, have and are experiencing the love of Jesus Christ. I hope and pray that this love of Jesus Christ will increase in you.
nathan.
Emily M,
You said “I believe in Christ”. What does that mean? You also say “I depend upon Him for my salvation.” That a very vague term.
Spencer Kimball chastised your church members and said they “are doing nothing seriously wrong, except in their failures to do the right things to earn their salvation.”
From what Mr. Kimball says, it’s earned. Bruce McConkie taught, “Salvation grows automatically out of the resurrection, and the coming forth in the resurrection constitutes the receipt of whatever degree of salvation has been earned.”
I would have to agree with Isaiah, “But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.”
This is really where I believe people miss the mark. They have such a high view of their own merits. They misunderstand the holiness of God. Everything we do is tainted in some way. Our good intentions and experience accomplish nothing in terms of “earning” our salvation. That’s why we say, Sola Fide - by faith alone, Sola gratia - by grace alone, Solus Christus - by Christ alone and Soli Deo gloria - to God alone be the glory!! It is ALL his work.
Nathan’s comment is right on the mark. “Christian faith has a source that is alien to the individual person, a gift from God. Divine truth is true whether or not you or I believe it to be true and regardless of our experiencing any of its benefits.”
I can assure you Mike that Spencer W. Kimball understands the gospel of Jesus Christ better than most of us. He was one of His special witnesses. Please don’t ever again make the mistake of thinking that we believe we can save ourselves. Isn’t that the basis of the movie “The God Makers?” What a bunch of bunk.
Our quest is to have greater faith in Christ. Salvation comes only by taking advantage of the Atonement of Christ. Please allow me to quote from the Book of Mormon: “The way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free. And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off…Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
“Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.” (2nd Nephi 2:4-7).
We’re all in the same boat and in need of the same salvation. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15: 22). However, only those who are truly penitent can really allow Christ’s atonement to save (and change) their lives. (”Redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah…he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin…unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit”). I’m humbled by the fact that we’ve all fallen and have become separated from God, and only Christ, our Mediator and Intercessor has paid the price which is sufficient to put us literally “at one” again with God. This is a fact that indeed causes me to have “a broken heart and contrite spirit”.
One of my favorite hymns is the well known and oft sung “I Stand All Amazed”. It expresses my sentiments perfectly:
“I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me
Confused at the grace that so fully he proffers me
I tremble to know that for me he was crucified
That for me, a sinner, he suffered, he bled and died
“Oh, it is wonderful that he should care for me enough to die for me
Oh, it is wonderful
Wonderful to me
“I marvel that he would descend from his throne divine
To rescue a soul so rebellious and proud as mine
That he should extend his great love unto such as I
Sufficient to own, to redeem and to justify
“Oh, it is wonderful that he should care for me enough to die for me
Oh, it is wonderful
Wonderful to me
“I think of his hands, pierced and bleeding to pay my debt
Such mercy, such love and devotion can I forget?
No, no, I will praise and adore at the mercy seat
Until at the glorified throne I kneel at his feet”
Oh, it is wonderful that he should care for me enough to die for me
Oh, it is wonderful
Wonderful to me!”
Have you, personally, seen the God Makers movie? Watched the whole thing from start to finish?
Clean Cut,
BTW, I did see a mormon produced cartoon, I wish I could remember what it was called. It made fun of John Calvin.
What’s the official church position on John Calvin, or rather, his TULIP doctrine?
Have you, personally, listened to all of the missionary lessons from start to finish?
PS: The truth about the “God Makers” can be found at www.fairlds.org/The_God_Makers/
PSS: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has spokespeople who can answer your questions as to “official” positions. I speak only for myself, although I feel I have a pretty sound understanding of “Mormonism”. I personally respect John Calvin as a reformer, among many others. The Reformation paved the way for the Restoration. The Restoration, as used by Latter-day Saints, means that the true Church of Jesus Christ, which was lost through apostasy, was brought back as it originally existed when organized by Jesus Christ. Unlike the Reformation, the Restoration was accomplished by divine authority through revelation.
As for the cartoon, the Church wouldn’t have produced anything of the sort. Official church productions must be approved by the First Presidency. Mocking other churches is not only not a part of the mission of the Church, but strongly condemned. The mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to invite all to come unto Christ by helping them receive the restored gospel through faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end.
Clean Cut,
As I was preparing a “Magnum Opus” of a response, something in your post hit me. I want to understand, and how you answer should clarify it. It’s something I’ve never considered or thought of before.
In it you say: “The mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to invite all to come unto Christ by helping them receive the restored gospel through faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end.”
It’s the part “Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end” that should help us put your theology in perspective. You put “His” in front of the list, so, if my grammar is correct, Jesus did everything in that list.
If I understand correctly, all persons were once spirit beings of a god and they are born either on this world or another. From that point, are you saying this is what every person must do to be saved and to finally make it as a god as they progress? Did Jesus have to do it, his father before him had to do it and all gods in all places must do it?
Is there another god in another place that made atonement for other people in other places in the universe? Will you, some day, make it to godhood and make atonement for others?
If you could either confirm or correct each item, it would be most helpful for us to understand.
BTW, the cartoon wasn’t about John Calvin. It was just maybe 10 to 15 second part of a cartoon for kids about the early life of Joseph Smith.
It just made fun of the U of the reformed TULIP. It was a distortion, but was in the cartoon.
Thanks for the questions Mike. I’ll give it a whirl. Although I feel like my words would be inadequate. And I express some reserve because of those who would use “word games” or other manipulation of language/semantics which would make innocent people “offenders for a word” (Isaiah 29:21).
You asked about “the part ‘Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end’…putting “His” in front of the list”.
My response is that “His Atonement” is separate from “repentance”. He atoned, and the doctrine of Christ is to have FAITH in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Hopefully that helps.
Your next set of questions are related to some questions I recently answered on another blog. Perhaps in the interest of time you’ll allow me to copy and paste those questions along with my responses. Then if there’s still any more need for clarification, we can go from there.
I was asked by an evangelical christian to address if I believe the following questions:
Question: That god & his wife had children (spirit or otherwise)?
I am a child of God. He is my Heavenly Father. I pray to Him daily in the name of Jesus Christ, my Savior and Redeemer. I don’t know anything about a heavenly mother–the scriptures are mute on that. But yes, I suppose if I’m His child, and He is my Father, and we are created in His image–this isn’t rocket science. “We are the offspring of God.” (Acts 17:29.) Doctrinal truths are interrelated. There is an old saying that if you pick up one end of a stick, you pick up the other end as well. If you concede that we are His children, you must allow that God is our Father. (Parenthetically, my wife and I have two beautiful daughters! I love being a Father!)
Q: That god is currently living on another planet?
Who can say exactly where he lives? It’s been awhile since I’ve been there, so I can’t really remember. (grin). But he has to live somewhere, doesn’t he? Now if you’re referring to Kolob, that is a star or planet mentioned in the Book of Abraham as being nearest to the throne or residence of God. The literal existence and the exact nature of Kolob is a controversial topic in Latter Day Saint theology. Again, the scriptures are pretty silent about this, which makes me wonder: Why all the speculation? We certainly don’t waste time speculating about it in our meetings or publications. All I can say for certain is that God is in his heaven. But I can’t say how near or far or where it is exactly. (Although a cute little song says “Where is Heaven, is it very far?…When your with the ones you love it’s right where you are!”
Q: That Jesus & Lucifer are “spirit” brothers?
Wasn’t this answered sufficiently with the whole Mike Huckabee controversy? This is actually a common question asked by those exposed to Anti-Mormon literature. Anti-Mormons often twist doctrines out of context to make it sound like Mormons believe that Latter-Day Saints consider Satan and the Lord to be equals. Of course, anyone familiar with Mormon beliefs about Jesus Christ knows that this is simply not true. Mormons have the utmost respect and reverence for the Savior and Redeemer.
First, Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father (and is therefore divine) and the mortal virgin Mary. Satan, a malignant spirit, does not share this parental heritage of Jesus, and cannot be considered divine in any respect. Therefore, in the usual way that we speak of brothers and sisters, Jesus and Satan are not brothers. However, Latter-day Saints believe that God is our Father in Heaven. Before we came to this world, we all lived as spirits under his care and guidance. We believe that God begat or created the spirits of Jesus, Lucifer, and all of the human family as his children. Our Heavenly Father is literally the father of our spirits. Jesus Christ is considered the preeminent “firstborn” or “firstbegotten” (see Hebrews 1:4-6; Firstborn in the Spirit)
Even though God the Father created all of our spirits, we were not equal in that premortal state. Jesus was a member of the Eternal Godhead, through his own innate worthiness, and created the universe under the Father’s direction. The Godhead is comprised of our Heavenly Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Since the Fall of Adam, the Father has represented himself to the world through Jesus Christ. Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament.
Lucifer, who was never a member of the Godhead like Jesus, rebelled against God, and was forever cast out. He became Satan, our adversary. Unlike Jesus or us, Lucifer will never be born into a physical body. Latter-day Saint scriptures summarize this issue as follows:
“AND I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying–Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
“But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me–Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
“Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
“And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.” (The Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-4)
So it can be said that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father, but it is a misrepresentation to say so without giving the contextual background. Whatever similarities in background exist between Jesus and Satan pale compared to the differences. Jesus is the Beloved and Chosen, who is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh.
Q: “That men can one day become a god on their own planet?”
I have no idea about having “my own planet”. That’s a humbling thought. I only know that I want to be LIKE God, just like I want my kids to grow up and be like me. No one will ever REPLACE God or become God–or even achieve “Godhood”–but I do think that He wants us to live the kind of quality of life He lives. The Apostle Paul understood this doctrine and wrote to the Philippians:
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Philip. 2:5–6.)
I quote from Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Twelve Apostles:
“The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him. There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him. Paul wrote to the Romans:
“The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:16–17.)”
I hope that helps to clarify the theology.
As for your last two questions:
“Is there another god in another place that made atonement for other people in other places in the universe?
No. Jesus is the Lord of the Universe.
Late LDS Apostle Elder Neal A. Maxwell speaking 8 years ago from the Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton, located outside San Jose, California said:
“This magnificent, far-reaching telescope is deliberately situated above the smog, so this powerful instrument can better probe the galaxies. So it is with life, and seeing by the lens of faith. If we are to see things more clearly, we too must lift ourselves above the secular smog. Then, in the words of the hymn, we can “in awesome wonder consider all the worlds [God’s] hands have made … [and see God’s] pow’r thru-out the universe displayed” (“How Great Thou Art”). Otherwise, we will be kept from probing Jesus’ universal gospel and from seeing “things as they really are” (Jacob 4:13).
“Nevertheless, by viewing the stretching cosmos, we can humbly contemplate the vastness of divine handiwork. Long before He was born at Bethlehem and became known as Jesus of Nazareth, our Savior was Jehovah. Way back then, under the direction of the Father, Christ was the Lord of the universe, who created worlds without number—of which ours is only one (see Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:2).
(If I could bold the next paragraph I would, but I don’t know how)
“How many planets are there in the universe with people on them? We don’t know, but we are not alone in the universe! God is not the God of only one planet! I testify that Jesus is truly the Lord of the universe, “that by [Christ], and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24).
“Having purchased us (see 1 Cor. 7:23) with His atoning blood (see Acts 20:28) in the great and marvelous Atonement, Jesus thereby became our Lawgiver (see Isa. 33:22). It is by obedience to His laws and His commandments that we may return one day to His presence and that of our Heavenly Father.
“The foregoing cosmic facts should bring us to our knees even now—long before that later Judgment Day, when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. I testify that Jesus fulfilled these great roles as Creator and Lawgiver out of His desire to immortalize all of Heavenly Father’s children, with the most valiant to live in His Father’s house, which has many mansions.
“When Christ comes again, it will not be to the meekness of the manger; it will be as the recognized Redeemer and the Lord of the universe! Then, in a great solar display, stars will fall from their places in a witnessing way (see D&C 133:49), with much more drama than at His birth, when “the stars in the heavens looked down where he lay” (“Away in a Manger”).
“Yet in the vastness of His creations, the Lord of the universe, who notices the fall of every sparrow, is our personal Savior, of which I give apostolic testimony in the holy name of Jesus Christ, amen!”
End of quote.
Your last question I think was already answered. “Will you, some day, make it to godhood and make atonement for others?” That’s an unequivocal “No”.
Dear Clean Cut: We are back to the beginning of my sentiments expressed in this blog entry and it’s companion, “Why Don’t Mormons Answer My Questions?” If you read the comments of this latest entry, you will discover Emily, who directly answers my questions. I appreciate this directness. However, most Mormons give to me answers like your answers - like the ones you give Mike in the above comments. These are not direct answers and you know it by referring to the mysteries of God and the silence or limited extent of the words of the Mormon prophets. I can only conclude that there is an inherent duplicity in the Mormon system, one that you absorb without even knowing it - for I find it difficult to accuse you of duplicity and so, I conclude it must be in the system you espouse. Your comments are rife with this duplicity, but let me pull out one example: When Mike asks you if Jesus and Satan are brothers, your response is “No” then “Yes.” You say that they are not brothers, but then you say that they have the same Father, and so, you suppose that they must be brothers. Then you say that the context must be understood as it shows how different these two are from each other. Why don’t you directly answer Mike’s question with something like: “Yes, Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers, both begat by God, the Father. But just like Jacob and Esau, and many other brothers, they are quite different from each other. But yes, they are brothers.” This would be a direct answer clean of duplicity.
The Mormon system, I suspect is duplicious as it is designed to present a theology, doctrine and way of life vastly different from gospel-centered Christianity to an audience it seeks to win over and even more so, from whom it seeks to be affirmed as legitimate Christianity.
When I read Emily, I have hope that this is not the case. When I read you, I am plunged once again into my hunches that Mormonism desires more than anything else to win the affirmation of Christianity, to be known by the world as true, genuine Christianity - even the restored, only Christianity on the planet - all other manifestations of the Church false - on the right track, but nonetheless not the ‘true church.’
From the outset, the posts from Clean Cut and other Mormons wanted understanding from us. They now have it. From what we and they have said, we have absolutely nothing in common, other than the words we use. God the Father is different, Jesus is different and what we must do to be saved is different, just to name a few.
We understand completely.
Nathan,
I appreciate the fact that you can change my words and make them better! Thank you. I responded the “long route” because I thought you would appreciate understanding where I was coming from. But from now on I’ll have to quote you:
“Yes, Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers, both begat by God, the Father. But just like Jacob and Esau, and many other brothers, they are quite different from each other. But yes, they are brothers.”
I do however have to disagree with you about duplicity. There was nothing deceitful in my comments at all. I was simply trying to share my point of view to a question I feel for some reason has a lot of baggage. And please don’t assume that the way I personally respond somehow represents a Mormon “system”. I come in contact with all kinds of people. I appreciate your clarification, frankness, good heart, and honesty. I’ll admit to sometimes being quite”wordy”, but certainly not duplicitous.
On a related note, why is this one of the questions that evangelicals are always bringing up, a la Mike Huckabee?
Mike (and Nathan)
It’s very obvious that there are differences in our beliefs and how we understand the Godhead/Trinity. This is why books such as “A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints” by Robert Millet have been written. I’ve never tried to hide that (in fact I openly acknowledged it) or criticize you for believing differently than me. We can agree to disagree. I really don’t understand why Traditional Christians have often seen Mormons as deceptive people who are not being honest with you about what we really believe.
I’m not afraid to share distinctive LDS beliefs about Jesus and His redemptive mission. But nor am I afraid to explore commonalities.
Nathan, what would be so wrong if “Mormonism desires…to win the affirmation of Christianity, to be known by the world as true, genuine Christianity”? That certainly would be something.
Here’s a very clear answer from the late LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley to the question: What is the Mormon doctrine of Deity, of God?
“Since the time of the First Vision people have raised this question, and they continue to raise it and will do so for so long as they believe in the God of their tradition, while we bear testimony of the God of modern revelation.
“The Prophet Joseph declared, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345).
“We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (A of F 1:1). This first article of faith epitomizes our doctrine. We do not accept the Athanasian Creed. We do not accept the Nicene Creed, nor any other creed based on tradition and the conclusions of men.
“We do accept, as the basis of our doctrine, the statement of the Prophet Joseph Smith that when he prayed for wisdom in the woods, “the light rested upon me [and] I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is my Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (JS—H 1:17).
“Two beings of substance were before him. He saw them. They were in form like men, only much more glorious in their appearance. He spoke to them. They spoke to him. They were not amorphous spirits. Each was a distinct personality. They were beings of flesh and bone whose nature was reaffirmed in later revelations which came to the Prophet.
“Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.
“Are we Christians? Of course we are Christians. We believe in Christ. We worship Christ. We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name. The Church to which we belong carries His name. He is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great Atonement with salvation and eternal life.”
Clean Cut,
“Nathan, what would be so wrong if ‘Mormonism desires…to win the affirmation of Christianity, to be known by the world as true, genuine Christianity’? That certainly would be something.” This is where I believe a there’s a pinch of chicanery.
You also added, ““Are we Christians? Of course we are Christians. We believe in Christ. We worship Christ. We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name. The Church to which we belong carries His name. He is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great Atonement with salvation and eternal life.”
What Nathan, I think might not understand, is that we are the ones that not true Christians. If the CJCLDS is the only “true church”, then aren’t the followers of CJCLDS the only “true Christians”. It’s we in the traditional reformed faith that are imposters.
In the posts to both of these blogs, all of you have painted us as well meaning but deluded people. If we could only see the ”validity of this glorious First Vision” Joseph Smith had. We’d be on the right road. If we decided along with Joseph Smith that our churches and creeds were all wrong, we might have a chance.
I’m asking that you please not spin this.
On a side note, I very much appreciate you saying, “Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision.” This is where we part ways.
From History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479, AKA Joseph Smith’s Sermon or Meeting in the Grove: “An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James’ translators, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination, The Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, “In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,” or, as others have translated it, “The head of the Gods called the Gods together.” I want to show a little learning as well as other fools—An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James’ translators, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination, The Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, “In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,” or, as others have translated it, “The head of the Gods called the Gods together.” I want to show a little learning as well as other fools—”
This guy has little to no understanding of Hebrew.
The humorous part is where he says, “The Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew.” Just being dismissive on a whim. Was he there to see the “old jew” change it, or was it another revelation?
How about this? I was looking at other Mormon blogs as well. I ran across this. It has to do with “personal revelation” that Mormons receive. The writer says, “So of course personal revelation is the ultimate trump card. If Joseph Smith didn’t treat it as such he would have just become a good Methodist rather that the prophet of the restoration. How many converts would this church have if personal revelation wasn’t the ultimate epistemological trump card? Very few I imagine because people usually only join us weird Mormons after God himself has made it clear to them through his Holy Spirit that he wants them to join us.
So yes — personal revelation is the ultimate epistemological trump card for us.”
Then came the question: “When you are a woman and you have a revelation (let’s say about about the topic for a RS meeting under your jurisdiction) and a certain male priesthood holder above you in the hierarchy has a differing opinion which he is also calling revelation, he will often pull the priesthood card on you.
“You and I both claim to have revelation on such-and-such a matter, the two conflict, but I have the priesthood, and thus we will do it according to my revelation, not yours.”
For many years I have called this the priesthood card, and it trumps all others. After the priesthood card is thrown, the discussion stops. If you as a female do not agree, you are disrespecting the priesthood. There is no possible way to win the hand by an appeal to your personal inspiration or revelation.
Sad, but true.
I challenge any of you to give game strategy for a female when the priesthood card has been pulled.” (end quote)
Other than the obvious, what’s a girl to do?
I’ve seriously understimated the power the hierarchy has in the CJCLDS.
One last question that has puzzled me. Why does the CJCLDS give away the KJV Bible instead of the JST? The JST is the perfected Bible. Also, why did you switch from the BOM to the KJV as your give away?
Mike said: “I’m asking that you please not spin this”
I was starting to get dizzy trying to read through all of your spin.
It seems that no matter what, you’re on a bandwagon to make us out to be deceitful, disingenuous, and duplicitous. If your understanding of Mormonism really were a correct assessment of Mormonism–them I would maybe understand why you keep accusing us of this. But your assessment of Mormonism very off base. (Believe me, I am the expert on what I believe–not you).
Something else seems to be getting in the way of understanding and a productive conversation. I question your motivation. If it is to slander, than by all means, go on–but you’ll do so with very few friends of other faiths.
Sincere questions are welcome. I truly seek understanding. Just visit my blog and you’ll see. (latterdayspence.blogspot.com)
You said “It seems that no matter what, you’re on a bandwagon to make us out to be deceitful, disingenuous, and duplicitous.” I’ve not accused you of any of these. If anything, I’ve asked you to tell us the complete truth, as an expert on the Mormon faith, like:
Where we as “believers” stand
The truth that our Jesus and yours are two different people.
That we’re well meaning, but wrong in our beliefs.
That your former leaders said that “Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon’ whom the Lord denounces”. They never took it back and they never said they were wrong in saying it.
That Joseph Smith had little to no understanding of Hebrew and Greek, let alone Egyptian and therefore couldn’t translate anything. Refer to my last post.
That it’s OK that the one missionary told Nathan that he was going to hell because he rejected Mormonism and was a teacher of a false truth.
That if the CJCLDS is the only “true church”, then aren’t the followers of CJCLDS the only “true Christians”.
That your salvation or exaltation, no matter how minimal your effort, is somewhat based on your performance.
To admit that Spencer Kimball chastised your church members and said they “are doing nothing seriously wrong, except in their failures to do the right things to earn their salvation.” Agreeing with Bruce McConkie saying, “Salvation grows automatically out of the resurrection, and the coming forth in the resurrection constitutes the receipt of whatever degree of salvation has been earned.”
That, quoting you, those who are truly penitent can really allow Christ’s atonement to save (and change) their lives. (”Redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah…he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin…unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit”). I’m humbled by the fact that we’ve all fallen and have become separated from God, and only Christ, our Mediator and Intercessor has paid the price which is sufficient to put us literally “at one” again with God. This is a fact that indeed causes me to have “a broken heart and contrite spirit”. Again, this shows effort on your part, how you earn your salvation.
I ask how can you respect John Calvin as a reformer when his TULIP runs counter to what Mormonism seems to stand for? How did he pave the way for “the restoration”? There is nothing even remotely resembling Mormonism in Calvin’s writings.
What does “Jesus was a member of the Eternal Godhead, through his own innate worthiness” mean? It implies that he was chosen by God the Father from among other premortal spirits. That there might have been others to choose from. That he is not God eternal.
That there are many “gods” on many worlds: “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, … we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p.132).
“Some people are troubled over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith…. The matter that seems such a mystery is the statement that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man. This is one of the mysteries…. The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp.10, 12).
That Jesus had wives and had to have had children: “Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee…We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into relation whereby he could see his seed [children] before he was crucified” (Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 82) “There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that non less a person that Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha an the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.” (Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 259).
“In the Church councils, it was spoken of: “Joseph F. Smith_ He spoke upon the marriage in Cana of Galilee. He thought Jesus was the bridegroom and Mary and Martha the brides.”(Journal of Wilford Woodruff, July 22, 1883). “The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were Mormons (Jedediah Grant, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 346).
“One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that great loved Jesus, such as Mary and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them and associated with the much; and when he arose from the dead, instead of first showing himself to his chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them–namely, Mary Magdalene. Now, it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159).
That you’re being dismissive just as Joseph Smith was when you say that I quote “obscure and out of context quotes of dead church leaders (none of whom were perfect).”
That any of the above can change with “continuing revelation”. It can be right then, but wrong now.
That God (all gods) has a body of flesh and bones.
There is no deceit, name calling, slander, or any lies in what I wrote above. I’m just pointing out our differences. There is no common ground between us and Mormons.
I would let you know that I do have friends of other faiths. On the other hand, if my beliefs seperate me from people, so be it. Jesus didn’t make friends of other faiths when he called them a brood of vipers.
I know that Jesus has been faithful to himself. He said He would. There have always been members of the “true” church since His resurrection. I believe Jesus when he said that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
Let’s take a look at what’s happened since His resurrection. If we’re talking apostasy, here a list of recent ones: Jehovah’s Witnesses, CJCLDS, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Science, Unification Church, Freemasons to name a few. The apostasy continues to this day.
I’ll say it again, from the outset, you and the other posters wanted understanding. You have it.
In fact, I’m going to start posting, on a regular basis, beliefs of Mormons right out of Doctrine and Covenants.
D&C 132:19–22. How Does an Individual Obtain a Fulness of God’s Glory?
The revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants include all of the laws necessary for exaltation. If we keep the law revealed in section 132 and all the other laws, such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost, we can be exalted.
Celestial marriage is a covenant, a contract between the two marriage partners and the Lord. Covenants have “if-then” clauses: if we keep certain commandments, then the Lord promises us certain blessings. Verses 19–22 form such a clause.
If a couple—
Then they will—
1. Are married in accordance with the Lord’s law
1. “Inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths” (v. 19)
2. Are married by one who has the keys of the priesthood
2. “Pass by the angels” to their exaltation (v. 19)
3. Have their marriage sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise
3. Be gods for all eternity (see v. 20)
4. Abide in the covenant
4. Have a “continuation of the lives” (v. 22)
Some members of the Church mistakenly believe that marriage in the temple fulfills the requirements of the covenant. But marriage in the temple fulfills only the first two parts of the covenant. Having one’s marriage sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise requires a lifelong commitment to righteousness (see Notes and Commentary on D&C 132:7). Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught that “baptism is the gate to the celestial kingdom; celestial marriage is the gate to an exaltation in the highest heaven within the celestial world. (D. & C. 131:1–4.) To gain salvation after baptism it is necessary to keep the commandments of God and endure to the end (2 Ne. 31:17–21); to gain exaltation after celestial marriage it is necessary to continue the same devotion and righteousness. Those who have been married in the temples for eternity know that the ceremony itself expressly conditions the receipt of all promised blessings upon the subsequent faithfulness of the husband and wife.
“Making one’s calling and election sure is an addition to celestial marriage and results from undeviating and perfect devotion to the cause of righteousness. Those married in the temple can never under any circumstances gain exaltation unless they keep the commandments of God and abide in the covenant of marriage which they have taken upon themselves.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 118.)
I would venture to say that I am the world’s authority on what I believe. I have not the time to refute all the misrepresentations of what I believe listed here, or even misrepresentations of what “Mormon’s” believe–they are too numerous here.
What is our doctrine? What do we teach today? If any teaching or idea is not in the standard works, not among official declarations or proclamations, is not taught currently by living apostles or prophets in general conference or other official gatherings, or is not in the general handbooks or official curriculum of the Church, it is probably not a part of the doctrine or teachings of the Church–regardless of whether or not somebody in the 19th century or the 21st century believed personally.
I teach history. I certainly don’t teach that the United States is a terrible country today or “lovingly” warn people to stay out of the country–or even slander the country–because it once allowed slavery. It’s time to stop criticizing Latter-day Saints on matters they don’t even teach today.
Much of the condemnation of Latter-day Saints is for things they DON’T believe. Again–misrepresentation. Many of you are claiming like experts to be the authority on what I believe! “No, that’s not what you believe; this is what you believe!”, followed by some hocus-pocus that is certainly not taught by the LDS church. Think of the absurdity of it–”You don’t know what you believe, but I know what you believe; I know your thoughts better than you do!” Where did you learn how to mind read?
No matter what I say it is I believe, or what I don’t believe, you have already decided in your own mind what my personal beliefs and the beliefs of the LDS church are, and you’re unwilling to accept anything to the contrary, and thus I am denied the right to define my won beliefs. (And when I do attempt to define something, it is largely ignored. For example, how many times must I say that the charge that Latter-day Saints believe in salvation by works? It’s simply not true. I’ve already shared that such thinking is contrary to the teachings of the Book of Mormon, which eloquently states the doctrine of salvation by grace.)
I quote Stephen Robinson: “When non-Mormons attempt to impose doctrines on the Latter-day Saints or interpret them for us, the resulting fictions generally fall into one of three categories: outright fabrications, distortions of genuine LDS doctrines into unrecognizable forms, or the representation of anomalies within the LDS tradition as mainline or official LDS teaching”.
I believe that I am a Christian because I accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, try to follow his moral commands as best as possible, as well as his teachings about who he is. This is actually at the heart of what I believe. But I am not saying that I am “just like you”. I am Christian no doubt, but different.
It would be absurdly contradictory to say on the one hand that the Bible alone is sufficient for salvation (Nowhere in the Bible does it say that all religious truth is found in the Bible–”Bible” isn’t even a biblical word) and then to add that one must also believe the historical creeds (ie: Nicene) in addition to the Bible in order to even be a Christian. Many of the differences which you use to exclude us have no place in defining a “Christian”–unless that is the narrow definition of Christian you want to espouse, thereby excluding much of Christianity. The real issue, and the only issue that matters, is whether or not I acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord. That I do.
A more productive question than “Don’t you believe in a different Jesus?” would be “What do you believe about Jesus?” I believe that out of God’s great love for us, He sent His son to earth to become our intercessor and put us “at-one” again with God. He was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Ghost. He led a sinless life, and he taught the way we should live, and we have an obligation to follow Him. Most importantly, he voluntarily gave up his life as part of an infinite and eternal atonement on our behalf. This is why he died on the cross. This is why he was resurrected. I could go on. Surly by now it has occurred to you that the only issue that REALLY matters is the issue that is never brought up! This is the heart of what we do and say and teach and believe as Latter-day Saints.
Again, to quote Robinson: “Though all the world may say that Latter-day Saints do not know or love or worship Jesus Christ, I know that we do, and if this is not the issue in question, or if this is not enough to be counted a Christian, the the word as lost its meaning.”
Thank you for having allowed me to participate in this conversation. That’s all I wanted. I never wanted to argue or debate. And thank you for your “convicted civility”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B6VoeO7Bwk
“No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith…every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are… [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—”Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!” But it is true.” -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289-91
There is “no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth…no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God” -Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190
“It is because the Lord called Joseph Smith that salvation is again available to mortal men…. If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation,” -Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 396, 670
Dear Clean Cut: All Mike is doing now is quoting your prophets. As an expert in your religion, you have educated me on the continuing revelation that flows from your prophets since Joseph Smith. All Mike is doing is quoting these prophets. Where we need help (and you could be the help we need) is to know when the words of a former prophet are corrected by the words of a later prophet. For example: most of the world would like to know the history of the change in Mormonism concerning polygamy. I personally know that the mainline Mormon group whose center is the temple in Salt Lake City does not condone polygamy as Joseph Smith through Young did. Which prophet (and year) did the prophecy correct the former belief and practice? Then, you could also help us understand your belief and practice concerning continuing revelation. Does it or can it change from prophet to prophet? If so, why? We believe that the written revelation of God in the 66 books of the Bible does not change but endures until the end. In our faith, we do not add or take away from this. If we do, then we come under divine judgment for doing so. But your system seems to be a bit different and so we need some helpful clarification. Please understand that it is not my intent (and if you read my comments above) or my practice to insult the Mormon religion. In this discussion you have helped me to see how many points of difference exist between Mormonism and Christianity - that’s all. Different doesn’t mean that I scorn you. But it is important, I would think, to all of us, to know that we are different. Perhaps in the future we will move closer together, but at the moment, this continuing revelation thing makes it difficult for us to know precisely what Mormonism teaches. Thankfully, you are not only an expert but you seem willing to help us.
nathan.
Since it looks like Clean Cut has decided to opt out, I thought I’d make sure that if he ever checks back after his last post, he’d know that I did watch the video he posted. If you watch it, maybe you can help. Why is the Pastor meeting with the Mormon after 3 years?
What could a Mormon teach a Pastor? What Mormons believe? From what Clean Cut has said, that could be over in 10 minutes. What could the Mormon learn from the Pastor? More wrong doctrine?
Here’s the next installment from Doctrine and Covenants:
D&C 131:4. What Is Eternal Increase?
Those who comply with the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and endure to the end gain the right to become eternal parents. The Prophet Joseph Smith, as he spoke verses 1–4 to William Clayton, stated: “Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.” (History of the Church, 5:391; see also Smith, Teachings, pp. 300–301.)
On 30 June 1916, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose) declared: “So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.” (In Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 5:34.)
President Spencer W. Kimball taught that the right to eternal increase will depend directly on how individuals keep the marriage covenant in this life:
“One young man said that he expected to reach exaltation in the celestial kingdom as one of the Lord’s messengers, without having to marry. He does not understand. No one who rejects the covenant of celestial marriage can reach exaltation in the eternal kingdom of God.
“‘In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
“‘And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
“‘And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
“‘He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.’ (D&C 131:1–4.)
“He cannot have an increase! He cannot have exaltation!
“The Lord says further in the 132nd section of the Doctrine and Covenants:
“‘No one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory’ (D&C 132:4).
“No one! It matters not how righteous they may have been, how intelligent or how well trained they are. No one will enter this highest glory unless he enters into the covenant, and this means the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.” (“The Importance of Celestial Marriage,” Ensign, Oct. 1979, pp. 5–6.)
Here’s some interesting reading. The CJCLDS is trying to get both of these pulled off the internet.
The first one is Mormon General Handbook of Instructions from 1968
The second is Mormon Handbook of Instructions from 1999.pdf
Thought you might want to check out the fair, unbiased, and very informative “lightplanet” for any major religion, including “Christianity’s” link on Mormonism.
http://lightplanet.com/
Thanks, Clean-Cut for the link to www.lightplanet.com. This is an interesting site. You say it is “fair, unbiased,” and posted at the site under “About Light Planet,” these words are posted: “The owners of LightPlanet strongly advocate religious tolerance and view religion as a key factor in strengthening families and addressing the challenges of today’s complex world. LightPlanet was founded in 1996 by Russell Anderson with significant contributions from religious scholar W. John Walsh.”
What I find interesting is that this site claims to advocate religious tolerance, listing a catalog of the world religions: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and more. But the artwork on the front page is the face of Jesus! This seems a bit out of place for a site tolerant of all the world religions! Also, W. John Walsh, is not just a “religious scholar,” but he is a Mormon who is a Mormon apologist! A site that is trying to be tolerant would do best to tag contributors for who they are precisely. For example, where does W. John Walsh teach? Of which Church is he a member? In the tolerant dialogue in this present world, we precisely tag each other, note our differences and then consider each other’s perspectives. I suspect, without doing much more research, that Light Planet is a Mormon sponsored site with the purpose of trying to “legitimize” Mormonism as a Christian denomination. Unless you can set me straight, cyber space friend, Clean-Cut, I am logging this as another example of Mormon dishonesty. Sorry. I have no doubt that we could be friends and neighbors. I strongly doubt that we share the same faith.
nathan.
Clean Cut,
You mean the page where, at the bottom, it says “Deseret’s Best LDS web sites”? The one that has the “Pearls best LDS web sites” logo? The one where there’s an ad, obviously for modest dresses for Mormon women? Is that the “fair, unbiased” link you want us to look at?
I watched the video. I heard that the pastor in it is a former Mormon. Is that true?
When I googled Russel Anderson Light Planet, it came up with this:
History of LightPlanetLight Planet Home > History of LightPlanet … All About Mormons later became part of LightPlanet, originally started by Russell Anderson. …
If you google Russell Anderson All About Mormons this link comes up:
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai134.html. It’s a link to FAIR Defending Mormonism.
Fair and unbiased?
“I strongly doubt that we share the same faith”? Is that what this is about? Do you share the same faith as Catholics or Baptists? I doubt so, and yet they too are considered Christian. Are Christians to you only those who believe like you? Do you have no room for doctrinal diversity? If I’m remembering my Christian history correctly, there are things you would probably consider “trivial” today that Catholics and Protestants (and Protestants and Protestants for that matter) would burn each other at the stake over. And yet now you can call each other Christian. Hmmm.
In the name of “honesty”, would you have preferred me to list an anti-Mormon site? Would that have been more pleasing to you? You don’t think that it’s “fair” to allow one religion to define itself on its own terms?
I openly acknowledge our differences AND how they don’t exclude us from Christianity. Therefore, “being honest” leads me to declare my faith as “Christian” in its very sense—that’s who I am at my core. I’m not particulary interested in having you accept me as such, because that wouldn’t change anything anyway. But I do get tired of the dizziness of you going in circles and repeating the same offensive statement over and over again.
I have tried to attempt to clarify misconceptions and to explain how all the arguments you all use to “prove” we’re not Christian simply run into problems and don’t ultimately hold up. (See “Are Mormons Christian?” by Stephen E. Robinson).
To paraphrase a friend of mine off of my site: “When it comes down to it, it doesn’t really seem to matter how [I] answer your questions. Whether [I] answer them one way or another it won’t really change anything. You have already stated that you have done your research and reached your conclusions. Therefore, any additional information that [I] or any other Mormon provides for you seems irrelevant and superfluous. Furthermore, such exchanges can be found in great abundance on other sites and message boards. It isn’t exactly clear what the need is to repeat these kinds of interchanges which have already been repeated ad nauseum on the internet. What is the incentive of any Latter-day Saint to respond when the outcome is already determined?
“As it stands you are offering your depiction of the Latter-day Saint faith based on your experience and research. However, the Latter-day Saints visiting this board appear not to agree with your characterization of their faith. To some degree this is to be expected, however, discussion is much more likely to advance when you can restate the beliefs of others and they can respond with “Yes, that is exactly what I believe! You have described what I believe accurately.” This kind of dialogue is rarely achieved, but it is possible.
“I understand that many Evangelicals do not accept Mormonism as Christian and may not even accept individual Mormons as Christians. However, I think most Mormons already know this. Repeating to them that you do not accept them as Christian doesn’t seem to add anything to the conversation.
“Now, if your goal is to explain to Mormons why you do not accept Mormonism as Christian then it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of your explanation. If every time you explain this, Mormons don’t understand and don’t accept your explanation, then it might be useful to try a different method. Others, such as Craig Blomberg and Greg Johnson, have been quite successful at explaining these reasons in ways that Latter-day Saints can appreciate and understand. Not every explanation is the same, and some are infinitely more effective than others.
“In addition, it is one thing to say that Mormonism isn’t the same as historic or traditional Christianity, but it is quite another to claim that individual Latter-day Saints are not Christian in any sense of the word. Many Latter-day Saints would agree that their religious beliefs differ in some ways, even in significant ways, from those of the Christian world at large. However, even here, it is important to accurately describe the faith. Even if you believe that you are being accurate, based on your research and experience, it is important that Latter-day Saints with whom you are dialoguing see themselves in the characterization that you paint of their faith. In fact, that goes for people of any faith whether Protestant, Catholic or Mormon. No one likes to be mischaracterized and dialogue is not likely to advance until Latter-day Saints see themselves and their own faith in your description of their faith.
“Now, when it comes to the personal faith of individual Latter-day Saints, and whether their faith in Christ excludes them from the appellation of Christian, that is simply something which no member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is going to accept, no matter how persuasive you believe your arguments to be. It is probably more effective to spend time on other issues that promise a more fruitful discussion and exchange.”
Clean-Cut, I don’t believe that I have said much if anything about Mormonism except that I find Mormons to be inherently dishonest in their apologetics. I have asked Mormons to talk to me straight about their beliefs and my consistent response has been to note the significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Actually, the larger dialogues of our day concentrate on the similarities - hence “Comparative Religion” studies and forums. My little contribution is to note the differences - “Contrastive Religion” conversations. With my Roman Catholic friends I can confess the first four centuries of ecumenical creeds. My Mormon friends cannot do so. Can you confess that Jesus Christ is “very God of very God being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made” ? If not, then you are not a Christian. For me to keep hammering this point is not rude or inappropriate. I have many Muslim friends who are not Christian and thus they cannot confess the ecumenical creeds with me. The big difference is that my Muslim friends are not trying to win my assessment of them as Christians. As for the Baptists, they are my true brothers in Christ. Together we live according to the gospel: Jesus, who has atoned for our sins is both the Covenant Man, very human, perfectly obeying the righteous demands of divine law and the Covenant Lord, the divine One receiving us into eternal favor. The Baptists agree that the Presbyterians, like myself, are members of the true and visible Church. Together we believe that only God knows who are members of the invisible Church. But, my Mormon friends, if they are honest, do not believe that I, along with the Baptists are part of the one, true Restored Church. Your last rant, my friend, is calling the kettle black. I have never made a statement about any individual Mormon’s faith. My friend, Mike, who rants on this blog as well, is quoting the prophets of the Restored Church. It is my understanding, having listened to you and other Mormons at this site, that you as a Mormon must adhere to what your prophets have spoken. What have they said about me? I’m a nice guy but I am not a true Christian. And so, we can sit on a bench, like the two in the video you have supplied, and talk together. I like the image, the idea, and the actual discourse. But I think that these nice and friendly talks in the park ought to be substantively about our differences.
“Can you confess that Jesus Christ is “very God of very God being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made” ? If not, then you are not a Christian.”
I’m not quite following the logic there. My favorite New Testament teacher at BYU was Stephen Robinson. He wrote about this in “Are Mormons Christian?” and I agree with everything he says:
“If by “the doctrine of the Trinity” one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then the Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that…However, if by “the doctrine of the Trinity” one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils–that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence–then Latter-day Saints do not believe it. They do not believe it, because it is not biblical.”
“It is absurdly contradictory to say on the one hand, as some critics of the Latter-day Saints do, that the Bible alone is sufficient for salvation (the doctrine of sola scriptura), and then to add that one must also believe the creeds in addition to the Bible in order to even be a Christian.”
“Thus the Latter-day Saints simply prefer to do without such conciliar “summaries” and to stick to the scriptures themselves. The un-summarized Bible is fine just as it is; bring forward any creed composed entirely of scriptural passages and the Latter-day Saints will heartily affirm every word.”
“…Even today the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is not understood in exactly the same way by all orthodox Christians…This may seem like a small detail to nontheologians, but it is a dispute over the very nature of God, and it is serious enough to have separated the theologies of the East and West for nine hundred years. Latter-day Saints believe in the biblical Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but we are accused of being non-Christians because our concept of their nature differs from that of other Christians…”
“Ultimately, being Christian is less a matter of perceiving God in the same Nicene or Chalcedonian terms as other Christians do, and more a matter of perceiving God in the same biblical terms as the first Christians did. Did the atonement of Christ save first century Corinthians and Galatians, even though they did not conceive of God in Nicene terms? Of course it did. And if that is true, then the atonement of Christ can and will save faithful Latter-day Saints who accept the New Testament witness yet do not conceive of God in Nicene terms.”
“Those critics who deny Christianity to the Latter-day Saints for not accepting the doctrines of the councils imply that the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were incomplete and inadequate for salvation until supplemented and defined by the church fathers—the “new, improved” Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries. Latter-day Saints see this rejection of the primitive biblical Christianity in favor of the expanded philosophical Christianity of later times as ‘making the word of God [the New Testament] of none effect through your [philosophical] tradition’ (see Mark 7:13).”
“The Latter-day Saints accept unequivocally all the biblical teachings on the nature of God, but they reject the extrabiblical elaborations of the councils and creeds. A doctrinal exclusion applied to the Latter-day Saints for rejecting the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is invalid because that doctrine was not taught in the Bible or in the early Christian church. It is not found in the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers or those of the Greek Apologists. Even today Eastern and Western orthodoxies still disagree strongly over both the precise nature of God and the exact wordings of the major creed of Christianity (the “filioque” dispute). If in order to be a true Christian one must conceive of the Christian God in precisely the terms of Nicene orthodoxy, then all Christians who lived before the fifth century, and all those on at least one side of the “filioque” dispute since the eighth century, must be excluded as Christians as well as the Latter-day Saints.” Moreover, it is contradictory for Protestants to insist on the doctrine of “sola scriptura”—that the Bible alone is sufficient for salvation—in one context, and then to turn around and add nonscriptural requirements for salvation, like acceptance of councils and creeds, in other contexts.”
As for “adhering to what the prophets have spoken”–it’s almost laughable that you think pulling things out of “Journal of Discourses” or “Notes and Commentary” are what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches for doctrines. Like I stated earlier, if any teaching or idea is not in the standard works, not among official declarations or proclamations, is not taught currently by living apostles or prophets in general conference or other official gatherings, or is not in the general handbooks or official curriculum of the Church, it is probably not a part of the doctrine or teachings of the Church–regardless of whether or not somebody in the 19th century shared his personal opinions in “Journal of Discourses”.
You must be misinform about how Latter-day Saints understand the role of a prophet. We are not obligated to to adhere to everything the prophets say. We’re obligated to live by every word that comes from God! We’re encouraged to gain our own testimony of the prophet and what he says. This is well documented. But prophets are not perfect. I love what Jeff Lindsay, a fellow “Mormon” blogger, recently said:
“The concept of modern revelation is at the heart of what makes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints so different from other established Christian churches. For many, it is a troubling, even appalling concept. How could there be any prophets after Christ, the final revelation? How could there be any revelation beyond what is in the Bible? Why do we need modern prophets and apostles? Aren’t we adding to the word of God if we admit the possibility of modern revelation? Aren’t we being deceived by a false prophet? The doctrine of continued guidance and revelation from living prophets is not only Biblical, but it is vitally important for our time - a time when we need direct counsel from God just as much as the people did in the time of Moses, Noah, Peter, or Paul.
“On the other hand, even divinely called prophets are still mortal human being subject to all manner of errors. God does not take over a prophets brain. Revelation from God may be a rare event, not a steady stream of direction on every trivial matter. As we learn from the Bible, prophets and apostles of Jesus Christ can make mistakes, commit sins, have silly arguments, be deceived by others, and so forth. To expect that every act and every utterance of a prophet will be infallibly correct and ideal is to demand far too much.
“Some Latter-day Saints may be bothered to learn that Joseph Smith had some pretty ugly mistakes on his record such as the Kirtland Bank disaster or the mistakes of the Church that resulted in the chaotic tragedy of Missouri in 1838. The faithful historical account of Joseph Smith in “Rough Stone Rolling” by LDS member Richard Bushman may bother some people, but it is a history we need to better understand. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, but as a mortal, he certainly had some rough edges. He may have been far too optimistic about the rise of the Church and the success of the Saints, and perhaps too rash or harsh in dealing with critics and apostates. It is hard to judge some of these matters in our day, but it is clear that modern prophets have made serious mistakes, and that not every statement, hope, and dream was fulfilled. It is important to understand the human limitations of prophets - no different today than in Bible days. We do not expect perfection - and we will not find it in them or any other mortal.”
Clean-Cut: Help me to understand how you can criticize Christianity for holding to the ecumenical creeds as additions to the Bible while Mormonism is founded upon continuing revelation given to the prophets of the Restored Church?
The question is not whether Joseph Smith, like the New Testament authors, added to the Christian canon, but whether Joseph Smith, like the New Testament authors, had apostolic authority. If he did, then what he added to the biblical scriptures is Christian.
Clean Cut,
Can we go back to your earlier post? Here it is in its entirety:
“Thought you might want to check out the fair, unbiased, and very informative “lightplanet” for any major religion, including “Christianity’s” link on Mormonism. http://lightplanet.com/”
In this posting, you lead us to believe that this was in no way connected to any mormon or mormon group.
Russell Anderson’s original name of that site was “All About Mormonism”. Russell Anderson is also a contributor to the FAIR Defending Mormonism website.
As Nathan also noted, W. John Walsh, is not just a “religious scholar,” but he is a Mormon who is a Mormon apologist!
It’s flat out deceitful.
Right, Clean-Cut. Do you believe that Joseph Smith had apostolic authority? My guess is that you do. Christians do not believe that the ecumenical creeds have apostolic authority. We believe them to be clear explanations of what the whole of the Bible teaches on foundational doctrines of the nature and work of God. You may hear Christians - Roman Catholics with Baptists - debate whether or not the Apocryphal Books are part of the Bible, but you do not hear either of these Christian groups, or any Christian Church suggest that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, an additional revelation added to the Holy Scriptures of Christianity. Sadly, you can read Christians who doubt the divine inspiration of the Bible. It is unthinkable that these Christians would entertain, then, that the Book of Mormon was divinely inspired - these Christians do not believe in divine inspiration. But among those Christians, myself included, who do believe in divine inspiration, you would be hard-pressed to find one who believed that we should even think for a moment of the Book of Mormon as divine inspiration. This issue is bedrock for this reason: We know the gospel through divinely inspired texts. If the texts change, if they are reduced or increased in number, then the presentation of the gospel may change.
Christian cults not only add to the Bible additional texts that they claim to be divinely inspired, but they also adopt key terms of the gospel and redefine these terms. They take key words describing the nature and work of God and redefine them. This comes close to a concise definition of a Christian cult.
Right, Nathan. :) You said: “This issue is bedrock for this reason: We know the gospel through divinely inspired texts. If the texts change, if they are reduced or increased in number, then the presentation of the gospel may change.” Allow me to address this with the recent words of Jeffrey R. Holland in our most recent General Conference:
“The fact of the matter is that virtually every prophet of the Old and New Testament has added scripture to that received by his predecessors. If the Old Testament words of Moses were sufficient, as some could have mistakenly thought them to be, then why, for example, the subsequent prophecies of Isaiah or of Jeremiah, who follows him? To say nothing of Ezekiel and Daniel, of Joel, Amos, and all the rest. If one revelation to one prophet in one moment of time is sufficient for all time, what justifies these many others? What justifies them was made clear by Jehovah Himself when He said to Moses, “My works are without end, and . . . my words . . . never cease.”
“One Protestant scholar has inquired tellingly into the erroneous doctrine of a closed canon. He writes: “On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the church now calls its Bible? . . . If the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?” ((Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, rev. ed. (1995), 255–56.)
We humbly ask those same questions.
“Continuing revelation does not demean or discredit existing revelation. The Old Testament does not lose its value in our eyes when we are introduced to the New Testament, and the New Testament is only enhanced when we read the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. In considering the additional scripture accepted by Latter-day Saints, we might ask: Were those early Christians who for decades had access only to the primitive Gospel of Mark (generally considered the first of the New Testament Gospels to be written)—were they offended to receive the more detailed accounts set forth later by Matthew and Luke, to say nothing of the unprecedented passages and revelatory emphasis offered later yet by John? Surely they must have rejoiced that ever more convincing evidence of the divinity of Christ kept coming. And so do we rejoice.
“Please do not misunderstand. We love and revere the Bible, as Elder M. Russell Ballard taught so clearly from this pulpit just one year ago. The Bible is the word of God. It is always identified first in our canon, our “standard works.” Indeed, it was a divinely ordained encounter with the fifth verse of the first chapter of the book of James that led Joseph Smith to his vision of the Father and the Son, which gave birth to the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our time. But even then, Joseph knew the Bible alone could not be the answer to all the religious questions he and others like him had. As he said in his own words, the ministers of his community were contending—sometimes angrily—over their doctrines. “Priest [was] contending against priest, and convert [was contending] against convert . . . in a strife of words and a contest about opinions,” he said. About the only thing these contending religions had in common was, ironically, a belief in the Bible, but, as Joseph wrote, “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question [regarding which church was true] by an appeal to the Bible.” Clearly the Bible, so frequently described at that time as “common ground,” was nothing of the kind—unfortunately it was a battleground.
“Thus one of the great purposes of continuing revelation through living prophets is to declare to the world through additional witnesses that the Bible is true. “This is written,” an ancient prophet said, speaking of the Book of Mormon, “for the intent that ye may believe that,” speaking of the Bible. In one of the earliest revelations received by Joseph Smith, the Lord said, “Behold, I do not bring [the Book of Mormon forth] to destroy [the Bible] but to build it up.”
“One other point needs to be made. Since it is clear that there were Christians long before there was a New Testament or even an accumulation of the sayings of Jesus, it cannot therefore be maintained that the Bible is what makes one a Christian. In the words of esteemed New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, “The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, does not say, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write,’ but [rather] ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me.’ “
“In other words, “Scripture itself points . . . away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself.” So the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter-day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter-day Saint is the living God. The communication of those gifts comes from God as living, vibrant, divine revelation.
This doctrine lies at the very heart of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of our message to the world. It dramatizes the significance of a solemn assembly yesterday, in which we sustained Thomas S. Monson as a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. We believe in a God who is engaged in our lives, who is not silent, not absent, nor, as Elijah said of the god of the priests of Baal, is He “[on] a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be [awakened].” In this Church, even our young Primary children recite, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
“In declaring new scripture and continuing revelation, we pray we will never be arrogant or insensitive. But after a sacred vision in a now sacred grove answered in the affirmative the question “Does God exist?” what Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints force us to face is the next interrogative, which necessarily follows: “Does He speak?” We bring the good news that He does and that He has. With a love and affection born of our Christianity, we invite all to inquire into the wonder of what God has said since biblical times and is saying even now.
“In a sense Joseph Smith and his prophetic successors in this Church answer the challenge Ralph Waldo Emerson put to the students of the Harvard Divinity School 170 years ago this coming summer. To that group of the Protestant best and brightest, the great sage of Concord pled that they teach “that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake.”
“I testify that the heavens are open. I testify that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is truly another testament of Jesus Christ. I testify that Thomas S. Monson is God’s prophet, a modern apostle with the keys of the kingdom in his hands, a man upon whom I personally have seen the mantle fall. I testify that the presence of such authorized, prophetic voices and ongoing canonized revelations have been at the heart of the Christian message whenever the authorized ministry of Christ has been on the earth. I testify that such a ministry is on the earth again, and it is found in this, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“In our heartfelt devotion to Jesus of Nazareth as the very Son of God, the Savior of the world, we invite all to examine what we have received of Him, to join with us, drinking deeply at the “well of water springing up into everlasting life,”16 these constantly flowing reminders that God lives, that He loves us, and that He speaks. I express the deepest personal thanks that His works never end and His “words . . . never cease.” I bear witness of such divine loving attention and the recording of it, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen”
http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-30,00.html
Nathan,
It’s a great observation you made. If you look at web pages that talk about warning signs of a cult, you’ll see that many of warnings were done by the early Mormon Church. The big one was the move to Utah. A cult will separate their followers from the rest of the world. They will claim it’s done for the good of the group. But the real reason is to have complete control over the group in it’s entirety.
The evil in that group even lead them to murder a group of travelers in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. At first, the church denied any involvement, but the evidence was overwhelming and they were forced to admit it. Later, for spin and damage control, they had a formal apology, with a monument to the ones they killed. The really sad part was the way John D. Lee was treated by the leaders of the church after the murders were pinned on him.
It’s also worth noting that while in Utah, the doctrine of plural marriage was still being practiced. The church found out that there was no way they were going to achieve statehood while the practice continued. Shortly thereafter, a revelation came from the prophet that plural marriages were to end.
Hey! He lied to us and won’t admit it. He totally ignored what I posted.
How pathetic!
Mike, it’s very tempting to just ignore you. You come across like you have an agenda to either pick a fight or just prove something. It seems to me as very, very disrespectful. You’re so flippant with your accusations that I’m not sure whether to simply ignore you completely or to blame it on unrestrained ignorance. You have every right to draw what ever nasty conclusions you want based off of limited facts and understanding. However, it seems to tell me more about you than it does about me or about Mormons in general. (In other words, it actually makes you look bad).
A Cult? See: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/cult_eom.htm
Mountain Meadows Massacre: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1c234dc029133110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&locale=0
The only dishonesty that I detect here is that you’re claiming to be an expert about what I believe. What’s your motivation Mike? Let’s say you’ve made your point. Do you expect me to say “Thank you. I now see the error of my ways”? I haven’t said anything to provoke anybody–only to clarify misunderstandings and hopefully seek understanding. You’re coming across as if you have an agenda. Is this how you want to come across? I will never argue or debate. I hope that’s clear. If that’s what you’d like, we can part ways now.
We can still disagree without being disagreeable.
My only advice to you would be the same that Gamaliel reasoned when Peter and the early Apostles were testifying of the divinity of Jesus Christ:
“If this . . . work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.” (Acts 5:38-39).
In other words–lay off. If we’re so wrong, then we’ll eventually “come to naught”. But if Mormonism “be of God, ye cannot overthrow it”–so why try so hard in the first place?
I am no expert in what you believe. I would say that I’m no expert in the totality of what Mormons as a whole believe. I would venture a guess that you know some, but not all of reformed theology. But, I would also venture another guess that you know enough to believe it to be false.
What I do know is that you’re responding to observations I’ve made while studying Mormonism in response to Nathan’s post. He mentioned earmarks of a cult and I made even more observations that would concur with his.
You’ve accused me of a lot of things. You’re not an expert on why I say what I say. Isn’t that true? The “only” dishonesty is me claiming to be an expert in what you believe? That’s the only dishonesty? I’ve pointed out that you still have not admitted you lied to us by sending a to an obvious Mormon site when you tried to pass it of as not being one. Is that picking a fight? Is that being disagreeable?
I will gladly give you that I may come across as disrespectful. I do apologize for that. I’m not trying to pick a fight. You’ve got to understand that I’ve read lots of Mormon writings and non Mormon writings. I don’t come into this arena as not having studied. I read and watch what you post. What would it mean if I didn’t? I don’t make flippant accusations, I come to well studied conclusions.
It looks to me that you’ve posted another “fair, balanced and unbiased” web site to read the real account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Clean Cut I’ve read numerous accounts from Mormons and non Mormons. I’ve drawn my conclusion from all those accounts. As a side note, I don’t drink the Kool-Aid of what non Mormons write. Some of it is blatantly false and some come to rather stupid conclusions.
I know that Mormons use Acts 5:38 & 39 as another proof text that they are a true religion. But, using logic, lets think about what Gamaliel said. If it’s true that all we have to do is have a wait and see attitude, and if it blossoms, then it must be of God. If that’s the case, then The Watchtower Society is true, Scientology is true, Christian Science must be true. You cannot draw the conclusion that what he said is the proof text as to the authenticity of a work of God.
Maybe I don’t have a clear understanding of what arguing or debating means. Isn’t that how you come to an understanding?
I will never and can never convince you of the error of your ways. Never.
I also want to add that I shouldn’t have said “How pathetic”. That was uncalled for. I apologize and I hope you can forgive me.
I ran across this as I was looking at the phrase “plain and precious truts” that was posted earlier.
Are these restored truths?
Click here to find out if you agree.
Here’s a resource on the Book of Mormon. It is put together by a former Mormon not from the standpoint of “Is it a religious book?”, but to examine the people, lands, even the claim of horses in the BOM. The nice thing is he’s read the Mormon web sites where they’ve defended the inaccuracies and included a response to them.
Here it is
Apostasy: When your church changes.
Continuing Revelation: When my church changes
Read this:
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
Here’s something to think about. I was looking at a web site a soon to be ex-Mormon has put together. He had a link to the official CJCLDS web site.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3518b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0#footnote5
If you look at the footnotes, some are from quotes that I used in previous postings. It seems as if I quote the “old dead guys” that’s wrong, If the quote them, that’s ok.
Apostasy: When your church changes
Continuing revelation: When my church changes.
How to Win Friends and Influence Mormons
http://summatheologica.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-mormons/
Hey Clean Cut: Thanks for this link. I am trying my best to do the positive list rather than the negative one. Review my interaction with you and let me know candidly if I have been doing so. BTW, one of the positive tactics is to encourage a Mormon to worship with us in our particular congregation. Do you think that you would ever enter a Protestant or Roman Catholic house of worship and participate in the liturgy? This past month, two Mormon missionaries attended our Saturday evening worship meeting at Evergreen Presbyterian Church and we enjoyed visiting with each other at the supper following. One of our members has been visiting with them in his home and he invited them and they actually came. I picked up the three of them in my car since the church member does not drive and the two missionaries have only bicycles. We enjoyed rich conversation on both commutes. The most interesting part of our conversations in the car, I think, was one of the elders’ response to my description of our church’s mission work throughout the world, “I had no idea that Protestants did so much mission work in the world.”
I read that link as well. That word came up again…”understanding”. Bonneville International have certainly earned their commission with the CJCLDS. Oh wait, they’re owned by the CJCLDS.
Nathan,
I appreciate your post after CC made his. I believe a more accurate title should be, “How to win friends and stop insulting Christians”. Please don’t play the game of the “poor put upon Mormon”. They’ve played this card for so long and Christians have fallen for it. They ask for “understanding”, yet what they want is acceptance by mainstream Christianity. Mormon, Inc. is one of the most powerful corporations in the world. In terms of sheer dollars, they are bigger than Nike!
This “why can’t we get along?” idea has been orchestrated by the CJCLDS owned advertising firm, Bonneville Communications. From the Bonneville web site: “Their unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. They call this uniquely powerful brand of creative HeartSell® — strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response.” The reason they focus on feelings is the research that’s been done by Bonneville. Their research has let them to conclude: “Long after people forget what they hear, they remember how they feel. So Bonneville creates those unforgettable feelings for those who request our support. Bonneville’s work has been internationally recognized for its ability to inspire and motivate.”
To quote you Nathan, in a post in this thread, you said: “it is closely related to what Decartes contributed to western philosophy, moving the source of truth from an external source to a personal/internal source. His contribution in philosophy changed the way western civilization thinks and believes.”
The “Truth Restored” campaign is a direct slap in the face of Christianity, again orchestrated by the CJCLDS owned advertising firm, Bonneville Communications. There was no need of restoration. Christ said he would build His church and He’s been doing that since the time of His resurrection.
Mormon, Inc. has been unkind to historic Christianity from day one. The difference is they’ve gone from calling us the whore of babylon, the Lord denounces us, we’ve corrupted all the earth by our fornications and wickedness, we’re all wrong, our creeds are abominations and we’re going to hell, to the new game of wanting “understanding” and “why can’t we just get along?” From our research we’ve found it’s not good to call you names. It’s far better to try and elicit sympathy for us. The past didn’t work. Bonneville Communications has new and better ideas. It’s not a matter of doctrine.
I also found the article that CC sent insulting as well. Did you notice that 5th on the list was “Allow God to have a role”. The 5th and last point? Gee, isn’t that swell? Listen Mormon, I’m going to try these “feel good” techniques to get you over to my side. If that don’t work, I’m callin’ out the big gun…GOD! These people are doing the exact same thing as Mormon, Inc. teaches. Why doesn’t it say: Point 1, “God has the role, you can’t give it to Him, in fact you never had it, and there are no other points.”
I really liked the line: “Maybe you want to tell someone that Mormonism is false, but why? What is your motivation?” How about the simple idea that it’s because it’s wrong and someone’s eternal destiny hangs in the balance? Isn’t that motivation enough?
If you’re on the railroad tracks and the train is comin’, you don’t need no understanding.
2 weeks ago, one of the sales reps where I work passed away from an infection after surgery. In just 4 days she went from being admitted to the hospital to dead. She was the picture of health. 47 years old with 2 sons, 20 and 16. There were only 8 sales people, so it was close to home. I didn’t need to “understand” her point of view. I needed to share the Gospel with her.
I know you understand this. It’s all in God’s hands. From start to finish.
Nathan, I’ve felt our “conversations” have been very been very worthwhile mostly because of your respectful way of being–and I appreciate that. When I now hear or think of the Presbyterian church I think of you, and I feel nothing but respect. You really do seem to be doing well with that list. (Candidly, however, I could not say the same about Mike. He tends to get on my nerves a little. I’m never sure what his motive is or why he says some of the things he does.)
I about shouted for joy when you asked if I would ever participate in the liturgy of your church or another. Absolutely. I’m always driving by various churches here in Texas and genuinely would love the experience of worshipping with them. I love being able to focus on what brings us together rather than what divides us. I rejoice with fellow Christians who seek to learn of and rejoice in Christ. It warms my heart.
I’ve done so in the past, but not enough. I want to do it more. I’ve had good and bad experiences–mostly good. The one bad experience stands out when I attended a non-denominational church in Eugene with my best friend growing up. The entire Sunday School lesson was devoted to tearing down my Mormon faith. I do hope that that is an exception, rather than the rule.
If I felt welcomed I would sincerely enjoy the experience of attending any church that sincerely wanted to worship the Savior. If I still lived in Oregon, I’d drive up I-5 to come worship with you on the invitation and I’d be anxious for that opportunity in an instant.
Nathan, Remember back when I told you about my interest of North Korea. Here is why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms4NIB6xroc
Chad
“How about the simple idea that it’s because [Mormonism is] wrong and someone’s eternal destiny hangs in the balance?”
So I presume you say what you do (and the way you say it) out of love and concern for my eternal salvation? What is your understanding of “my eternal destiny”? What do you say happens to me if I don’t “repent” and leave Mormonism? Do I go to “hell”? What is your understanding of hell, anyway?
Nathan,
I’m puzzled by CC’s last post. He’s asking me a question from a post I directed to you. I think he’s has a misguided impression that these post have been on a personal level. He seems to be an articulate apologist for the CJCLDS, and therefore my exchange is not so much personal (except the part where he said a web site was “fair and unbiased” and would not admit his deceit) as it’s an exchange between points of view.
I know that he doesn’t like that, but he must understand that I can’t let any others that read this blog think we agree on any points at all. It’s all in the semantics. I noticed in the post he sent you, I get on his nerves. He, like others, always want to know our “motivation” is. Mormon, INC. is wrong. That’s the motivation all along.
Yes, I’m concerned about people’s eternal destiny. The difference is he knows the protestant view of soteriology, why is he asking me what I believe? He obviously knows it and has rejected it.
What am I missing?
Mike, I think you’re giving me far too much credit for what I know. I don’t claim to know what you believe. I’m interested only in having interfaith dialogue.
Nevertheless, I’m not sure that you logic makes sense–at least to me. “Mormonism is wrong=my motivation”. I just don’t get it. Can you expound upon that a little bit?
Moreover, I’m genuinely curious about your understanding of my eternal destiny and your understanding of hell. That is a question I’m asking to both you and Nathan.
John’s Gospel is helpful, Clean-Cut. Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” Your eternal destiny is completely controlled by the co-equal Father and Son, who, together with the Holy Spirit, is revealed in the Bible as “God, our Savior.” (Titus). Paul writes to Titus, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” These words are particularly instructive concerning our eternal destiny and present life. God saves us and the result is a “clean-cut” life. Not only is God the Father our Savior, but Jesus is God and Savior. (Check out the singular pronouns that follow “great God and Savior, Jesus Christ….” The Father and the Holy Spirit are also this One God our Savior, wholly completing the work of securing your eternal destiny: “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebrith and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” There’s the eternal destiny! Your eternal destiny is in the hands of the Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all working together on your behalf. Who they are and what they have done as the one God our Savior is of central importance. You are but the grateful recipient. (I need to switch to another project now, but I will return soon to answer your question about hell.) May God our Savior richly bless you this day, Clean-Cut.
nathan.
Nathan,
I’m puzzled again. Where in the post did I mention hell? I said I was concerned about people’s eternal destiny. Where did hell come up?
Maybe he’s letting us know in a subtle way that he knows more than we think, or he says he does.
Is that a possibility?
There have been over 70 posts in this blog. I wonder why he wants me to talk even more about why I believe Mormon, INC. is wrong. He said I get on his nerves when I do that.
This is where this breaks down for me. I find it hard to believe that he doesn’t know what I believe. He seems to enough to know that he doesn’t believe it.
You know before you go to buy something, you research before you buy? You read the pro and cons, look at the company’s web site, talk to people who’ve bought the product and have good and bad reviews of it. You don’t really become an expert of that product, but you know enough to make an informed decision. I think Clean Cut and I have done that.
An interfaith dialog about what? Maybe he likes U2 as much as I do. Is that it? “The effect of U2 on Mormon and Protestant thought.”
This is now buried, but I’ll post it anyway. One of, if not the best sites I’ve ever seen is www.whymormons.net. It’s posted by a current Mormon that also served on the mission field and baptized over 200 people.
He has grown disillusioned with the CJCLDS and is planning to send his resignation letter in. I can’t imagine what it’s like for someone to take these steps!
I will warn you that he deals with some adult themes and throws in the occasional bleep word, but his research is quite extensive and thorough. By the time you’ve read through most of his postings you’ll see why he grew disillusioned and is about to send in his resignation letter.
Give it a look!
The link to WhyMormons has a typo. It should be http://www.whymormons.net - cheers.
Nathan: In a post 3/25/2008 you made the following statement: “While I find it easy to interact with Mormons as neighbors and contributing citizens, I do find them “spooky” in the realm of Christian thought and practice. My Roman Catholic neighbor is consistently taught that telling a lie is the telling of lie no matter to whom it is told. But Mormons, who are taught the teachings of Joseph Smith are taught that telling a lie to a non-Mormon is acceptable.”
Can you give me some clarification? As a practicing LDS member, and having served two missions so far, I have never heard of this concept. Can you give me some documentation to substantiate your claim that lying is acceptable in LDS thought and practice? I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Don, I first read about the Mormon practice of lying with out moral consequence in Jon Krakauer’s national bestseller, “Under the Banner of Heaven.” In his fair reporting, this practice of dishonesty is not a passing detail or isolated practice, but a well-known behavior. Krakauer is not a Mormon and so I have included the following quotes of those with authority within the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints:
“Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…
“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful…
“The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment…The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy…
“That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith - particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith - places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities…Do not spread disease germs!” (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271)
“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience.” Joseph Smith, “Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo”, delivered Sunday, May 26, 1844. Printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-412. (It is now historically verified that in 1844 Joseph Smith secretly had thirty wives.)
“We are really not obligated to answer everyone’s questions…if a person out of the blue asks me,,.”You folks believe that man can become like God?” It might be wiser to say, “That is an interesting question….” Answer the question he should have asked. Never use meat when milk will do.” Dr. Robert Millet
It is my personal experience over 29 years of adult life, receiving and conversing with Mormon elders on mission that they regularly not only deflect my questions according to advice similar to Dr. Millet’s training, but they also flat out lie, denying basic Mormon doctrines if they disagree with basic Christian/biblical doctrines I pose. Numerous Christians have experienced the same.
Nathan,
I have spent the last few moments catching up on this subject. You and I are on the same page of thought. I can see that this entry into your Blog has been a long discussion. I have gained knowledge that I can take with me. Thank you.
Eric